June 2002 posts
I typed out 2 articles from Entertainment Weekly --
Rufus, 04:47:41 06/01/02 Sat
You can see them
here
and here.
ConverseBuffyverse
This site
will be where I post all the articles and spoilers and Wildfeeds for now on. The Trollup Board is being
closed in favor of the Yahoo Group. There is also a Voy board that is linked to that board for times when
Yahoo is down to ensure the Wildfeeds will still get out when the new season starts. It's the same Trollup
Board under a new name...enjoy.
[> Re: I typed out 2 articles from Entertainment Weekly (Spoilers to
Grave) -- shadowkat, 08:04:26 06/01/02 Sat
Thanks for this.
I agreed
with your comments on Tara and Willow. Why are the censors still so phobic? It reminds me of the
teenager who posted after SR, who says her parents couldn't deal with her watching two women naked in
bed together, so she couldn't watch it. (Now I could understand not letting her watch it for the AR scene
or the gunshots or even Villains for the violence, but for two women in bed?) Homophobia has never made
any sense to me. It's a shame that the networks still bow down to it.
Also agreed with your
take on smoking. I bet Marsters hopes that Spike stops after he gets a soul, considering he wears a patch
and has been smoking horrible herbal cigs on the show.If you notice - he actually smoked a lot less this
year. I think I saw him light up in maybe three episodes? When he was with Buffy - he rarely did it at all.
Alsowhen Angel lost his soul - the first thing he did was smoke. When he regained it - we never saw him
smoke. So my guess, Spike probably won't be smoking next year. LOL!
[> [> Re: I typed out 2 articles from Entertainment Weekly
(Spoilers to Grave) -- aurelia, 12:48:33 06/01/02 Sat
Good to know that MN said
Iconic and not Ironic, like I saw copied somewhere else, it makes so much more sense. Thanks so much
for typing those out.
[> [> Re: I typed out 2 articles from Entertainment Weekly
(Spoilers to Grave) -- Q, 18:18:23 06/01/02 Sat
Notice how the last thing Spike
did before going to Africa to get the soul was throw down the cigarette? More smoking=evil imagery, eh?
Well, maybe not evil. Usually when characters smoke on the show there are 3
variables...
They will soon be evil (Angelous, etc)
They will soon be dead (The counselor
at the high school,etc.)
They will soon be beaten to a bloody pulp (nightmares)
[> Re: Hey, Rufus, Thanks for all the hard work -- Brian,
11:33:47 06/01/02 Sat
[> Thanks for the articles and the links! -- Wynn, 20:53:04
06/01/02 Sat
Upon reading the shooting script... -- Kerri,
09:15:07 06/01/02 Sat
Just something i thought was intersting:
OnM
wrote about Buffy's line saying "the world I've chosen to protect."
Thought it was
interesting that it was originally:
"the world I'm chosen to protect"
Huge
difference. Now i have to go back and watch and make sure she really did say I'vr.
[> Re: I've vs. I'm -- wiscoboy, 12:21:35 06/01/02 Sat
You could say either version is correct. In the beginning she WAS CHOSEN, but since her 1st
death and the rising of subsequent slayers(Faith still being alive), she in fact HAS CHOSEN to continue
her mission. She may not have come to that realization until now, but if she has, that could account for
some of her newfound attitude at S6's end.
[> Re: Upon reading the shooting script... -- Sophist,
13:51:40 06/01/02 Sat
Also interesting was that the shooting script provided no
evidence that (a) Xander was there to hear Anya tell Buffy that no supernatural power could stop Willow,
or (b) Xander understood what was necessary and that he could provide it.
[> [> Re: Xander -- wiscoboy, 15:02:53 06/01/02 Sat
But wasn't that the point? Xander went to Willow on his own initiative, with no other
knowledge or thought than try to help his lifelong best friend. All he knew was where she would be.
[> [> [> Hmmm.` -- Sophist, 16:56:12 06/01/02
Sat
If he wasn't there to hear Anya talk to Buffy and Dawn, he had no way to know where
Willow was.
[> [> [> [> skewed logic (SPOILERS for finale) --
Robert, 22:51:18 06/01/02 Sat
>> "... the shooting script provided no evidence
that (a) Xander was there to hear Anya tell Buffy that no supernatural power could stop Willow
..."
and
>> "If he wasn't there to hear Anya talk to Buffy and Dawn, he had
no way to know where Willow was."
There something wrong with your logic. Let me
state my understanding of your arguement. Please let me know if I misunderstood you, for which I
apologize in advance.
You are arguing that in order for Xander to find Willow, he must have
overheard Anya telling Buffy where Willow was. But, since there is no corroborating evidence in the
shooting script to support the hypothesis that Xander overheard Anya telling Buffy where Willow was,
Xander could not have known where Willow was. Presumably then, Xander could not have stopped
Willow from destroying the world.
If this is your argument, then it is absurd. Xander must
have learned Willow's whereabouts from somewhere. The script makes no claim otherwise. The only
reasonable source of this information was by overhearing Anya. The fact that Xander was out of sight
does not mean that he was out of hearing. The lack of corroborating evidence does not prevent the writer
(and the viewership) from assuming that Xander did, in fact, overhear the conversation.
The
writers for most TV shows would explicitly have shown Xander overhearing Anya and Buffy's
conversation, because they would not (or could not) trust the viewership to take the logical leap. The
Mutant Enemy writers have bestowed upon us a little more dignity.
If you are looking for
logical holes in the script, then I would like to direct your gaze to the script for "Two to Go". Buffy
couldn't find Rack's place herself in "Wrecked"; she needed Spike's assistance. We know that Dawn
found it with Clem's help in "Two to Go". How did Buffy find it?
[> [> [> [> [> Good point about Buffy and Rack. I
noticed that also. -- Sophist, 08:07:37 06/02/02 Sun
The reason I said that about
Xander is that onscreen, Buffy says to him "Xander go get a rope." He replies, "There must one
somewhere" and stands up. That's the last we see of him until he appears on the clifftop with Willow.
When I first watched it, color me thick if you want, I had no idea how Xander got there. I was
hoping the shooting script would give me some clue, and was interested that it didn't.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Am I going insane? --
Traveler, 10:43:01 06/02/02 Sun
Xander stands and looks around, but we never
actually see him leave the hole. Then, Anya comes and Buffy says, "Anya!?" Soon afterwards, we see a
brief cut to Xander above looking down at them. I've seen the episode three times and looked specifically
at this scene for any confirmation that Xander overheard them. Why has nobody else on this board noticed
it? Am I going insane or what?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You're NOT going
insane -- AngelVSAngelus, 12:15:37 06/02/02 Sun
I've been wondering why no
one remembered that myself for, like, five posts now. Xander was SHOWN listening to them speak.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You're NOT going
insane - saw it too -- shadowkat, 12:39:02 06/02/02 Sun
No, I saw it too -
Xander overheard Anya, they showed it.
Also it's implied in the shooting script.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Color me thick --
I missed it completely -- Sophist, 13:37:19 06/02/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wait just a
minute here. I am right about this. -- Sophist, 14:13:37 06/02/02 Sun
I just went
up and watched it again. The scene proceeds like this: Buffy and Dawn are trying to find a way out. Buffy
calls to Xander and then tells him to get rope. Xander agrees to. Anya then arrives and we get the
following dialogue (from Psyche):
ANYA
(startled)
Holy frijole!
BUFFY
Anya! What are you doing here?
Where's Giles?
ANYA
He's...
still at the magic shop.
DAWN
Giles? Giles is here?
(to Buffy)
You didn't tell
me that.
BUFFY
(to Anya)
Did he stop Willow?
ANYA
No. And
things just got a whole lot
worse.
At this point the camera does flash back up to Xander,
but that is the last time we see him before he appears on the cliff with Willow. There is no
evidence that he even heard that Willow was going to destroy the world and where she was. And Anya's
comments about how no supernatural force can stop her come much later, after lots more dialogue and an
intervening scene with Willow on the cliff.
Sorry, but I retract my admission to thick-
headedness. This time.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Whoa, here's a theory: Methinks different versions were aired.. -- AngelVSAngelus, 14:42:41
06/02/02 Sun
because MY tape has him standing there AFTER she said those things.
That would be REALLY odd, if different versions were aired in different places.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Whoa, here's a theory: Methinks different versions were aired.. -- cujo, 16:08:24 06/02/02 Sun
what was differeny?
meant different!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I swear there's no such scene in my version. We're not crazy, UPN is. -- Sophist, 17:08:20
06/02/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Wait just a minute here. I am right about this. -- LadyStarlight, 19:30:54 06/02/02 Sun
I just pulled out my tape and rewatched the scene in question. It matches up with yours,
Sophist. But I think there is time after Anya leaves, what with the Dawn dialogue, and before Buffy yells
for him again, for Xander to have heard the whole thing and taken off for Willow and the
temple.
I think that's how I figured things went at the time I was watching, anyways.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Giles' Magic -- Brian, 03:42:40 06/03/02 Mon
Gee, I thought that Giles was
using some magic so Xander could hear the conversation of Anya with Buffy, so that Xander would know
what to do about Willow.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You
are still incorrect. -- Robert, 12:59:16 06/04/02 Tue
>> "There is no
evidence that he even heard that Willow was going to destroy the world and where she
was."
This statement is inaccurate. The evidence, that he overheard Anya, is the fact
that he showed up at the bluff to stop Willow when he otherwise had no prior knowledge of Willow's
intent and location.
What you meant to write was that there was no additional corroborating
evidence. This might be true, depending upon which "version" of the show you saw. However, there is
also no evidence to the contrary. Therefore we, as intelligent people, can take the logical step and assume
that Xander was still within hearing distance of Anya.
Sophist, I re-watched my videotape
copy of the episode and I apparently saw the same scenes that you did. While I saw no scene of Xander
whilst Anya was revealing the relevant information, the last we saw of Xander (from the bottom of the
hole) did not show him getting up and leaving. So, I feel justified in concluding that he was still there or
close by, and that this was not a plot hole.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The reason I assumed he left is that he indicated he was going to get a rope. -- Sophist, 15:30:30
06/04/02 Tue
This meant that there were 2 logical options: he stayed and heard Anya, or
he went to get a rope. I needed the extra scene in order to confirm that he stayed (it was a long time for
him to stay). When he did appear on the cliff, I might have remembered the other possibility, but in fact I
didn't.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The reason I assumed he left is that he indicated he was going to get a rope. -- Robert,
17:08:21 06/04/02 Tue
>> "... he indicated he was going to get a
rope."
He did not. Buffy called up to Xander and told him to go get a rope. Xander replied
that he would look around. My viewing of the scene was that he was uncomfortable with leaving Buffy
and Dawn alone.
>> "This meant that there were 2 logical options: he stayed and heard
Anya, or he went to get a rope."
These two options are mutually exclusive. They cannot both
be true. Either Xander went for a rope or he went to the bluff. Which is true? Since the next scene shows
Xander at the bluff, we know that he did not go for the rope. The lack of an explicit scene, showing
Xander listening to Anya telling Buffy that Willow was at the Bluff, does not add any validity to the
hypothesis that Xander left to fetch a rope.
>> " I needed the extra scene in order to
confirm that he stayed (it was a long time for him to stay)."
Why do you need an extra scene?
Logically, the hypothesis that he left for rope is unsupported. An extra scene is unnecessary and
redundant.
Why is it a long time for Xander to stay? He was clearly still there when Anya
arrived and began telling her tales of woe. If that wasn't interesting enough to hold him there, what would
be?
[> [> [> [> [> Possible explanation for your last question
(Spoilers for TTG/G) -- Exegy, 08:14:10 06/02/02 Sun
Buffy could have forced a
vampire or demon to lead her to Rack's. She's used this particular option before--she forced the vampire
Claw to lead her to Praying Mantis Lady once (Teacher's Pet). Although the show doesn't indicate how
Buffy actually gets to Rack's, I don't think it's a stretch to assume the above scenario.
I agree
with your take on the Xander overhearing bit. Just because the viewer doesn't see something happen
doesn't mean that the viewer cannot infer that it has happened (especially when the inference is the most
logical explanation).
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Possible explanation for your
last question (Spoilers for TTG/G) -- redcat, 10:17:39 06/02/02 Sun
"Just
because the viewer doesn't see something happen doesn't mean that the viewer cannot infer that it has
happened (especially when the inference is the most logical explanation)."
I agree. So here's a
scenario for how Buffy got herself into Rack's in time to save Dawn from the uber-Willow....CLEM saved
the day!!! (Dubdub and I have already nominated him for the appropriate "It's Tuesday night and I
helped save Dawn" award; see thread below to vote.)
Anyway, here's how I see the stuff we
didn't get to see:
When Clem takes Dawn to Rack's, she goes into the inner room and leaves
him to wait in the outer room, clearly anxious about having given in to Dawn's request to take her there,
as well as being uncomfortable on his own account. What we don't see offscreen is that our dear floppy-
eared kitten-lover gets a burst of courage and common sense and, realizing that the teenager may well be
in serious trouble, goes to find Buffy. She is close by, just outside, looking for Rack's place because she
thinks Willow will be there looking for a magick juice-up. Clem finds her and escorts her into the
magician's den using his demon senses. Then, like any sensible demon, he gets the hell out of Dodge and
leaves the hero to her destiny.
Makes sense to me...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Possible explanation for
your last question (Spoilers for TTG/G) -- shadowkat, 12:44:36 06/02/02 Sun
Works for me as well...It also explains where Clem went, because we don't see him
again.
They only have 43 minutes to show us the story - so some things just have to be implied,
I like the fact that they give us credit for being bright enough to fill in the gaps.;-)
Really love
Clem - with Clem as a friend...Spike is definitely coming up in the world. Hoping for me Clem/Spike
talks next year.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yep, that's another possible
scenario ... (Spoilers) -- Exegy, 13:31:57 06/02/02 Sun
... and one I
like.
Of course, we have no confirmation that Clem helped Buffy find Rack's. But until we
have direct evidence to the contrary, the Clem scenario remains a valid explanation! I hope the writers
leave us open to interpret the scene however we want, if only for letting us run with all the delicious
options. Why not let the viewer connect some of the dots? There are lots of possibilities; why close them
all off?
How Buffy manages to get to Rack's will not affect the big picture, so why deny the
possibility that Clem helps her out? I think that scenario is cool, and it explains what happens to Clem
after he assists Dawn to Rack's (the viewer has to wonder anyway).
Thanks, redcat. Makes
sense to me, too.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> here's another
scenario... -- Doriander, 14:28:57 06/02/02 Sun
Anya, our teleport-happy
vengeance demon. She's with Buffy in the Magic shop when it's implied that Buffy figured Willow might
be at Rack's. It's possible she helped Buffy find the place. I know she's not really much into the big bad
these days, but if Clem could sense it, surely she can too. Once they found the place, she could have just
easily teleported herself back to the shop in time for the consequent scenes with Xander.
I don't
mean to steal the limelight from Clem. Love Clem!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, when the
writers leave the situation open ... -- Exegy, 14:40:28 06/02/02 Sun
... you get all
these interesting possibilities!
Clem and Anya, yay!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I like all the
suggested scenarios. -- Robert, 13:04:01 06/04/02 Tue
[> Re: Upon reading the shooting script...(Spoilers on Grave) --
shadowkat, 16:13:08 06/01/02 Sat
Just went back to the shooting script and it's
implied Giles is listening to Willow and Buffy and possibly imparting information to Xander. (from
shooting script)
"GILES: She's alive. (looking at Anya) The magic she took from me, it did
what I hoped it would...
ANYA: (getting it) You dosed her. You knew she was going to take
your powers all along.
GILES: W-well, I knew there was a possibility. The gift I was given
bythe coven was the true essence of Magic. Which comes, in all it's purity, from the Earth itself. Willow's
magic came from a place of rage and power.
ANYA: Oh, and vengeance. Don't forget
vengeance.
GILES: How... could I? In any case, the magic she took from me tapped into the
spark of humanity she had left. Allowed her to feel again... Giving Xander the opportunity to reach her.
ANYA: (frowning) Xander?
GILES: Yes. It was he that got to her in time.
(looking at her) He saved us all."
For some reason - it seemed to me that Giles was in
communication with Xander and it was taxing him. Also right before Xander disappears - Anya shows up.
It's when buffy is screaming up at him to get a rope.
"BUFFY: (calling up) Xander, try to find
a rope or something and get us out of here.
XANDER: (looking around,unsure) Right. Okay.
I'll... take a look around. As he stands...
END INTERCUT.INT. PIT - CONTINUOUS -
DAWN BUFFY: (calling up) And hurry before--FLASH! ANYA apparates before her, accompanied by
the requisite SMOKE and MYSTICAL ENERGIES, which cause more earth to break off from the walls.
The coffin Buffy was trying to free becomes dislodged and crashes to the ground.
ANYA:
(startled) Holy frijole! "
We don't see Xander leave - so he could have stayed there long enough
to hear the explanation. I certainly thought it was implied that he did.
Or am I once again
filling in the gaps for ME??? ;-)
[> [> Re: Upon reading the shooting script...(Spoilers on
Grave) -- maddog, 16:59:55 06/01/02 Sat
Personally, I think you are...which isn't
to say we don't all do that on occasion...but for Xander to truly come through the way he did he had to be
there long enough to hear where Willow was and then take off...and I doubt he'd have help from Giles...it
would take away from the fact that he talked Willow down...reached that open part of her...and he did it
without prior knowledge...without coaxing...that's what truly makes it special.
[> [> I think you're filling the gaps. :) Nicely, though. --
Sophist, 17:00:58 06/01/02 Sat
If Giles were in communication with Xander, they
should have made that clear so we could properly credit Giles. I think Xander was supposed to get it on
his own, and they just failed to show us that he did.
[> [> [> Re: I think you're filling the gaps. :) Nicely,
though. -- shadowkat, 20:02:35 06/01/02 Sat
I agree - I also had troubles seeing
Xander get it on his own. Maybe part of the reason is that he was relegated to the background in so many
of the episodes this year, that we really didn't get much time inside his head? In fact some of his and
anya's scenes seemed like repeats. I certainly didn't sense that Xander had deep feelings for Willow this
year. All I really got from Xander this year was a lot of insecurity and fear about the wedding, which
granted built into the overall theme, but I needed to see that he cared about Willow more. Maybe if they'd
shown him helping her after Wrecked. Or gave us more scenes with them together this would have
worked don't know. I've been puzzeling over why I lost interest in his character...until SR, where he
actually started to say something interesting?
[> [> [> [> Xander and Anya were placesetters for most of
the season. -- cjl, 20:32:10 06/01/02 Sat
"All the Way": Xander finally
announces the engagement (great scene in a mediocre episode), and everything goes downhill from there.
Xander and Anya at the magic box doing research; Xander and Anya hint that something might be screwy
with Willow; Xander and Anya bicker and fret about the wedding. The musical was the only time X/A
did anything close to interesting. (Don't talk to me about the "Xander did it" ending. Don't want to go
there.)
The only other time we see Xander in action, he is in full butt-monkey mode in "Gone"
and "Doublemeat Palace." "Hell's Bells" starts his comeback arc (or rather, his disintegration arc), but
that's six episodes from the end. He's still sliding until "Grave"; maybe the redemption scene with Willow
doesn't work because the Xander we KNOW is in there hasn't shown up for the entire season? Maybe if
they included a few X/W "I love you the best" scenes while Willow was in rehab, it wouldn't have gone
down a lot easier.
Regardless, still with Xander and his rocky path to manhood, and I'm
hoping ME will get him out of placesetter mode in S7. (Geez, he could have filmed most of his scenes for
S6 in one day's shooting.)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Xander and Anya were placesetters
for most of the season. -- shadowkat, 20:49:14 06/01/02 Sat
Agree except on All
the Way - the best scenes in that were:
1. B/S in the basement.
2. Dawn and the kids and
the old guy in the kitchen
3. B/S in the crypt with the old black and white movie
4. Spike
placing his hand on Giles's shoulder almost scaring Giles to death when surrounded by vamps
5.
Spike telling Vamp that he's the rebel.
6. B/D arguement about being out with a
vamp.
The X/A announcement was also good.
To be honest...I liked Xander in
Gone. He made me laugh. After Gone he started to annoy me...I liked him in HB and SR and Two to
Go...but not Grave. Very weird.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Xander in Grave/unearned
-- alcibiades, 09:19:41 06/03/02 Mon
Didn't like blindivisible Xander in Gone, cause
he was just too blind-dumb. But liked his acting in HB and SR and Villains and 2TG. Like his acting
also in Grave up to the finale.
But just can't buy the ending of Grave. It doesn't work for me.
It's like a get out of jail pass for an entire downward arc after all he has done is whinge about himself. It
doesn't feel earned.
If we had seen Xander actually struggle with himself to be better for 5
minutes, say in one of those moments he was attacking Spike or Anya for being a demon, instead of just
hate himself for being a loser, it might have worked better for me.
As it is, I feel really let
down by the episode.
And I hate what it sets up for next year. More rounds of Xander
intiated Kick the Spike.
Unless, eventually, they make Xander really deal with his flaws.
And apologize all around to Buffy, to Dawn and to Spike, and not just to Anya.
In a lot of
ways, Xander at the end of Grave being the hero reminds me of Riley being the hero in AYW -- also
unearned and without coming to terms in AYW with what happened between him and Buffy in Season 5.
They both felt like a cheat.
I read somewhere that someone commented that if WB-UPN
crossovers had been allowed, the only thing different would have been that it was Angel who discovered
Buffy and Spike together.
Somehow that seems much less offensive to me, and much more
interesting dramatically. Because Angel is so much more grey than Riley was in AYW. He strives to do
right, but he screws it up time after time also. Not like Riley ascending to the sky in a blaze of light in a
dark universe.
But back to the subject at hand, Willow did give Xander pretty much
unconditional support in NA after he returned from the wedding disaster. At the time it bugged me, but I
can see now why it was important for the finale.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The finale is a big first step
on the right track for Xander -- cjl, 09:57:06 06/03/02 Mon
He saved the world,
but can he save himself?
We all know the Xander who confronts Willow at the end of "Grave"
was in there somewhere. Despite the disaster with Anya, his failure to stop Warren in "Seeing Red," all
the misery with his family and the wedding, and his feelings of uselessness, the Xander of "The Zeppo"
was bound to make an appearance. It just took a bit longer than usual this year.
I admit, the
qualities we took for granted in Xander weren't in the forefront of his character in Season 6. And that's
all right. All the main characters were deconstructed, and none of our beloved Scoobs had a particularly
good season. But now that the Xan-Man HAS been torn down, it's time to build the boy back up. Saving
Willow was a good first step, but it's only the first step.
[And I disagree. If the last scene
wasn't "earned" from his actions this season, his love for Willow during the other five seasons made him
the ONLY man for the job. Nobody else could have gotten through: in Willow's state of mind, Buffy was
her rival, and Darth Rosenberg didn't take Dawn's feelings seriously. To Evil!Willow, Dawn was a
whining ball of green energy.]
I believe Season 7 will have Xander questioning his view of
demons and the supernatural. He'll have to come to terms with Anya's demonic state. If she's altered her
vengeance demon prime directive and refuses to employ her powers for evil, Xander will have to
reconsider his stance. He's already dealing with the image of his sweet, wonderful HUMAN friend
Willow as a rampaging killer. (That's got to shake him up some.)
As for Xander's
relationship with Spike...well, depends on how Spike comes back and how much both characters have
changed before they meet again. Will Xander ever apologize to Spike? Will he ever trust him
completely? Will he kind of admit he likes the guy? Wouldn't bet on it. They'll tolerate each other.
Maybe have a grudging respect for each other (see "Spiral"). And to be honest, I think I'd lose respect for
Xander if he reacted any other way.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The finale is a big
first step on the right track for Xander -- alcibiades, 10:19:02 06/03/02 Mon
"As
for Xander's relationship with Spike...well, depends on how Spike comes back and how much both
characters have changed before they meet again. Will Xander ever apologize to Spike? Will he ever trust
him completely? Will he kind of admit he likes the guy? Wouldn't bet on it. They'll tolerate each other.
Maybe have a grudging respect for each other (see "Spiral"). And to be honest, I think I'd lose respect for
Xander if he reacted any other way."
Xander's reactions towards Spike made sense to me in
Season 5 and Bargaining. I can't say they have made a whole lot of sense since then.
After a
summer working together, his taunting of Spike's feelings about Buffy's resurrection in AL, his stupid
blindness in Gone, after having his life saved several times by Spike, his complete dismissal of anything
the guy has done as decent.
Spike made an awful mess in SR, but not until SR. But Xander's
dismissiveness turning into animus was pretty constant. Even before he made a disaster of his wedding
and turned into his father.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The mote in
Buffy's eye, and the stone in Xander's -- cjl, 11:15:19 06/03/02 Mon
In Xander's
world, vampires = bad and Scoobies = good. In "The Harvest," Jesse was his best friend, and the vamps
took him out. That's always going to color his thinking. Even when he knew Angel had a soul and was
helping Buffy, when it came down to it, he always thought of Angel as a vampire first and ally second.
(He said as much in "Prophecy Girl.") The problem with Xander is that his black and white view of the
world, even though it works, oh, 90% of the time, really screws him up the other 10%.
It
always amuses me to hear Xander talk about the Summers Blind Spot when it comes to Spike, because
Xander has that enormous blind spot of his own. One of the main reasons Xander's impending marriage
to Anya fell apart is that he completely tuned out Anya's past history as a demon; their lack of
communication on this topic spread like a disease and sabotaged any chance they would have had to make
their relationship work. (As you'll recall, they even sang a little song about it.)
Xander
couldn't admit to himself that any woman he loves/cares for might have a dark side to her. He couldn't
accept it in Anya, couldn't bear to see it in Willow, and he definitely didn't want to see it in Buffy. Hence,
his near-ridiculous levels of cluelessness in "Gone." Every time he was confronted with evidence that
Buffy might be less than pure, his golden girl, his Joan of Arc, he tuned it out. He got hit with the truth
full force in "Entropy" and he nearly went off the edge. Similarly, he rationalized every instance of
Spike's good deeds as the delusional actions of a love-struck vampire, a beast on a leash with a sick
obsession that occasionally manifested itself as positive action. He acknowledged those actions, but never
trusted the actor.
Still, I'm not sure Xander would have played Kick the Spike quite as much if
he didn't get his cue from Buffy. Buffy was going through her own schizoid reaction to Spike as
lover/evil, soul-less thing, and she constantly showed the latter whenever Xander was in (visible) range.
It would've been nice if Buffy had talked to her friends about the Spuffiness, and her feelings about the
William underneath, but they weren't communicating well in Season 6, and Xander was left to interpret
the events through his own worldview. So we get his cheap shot in "Normal Again," and his general
treatment of Spike as chipped Rottweiler. Not pretty, but consistent.
The root of all this, of
course, is Xander's fear of his own dark side. He's kept it repressed for too long and is unable to deal with
it on any level. He ran away from the wedding, completely convinced his demon would harm Anya and
destroy their lives.
Just as Giles learned to live with, and channel, his Ripper-ness, Xander
has to learn to channel the Harris aggression into a more positive and nuanced outlook on life. With
Anya reverting to demonhood, Buffy shagging Spike, and Willow turning into Darth Rosenberg, his
worldview has received a huge jolt. Acknowledging the dark side of his friends might help him adjust to
the darkness in himself. He's got a long way to go, though, and that'll probably be the focus of his arc in
Season 7.
Once he achieves that balance, he might look at Spike--who is struggling to achieve
that balance from the opposite direction--a little differently. But I think their mutual animosity should
remain. Besides, Alcibiades, it's more fun that way. Some of the best stuff with Angel in Season 1-3 was
the hostile banter between Angel and Xander. You don't want to deprive the writers of all their fun, do
you?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree with
everything except... -- alcibiades, 15:23:29 06/03/02 Mon
CJL
wrote:
"Once he achieves that balance, he might look at Spike--who is struggling to achieve
that balance from the opposite direction--a little differently. But I think their mutual animosity should
remain. Besides, Alcibiades, it's more fun that way. Some of the best stuff with Angel in Season 1-3 was
the hostile banter between Angel and Xander. You don't want to deprive the writers of all their fun, do
you?"
Part of it is just that I am tired of being cheaply manipulated into feeling sorry for Spike
as the underdog because of Xander and Buffy's outrageously bad behaviour when there is no reason for
same.
There were just too many cheap shots this year. And nothing about their relentless
negativity toward Spike had a redeeming edge to it.
Xander and Buffy both projected
their own internal demons onto Spike and kept on trying to get rid of them by battering him verbally or
physically or trying to kill him. Which only made their inner demons bigger and scarier and harder to
fend off or deal with. But that didn't keep them from picking on Spike.
Plus, the reason that
the hostile banter between Xander and Angel was amusing was because of the implied equality of the
characters. Spike was in no way seen as an equal, but beat down incessantly as an inferior being. Even
his feelings weren't validated as important enough to be real. Which put the negativity into a much uglier
framework for me. I imagine, though, that the whole tone will be different next year.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Agree with everything except... -- wina, 15:47:50 06/03/02 Mon
thinking about
it i feel what both Xander and Buffy find unconfortable when dealing with Spike is his vulnerability rather
than just his dark side. Spike is always all out with is passions and weeknesses.He has been around for a
long time and doesnt seem sorted at all, like you are supposed to be when you grow up. I think he brings a
lot of uncertainty to the scoob mix, a lot of ambiguties about right and wrong good and evil.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Actually, alcibiades, I do see your point -- cjl, 17:08:01 06/03/02 Mon
I'd be
perfectly happy if Xander and Spike could somehow go back to the end of Season 5, where Xander didn't
trust Spike, but could almost identify with his feelings and Spike thought Xander was a total git, but
(somewhat) respected him as an ally. Unfortunately, Xander's escalating hostility towards Spike (brought
on by his own internal crises) and then Spike's actions in Seeing Red (brought on by HIS internal crises)
may pre-empt any chance of re-establishing this uneasy, but functional working
relationship.
Still, if you look at the U.S. and Russia, you realize that all you need are the right
circumstances and a lifetime enemy can become a trusted ally. Maybe Xander and Spike need a Greater
Crisis where they put their animosities aside and work together to help their loved ones avert
disaster.
(Hey, I can dream, can't I?)
[> [> Upon watching the episode... (Spoilers on Grave) --
Traveler, 17:14:49 06/01/02 Sat
Maybe the shooting script doesn't clearly state it, but
when the episode was actually shot, there was a very clear cut to Xander still standing at the top of the
hole while Anya was speaking. So if a mistake was made in the script itself, it was rectified when
the show was made.
[> Re: Upon reading the closed captions... -- OnM, 16:29:35
06/01/02 Sat
... we get a third version, which is:
"incinerates what
I chose to protect."
...which is pretty much the same thing meaning-wise as what I
heard. I've played the tape back about six times at this juncture, and each time it clearly sounds like 'I've'
to me, but SMG is speaking so fast that it is very hard to tell definitively.
I would be very
bummed if indeed it were 'I'm chosen to protect' -- sounds like the same old (noble, but still
'passively accepting') Buffy.
Any members of ME secretly reading this board, feel free to make
a definitive statement, OK? Thanks!
Willow the Wha? -- Magus777, 11:18:28
06/01/02 Sat
Simple question, Is there a reason why Joss and ME calls Willow a Wicca
when practicers of the Wiccan religion wouldn't?
[> Re: Willow the Wha? -- Wisewoman, 15:47:59 06/01/02
Sat
Are you asking whether practitioners of the Wiccan religion would not consider
Willow to be Wiccan (i.e. one of them), or why they wouldn't call her a Wicca? Two different
questions.
We've discussed at great length the differences between Real World Wicca and the
type of magic that Willow uses. There are very few similarities so on that basis most Wiccans would not
call Willow a Wiccan. (They might, however, stretch the point and call her a witch.)
They
wouldn't call Willow a Wicca because that's an incorrect use of the word--Wicca is the religion, those who
practise it are Wiccans.
Does that help any?
;o)
[> [> Re: Willow the Wha? -- Magus777, 19:29:49
06/01/02 Sat
Wisewoman
I understand the Wiccan religion well. I'm simply
asking why Joss and ME would go as far as to call Willow a "Wicca" though she pretty much takes the
label as a Sorceress.
[> [> [> Re: Willow the Wha? -- O'Cailleagh,
19:53:57 06/01/02 Sat
I think that Willow calling herself a 'Wicca' is to show that she
doesn't know too much about what Wicca is about, to show that it was the power that she was interested
in.
[> [> [> Would it kill Joss to actually explore Willow's Jewish
background? (Rant) -- cjl, 20:00:54 06/01/02 Sat
First, about the given topic.
Willow is a non-practicing Jew who likes throwin' around the magic. Tara, I think, was a Wiccan
through and through--but Willow had no interest in the discipline. Maybe Giles and Devon coven will
teach her that discipline.
Now, on to the rant. Willow is the only Jewish character in the
series. Would it kill Joss to explore some of byways and maybe even some of the mystical offshoots within
the Jewish faith? (For instance, I've always had a spec fic in mind about the Jewish legend of Lilith and
how it related to vengeance demons and maybe even the power behind the slayers.) Maybe when Willow
goes into family therapy with her folks, we find out that Ira is a Kabbalist, and brings Willow into the
fold. Maybe Willow studies Torah as therapy and its wisdom and intellectual rigor bring solace to her
troubled mind...
OK, the last one wouldn't be very dramatic on screen, but you
know...something?
OK, end of rant.
[> [> [> [> Willow, Giles and the Coven --
Malandanza, 21:05:00 06/01/02 Sat
"Tara, I think, was a Wiccan through and
through--but Willow had no interest in the discipline. Maybe Giles and Devon coven will teach her that
discipline."
I don't think that the Coven is interested in teaching Willow
anything:
GILES: The coven is working on a way to extract her powers without killing
her. (gravely) And should she survive, you ought to know... There's no guarantee she'll be... as she
was.
Grave Shooting Script
It looks like they're going to make sure Willow
never is able to use magic again -- and are hoping that it won't be necessary to kill her in the process
(although that's a risk they're willing to take). As for Giles, the last time someone tried to end the world,
he killed her/him. I think that there aren't going to be any more second chances for Willow -- she's
finished with magic forever -- and Giles and the Coven aren't sending her to a self-help program to ease
her out of her magical addiction. She's getting either a magical form of the chip or a magical lobotomy
(to remove all those dark spells she soaked up). The members of the Coven don't have any emotional
attachments to Willow; they will have no qualms about making certain Willow will never threaten the
world again. Giles might have some issues, but, remember, he suggested that they kill Dawn to save the
world and sent Buffy to her death before. After all, he's "sworn to protect this sorry world, and
sometimes that means saying and doing... what other people can't. What they shouldn't have to."
The Gift
Willow's going to have to deal with feelings of impotence (as Spike has since
he's been chipped) in addition to the guilt of torturing (while he begged for mercy) and murdering Warren
and very nearly killing not just Jonathan and Andrew, but Giles, Buffy, Anya, Xander and Dawn (oh --
and the rest of the world, although that was due to the interference of the Coven -- left to her own devices,
Willow might not have progressed past her small circle of friends and acquaintances). But remember,
she's still getting off pretty easily: Angel got sent to hell for Angelus' attempt at ending the world, and
each other person who's tried has gotten the death penalty.
So I don't think the Coven will be
taking Willow on as a promising young novitiate any time soon.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow, Giles and the Coven (Two to
Go and Grave Spoilers) -- Magus777, 21:40:30 06/01/02 Sat
"So I don't think
the Coven will be taking Willow on as a promising young novitiate any time soon."
-Malandanza
Ouch. I sort of agree and I sort of disagree. Willow became the most
powerfullest Witch in the Western Hemisphere as quoted by Anya, in three years. When I read the
discussions about Willow, I was quite surprised that no one was blown away by Willow's Hyper Fast
Uprising. Willow herself admits in Lover's Walk I believe that she isn't full-fledge and that it'll probably
take years to reach such rank.
I bet she didn't mean Three years!
I seriously believe
that if Giles told the Devon Coven that Willow has become what she is now in a matter of three years,
they're jaws would drop. They are in fact a powerful Coven with powerful Witches, not powerful enough
to go up against Willow as the Battle between Willow and Giles proved.
Though they do not
have any emotional attachment to Willow, they have Giles. Seriously, though Willow flaunted her power
and put on a daughter VS father show, you could still tell that Giles loved Willow. The only attack Giles
had was that Incurso spell that he used to knock Willow down, nothing more. Giles spent the entire time
trying to protect himself and others.
(Giles meant to be on the Defensive Side the Entire
time.)
It's quite obvious that Giles wanted Willow to absorb his powers. This proves that Giles
is still Willow's father figure. He's willing to die to not kill his daughter, but to bring her back to her
original self.
The ending the world part thing, I don't think Giles was expecting.
[> [> [> [> I have a theory... -- Traveler, 00:03:30
06/02/02 Sun
You may have noticed that BtVS doesn't really explore religions other than
Wicca at all. Crosses may work against vampires, but we've never seen an explanation of why.
Also, while you can plausibly suggest that there are some christian themes present in the show,
Christianity itself is a completely unexplored as a topic. As some of the wiccans on this board have
pointed out, even the Wicca themes aren't quite right, strickly speaking. My guess is that religion is a
whole can of worms that ME just doesn't want to open. Wicca is somewhat safe, because it is not
mainstream and people don't feel threatened by it. However, if you explored Jewish storylines, people
would expect to see Christian storylines too. How would ME portray these two religions side by side?
After all, some tenants of the Jewish faith contradict tenants of Christianity. If you incorporate them as a
part of your mythology, those contradictions could be hard to work around. Also, if you thought the
lesbian debates so far have been bad, you wouldn't believe how messy the religious debates would be. My
guess is ME (wisely) decided to side step the whole issue altogether. Instead, they created their own
mythology that includes elements from Wicca, Christianity, Judaism, Buddism, and Taoism without
pandering to any of them.
[> [> [> Re: Willow the Wha? -- Wisewoman,
21:26:27 06/01/02 Sat
I'm simply asking why Joss and ME would go as far as to
call Willow a "Wicca"
I don't think they've ever told us. Maybe it was to use Wicca as a
hook to a currently popular cultural trend? The way I see it, they had monsters of several classic types;
vampires, werewolves, demons, etc., etc., so why not witches as well? A witch would round-out the
classical grouping as a sorceress, perhaps, would not. Maybe they felt it was "un-PC" to use the term witch
so Willow the Wicca was born.
Complete speculation on my part, but if they ever have
explained it I'm sure Rufus will have the interview article in her files!
;o)
[> If they wanted to be really cutting-edge, Willow'd be a
Hinjew -- Maroon Lagoon, 16:27:52 06/01/02 Sat
If she can be Jewish and
Wiccan at the same time, why not Jewish and
Hindu?
http://www.satirewire.com/news/may02/hinjews.shtml
[> [> certainly no matter how many times she's reborn, she's
never gonna call her mother -- leslie, 20:29:00 06/01/02 Sat
[> Re: Willow the Wha? -- AgnosticSorcerer, 08:08:40
06/02/02 Sun
"Simple question, Is there a reason why Joss and ME calls Willow a Wicca
when practicers of the Wiccan religion wouldn't?"
-- My theory? Willow calling herself and
others calling Willow a "Wicca" was an honest mistake as the term used to label Willow was of little
importance at the time. Eventually, with the flames being shot at Joss and ME for the use of the word, I
think it became a bit of a joke on the hypersensitive.
"I think that Willow calling herself a
'Wicca' is to show that she doesn't know too much about what Wicca is about, to show that it was the
power that she was interested in."
-- If this is so, then how do you explain everyone else (Anya
and Tara included) referring to Willow as a "Wicca"?
"First, about the given topic. Willow is a
non-practicing Jew who likes throwin' around the magic. Tara, I think, was a Wiccan through and
through--but Willow had no interest in the discipline. Maybe Giles and Devon coven will teach her that
discipline."
-- I don't think there's any indication that the coven in Devon was a Wiccan
coven.
Personally, I think my above theory makes good sense especially since no one on
"Angel" who practices magick is labelled a wicca. Also, I think at this point in time in the Buffyverse, ME
is using 'wicca' as synonymous for 'witch'. Tara was the only person on the show who seemed to have a
philosophy and theology behind her use of magick (Does that mean she's WICCAN? Not really. Tara's
religion remains ambiguous). Both Willow and Amy seemed to only have been interested in the *science*
of magicks and therefore could be labelled as witches or sorcereress as these two terms are simply defined
as "one who practices magick", whereas "wiccan" denotes someone of the religion of Wicca.
I
do not think it's logical to claim that anyone on the show is Wiccan (or rather Neo-Wiccan) because there
isn't enough information on their religious practices. There are many, many, many more magickal
practices out there both with and without religion backing it.
[> [> Wicca to Jewish -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:29:33
06/02/02 Sun
Actually, the writers have shown an often overlooked piece of insight.
Willow is the only Jewish character on the show, and I don't think it's a coincidence they made her into a
witch/wiccan. Surveys have shown that people of Jewish decent are more likely to join a Neo-Pagan
religion than other people. Of course, Willow's practices are not very religious, but then, I think I like it
better that way.
One last non-crossover crossover example... (Finale
spoilers) -- Scroll, 11:43:48 06/01/02 Sat
I realise this topic has been
discussed to death, but I wanted to add one more example of how BtVS S6 and AtS S3 were actually one
humongous crossover all year long.
I think the cliff (Kingman's bluff) that Willow is on when
she tries to end the world is the same cliff behind the Crawford mansion that Angel was on when he tried
to commit suicide. There is the same element of self-hatred and despair, unability to cope with the
emotional pain of life, and the desire to end it all so that others won't have to suffer that same
pain.
Okay, that was my very last contribution to this subject!
[> The shooting script -- Vickie, 11:56:06 06/01/02 Sat
confirms your observation. It is identified as the cliff in Amends.
[> Great catch, Scroll! I also wondered about that cliff. --
Exegy, 18:04:38 06/01/02 Sat
50,000 posts! Congratulations to ATPoBtVS and
Masq! -- d'Herblay, 16:13:26 06/01/02 Sat
Party hats? Champagne?
Footnotes?
Anyone want to start a pool as to when we pass 100,000 posts? (Put me down for
October 21st.)
[> Re: 50,000 posts! Congratulations to ATPoBtVS and Masq! -
- zargon, 17:51:55 06/01/02 Sat
I can just see d'H on October 20..posting like
mad...would that make him a mad poster? Beware everyone, beware! :)
[> And this isn't even our first board, either. -- Masq,
19:34:58 06/01/02 Sat
Used to be at insidetheweb...'
Speaking of
milestones... June 14th, 2nd anniversary of ATPoBtVS posting board!
[> [> Is that why I've been feeling rather older recently? We've
been around for 50,000 posts? -- VampRiley, 20:02:44 06/01/02 Sat
And the fact
that I'm 22 and a couple of weeks ago, I found out that there are some people out there who had never
seen any of the first three Star Wars movies didn't help much either. When I heard that, I felt like I was in
a wheel chair in a nursing home, drool flowing from my mouth. I can see the orderly with the depends
right now. NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
VR
[> [> [> And you were how old when the first movie came
out? -- Masq, 13:19:56 06/02/02 Sun
A forward-looking twinkle in your parent's
eyes? 'Cause I was 13 and standing in line for hours to see the first flick!
[> [> [> [> Age is all in the mind. ;P -- VR,
15:43:30 06/02/02 Sun
[> [> [> Re: Is that why I've been feeling rather older recently?
We've been around for 50,000 posts? -- Ronia, 18:13:07 06/02/02 Sun
Hah! Yes,
I'm with you in spirit...I know people my own age who have never seen the previous Star Wars movies
either...and it leads me to wonder...have they been living in a cave all their lives..or were my princess Leia
pajamas not quite as fashionable as I had assumed? No matter...when I heard that theme song in a theater
for the first time since childhood, my nerves hummed and tingled...their loss I say!
[> [> [> [> I'm thinking of not seeing it in the theatre.
-- VR, 18:49:33 06/02/02 Sun
I heard it was almost as bad as The Phantom Menace.
I've read reviews and heard about all this other stuff in it. That is except for Yoda kicking ass. That might
be enough to actually get me to go down there and pay.
[> [> Congratulations to us all. You guys rock. -- Dedalus,
22:05:09 06/01/02 Sat
[> If we all start typing our posts in backwards, -- Maroon
Lagoon, 21:25:32 06/02/02 Sun
will the post count start dropping?
I'm
going to copy this post backwards to make the net size of the post zero. Will that make the NT tag show
up?
?pu wohs gat TN eht kema taht lliW .orez tsop eht fo ezis ten eht ekam ot sdrawkcab tsop
siht ypoc ot gniog m'I
?gnippord trats tnuoc tsop eht lliw
OT: Hello! -- Rowan, 06:20:40 06/02/02 Sun
Just thought I'd pop in and say hello! Sorry I've been such a stranger...I've been weathering
some personal and familial health problems that have caused me to cut down my online activity for quite a
while. But everyone is now hale and hearty again, so hopefully that means more time to indulge myself
with posting and fanfic writing.
Okay, stop groaning at the idea of me writing fanfic.
;)
I hope all is well with everyone here, and congratulations on the 50,000 post
milestone.
Regards,
Rowan
[> Great to have you back! -- Cactus Watcher, 09:24:35
06/02/02 Sun
[> Welcome Back:) -- Aquitaine, 09:54:56 06/02/02
Sun
[> Good to see you. -- Traveler, 10:32:41 06/02/02 Sun
[> YAY!! Glad you're back, Rowan. We missed you! ;o) --
Wisewoman, 11:34:28 06/02/02 Sun
[> Welcome Back Rowan, we missed you -- vampire hunter D,
12:46:37 06/02/02 Sun
This season would have been much more fun if you were here
(I'm sure you would have had plenty to say on the Spike situation)
[> [> My love for Spike is an ever fix'd mark... -- Rowan,
19:29:03 06/02/02 Sun
that looks on tempests and is not shaken. My love and respect
for Buffy, Willow, and Xander, however, is in the toilet.
And I'm finding the underlying ethics
of the Buffyverse to be very suspect indeed.
;)
Rowan
[> Re: OT: Hello! -- Cascante, 12:55:20 06/02/02 Sun
Glad everyone is doing well and you're able to return.
No, I don't groan at your
fanfic, I smile when I read it.
Hope to see you back at all the boards you attend.
[> Welcome back! Maybe you'll join in the summer/2nd anniv
fun? -- Masq, 13:17:48 06/02/02 Sun
[> Oh goody, the other Grabby Hands are back....:):):):):):):) --
Rufus, 16:58:11 06/02/02 Sun
Thank god you stay away from my chocolate....;)
[> [> Re: Oh goody, the other Grabby Hands are
back....:):):):):):):) -- Rowan, 19:20:56 06/02/02 Sun
I just want to know who put
the paw marks all over Spike while I was gone.... ;)
[> [> [> If there is no chocolate on the marks.....it wasn't
me.....;) -- Rufus, 19:32:55 06/02/02 Sun
[> [> [> I think that would be Lee Ann -- vampire hunter
D, 20:23:38 06/02/02 Sun
She's even more obsessed with Spike than you
[> Yay! Rowan! Missed your excellent essays. -- ponygirl,
17:33:57 06/02/02 Sun
[> *Cheesesteak*... *Cheesesteak* ...* Cheesesteak*... oh, hey, she's
here! Cool! -- OnM, 20:59:40 06/02/02 Sun
You are *so* welcome back! What
little goodies have you planned to occupy us this summer?
Great to hear you are doing better
now!
:-) :-) :-)
[> [> Re: *Cheesesteak*... *Cheesesteak* ...* Cheesesteak*... oh,
hey, she's here! Cool! -- Rufus, 22:40:29 06/02/02 Sun
*Cheesesteak*.......what
is this marriage betwixt cheese and steak all about?
[> [> [> Isn't that OnM's special Pennsylvania People-Finder
charm? -- Solitude1056, 23:53:45 06/02/02 Sun
I think he did a DC-version to
find me last summer, after I took a hiatus when I went overseas... ;-)
Welcome back, Rowan,
you were MISSED!!!
[> [> [> [> Yes, you can run but you can't hide for long
once On starts the mojo on you.....:):):) -- Rufus, 01:35:56 06/03/02 Mon
[> Oh my God! -- verdantheart, 06:20:26 06/03/02 Mon
I've really, really missed you! You were always around to put into words (much more
eloquently than I could) exactly what I was thinking! Please don't be a stranger!
I'm sorry to
hear that you have been experiencing problems, and I'm happy to hear that you all seem to have weathered
them!
- vh
[> Missed ya, Rowan, and your amazing posts! So glad to see you're
back. :o) -- Rob, 07:31:57 06/03/02 Mon
[> Nice to see you again :-) -- Dedalus, 08:10:08 06/03/02
Mon
Freezing creativity (Willow and Tara,
Spoilerish) -- cjc36, 07:22:34 06/02/02 Sun
The original topic is about to
slide into the archive. Perhaps this should go to the archive, but here are a few points.
QUOTE FROM TRM
Lesbianism as just another relationship-type doesn't yet
exist in our society and treatment as such may only serve to ignore its complexity.
But are
the ones who have said opinion asking too much from an ensemble TV show about a vampire slayer and
her friends? If they did an episode or two on bigotry and homophobia, would not most of the audience,
including some in the gay community, feel that they were being fed a public service announcement?
Hasn't the relationship actually been show with a certain degree of, if not layered complexity, then
gentleness? Is the gay community wanting more from a TV show not primarily about them?
QUOTE FROM TRM
Were I to argue somewhat from the kitten board
viewpoint, it would not be that lesbian relationships should be forever sacred, but that in the society we
live in today it is imperative to be careful -- if our concern was on social impact -- on what happens with a
lesbian couple.
Now we get into the quagmire. People from the gay community have
advocated portrayals in mainstream media of same-sex relationships emphasizing the humanness of the
gay characters. I have read things like: Treat us like anybody else, please! We love, we have families,
we laugh and cry and pay taxes! We all don't act a certain 'way'. We are of all types. Okay, good
points, all. Now Joss put a lesbian couple in his show. Little did he know it came with a proviso or two,
which comes down to this: Do nothing to these characters that can, in any way, be seen as negative.
Hello?
I've been playing this game in my mind since this debate came to my
attention. Okay, the rules are this: Willow has to go bad by the end of season six, but she doesn't cross the
line of no return. And one more thing: don't make anybody on the kitten board mad.
SCENARIO ONE, THE ANGEL/ANGELUS TRACK: Willow turns bad from
February sweeps on: Okay, does Tara still leave her due to Willow's increasing magick addiction? Say she
does. The reconciliation doesn't happen, and Tara doesn't get killed. POSSIBLE CRITICISM: Joss just
did it to keep the lesbian's apart - thus no lesbian scenes - until season 7.
SCENARIO
TWO: TARA STAYS WITH EVIL WILLOW: a) Tara is mistreated by Willow, more mind-control
stuff, possibly a play on spousal abuse. POSSIBLE CRITICISM: Joss is showing lesbianism to be
unhealthy. b) Tara, in love with Willow so much, joins her in her big bad ways. POSSIBLE CRITICISM:
Joss is saying lesbians all have hidden evil inside them. And some have no self-will or healthy self-image.
SCENARIO THREE: Tara is only wounded, but Willow still does what she did in
TTG/Grave. POSSIBLE CRITICISM: Joss is showing lesbians to be nothing but power hungry devils
with Nazi pretensions.
Anybody else is welcome to crack this and see if they can make it
actually work. The trick is to still make it dramatically effective for the entire BtVS audience. I'm no
writer, as illustrated above, but that was all I could do in an hour.
Which brings me to
another point; the special interest I'm afraid this criticism is influencing is budding writers. I'm not a
writer, or know any professional ones, but I can imagine a budding scribe or two looking at this debate
and deciding to eschew any gay - or any other so-called special interest character. It is becoming obvious
that Joss couldn't do anything in a dramatic (negative) way to Willow without influencing the W/T
dynamic, and thus incurring someone's wrath.
So in putting a lesbian couple on the show, Joss
inadvertently reduced his dramatic choices. I cannot accept that. I can try to empathize with the kitten
board criticism - Willow and Tara represented something wonderful to them - but as gay characters
become common in movies and TV, as gay people come into the mainstream where they belong, bad, trite,
silly and madding things are going to happen to the characters. It has to, or it wouldn't be dramatic
fiction, it would be just dry polemics where nothing bad ever happens and everything turns out okay, a
place where writers are shackled to concepts - or worse, afraid to include 'others' due to all the damn
strings attached if they decide to treat said 'others' like they would any other character.
I'm a
Caucasian American male. One stereotype I might find offensive (I certainly don't) is Xander. One who
does could say Xander is nothing but wacky Hollywood pushing off on a defenseless American public a
weak, pathetic example of manliness, a looser needing women around to save him. He hides an
embarrassing cowardice behind a thin wall of self-deprecating humor, but what is this character really
telling young white American boys?
Would anybody put up with this kind of
criticism?
I'm afraid of this debate coming down to some people getting the idea - on both
sides - that heterosexuals have no business writing gay characters. A heterosexual writer may feel they
don't need the grief or restrictions, or think that they won't 'get it'.
A similar criticism was
leveled against the Hughes brothers when they decided to direct From Hell. Some people in the
African American community pondered why these black directors were wasting their time doing a 'white'
movie, when so much more could be said with their efforts if they did a story about the black experience.
Others in the African American community have criticized white directors taking on black subjects -
Michael Mann and Ali is one recent example, but I remember it going back to Spielberg and
The Color Purple.
Art should be free. Sure, criticism is free also and if Joss had done
something that I felt was wrong, I would be filling the posting boards with how I felt. Criticize, but
understand that for Joss - or any writer - to think solely on the oftentimes conflicting social implications of
what he is doing runs the risk of freezing his creativity in its tracks.
[> Making artistic choices -- Sophist, 07:59:13 06/02/02
Sun
There is a great deal of merit in many of your points. However, I think you left out at
least 1 important consideration.
The problem here is how to deal with a relationship that has,
traditionally, suffered discrimination in our society. You're right in one sense that the writer can't win: if
the portrayal is too favorable, the character is unrealistic; if unfavorable, the character is reinforcing a
stereotype. I agree that it's difficult, but BtVS deliberately chose to go this route -- to have Willow
"explore her sexuality" as Joss (I think) put it -- so they have to accept the responsibility for how they
handle that relationship.
The distinction between this situation and your example of Xander is
easy to make: if Xander is weak (I happen to agree that he is, but I think that was intentional from the
beginning), it doesn't affect me (a white male) because there are lots of "strong" white male figures
available as role models. I don't need to identify with Xander, I can simply accept his characterization and
move on. That is not the case with lesbian characters.
BtVS created the first truly successful
lesbian relationship on TV. Willow/Tara differ from Xander because they were the only positive
role models available now or ever. What happens to them takes on an importance out of all proportion,
just like Jackie Robinson did in a different way.
When a society has a history of discrimination
-- race in the US, anti-Semitism in Germany, lots of other examples -- that society has to be very careful
in its portrayal of the formerly oppressed. For awhile, yes, there may be special rules that apply, different
rules than those that affect the majority, simply in order to avoid a return to the attitudes of the past. There
is, of course, a danger in this as well, and eventually the 2 groups have to be treated exactly the same. I
don't pretend to know exactly where that point is, but I'm confident that it is not at the level of the first
and only successful lesbian couple on TV.
One last point. Your scenarios about W/T are too
narrow. Back up a little and ask the question: Why Willow and Tara? Why not Xander and Anya? Was
there less dramatic possibility in having Xander face a real drug addiction (instead of Willow's phony one)
and having Anya be the one randomly shot just as he was recovering?
I don't know. The
writers need to have lots of scope to make artistic decisions. As long as they make those decisions with
full understanding of any stereotypes they might be reinforcing, and as long as they have good artistic
reasons for proceeding, their choices are defensible even if I would have preferred a different
approach.
[> [> Re: Making artistic choices -- AgnosticSorcerer,
08:24:45 06/02/02 Sun
Such debates as this, I find immensly annoying and they're all
too common amongst the gay community.
Cries for equal treatment, but at the same time,
demands for special treatment.
I'm sorry, but just because someone is a lesbian, bad things
shouldn't happen to them? Tara's death has nothing to do with her sexuality--if Oz was still around, then
Oz would be dead.
"It's not so much what happened to Willow--but that what happened to
Willow put her and Tara into a cliche." Again, I think people who support this cliche argument are just
drawing too many lines between "natural human reaction" and "stereotypical lesbian reaction" themselves.
The story-arc spoke nothing of Willow's sexuality--but her of humanity.
"One last point. Your
scenarios about W/T are too narrow. Back up a little and ask the question: Why Willow and Tara? Why
not Xander and Anya? Was there less dramatic possibility in having Xander face a real drug addiction
(instead of Willow's phony one) and having Anya be the one randomly shot just as he was
recovering?"
-- How would you end the season (or even the series as ME writes every season
finale as the series finale) that way? Do you really think a real drug-arc with Xander would hold as much
dramatic impact as the present arc with Willow had?
How would Xander turn into the big-
bad?
Personally, I think that if stereotypes and cliches are ignored the show is fine. If the
writer(s) does not intentionally insert the stereotype, then it's all good--otherwise you're claiming that no
person will fall into the cliche.
[> [> [> BtVS and the Common Cliche -- Mess,
12:00:36 06/02/02 Sun
Errrr... hi. Long-time lurker, first-time poster, so... please be
gentle :)? I'm so consistently impressed by the opinions posted on this board that I feel a tad bit
intimidated. Feel free to ignore this if it's just baseless blathering.
In any case, I should
probably get to the actual point of this post. That point being that I actually think t Joss may have
employed the evil/dead lesbian cliche purposely. Certainly the man must have been aware of it, and I'm
not of the camp that thinks we can blame every fault of the season on poor beleaguered Marti Noxon.
Why would I think that? That's easy.
Joss has always been about messing with
the cliches - NOT defying them. Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a concept started out with the cliche of the
helpless blonde rinning the from the big mean nasty monsters. Except this time, our starlet was kicking
some ass and taking some names instead of cowering in an corner or behind some brawny hero type. Or
what about, say, Giles? The Stuffy British Academic certainly isn't a new and revolutionary part to play.
Except this time, that Stuffy British Academic was really a driven, often-ruthless (Ben, I'm looking at
YOU) man with a shady past on the punk/demon summoning scene. Giles, shockingly, was not Wesley.
Giles had once been cool.
Messing with the dead/evil lesbian cliche is just the same sort of
twisting of stereotypes that Joss has always done. From what I gather, the death/evilness of the lesbians in
this cliche is usually meant to imply (respectively) punishment for being gay, and the innate corruption of
non-heterosexual lifestyles. If this were true of the scene on BtVS, wouldn't be have been cheering for
Warren? Tara was very clearly portrayed as the innocent victim in a horrific attack - indeed, she's
probably the only cast member innocent of any significant wrongdoing in this entire season. The graphic
nature of the scene is disturbing, not triumphant, and Tara is a martyr to the cause of Scooby Self-
Centeredness of the situation around then (ie - if they'd not brought Buffy back or consistently ignored
their "arch nemeses" in order to brood on their own problems, none of this would have happened). I don't
think that anyone could reasonably argue that Tara's death was NOT set up to be a tragedy. Indeed, alot
of the complaining I've head about killing her off has to do with the fact that she didn't "deserve" death -
as opposed to, say, Spike. Certainly one can't construct Warren as a heroic or even sympathetic character
for having killed her.
Willow's Darthness too can't be fit comfortably within the lesbian
cliche. For one thing, this lust for power within her has been portrayed as present since long before she
came out of the closet. Secondly, over the course of the final episodes we're repeatedly told that at least
part of Willow's problem has to do with the energies she's using, and not Willow herself. Hence Giles
having to introduce the "empathetic" magic into her system. A Willow who could feel did't want to
destory the world. Do I think that the author's giving Willow a partial cop-out due to the dark magics is
good writing? To be frank, not really. I found Willow a much more fascinating character when she was
walking the road of good intentions down to hell. That does not, however, change the actual text that the
writers have given us, and that text says that Willow = corrupted, but not entirely at fault.
The
very same sort of twisting of cliches was done during the very same episodes with Spike's trip to Africa.
As someone with a passing familiarity with thoeries of postcolonial literature, Spike going off to Africa in
order to get his chip out had me much more exasperated than the lesbian death cliche (or permutation of
it). Yes, because the "civilized" European man needs to go to "primitive" Africa in order to get back in
touch with his animalistic dark side. Gag. Yet despite my lack of faith ME came through by showing that
Spike had always intended to get his soul back, turning the that particular rascist cliche (the classic
incarnation of which was Heart of Darkness) on it's head. Spike didn't go to Africa in order to get back in
touch with his Id. Instead, he went there to regain his connection with the higher powers and higher
moral functions - to restore his Superego.
So.... yeah. I can understand why the gay
commuity might be upset about losing such a wonderful role model as Tara and the W/T relationship, just
as I can understand why non-gay shippers would be upset as well. But I think that it's important to look at
HOW Joss et al do things as well as what they've done.
[> [> [> [> Very insightful--and Welcome! -- Vickie,
13:28:58 06/02/02 Sun
These are great points. Thanks for making
them.
You bring up something that has bothered me for a while. Did Buffy never tell Willow
that she'd been framed for Katrina's murder? The depth of noncommunication is hard to believe, but
Willow apparently learned about Katrina in Villains, from Warren.
So nobody told the police?
Even an anonymous tip might have led them to check his blood type against what's under Katrina's
fingernails. And after that, maybe Warren is out of action for a little while.
Truly, the gang's
self-absorption cost Tara her life.
[> [> [> [> Nicely said. And welcome. -- Sophist,
13:33:39 06/02/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> Mess--one point. -- Q, 14:28:01
06/02/02 Sun
Well written thoughts, but I would like to disagree with
this:
>From what I gather, the death/evilness of the lesbians in this cliche is usually meant
to imply (respectively) punishment for being gay, and the innate corruption of non-heterosexual lifestyles.
If this were true of the scene on BtVS, wouldn't be have been cheering for Warren?<
I think
the opposite is true. A lot of people defend this because "Tara's death was not connected at all with the
sex, and therefore wasn't depicted as a punishment for her lifestyle". I think these people are wrong. In
fact, they could have defended the lifestyle BETTER if her death had been a punishment (within the story)
for her being gay. That way they could have dealt with the homophobia and hate crime issue (and it
wouln't have been subtle enough, would have been tacky, and would have looked like a Lifetime
movie)
What offended people are talking about isn't the depiction of the death *within the
story*, but within the work as a whole. Whenever somebody does a symbolic academic reading of a piece
of literature, they are not looking at what ACTUALLY happened in the story, but what can be percieved
SYMBOLICALLY from the story. If it was taken as literal as some would have us take it, then "High
Noon" couldn't be viewed as a "red scare" analogy( there were no commies in the wild west), horror
movies classically belittled for their bigoted or commiephobic overtones wouldn't be read into at all, etc.
etc. The fact is-- possibly THE ONLY decent depiction of a lesbian couple on mainstream TV was
destroyed. One was killed, the other went unstable and crazy. OF COURSE there will be those who give
this a homophobic symbolic reading. Of course Joss and ME knew this, and rolled the dice anyway. They
will have to live with the controversy, and hopefully won't whine too much about it.
[> [> [> [> Re: BtVS and the Common Cliche (S6
Spoilers) -- Jane's Addiction, 15:02:20 06/02/02 Sun
You raise some great
points. Welcome to the board, by the way. I'm pretty new to the board myself, so no need to be
intimidated.
I certainly don't think the ME writers would've chosen to play the dead/evil
lesbian cliche. You make a good point that they may have sought to take some of the power from that
cliche by twisting it. As some have already pointed out, the real problem is simply the dearth of gay role
models on television. It's rather unfair that the ME writers found their characters suddenly expected to
represent a whole community, but that's probably going to be the case until we see a few more characters
that happen to be gay on television. That's what was so great about the W/T relationship, as has been
noted. They weren't "that gay couple", just "that couple", and one of the better couples ever on the show
for that matter.
As to the dark magic mitigating factor in Willow's "Darth Rosenberg" turn ...
You could argue that Willow's been left fewer outs that some of the other main characters ("Sorry about
trying to kill you all, injection of demon poison - it was a thing." "I ate what? And tried to sexually assault
who? Sorry about that - hyena possession and all...") I think the writers always find themselves walking a
fine line to keep their core characters sympathetic, but I imagine we'll still see Willow taking
responsibility for her actions and dealing with the emotional issues that were put on full display as a result
of them.
Nice point about the skewering of the "Heart of Darkness" stereotype in Spike's trip
to Africa. I must say though, I was somewhat surprised to hear that he supposedly had gone in with the
intent of getting re-souled, not de-chipped. Given his comments to the demon ("Bitch thinks she's better
than me ...", "Bitch is gonna see a change ..." ect.), his love really does seem to spring from a hostile
source. Especially when you compare it to his sacrifices in S5, but then that was before an entire season of
Buffy messing with the poor lad's bleached head.
Still, it does make you wonder just what the
new and maybe not-so-improved William will be like. I'm not exactly expecting Angel with higher
cheekbones.
[> [> [> [> [> He could have only been going for one
thing....... -- Rufus, 16:56:23 06/02/02 Sun
I always thought Spike went looking
for the only thing that stood between he and Buffy. I've seen him call the women in his life bitches and
generally make lots of noise, only to do exactly the opposite of what it appeared he had intended to do. To
get to the point that he was willing to do more than just turn from his evil ways (but longing to join in the
chaotic fun in Bargaining), Spike proved that he had grown enough to shed his need for an evil identity.
Now I just want to see the consequences of his choice. Spike may not be able to join Buffy in the light of
day, but his days as a warrior of darkness may be over, if they weren't over from the first time he tried to
protect Buffy from harm in "Family". His quest for a soul was symbolic of his ability to finally grow up
past his insecurities and take the chance of being loved or rejected based upon who he really is.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: He could have only been going
for one thing....... -- Jane's Addiction, 19:07:58 06/02/02 Sun
Interesting point.
Given that the ME writers are an evil lot, who knows how things will work out for New Soul Man. If one
agrees that this has been a great quest for Spike all along (as opposed to Angel, who simply had a soul
thrust upon him), Spike's journey ultimately could be seen as more heroic. Given the treatment that heroes
get in the JossVerse, that may not bode well for him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, just so he's all prepared
and all we should sent a First Aid Kit.....;) -- Rufus, 22:39:14 06/02/02 Sun
Containing a few protection spells and a home testing kit that detects souls.....:):):) I wonder
what colour the soul is?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: BtVS and the Common Cliche (S6
Spoilers) -- leslie, 17:51:52 06/02/02
Sun
I find it interesting that the whole argument about the death of Tara as a destruction
of "the only good lesbian relationship on television" seems to be premised on the assumption that Willow
will never have another lesbian relationship. For all her insecurities, Willow seems to fall in love with
cool people--Oz, Tara--and there is no reason to assume that she will never fall in love again. Now, if she
falls in love with a man, I would say the lesbian thing was a complete cop-out on ME's part, but if she
falls in love with another woman, then I think the death of Tara becomes a human tragedy, and the
evil/dead lesbian cliche is really irrelevent.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: BtVS and the Common Cliche
(S6 Spoilers) -- Jane's Addiction, 19:43:04 06/02/02 Sun
>>>I find it
interesting that the whole argument about the death of Tara as a destruction of "the only good lesbian
relationship on television" seems to be premised on the assumption that Willow will never have another
lesbian relationship. <<<
I don't think the argument has been premised on any
assumption about Willow's romantic future so much as network television's present state. We probably
wouldn't have this same debate if network television just had more depictions of gay relationships - good,
bad or indifferent -just like the many straight relationships commonly depicted. Others could probably
comment on this with more with more authority than I can, but is there even one other positive gay
relationship being depicted on network television at this point? Admittedly, that really shouldn't be ME's
responsibility, but in reality it is going to color how fans react to seeing one half of what was actually a
quietly ground-breaking couple being killed and the other half going on a rampage as a
result.
But I agree with you, assuming Willow recovers from this trauma, it seems likely that
she will eventually fall in love with someone else - more than likely a woman.
In any case,
Tara's death certainly should be seen as a human tragedy first and foremost. There just seem to be larger
issues at play that have made this kind of a super-heated controversy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Knew of one other positive
gay relationship -- Dariel, 20:13:18 06/02/02 Sun
Others could probably
comment on this with more with more authority than I can, but is there even one other positive gay
relationship being depicted on network television at this point?
The series "Once and
Again" had a very nice storyline featuring a romance between two high school girls. The story, which
unfolded during the last two months of the television season, was portrayed beautifully. Unfortunately,
the series, which garnered critical praise but not enough viewers, will not be back next year. Too bad--all
of the teenage characters on that show were excellent.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I think it depends. -- Sophist,
20:16:58 06/02/02 Sun
Unless Willow makes a miraculous recovery over the summer,
I can't see her involved with someone else when S7 starts. These things take time, lots of time. It took
almost 2 full seasons for Buffy to get over Angel enough to date Parker and then Riley (and even then
Riley was rebound guy). It took Willow less time with Oz, but then he left her life beyond what Angel did
to Buffy. Even so, half the fans hated Tara because she wasn't Oz. Willow may start anew before the series
ends, but can we?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Soph, how do you count the
months? -- Vickie, 23:58:25 06/02/02 Sun
End of S3 was Angel's
departure.
Beginning of S4 was the Parker fiasco.
Shortly thereafter was Riley.
Conservatively, six months?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Liberally. --
Sophist, 08:32:53 06/03/02 Mon
Buffy and Angel split up in the sexual sense after
Surprise. He's then gone (as a love interest) for the rest of S2 and S3 until FH&T. ME then stretches out
the angst for the rest of S3, during which time they are/aren't a couple. I didn't consider them "really"
dating during S3; I counted that as part of Buffy's recovery time.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, I saw it
differently -- Vickie, 09:56:03 06/03/02 Mon
I don't count them as broken up
until The Prom, or maybe Graduation Day. I counted the Angelus thing as a break--"we were on a
break!"
Thing is, I don't really see Buffy start giving up the relationship until GD.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Recovery
time -- Dead Soul, 14:54:12 06/03/02 Mon
Believe me, there was no way Buffy
was ever going to "recover" with Angel around the way he was in Season 3. JMHO.
Dead
(been there, done that) Soul
[> [> [> Doesn't recognition of that as a stereotypical
behavior... -- AngelVSAngelus, 12:03:57 06/02/02 Sun
or as a part of any cliche
seem to reveal something more about those of the audience than the creator? An example, to
illustrate:
I'm no big Star Wars fan, nor did I enjoy The Phantom Menace, but that's not my
point here. George Lucas had accusations of racism and bigotry levied against him for the character Jar
Jar Binks, which people claimed was intended to be a negative and stereotypical characature of African
Americans. Color me cynical, but I don't exactly trust George Lucas unendingly. Perhaps it was. But that
doesn't concern me, because of the fact that I, and hopefully most others, didn't draw any mental paralels
between a computer generated alien creature and any real life racial demographic. What does it say about
the person who did the accusing, that when they saw on the screen a bumbling creature with bad grammar
and odd venacular they drew comparisons to any racial group? Who's the discriminator here, George
Lucas, or that audience member?
It's really disconcerting to me that anyone would believe that
Joss Whedon would write scenarios involving characters not just as people, representative of themselves
and themselves alone, but as signifiers for any 'group', and that their behavior would represent the
aforementioned group. But, even more disturbing to me, is the fact that when people watched what
Willow did, THEY drew paralels between her behavior and a group.
As a member of a
number of 'minority groups' (African American/Native American, bisexual, etc) I've never watched any of
those characters do anything on the show and assumed that any of them should be representative of a
person outside themselves in their world, or any real person in ours. It bothers me that instead of thinking
of people as subjective individuals, when it comes down to it, for some, Willow represents lesbians
everywhere, Xander represents men everywhere, Buffy blondes, etc. This kind of grouping seems to me to
just perpetuate the problem that's being complained about.
[> [> [> [> I concur! -- cjc36, 05:44:50 06/03/02
Mon
[> [> [> [> It's not recognition of stereotypical
behavior... -- Dariel, 11:20:31 06/03/02 Mon
It's recognition of a stereotypical
image. People objected to the Jar Jar Binks characterization because it resembled past
characterizations of blacks in film and television. In the not-so-distant past, blacks, like Binks, where
often portrayed as "bumbling creature(s) with bad grammar and odd venacular."
[> [> Wow! *very* well put! -- Q, 14:15:36 06/02/02
Sun
[> [> Re: Making artistic choices -- cjc36, 00:58:28
06/03/02 Mon
Thank you for your comments, Sophist. Actually, I do kinda identify with
Xander - I wish I were half as funny and charming!
I can understand your side of the debate,
but I still fear there is danger of somehow quelling art.
Jackie Robinson was a real man.
Willow and Tara are fictional. Both icons, yes.
The reason I narrowed down the choices is
this: we all could take a legal pad and an afternoon and redo in broad strokes the last, oh, say, three
seasons. I decided to be fair and limit the end result to what transpired in TTG/Grave.
One
reason I liked seeing Dark Willow was the chance for an Alyson Hannigan tour de force. And
she handled it very well, IMHO. Is this equal to the concerns from the gay community? Does one actress
getting a big arc equal social injustice of utilizing a cliché to do it? I don't know. Personally I feel that the
relationship was treated better than one had a right to expect given the network it aired on at the time and
the general hype-infested air about media in general.
I felt it necessary to point out that there
is, and I lothe the word, but baggage attached to any character associated with a minority group. Is this,
ultimately, helping with inclusion?
Hopefully one day people will be accepted as they are and
debates like this will be relegated to history. We can only hope.
[> [> Why Willow and Tara? Because ... -- Earl Allison, 03:06:20 06/03/02 Mon
Willow was picked because they'd been setting up the "Dark Phoenix" storyline for quite a
while -- although in the end, they flinched.
The EEEVIL magic made her do it :) While Giles'
infusion of "good" magic is what made Willow decide to destroy the world -- somehow for its own good --
it also offset the EEEVIL magic, too. I'm glad we have Willow back, but the EEEVIL magic bit was a bit
much, IMHO -- it takes a lot away from Willow being personally responsible. Still, on to the main
course.
Okay, Tara HAD to die. I think a few posters here already made that point -- that the
only way to get a truly brassed-off Willow would be to kill Tara -- even nearly killing Buffy didn't do
it.
So, why did it happen when it did? Personally, IMHO, because ME was determined to give
SOMETHING to the fans, by bringing Tara and Willow back together in the relationship. Imagine how
much ANGRIER certain vocal groups would have been had Willow never reestablished her love (and had
it reciprocated) by Tara? Sure, there is the undercurrent of the fact that they (the writers) knew Tara was
going to die, but the only way to avoid the "sex-death" portion would have been to have Tara and Willow
reconcile earlier (possibly by an episode or two), which would have taken away from the seriousness of the
breakup, belittling it.
Frankly, ME couldn't win no matter what they did. If Willow and Tara
never reconciled, would Willow's rage have been as severe? It's not like something was snatched from her
grasp after she only just regained it in that case. And had they reconciled earlier, some of the dramatics
would have been lost.
Maybe (and I stress, MAYBE) they shouldn't have stayed in bed all day
and been so public about it, but to get the most bang out of the story, to be the most emotionally
devastating to Willow (because anything less would have undercut her grief and rage), it pretty much had
to play out this way.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> Re: Why Willow and Tara? Because ... -- cjc36,
05:14:43 06/03/02 Mon
Mr. Allison, this is close to my take. I was one of the fans
wanting to see Willow through AH's portrayal, have her day in the uh, darkness, so to speak. A lot of folks
see this as just another 'confidant', or Scooby, going bad, something that's been done before, thus is cliché.
I'm trying to see it, but I think that if the Dark Willow storyline - putting aside all other controversies - is
cliché, then it merely speaks to the comic book DNA of BtVS, where sidekicks, sidemen etc have been
known to go bad time to time. Is it good? Depends on one's viewpoint.
(ME could've handled
the addiction with a bit of a lighter touch. Banging us over the head with it in Wrecked did come off like a
PSA announcement. MAGICK MADNESS!)
Buffy falls in love with a vampire? Who turns
BAD after she looses her virginity to him? One could argue that's cliché.
[> [> [> ME and red herrings -- Traveler, 19:30:36
06/03/02 Mon
"The EEEVIL magic made her do it :) While Giles' infusion of "good"
magic is what made Willow decide to destroy the world -- somehow for its own good -- it also offset the
EEEVIL magic, too."
I agree with the people who say that Willow totally responsible for
her actions as "Dark Willow." The magic didn't make her do anything, and she chose to absorb those dark
volumes in the first place. A lot of people got stuck on the magic addiction storyline and were never able
to see past it. Magic was a metaphore for addiction. When the metaphore became reality, many threw up
their hands and gave up. What most don't see is that addiction became a metaphore for insecurity. The
whole magic addiction storyline was a red herring that ME threw in to make us believe that Willow could
get over her problems by simply not practicing magic. As the finale showed, this was obviously not the
case. Willow does have issues completely seperate from magic, and Xander begins to address those issues
at the end. I believe we will see Willow dealing with them for real next season.
[> [> [> Re: Why Willow and Tara? Because ... --
Dochawk, 20:39:28 06/03/02 Mon
Your right for this story line they had to kill Tara
(though I think even ME has recognized that they made a mistake killing her after having sex). The real
question is why this story line? So Willow had a dark side to her? SO did Xander, so did Giles for that
matter, and they took her dark side out of responsibility as you said already/. Willow deserves the electric
chair for her actions, ME wants us to let her off the hook. Something really wrong with the messages they
are sending lately, which is why I expect them to expect us to accept a woman welcoming back her
attempted rapist.... different story.
[> A Scenario you may have missed -- Q, 14:12:52 06/02/02
Sun
Scenario 4:
Willow doesn't go bad in the first place.
I feel the
entire Willow-goes-evil storyline is the root of all that is wrong here. 1st--it wasn't very original AT ALL.
The writers have a bad habit of making a good character go bad whenever they need a shot in the arm,
and it is starting to be too much. When it happened to Angel, I was OK with it. The very next year it
happened to Faith. It seemed VERY cliched, but since the circumstances were different, and much more
complex, I lived with it. Now they are doing it with Wesley AND Willow. Granted, they keep it
somewhat interesting because each of these situations are so much different, but you can't deny the fact
that in exactly 50% of the BtVS seasons the big bad ended up being a trusted allie of the Scooby Gang.
This is a horribly unoriginal cliche. Because they went down this road, they were painted in the corner
you mentioned, where NO OUTCOME would work all that well. The root of the problem wasn't in
"Seeing Red" or the subsequent episodes, but much earlier when they decided to once again tread down
this well worn path.
Not only was the Willow-goes-evil plot unoriginal, but it was FAR too
predictable. We all have seen it coming since Becomings. I think it would have been a lot more creative
to bring her to the brink-- and then go a different direction than we all were expecting, unfortunately, it
didn't happen, and we are left with an unsatisfying conclusion to the plot line, no matter how it
ended.
[> [> Re: A Scenario you may have missed -- DEN,
14:46:48 06/02/02 Sun
For what it's worth, Q, I fully agree. It took way too much
story-line effort, and way too many plot contrivances, to get a climax that was required to be half-hearted
because other plot imperatives made it impossible either to kill Willow, keep her "dark," or have her
spend the next season in despair.
[> [> You are right, of course... -- Dariel, 19:23:45
06/02/02 Sun
There was nothing sacred about this plotline. Most defenses of ME, in fact,
seem to revolve around the notion that Willow had to go evil at the end of Season 6, and that only
something like Tara's death would serve to launch her on this path.
As you've pointed out,
Willow's abuse of magic could have been handled other ways. It would have been quite plausible, for
example, to have Tara leave her for good over the mind-wipe, with Willow then propelled onto an ever
darker path.
I understand the viewpoint that says one's art shouldn't be impinged by the need
to please everyone. However, if you're going to advance a storyline that will offend some people, then that
storyline needs to be an important one. I'm willing to give ME the benefit of the doubt until next season,
but I sure don't see it yet.
[> [> [> Re: You are right, of course... -- Q, 21:33:04
06/02/02 Sun
Thank you. I meant to be more explicit and say what you did
here:
>There was nothing sacred about this plotline. Most defenses of ME, in fact, seem to
revolve around the notion that Willow had to go evil at the end of Season 6, and that only something like
Tara's death would serve to launch her on this path.<
All of the scenarios above RELY on
Willow going bad, but she didn't NEED to. I didn't care for it, just because it VERY MUCH lacked
originality. I pointed out how unoriginal it was to have a scoobie allie be the season-ending big bad, and
how that has been done in 50% of the seasons. But another major problem was how much it resembled
LAST SEASON. If we remember right, Tara got brainsucked (and since I thought it was permanent, I
equated it with death, only maybe worse), and Willow went all vengeful. They just did the exact same
thing this year (complete with flying knives), but with a dead Tara instead of braindead one. Nothing
sacred in that unoriginal storyline at all, if you ask me.
[> [> [> [> Re: You are right, of course... -- Dochawk,
20:45:18 06/03/02 Mon
An excellent point! You do realize that Joss has been
planning this for 3 years. In an interview after Season 3 he said "I have evil plans for Willow, you won't
believe it". Problem is we did but we didn't.
[> [> Nerd power trip -- cjc36, 01:21:41 06/03/02
Mon
I agree it took too long for Willow to go bad. I don't agree it was a bad choice no
matter what. The warnings were given to her since season 2, by Giles especially.
It's actually
good they didn't take the Angelus track - Willow was pretty much 'herself' when she went bad. No soul-
lessness, no possession - worse sins, IMHO. She herself, with no personality modifiers other than grief,
rage, and addiction, went over the edge.
The one not-so-good thing ME did was switch what
"Wicca" was standing for. First, it was lesbianism. Then, this season, it became addiction. Mixed, to be
sure.
But the nerd head tripping on power, to me, was not cleche (Willow, but also the Trio).
Maybe I'm not that well read, but it worked. And 'love' saving the day and pulling someone from the brink
of her own destruction - that also worked for me, wonderfully, and really could only work as well this far
into the series's run. W/X's friendship goes back a bit for even us viewers. It's as natural as any long-term
friendship and has resonance, which AH and NB played to on the clif at the 'temple.'
[> [> Answers you may have missed. -- Traveler,
19:44:17 06/03/02 Mon
"The writers have a bad habit of making a good character
go bad whenever they need a shot in the arm, and it is starting to be too much. "
Storylines
for the entire year are created before the season begins. The show's ratings had no impact on any of the
examples that you give.
"When it happened to Angel, I was OK with it. The very next year
it happened to Faith. It seemed VERY cliched, but since the circumstances were different, and much more
complex, I lived with it. Now they are doing it with Wesley AND Willow. "
The
circumstances and conclusions to all the events you list were different for each character. Yes, ME is
exploring a common theme (over two networks) from multiple perspectives, but they certainly aren't
repeating the same story over and over again. What about Oz? Did he go evil as a werewolf? What about
Giles, when he became the ripper? What about Xander when he became a hyena-man? ME chooses to
explore the evil that lies in the hearts of all men and women. Personally, I find it interesting. If you don't
like it, watch the carebears.
"Not only was the Willow-goes-evil plot unoriginal, but it was
FAR too predictable. We all have seen it coming since Becomings."
This is called
"foreshadowing." It is an artistic technique used to hint to the viewer what is likely to happen in the
future.
"we are left with an unsatisfying conclusion to the plot line, no matter how it
ended."
Speak for yourself. I thought that the finale was beautifully done.
Okay, this has been bothering me for awhile (guess
what, spoilers LOL) -- The Last Jack, 11:42:13 06/02/02 Sun
Okay, when
Xander goes to confront Willow, he steps in front of the engery blast that Willow is targeting at the effigy,
stopping the spell (or whatever it was). Considering all the magic he has seen Willow do, wasn't he afraid
the blast would kill him or flesh fry him? How did he know his body would simply stop the magic?
[> Re: Okay, this has been bothering me for awhile (guess what,
spoilers LOL) -- Jane's Addiction, 12:14:28 06/02/02 Sun
I don't think he did
know. Xander really can show incredible bravery at times (and incredible stupidity - could be this was a
bit of both). I think there are two schools of thought on whether he even heard Giles' comment that
superpowers weren't enough to stop Willow.
But the idea that he simply went to her
understanding that he might die is what gives the act so much power in my view. It was a pure statement
about the power of unconditional love - the one thing we hadn't seen from Xander before. It did seem to be
a rather sudden jump forward in Xander's character development, but a powerful one all the same. If the
end was coming, he wanted to be with his lifelong best friend when it happened, even if she was one
bringing it. He wanted his last act to be telling his best friend that he loved her. I don't know that he
understood that that could stop her, or resuscitate her humanity. He simply said it because it was true. At
least that's my take on it.
[> [> What Xander really did (still spoilers) -- Vickie,
13:22:56 06/02/02 Sun
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thought this. When I
first watched Grave, I thought Xander told Willow EXACTLY what he was doing.
He thought
the world was going to end and Willow was going to do it. In that situation, he wanted to go out with his
friend, and felt that she owed it to him to kill him first.
I really think he was as surprised as the
rest of us that he managed to stop her.
[> [> [> Re: What Xander really did (still spoilers) --
maddog, 15:28:41 06/02/02 Sun
Is there any other way to interpret that? I'd like to
see evidence to oppose what you said because I've watched the last 20 minutes 5 or 6 times and I just don't
see it any other way.
What's funny about that exchange is not only did Xander tell Willow
exactly what he was going to do, but she stood there and said, "Is this the master plan? You're gonna stop
me by tellin me ya love me?", which is exactly what he did. Funny how we overlook the obvious
sometimes.
[> Re: Okay, this has been bothering me for awhile (guess what,
spoilers LOL) -- rattletrap, 13:06:00 06/02/02 Sun
Okay, look at it this
way:
Option 1: Xander steps in front of Willow's magic blast
Possible upside: stops the
magic, gets to talk to Willow, maybe save the world
Possible downside: get zapped and
killed
Option 2: Xander sits by and watches
Downside: Willow destroys the
world
Upside: Xander lives an extra 1 minute before being killed when Willow destroys the
world
Why not take the chance?
[> [> Re: Xander's Wager (guess what, spoilers LOL) --
mundusmundi, 14:54:33 06/02/02 Sun
I agree with the school of thought that Xander
didn't know he could stop Willow -- that indeed, he didn't expect to. When Willow fails to flambe him, he
looks as surprised as she is. It's the same heroic lunacy he showed in "The Zeppo," the same stubborn,
digging-in-his-heels positive inertia, only with more love and empathy.
[> [> [> what a gorgeous Xander description! --
auroramama, 15:09:31 06/02/02 Sun
>>It's the same heroic lunacy he showed
in "The Zeppo," the same stubborn, digging-in-his-heels positive inertia, only with more love and
empathy.>>
All these archetypes of Earth (anagram of heart) come crowding into my
mind when I think of this. Oh, and the bit in =Good Omens= about the kind of person who's so steadfast
that they can act as a fulcrum -- the stable point that even the most powerful magic needs to move the
world. (Adam's adoptive dad, in that case.) Whenever the BtVS world needs saving, it doesn't just need
superheroes and witches and books of arcana; it generally requires a Xander.
One of the
marvelous things about Xander's characterization is that he *isn't* white-bread, he's full of storms (little
earthquakes?), but he's still that crucial grounding element.
auroramama
[> Re: Okay, this has been bothering me for awhile (guess what,
spoilers LOL) -- maddog, 15:21:19 06/02/02 Sun
Did you listen to his speech?
He thought Willow was about to end it all. He tells her that if she's going to end the world then he would
rather be no other place.
Xander: "So if I'm goin out, it's here. If you wanna kill the world,
well then start with me. I've earned that"
Willow: "You think I won't?"
Xander:
"It doesn't matter...I'll still love you"
Xander wasn't afraid of dying...not this time. He didn't
know what the blast would do...that's what makes him heroic. That's what makes the ending so special.
He put himself on the line to reach out to whatever humanity Willow had left(and for all he knew she had
none).
[> Re: Okay, this has been bothering me for awhile (guess what,
spoilers LOL) -- Darby, 19:55:57 06/02/02 Sun
What wound up being in the
effects wasn't really, to my mind, what was in the shooting script. The script talks about a type of contact
(based on eye contact) between Willow and the effigy that Xander breaks by stepping between them
(twice). I think that they got too enthusiastic with the CGI and made it too blast-like, when it could,
maybe should have looked more like a link or conduit that could be blocked without risking certain death
(as you can tell, I had the same reaction to the scene). Willow sapping the life energy from the Earth to
pass to the effigy, and the spread of death around her, didn't come across either when I saw the episode - I
haven't watched it again yet, so maybe that part was just me.
This brings up a point I'm not
sure has been discussed. Okay, Willow killed two bad guys and went after two who were more-or-less
innocent, and that was less than good. But she also, repeatedly, did things that except for the blessing of
scriptwriting were intended to kill Giles and probably Buffy in the Magic Box, as well as Dawn and
Xander with the ball of fire. She quite actively tried to kill her friends. To me, these acts should weigh
on her most, but like Buffy's pummeling of Spike or, largely, Buffy's trying to kill everyone in the
basement, I'm sadly expecting ME to ignore such ramifications.
It could just as easily turned out this way --
The Last Jack, 19:27:31 06/02/02 Sun
*Xander arrives at the cliff just in time to see
Willow begin the earth's self-destruction. He knows he has one chance to stop her, one chance to reason
with her, to save her from herself. Heroically, he jumps in front of Willow's spell beam...and is burnt to an
unrecognizable crisp*
"What the hell?!" says Willow, pausing long enough to look at the
charred remains of something lying on the ground.
"Huh." she says, and begins to fire up the
effigy again. As the world starts to explode around her, and all life is wiped out, the spirit of Xander
lingers around long enough to witness the earth's demise.
"Damn it," he thinks, "I knew I
should have just hit her over the head with a rock."
(My attempt at humor; hoped you
liked it)
[> ROFL (Well, I liked it...) ;o) -- dubdub, 22:16:15
06/02/02 Sun
[> I shoulda brought the GD anvil -- Vickie, 22:39:42
06/02/02 Sun
[> Despite my love of that scene, I had thought of that, too! --
cjc36, 01:43:38 06/03/02 Mon
What is your favorite season finale? --
Wynn, 19:47:04 06/02/02 Sun
To help pass away the many, many months between
now and the new seasons of BtVS and AtS (which I have just started watching) I thought I would ask
everyone here what his/her favorite season finale is and why. Obviously, here are the
choices:
S1: Prophecy Girl
S2: Becoming 1 & 2
S3: Graduation Day 1 & 2
S4:
Restless
S5: The Gift
S6: Two to Go/Grave
It's a hard choice, but I went with
Restless. IMO, Fury's Grave doesn't hold a candle to any of Whedon's finales. So out of Joss'... I chose
Restless because it was daring. An entire episode devoted to dreams is a huge risk; it could have been a
big imagery salad, with just a bunch of random stuff thrown together, but Joss wrote and directed an
insightful, illuminating finale to an uneven season. I loved the W/T interaction and "Death of a
Salesman" Slayer-style in Willow's dream; the playground scene and Anya & Giles in French in Xander's
dream; the B/G interaction and carnival attraction Spike in Giles' dream; and Primeval Buffy (with the
mud) and the Tara/First Slayer/Buffy scene in Buffy's dream. Plus, it had the Cheese Man.
I
can't choose a second favorite between the rest of JW's finales. I love them all.
I can't wait to
read everyone's responses!
[> Voting for Restless (spoil and spec, of course) -- SpikeMom, 20:10:02 06/02/02 Sun
This espisode is still driving plot points and being revealed. It gave us a lot of insight into the
pyches of our protagonists. I also thought the characters being identified with their Tarot card names and
the roles they played in Primevil was important since it was being repeated. I think it is a bridge between
the first four seasons and the last four(?!)seasons. I want more than that, here's hoping. Besides all that,
Cowboy Riley was just too hysterical and dead on.
[> Re: What is your favorite season finale? -- Q, 21:21:40
06/02/02 Sun
In a way, I think it is unfair to compare "Restless" to the rest. Every other
season finale featured the "Giant-epic-end of year-battle" we are so familiar with. In season 4, Primeval
served as that function. Restless didn't fit as a season finale, and can't be compared to a season premier.
It seemed to exist "outside" of conventional Buffy time. As the events were just a dream, the episode itself
seems to be just an abberation. Where the events of the episode itself were not nearly as important as the
foreshadowing, symbolism, and statements. I am officially taking it out of the running in my vote, but I
did love it. But in a way different than why I usually love Buffy eps. I loved it for it's film making more
than it's story telling. Only "The Body" compares in that respect. So the countdown
begins....
5) Two to go/ Grave
The ONLY reason this is so far down is because of
my SERIOUS misgivings about the "Spike with soul" story line. If they prove this to be a decent story
next year, and NOT just a forced, contrived, plot device to "hook up" Spike and Buffy, and NOT just a re-
hash of the Angel story, and NOT tacky and cheesy, this ep. may move up on my list. It was full of
action, full of darkness, and full of deepness--and I LOVED seeing Giles again. Unfortunately, too much
controversy surrounds it now-- The oft talked about dealing with the lesbian issue in the end, my
misgivings about the last 10 seconds, The unoriginality of having *yet another* scoobie allie be the season
ending big-bad, and the heavy handed metaphors as they "crawled out of the grave". Still great
though.
4) Prophecy Girl
Really, the only reason this one isn't up there is because
the show was SO much lighter back then. It was still so good! And it seemed to foreshadow a darker
future for the gang. (The scene with Willow saying "It wasn't our world anymore--they made it theirs) was
PRICELESS!
3) Graduation Day
The only reason this one is so high on the list is
because of Faith. Really, the eps I ranked 5, 4, and 3 are pretty much a tie in my mind. The "killing" of
Faith, the dream visit by Faith, and the metaphorical sex scene between Buffy and Angel put this one just
a tiny bit higher than the others.
2) The Gift
So amazing! After seeing it I am shocked
that any episode, let alone any season finale could be better. But there was one that was better. I loved
the comparisons between this and Becomings: The "death" of a main character, said character being
refered to as "the key", said characters blood being the only thing able to close the portal that would
destroy the world. But in the end, Becomings gets the Kudo's for originality because it did all of these
things first.
1) Becomings
I doubt it needs much explaining! WOW! So tragic, so
beautiful, and so exciting. The ep that convinced me to NEVER leave my tv on a tuesday night.!
[> [> Re: What is your favorite season finale?(spoiler) --
skpe, 06:30:47 06/03/02 Mon
I mostly agree with Q's rankings and for the reasons
stated, with the possible exceptions of 1 & 2. Both are very close in my mind but it is little things like the
'ST.Krispen's day' speech that put the 'Gift' on top for me.I also agree that the Weadon eps are the best.
He may be a cruel hartless bastard, (someone still stressing over Tara's death) but he's the best writer in
ME and among the best in the industry.
[> [> [> Gotta go with "Restless," but... -- cjl,
07:33:24 06/03/02 Mon
"Becoming" is one of the great episodes of the series, and
when Buffy sent Angel to hell AFTER he was "cured," I think my jaw crashed through the floor. When
(not if, but when) I pick up my Season 2 DVD set, I'll pay closer attention to Part I and Angel's backstory,
because the spinoff pretty much starts right there.
However....
"Restless" goes
beyond a "great episode." Surreal and impressionistic, both erudite and gut-busting-ly funny in spots, the
episode covers thousands of years of the Whedonverse, reflects on the past and hints at the future, all in
the context of investigating the minds of four characters we all know and love dearly. There's nothing
else like it, in the Buffy series or on network TV. An amazing accomplishment.
[> Unfair fight? -- CW, 08:19:29 06/03/02 Mon
There must be people who won't pick Restless, but like some of the folks above, I think it
belongs on a different plane. I like to call Primeval the finale of season 4, and call Restless a mid-series
bonus.
Looked at it that way I'd rank
them
Becoming
Graduation
Primeval
The Gift
Prophecy Girl
2 to
Go/Grave
Since I think Prophecy Girl is a truly superb episode and this season's finales are not
far behind it, it a pretty amazing group.
[> [> I agree... -- Rob, 08:50:06 06/03/02 Mon
If "Restless" is counted as the season finale, yes, it definitely beats all the rest into a bloody
heap...but, in many ways, the story wrap-up typical of a season finale was done in "Primeval," so it was
like a bonus episode at the end of the season. So perhaps we should change the terminology from "season
finale" to "climactic episode," whether that be the season finale or not.
The second-best season
finale, then, and best climactic episode, was "The Gift," IMO. I was tense through that entire episode, and
absolutely fell apart at the end. No show has ever done that to me to the extent "The Gift"
did.
For my whole list, I think I'd go with, if "Restless" is counted as the season
finale:
1) Restless
2) The Gift
3) Becoming
4) Grave
5) Graduation
Day
6) Prophecy Girl
If "Primeval" is counted as the season finale, the list would
be:
1) The Gift
2) Becoming
3) Grave
4) Primeval
5) Graduation
Day
6) Prophecy Girl
Rob
[> [> Agree also -- matching mole, 10:15:18 06/03/02
Mon
Restless should be disqualified on two grounds - it is only tangentially related to the
arc of season 4 and it is so different in structure and content from the other finales.
In general
the finales have tended not be my favourite episodes but here is my order.
Becoming I and II -
Surprising, shocking, heartbreaking, and hilarious.
Primeval - While the Initiative arc wasn't my
favourite I did think that this was a good wrap up.
Prophecy Girl - A strong early
effort.
Two to Go/Grave - Cathartic, exciting, and personal if, IMHO, a bit of a
stretch.
Graduation and The Gift (tie) - This is just my 'less is more' bias coming out. I like
my apocalypses smaller in scale.
[> [> If Restless is disqualified, then 2, 5, 1, 3, 4, 6 --
Sophist, 10:53:22 06/03/02 Mon
[> [> Re: Unfair fight? -- rattletrap, 13:45:11 06/03/02
Mon
I tend to agree, sticking "Restless" in the list is like an orange in a box of apples, it
just doesn't quite fit.
1. TTG/Grave -- A rare finale that did everything I expected of it and
more. I thought it beautifully resolved most of the major stories of the season and left plenty of room for
future plot development.
2. Graduation Day -- I'm a huge fan of epic battles, and this one had
it in spades. A great catharctic end to a great season.
3. The Gift -- See above re: epic battles.
The troll hammer was a bit of a stretch, and it was on the manipulative side, but I enjoyed it so thoroughly
that I can forgive all of that.
4. Becoming -- I respect this episode as technically well done,
and I enjoyed it very much, but the style of writing is a bit like a jujitsu choke-hold ("Does this hurt? . . .
How 'bout now? . . . Say uncle . . . ") and I find it a little overpowering.
5. Prophecy Girl -- A
great episode, but something has to be toward the bottom of the list and this one just doesn't quite measure
up to the others because of the show's lighter tone in the old days, plus it was only an hour
long.
6. Primieval -- A solid, very well done episode, but it capped the story that was my least
favorite part of S4, a season that I rather liked otherwise.
[> [> [> I'd say -- Rufus, 01:53:37 06/04/02 Tue
The Gift
Two to Go and Grave
Restless
Graduation
Day
Becoming
Prophecy Girl
And it's a close race between them
all.
[> My Favorites -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:28:21 06/03/02
Mon
I agree Restless shouldn't count, but, if it did, it would be at the bottom of my list
(waits for gasping to die down).
6: Two to Go/Grave (Frankly, Willow going evil was just a
bit too fast, and the Apocalypse seems tacked on, plus, only one person died).
5: Becoming I/II
(Maybe it's because I saw it on reruns, so I already knew Angel would die, as well as how and why. Also,
the final fight seemed pretty small for the end to an epic storyline. Spike was great as always,
though.
4: Yoko Factor/Primevil (An action spectactular, only brought down by Uber-Buffy
(seemed kind of deux ex machine) and the demons as animals thing, which I've never
liked).
3: Prophecy Girl (it had an Apocalypse, an army of vampires, and the Master's battle
with Buffy. One flaw: the Hellmouth beast looked sooooooooooo fake!)
2: Graduation Day
I/II (the epic battle was truly that, a battle. The students gaining up on the Mayor demon was
spectacular. It made my scalp tingle!)
1: The Gift (along with Spiral and Weight of the
World, which may as well be parts of it) (Buffy beats her biggest Bad ever, with the aid of all her friends.
Enemies and allies are prevelent. Buffy giving up herself, Giles murdering Ben, Spike protecting Dawn,
and everything made this the greatest Season Finale ever).
Disagree? Go right ahead!
[> Restless...with Becoming Part I & II a close second (Spoilers for
Season 6) -- shadowkat, 18:14:52 06/03/02 Mon
For sheer artistry and layered
writing - Restless. Best dream episode I've seen on TV or the movies, Joss outdid David Lynch IMHO on
this one. Also it gave us insite into every character, furthered their arcs, and raised some interesting
questions.
For suspense and surprises? Becoming Part I & II are the best. They also further all
the characters. Have a death. Put all characters in perile. And have the most unlikely hero/badguy switch
ever. Finally the Willow as BB and the Spike moving towards good arc started here!
For best
closure, comedy and quips? Graduation Day PArt I & II - this one had wacky dreams, forshadowing,
suspense, and comedy. Also probably the second best villain, next to Angelus.
After that? Well
Grave/The Gift sort of tie. But I liked Two to Go better than Grave. Though Grave had a cool twist.
[> [> 1.) Becoming and 2.) Graduation Day -- MayaPapaya9,
20:52:18 06/03/02 Mon
I couldn't rate all the others. It's entirely possible that I'm
biased because I'm currently in high school and my favorite seasons are the ones that deal with school.
Becoming is my favorite because it was the first time a TV show made me cry. And I can identify with
that episode more than anything, especially the dialogue between Angel and Buffy towards the end, which
is my all-time favorite scene of Buffy. I've talked about it here before, it goes something like, "No
weapons, no friends, no hope? Take all that away and what's left?" And Buffy closes her eyes like she's
preparing to die, and then BAM she catches his sword in her hands and says, "Me," and then proceeds to
kick his ass. I was cheering out loud. It reminds me that even though it's great to have friends and family
the only person you can really rely on is yourself, and that ends up being more than
enough.
And as for Graduation Day, I just loved how neatly it brought the Buffy story full
circle. The series could have ended there (but I'm glad it didn't!) and the way the students rallied together
to defeat the Mayor sent shivers down my spine. It was great. And of course, Buffy couldn't just leave
Sunnydale High School without blowing it up! Haha all seniors feel the need to leave their mark upon
their high school.
-Maya
[> [> I Refuse to Disqualify Restless on any Grounds (Spoilers for
S 1- 6) -- Jane's Addiction, 21:05:31 06/03/02 Mon
Exactly because it
was so very different from the other finales (kudos to JW for breaking from convention), and
because I just can't put it on the top of enough lists, I'd still have to go with Restless as the best finale ever
-rules be damned. Besides, how much of "Big-Things-And-Best-Friends-Go-Boom (BTABFGB? How do
you even pronounce that?) can a person stand? ME is great at BTABFGB, but they're great at more
innovative ep's as well, and I'd personally like to encourage that behavior.
For character
insights and foreshadowing (each character attacked through their strengths), as well as nuance (What
was up with all the whispering voices in Willow's head? Oh. Ooh. Uh-Oh.), not to mention the incredible
visual extravaganza (the epic Xander steadicam shot, ect.), it is truly in a class by itself.
Sorry.
Just had to get that out.
But, as for the classic BTABFGB definition of a finale ('cause who
doesn't appreciate the occasional big thing or best friend going boom?), here's my list:
1. The
Gift -- Yes, it was Epic, but then again it was Epic. What didn't it have? Glory - Only
the scariest, funniest Hellgod ever. Dawn - Before she became latch"key" kid, back when her character
was actually moving the plot and character development along. Giles - Ooh, he killed a human in cold
blood. They'll be consequences. Unless there won't. Buffy - Dead? Again? Like the Kenneth Branagh
movie? Not exactly. But we cried anyway, gosh darnit.
2. TTG/Grave -- Still having some
questions about what they're doing with Willow and Spike's character development. But I found this finale
powerful and interesting just the same, and I liked the ep's resolution. Also, AH's performance alone was
enough to push the ep pretty close to the top.
3. Becoming -- Big Love. Big Loss. Big Pain.
And kinda sets out a central existentialist message for the series: "... The big moments are gonna come,
can't help that. It's what you do afterwards that counts. That's when you find out who you are..." When I
catch the reruns now, a lot of the earlier season episodes can seem to lack resonance, given the festival of
pain in the past couple of seasons. But this one still gives me chills. Funny.
4. Graduation Day
-- An Epic battle with a great dream scene to boot. Plus Mayor Wilkins - Devoted civic leader,
doting father figure, Big Demon Snake Guy. ("We don't knock during dark rituals?") I thought the episode
had great pacing and it certainly ended with a Big Thing Going Boom. ("Fire Bad, Tree Pretty ...") This
really should be ranked higher than it is, but there is just such a very lot of competition.
5.
Primieval -- As Big Bads go, Adam was pretty lame(Maggie was much scarier IMO), but I did love seeing
the Scoobies combine their essences. Not in a weird way ...
Aside from the Adam thing, I thought
the Initiative story arc was actually kind of interesting.
6. Prophecy Girl - Again, seems like
this should be ranked higher. But all the characters have just come so far since season 1. Still, the whole
"I'm 16 years old. I don't wanna die" thing? Well, Clem sure woulda cried.
[> [> [> Agree. Except I'd choose Becoming as my Second
Favorite Finale -- Exegy, 14:10:41 06/04/02 Tue
[> [> [> I agree with you about Restless. -- Wynn,
14:47:09 06/04/02 Tue
Restless is different, but it shouldn't be exculded because it's
not the typical... what was that Jane's Addiction? BTABFGB. :)
I would probably move Two
to Go/Grave down to last place. I loved DarkWillow, especially DW v. Giles, and I loved the relatively
positive ending. But I can't put it above any of JW's finales.
Classic Movie of the Week - May 31st 2002 ( Yeah, it's
late, I know, sorry! ) -- OnM, 20:50:48 06/02/02 Sun
*******
The screenplay (...) resembles, in superficial ways, the battle in David
Mamet's Oleanna. Both films are about how the same events can be interpreted differently through
male and female eyes. But Mamet is angry and has a point of view-- two points of view, really-- while
(this screenwriter's) subject is points of view. And sneaking along underneath the argument about
what happened, on that long ago night, is the question of who has the right to make use of it
now.
In a lesser film, the conflict would be between (...) two boys fighting over the same girl,
as she looks dutifully back and forth like a spectator at a tennis match. But (here) she is more than a
match for them, and besides, this is a struggle of ethics, not gender. No one is clearly right or wrong. The
same information, viewed through different prisms, shifts righteousness from one character to
another.
............ Roger Ebert
*******
When you're not happy in your
own life, it's funny how you look into your past and see (...) where you took a wrong road, where things
went wrong. All you can do is look back; it takes a lot to just move on, and just say OK, that was me then.
You're always trying to rework the past, put it in some a new context, just to try to heal
yourself.
............ Richard Linklater
*******
I haven't been out to see a
stage play in a least a couple of years, and before that it goes back at least several decades until the time
that I was working in the food service at a local college. That particular school happened to have an
extremely fine drama department, and they typicallty put on 4 to 6 fairly serious productions per year, plus
several minor ones. I checked out about 2 to 3 per year on average, for the three years I spent in the
college's employ. Not surprisingly, I was also a fairly regular attendee at the school's film series, which
ran weekly in one of the larger lecture halls, and had a paltry $1.25 admision fee for students and $1.50
for employees. The films were usually 'second runs', often on 16mm prints, released at about the point in
time that we would expect to see a video nowadays, or of course 'classics' from any number of previous
decades. (There were no 'home' videos then, this was like 1973-ish and Beta cassettes only existed as a
3/4" professional tape format. VHS and laserdisc were still 4 and 7 years in the future respectively, DVD
nearly 25.)
The two media of film and stage are very different, although the desired goals
entertainment-wise are very similar. Both involve the use of writers, directors, actors and production
people, and both can be either mindless fluff or hard core thought-pieces or any mixture thereof. While I
can enjoy either play or film, I confess that I lean towards film, although that may simply be the case
because I have had a long term hobby interest in photography, and it's always another layer for me to
appreciate when I see any reasonably well crafted movie. In many cases, people who have seen both a
stage play and a movie that was subsequently made from it generally express a preference for the play,
often citing as reason the 'immediacy' of the stage, which I can certainly appreciate. Also, stage acting
demands that you make very few errors, there are no retakes after rehersal is over and the curtain is up--
only the very creme de la creme of the acting profession gets to have a long career on the
stage.
On the other hand, movies can do things that are difficult or even impossible to achieve
in a live production, and this week's Classic Movie is a good example of that. The director, Richard
Linklater, even considered making this 'one-act' production a 'cinema verite' type of work, all one long
take, but eventually decided against doing so, because he wanted to achieve some goals that could not be
done 'live', and using the 'traditional' language of cinema seemed the best way to do
so.
Tape may employ the 'traditions' of movie-making, but it still cheerfully
and inventively bends and twists them around a bit. Linklater chose to shoot on high-resolution videotape
with two largely mobile and/or hand-held cameras, one by his primary cinematographer and the other by
himself. The actual production schedule was very quick, just a matter of weeks, and the cost was only a
few hundred thousand dollars, a mere pittance even by conventional 'indie' standards. Like in the play,
only three actors were used, and all of the action concerns their largely verbal and body-language
interaction. That being said, Tape is very clearly a 'film', not just a film of a play.
The
movie's opening scene presents us with a seedy-looking fellow named Vince (Ethan Hawke), who is alone
in a semi-shabby-looking motel room somewhere in Lansing, Michigan. It is fairly clear that he isn't just
there while 'passing through town', but that he is nervously setting up to do... something or other. He
seems to be in a funk of scarcely contained hyperactivity-- he gulps down beers, moves the furniture just
so, even takes off his pants (he's wearing boxers underneath) and somehow lets us know subconsciously
that this is all part and parcel of whatever he has planned to do. The questions thus raised begin to beget
an answer when there is a knock at the door, and a man named John (Robert Sean Leonard) enters. We
soon find out they went to high school together about ten ago.
John is a filmmaker, not yet a
very famous one it seems, who is in town to show his latest work at a local film festival, and while he
seems initially glad to see his 'old friend', there is also obvious tension lurking in the wings, and for good
reason, as it turns out. It appears that there is an unresolved issue regarding an old mutual girlfriend (Uma
Thurman), who doesn't actually show up in person until the film is nearing the
one-hour mark.
This movie substantially rewards repeated viewings, and depending on your willingness to
accept very little action apart from the cleverly and realistically written verbal sparring that takes place for
the initial half-hour or so, may take a while to draw you in. Linklater scrupulously avoids the standard
cinematic cliche of 'explaining everything all at once', and lets the story evolve pretty much in 'real time'.
Please don't begin watching Tape if you are feeling tired or bored, and do stick with it a little
while-- it will get your attention as you start to latch on to the dynamic between the
characters.
Tape brings up a lot of excellent points to ponder that we have seen
throughout BtVS season six--the nature of inappropriate actions, the rationales for same, and the
acceptance of or abdication of guilt for either participating in or intitiating said actions. At the end of the
movie, there may seem to be a resolution of sorts, but it only seems so. There are no simple answers to
some issues, and rather than try to pretend that there are, Tape leaves us with the idea that we can
accept the past for what is is, and maybe move beyond our prior bad choices, but that they will always
haunt us to some degree.
Life isn't bliss, life is just this, it's living.
E.
Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technical
verite:
Tape is available on DVD, which was the format of the review copy. The film
was released in 2001 and running time is 1 hour and 24 minutes. The original theatrical aspect ratio was
1.85:1 which was preserved on the DVD edition. The 'film' itself was shot on high resolution video and
transfered to 35mm for theatrical release. The soundtrack format is standard Dolby
Surround.
The screenplay was by Stephen Belber, which was based on his play. Videography
was by Maryse Alberti and Richard Linklater, with editing by Sandra Adair.
Cast
overview:
Ethan Hawke .... Vincent
Robert Sean Leonard .... John
Uma
Thurman .... Amy
*******
The Question of the Week:
As
mentioned in the beginning of this week's review, stage plays have been a favorite source of inspiration for
many filmmakers over the decades. What is your favorite film based on a play, and why did you
like it? Assuming that you have also been fortunate enough to have seen the preceding stage production,
was the film version better than the play, about the same overall quality but 'different', or good but not as
good as the original production?
Post 'em etc. et al, and see you next week, when I hope to
present a recommendation for an interesting film based on an equally interesting novel.
Take
care!
*******
[> Re: QotW - Amadeus - spoilers if you
haven't seen the play or the movie -- Dead Soul, 23:49:58 06/02/02 Sun
I saw
Amadeus on Broadway in the early 80's with Frank Langella as Salieri. I'd gone to see the play because
I'd liked Langella so well in Badham's (?) Dacula, even though a friend said that there was nothing sexy
about Salieri (I do disagree - the scene where he's seducing Constanza is pretty mmm).
Langella appeal aside, I did prefer the film version, although it's been so long since I've seen
either that I can't verbalize why. I think it had a lot to do with the lushness of, rats can't think of the
director's name, the film. Not to mention the superiority of the music production - Mozart's Requiem still
gives me shivers and makes me think of the cold rain in the paupers' cemetary as Mozart was buried.
Gotta see it again soon.
Dead (and have always been into things vampiric) Soul
[> [> Re: QotW - Amadeus - spoilers if you haven't seen the play
or the movie -- Cactus Watcher, 06:51:46 06/03/02 Mon
Of course the play you
saw was in turn based on the Russian Alexander Pushkin's melodramatic one-act-play/poem Mozart and
Salieri. The jealousy in the play had a lot more to do with what was going on in Pushkin's life than what
really happened in Mozart's. For those who don't know Pushkin was the victim of all kinds of intrigue at
the Russian court. He was exiled from the capital and eventually killed in a duel with an officer who had
been flirting with his wife all too publically. Puskin had gotten himself into trouble by being too free with
what he wrote about the Tsar and the church. It is suspected that the Czar instigated the affair that led to
Pushkin's death.
[> [> Speaking of which, a new director's cut of
"Amadeus" is due out on DVD soon...! -- Rob, 11:33:20 06/03/02 Mon
[> [> Re: QotW - Amadeus - spoilers if you haven't seen the play
or the movie -- Exegy, 11:37:50 06/03/02 Mon
Milos Forman helmed the film
version of Amadeus. He won an Academy Award for his efforts (a deserved one, I think).
I've
never seen a theater version of Amadeus, but I agree that the movie is pretty fantastic. F. Murray Abraham
and Thomas Hulce give great performances as Salieri and Mozart. Yes, the whole jealousy bit is an
example of artistic license, but it's artistic license that does wonders for the story. Salieri curses the god
that gave this absolute boor the natural talent that he has worked his whole life for (and never achieved).
He concentrates all his efforts on destroying God's beautiful creation, and he ends up in an insane asylum
as a result. The only credit Salieri has to his name is that he is the King of Mediocrity, representative of
all those poor schmoes who could never rise above their lack of natural talent (and who fell into a dark pit
of jealousy in frustration).
It's a really tragic story, because Salieri ends up destroying himself
in his efforts to destroy Mozart. He turns himself against his God and everything good in his life so that
he can destroy that which is better than him (like trying to level the playing field so that the King of
Mediocrity reigns). It's a fruitless pursuit that degrades Salieri's character and pulls apart his
sanity.
I'm a fan of these tragic scenarios, and so I love Amadeus. It's been too long since I've
seen the movie; I only remember a few details along with the basic storyline. I've gotta see this film again
(preferably the DVD with all the goodies)!
And I'd also love to see the play.
[> Inherit the Wind -- Cactus Watcher, 07:13:46 06/03/02
Mon
The version with Fredrick March, Spencer Tracy and Gene Kelly has so many fine
performances it would be a miracle if a stage performance could bring together that kind of talent. The
more recent version with George C. Scott and Jack Lemmon was more 'movie-like', and while good, a lot
less intense. Fredrick March conveyed a man much more concerned with how the world was heading,
and how his life would be perceived. George C. Scott was perhaps more believable, but the message of a
good man led astray by his beliefs was a lot weaker. Bo Bridges was pushed to the background as the 'H.
L. Mencken' character, where as Gene Kelly really gave the balance that was supposed to be in the
play.
I am an ignorant fool, ask me how... --
Ronia, 21:26:58 06/02/02 Sun
I had a disturbing situation arise in the chatroom
earlier tonight. I thought I was having a friendly OT discussion with someone I've chatted with a few
times before, and suddenly things went very badly wrong.
So if you are reading this, I'll
address you first. I was not aware that I had said or done anything to offend you personally, and if I did I
apologize from the bottom of my heart. I certainly didn't intend to offend you, and wasn't even aware that
I had until things got ugly.
For the rest of you wonderring what ever can have happenned,
I'll spell it out for you. I am a Christian, and therefore I am a creationist. I accept that all theories have
equal value from a disinterested perspective. I happen to believe in one of them. And that's it. No
fireworks. No argument against evolution. Just my opinion. So imagine my suprise when I was
summarily dismissed from this individuals presence. And called names. And sworn at. And told never
to speak to them again. You know the saddest part, I actually waited for several minutes for them to say
they were kidding. They weren't. I couldn't have been more suprised if they had knocked on my front
door and slapped me in the face. I don't think that it could have hurt my feelings any more either. Did
they forget that there is a person on the other side of this screen? Or do they know and just invalidate my
feelings because they disagree with me on one issue? Or is this one issue that will make me an
unwelcome participant at this board on the whole and I should just leave? I hope that this is not the case,
as I have enjoyed many discussions and posts at this board. In fact it has become my favorite place to
visit. True, there are people whose beliefs are in conflict with mine, but how much does that matter? I
can disagree with someone about a subject without attacking them personally, and I can also agree to
cease discussion that becomes cyclical in nature, with no resolve in sight. In general, I feel this is the best
idea, so things don't get flamey. However, if my beliefs are just causing so much conflict (no matter how
carefully I express them) that people are no longer enjoying the board, then the best thing is for me to
leave and socialize only with those who agree with me. Creating more of the us and them disturbs me
so.
Please respond with your thoughts as I am making a decision based on your
feelings.....thanks, Ronia
[> Re: I am an ignorant fool, ask me how... -- Lyonors,
21:56:54 06/02/02 Sun
Ronia--I am truely sorry that you had such a disagreeable
situation arise. I personally do not want you to go. You (as like everyone else) add a special something to
the discussions that arise on this board. I hope that one incident like that does not chase you
away!
btw...I don't even practice the same religion as you, and yet I still consider your opinion
valid. :o) Please stay!
Ly
[> This board has nothing to do with that subject -- Maroon
Lagoon, 22:17:04 06/02/02 Sun
[Aside: if anybody wants to yell at anyone, let's start
with the moronic cocksucking pieces of crap that write software that crashes the whole computer when I'm
right in the middle of a post. Grrr! Arrrgh!]
Now, I haven't noticed any particular
sentiment for or against Christianity. Without using the search page, I don't even remember the last time
it was mentioned.
Creation/evolution is a "discussion that becomes cyclical in nature, with no
resolve in sight." So if it doesn't have anything specifically to do with the Buffyverse, why even bring it
up? I don't mind occasional OT discussions, but there are plenty of other boards devoted to that one
(infidels.org, talkorigins.org, beliefnet.com, etc.).
"Here's an analysis of the Calvinistic
sybolism in Doublemeat Palace" is an appropriate subject for this board. "Hey, by the way, I'm a
creationist" isn't. I'm not telling you what you're allowed to say, just what does that have to do with
anything? If you can relate Christianity to the Buffyverse, feel free to talk about it 'til you're blue in the
face. Anyone who hates hearing about it can go to another thread.
"If my beliefs are just
causing so much conflict that people are no longer enjoying the board."
Well, I've never heard of you
before, I haven't noticed any conflict, and I enjoy the board just fine. One person yelling at you in a chat is
no reason to leave. So if I were you, I'd stay. The vast majority of the threads here have nothing to do with
religion anyway.
And if I can correct one factual error: "Therefore, I am a creationist"
doesn't follow, since there are plenty of theistic evolutionists around (e.g., the Pope).
Sincerely,
Maroon Lagoon.
[> [> Re: This board has nothing to do with that subject --
Ronia, 23:26:28 06/02/02 Sun
Thank you for responding to my post. I agree that this
is OT in a way that questionably does not belong on this board. However, I have recently seen enough OT
threads that I hoped no one would mind too much. I really hope that my post didn't come off as sounding
like "Hey, by the way, I'm a creationist", because that was not the intent. The discussion in the chatroom
was also not creationism vs evolutionism. I am aware that there are debate rooms for those issues and I
avoid them like the plague. I was attempting to address my concern that I was verbally attacked because
of something that I believe to be true, that was mentioned in an offhand way. People often preface what
they say with their beliefs, especially in the chatroom. For example..since I am a pagan, here's my take on
the matter. I don't find that offensive. People have reasons for the opinions that they have and ought to
be able to express them. If for example, someone had undergone the same scenario for saying that they
are a homosexual, our modems would shake with the cries of collective outrage whether they were
plugged in or not. There would be days and days of discussion about it. Not one person would say that it
doesn't belong on this board. I agree that religion is a minor part of discussion on this board, that's why I
come here. However as most posters beliefs directly conflict with mine I think asking whether this is
going to be a problem is justified.
As for your correction..one of us is mistaken on A) our
definition of Christians or B) the meaning of creationism. The first sentance in the bible is " In the
beginning God created the heaven and the earth" that leaves very little to the imagination. I was not
aware that the pope had other ideas, but I must say you have sparked my curiosity.
[> [> [> Heh, most Episcopalians, for instance... -- The
Second Evil, 23:50:24 06/02/02 Sun
...consider the bible to be a metaphor.
The Pope, actually is a pretty good example, better than most, since Catholicism itself is (and has been,
for a long time) pretty firm that the canonical texts of Christianity are not to be taken literally. I grew up
around Episcopalians, so I always knew they had a screw loose, but honestly, I was quite surprised that
Catholics are equally careful about the whole American trend towards literalism. (No offense intended if
my word choice isn't the best - I've just come off four hours of no-good coding for my thesis, and I'm
burnt!) After several years of living in New England (USA), surrounded by Catholics of Irish and Italian
descent, I was stunned to find out that my general assumption that "Catholics consider the Bible word-for-
word true, don't they?" to pretty much be, well, wrong. Okay, so there's gonna be exceptions, but
discussions with a number of priests (and several nuns!) convinced me that at least the majority of
Catholics are more likely to tell you that certain chunks of the Bible (if not all of it) - like Genesis, the
Fables, and probably even Revelations - are metaphors, not literal maps. Ah, but to each their own, eh?
The whole thing, to me, always seemed an important discussion until I accidentally tripped
into a serious debate between four Hindu friends about which version of a story is correct... and then I
found out there are seventeen versions. Yikes. Three thousand years, you're gonna get some variation -
and I thought the religions of the Book had it bad - the Hindus are religions of the whole Encyclopedia
Brittanica by comparison! ;-) Now I know to keep my trap shut about any personal opinions about true,
false, good, bad, etc - especially when it can be such an emotional topic for some.
Okay, so
excepting some attempts at helpfulness here and there (which usually backfire until Rufus or OnM comes
along and restates my point but in a more diplomatic or sensitive way) ... I do keep my trap shut. Really! ;-
D
[> [> [> DNFTT! -- Maroon Lagoon, 01:00:57
06/03/02 Mon
"Thank you for responding to my post."
Any time.
"I have
recently seen enough OT threads that I hoped no one would mind too much."
Doesn't bother
me.
"I really hope that my post didn't come off as sounding like 'Hey, by the way, I'm a
creationist.'"
If you're referring to a post, I didn't read it. If you mean the chatroom, I wasn't there. I
don't know how you sounded.
"I was attempting to address my concern that I was verbally
attacked because of something that I believe to be true, that was mentioned in an offhand way."
Of
course it's not fun to be attacked, but I wouldn't put too much importance on one freak occurence that is
not at all representative of the majority of the posters here. If someone attacks you for an offhand remark,
doesn't that prove that they're the one with the problem? Thinking practically, there's not really anything
you can do to change their minds, so why even deal with them? As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls.
Ignore the tiny handful of meanies and talk to the hundreds of nicies.
"If for example,
someone had undergone the same scenario for saying that they are a homosexual, our modems would
shake with the cries of collective outrage whether they were plugged in or not. Not one person would say
that it doesn't belong on this board."
I seriously doubt that would ever happen here. Even if it did, it
would be from one lone weirdo and wouldn't be the consensus of the board. My advice would be "ignore
the jerk and get on with your life." I haven't used the chatroom, but any decent chat software will list all
the people present and will allow you to choose to selectively ignore anyone you want to. (If it doesn't have
that feature, maybe you should talk to Masq or whatever techie is in charge of it.)
"However as
most posters beliefs directly conflict with mine I think asking whether this is going to be a problem is
justified."
Ok, it's justified, and the answer is no. As long as we're talking about Spike's chip, I
couldn't care less if you worship purple yaks from a UFO and neither could 99% of the posters. And if
we're talking about the Hindu theodicy of Beer Bad, the number of people who still don't care about your
religion might drop to, say, 60-70%, and most of the rest will be polite about it. And finally, if we're
talking about "Doesn't Buffy have nice boobs?" and you say, "oh, by the way, I worship UFO yaks," I, for
one, would respond, "Yawn. So what?" Maybe I've just been lucky, but I've really found most people here
to be polite. And when you see the few who aren't, just roll with it. (And I enjoyed vhD's post regarding
the author of a certain FAQ, but hey, that's just me.)
This is all a long-winded way of saying,
grow a thicker skin. Of course, personal attacks are not pleasant or justified, but in unmoderated parts of
the net, they will remain a (rare and atypical, at least here) fact of life. Your best bet is DNFTT! A lot of
people are thinking right now, "boy, that Maroon Lagoon is one stupid mofo." Yep, and it's pretty easy to
skip over anything with my signature on it.
In responding to the rest of this, I think I'm
failing to heed my own advice re:staying on topic. Oh, well.
"One of us is mistaken on A) our
definition of Christians or B) the meaning of creationism."
I'm not a Christian, so I might as well go
with the dictionary definition: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. This covers a
wide range of denominations and beliefs and any two Christians don't necessarily agree on any given
theological point. Whether you consider someone else a "true/real Christian" is up to you.
"The
first sentence in the bible ... leaves very little to the imagination."
Then you are a biblical literalist.
Many who consider themselves Christians are not.
"I was not aware that the pope had other
ideas, but I must say you have sparked my curiosity."
As far as I know, the Pope's position is that
God inserts a non-corporeal soul into human bodies and it doesn't matter if the bodies evolved because
God is responsible for the soul part of us (self-awareness, conscience, aesthetics, etc.).
This is
too much non-Buffy-related talk, so use Google if you wish to investigate
further.
Sincerely,
Maroon Lagoon
[> Don't be silly (please stay) -- Vickie, 22:27:07 06/02/02
Sun
Sorry you had a bad experience. Please stick around. I don't share your spiritual
beliefs, but another functioning brain is always welcome.
BTW, you really need to think about
the "I am a Christian, therefore a creationist." That may be a sentence to you, but to many it is an
unfounded leap. Many Christians (by their definition) are NOT Creationists. Like the Pope.
I
like your previous stands on personal responsibility. I think we all need more of it. Stick around!
[> Flame happens. But it doesn't happen very often here, so do
stay. -- OnM, 22:54:28 06/02/02 Sun
It is very disheartening to have someone
attack you personally, but the 'impersonal' nature of the net makes it easy to do, and some will always
exploit that. It may be a once and done occasion, but if you are abused in future, please complain, don't
just vanish.
While I would say that this board has a general lean in the pagan/agnostic/atheist
direction, we have posters of all religious persuasions here, many of whom are held in very high regard.
So, you are absolutely welcome here. I've certainly enjoyed your contributions, and I am sure
others have too.
[> Don't go over a bad chat experience. -- Rufus, 23:10:12
06/02/02 Sun
One person in a chat doesn't speak for the whole of the membership.
[> [> I agree with Rufus & OnM - stay, b/c one person doesn't
speak for all of us. -- The Second Evil, 23:40:12 06/02/02 Sun
[> [> Agree - please stay -- shadowkat, 17:57:46
06/03/02 Mon
Personally I stay out chat rooms because well they scare me, being new to
this whole posting business and my computer has a tendency to disconnect me in the middle of posts...;-
)
That said...I've had my feelings hurt on the boards before and almost flew...but realized that
they weren't meant personally, just someone disagreeing with my take. Some of us tend to be a little harsh
with tone or insensitive to the tone of words when writing - I'm hypersensitive to it partly due to my job
where I have to be very careful in the use of words.
I'd hate for you to go...you write such
wonderful responses to my posts. ;-)
[> I think you tipped over someone's sacred cow. -- Traveler,
03:06:54 06/03/02 Mon
Some people just can't handle an opposing point of view.
That's their problem, not yours. Please stay; 99% of the people on this board would never flame you that
way, and certainly we don't take offense at your religious beliefs.
[> Re: Has nothing to do with you, or sacred cows, or opposing
views... -- mundusmundi, 04:32:44 06/03/02 Mon
It only has to do with one
board/chatroom jerk, a person you haven't named out of courtesy but whom I think it's safe to say we can
all guess, a person whose passive/aggressive tendencies are well familiar around here, a person who was
probably drunk and doesn't even remember the conversation; try not to let one cretin get to you too much.
Some folks never evolve.
[> [> Re: Has nothing to do with you, or sacred cows, or opposing
views... -- O'Cailleagh, 05:07:09 06/03/02 Mon
Hey Ronia, I'm sorry that you
had such an unpleasant experience, as MM said, some people never evolve! By now, you've probably
decided to stay already, but I just wanted to tell you not to go aswell. I have always found chat with you to
be interesting and fun, and always found you to be tolerant (probably the wrong word but you know what I
mean) of my beliefs (which, of course, are Pagan). Of course, there was one person in chat who wasn't,
probably the same person judging by some of the above posts, so I developed the 'avoid-him-or-her-like-
the-plague' plan which works quite well....
So, to reiterate, STAY!!! Don't let one bad experience put
you off.
[> [> [> And btw, I shouldn't worry too much about being OT
in chat...no-one else does! -- O'Cailleagh, 05:09:12 06/03/02 Mon
[> [> Re: Has nothing to do with you, or sacred cows, or opposing
views... -- LittleBit, 06:41:51 06/03/02 Mon
Ronia, I am so sorry this happened.
As mm says the person in question (and I'm guessing the same one he is) has done this type of thing
before, I've been the target of what I considered uncalled for and offensive responses (and as a result
choose not to stay in chat when that is the only other person there, usually don't spend too much time
engaging in conversation; sometimes there's a reason if someone says no one will talk to me).
I also want to point out (for others, because I know you know this) topics that find their way to
the chat room, and topics that are appropriate for the board are not always the same thing. The board
posts are generally fairly on topic, posters think about what they say before they post it, and think about
their responses.
In chat, there is a conversation happening, sometimes several. On quieter
nights, there may be more information of a personal nature exchanged, because we're all interested to
know more about the ones we're talking to. There's nothing wrong with what you said about yourself. If
what you shared is 'intolerable' to the other person, that is not your issue.
If I
understand your question correctly, you are asking whether or not your belief in creationism 'disqualifies'
for for this board. Absolutely not. I always read your posts, because your opinions are interesting,
intriguing and thought-provoking. If that's not the purpose of posting on this board, then I've missed it
entirely.
Please stay. And I hope to see you in chat, maybe tonight?
[> We're not all like that. Stick around and get to know us. --
LadyStarlight, 06:19:57 06/03/02 Mon
[> Please stay -- Cactus Watcher, 07:39:18 06/03/02
Mon
Unfortunately, religion, like politics, is one of those topics that brings out the worst
in some people. It seems like at least a third of the really serious fights we have here are over religion.
It's sad that religion isn't a safe topic on a board devoted to philosophy. Most of us respect your beliefs,
but unfortunately in an open forum like this, there are people who will not. Generally, things go smoothly
here as long as discussions of religions here stay on the level of abstractions, and how does this or that
religion approach certain questions. As soon as someone says 'I believe' this or that, or starts speaking
about religion based on their actual convictions someone with no manners is liable to jump in and start
trouble.
[> I have a general board question... -- Darby, 07:42:44
06/03/02 Mon
In a case like this, where someone is explaining how another made them
feel and gives their opinion that a response was unacceptable, is it appropriate to name the
participant involved? I know that I'd like to know who these incidents involve (forewarned and such), but
maybe a general rule of anonymity would work better.
What do people think?
[> [> I think naming the person would only make matters
worse. -- CW, 08:01:36 06/03/02 Mon
From the discussion above it looks like
most of us suspect the same person anyway. That person has enough problems without being ganged up
on. Whoever it was, naming them is just an invitation for rudeness back toward them, and that's just what
we'd like to avoid.
[> [> While it may not be a general rule... -- VampRiley,
08:02:02 06/03/02 Mon
I believe that not naming the individual(s) who have
hurt someone is not normally said by the person(s) hurt. Most times, the hurt someone writes like Ronia
and says it was "someone" and leaves it at that. It's kinda like high school. The kid being picked on
doesn't say that they were being picked on when the teacher comes by. He says nothing is going on. For
whatever reasons they do this, it happens.
Ronia, as for what happened in the chatroom, I say
screw the pillock. There are plenty others here who welcome you with open arms, fists and eyes. When
you've got people like the God of Links and the Float/Unfloat buttons, The Second Evil, Evil Grabby
Chocolate Hands, amongst many others on your side, you'll be all right.
I'm on my hands and
knees while I'm typing this -- PLEASE!!!! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PLEASE
STAY!!!!!
Okay. Now, that was hard to type.
VR
[> [> [> VR, you're in the running... -- dubdub,
15:30:39 06/03/02 Mon
...for the first annual Emulator of Clem award (the
ClemEmmy) which will be awarded for emulating his caring and compassionate behavior, rather than his
ears or his arm flaps!
;o)
[> [> [> [> When did I get nominated? -- VampRiley,
16:01:27 06/03/02 Mon
I've been rather busy to visit your site. But also, who
nominated me? There are some here who think I should be in the running? I'm not sure if I should
be.
Also, what's the addy for the site? I lost it somewhere on my hard drive. I've been
reorganizing and I think it might have been sent to my recycle bin.
VR
[> [> [> [> [> I just nominated you now!! --
dubdub, 16:48:55 06/03/02 Mon
On the basis of your admirable posts to this thread. I
haven't set up the ClemEmmy's on the site yet, but you can go and look at everything else if you
like.
http://clem.homestead.com/index.html
;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> If there is going to be more than me
as a nominee, will we have to campaign? -- VR, 19:16:49 06/03/02 Mon
Are we
gonna have to come up with t-shirts and buttons and banners?
Will we have to go around
kissing asses and bribing people?
Will there be debates?
Oh, my. Would there be
scandals?
When we vote, will it, or won't it, be with the chad system?
Am I gonna
have to shave?
If one of my competitors hires an assassin and they try to get rid of me, would
anyone mind if I shot back or would you be more comfortable with me just wearing a bullet-proof vest
while being in the pope-mobile?
VR
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> As long as no-one gets
skinned for the shooting...... -- O'Cailleagh, 19:51:32 06/03/02 Mon
I'd like to
thank you both for turning what grew to be quite an unpleasant thread into something a little more
friendly and therefore more enjoyable to read.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "So, it's you, isn't
it!!!!!!!!!" he said in a jokingly, accusitory fashion. -- VR, 20:30:28 06/03/02 Mon
You're the assasin!!!!! You're trying to hide behind the mask of niceities. I'm on to you,
buddy-boy. I've got my baseball bat handy. Been a long time since I've had to use good ol' Amanda on
anyone. [Thwak, Thwak, Thwak, Thwak, Thwak, Thwak, Thwak, Thwak, Thwak, Thwak, Thwak,
Thwak, Thwak, Thwak, Thwak, Thwak, Thwak, Thwak, Thwak, Thwak, Thwak, Thwak, Thwak, Thwak,
Thwak]
That was my impression of Siddhartha. On weed. And if he believed in having
possessions and not worrying about reincarnation or liberation. You know, before he reached parinirvana.
Back when he was still living a prince's life.
VR
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And an uncanny
impression it was too! -- O'Cailleagh, 20:34:12 06/03/02 Mon
Especially all the
thwacking...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> But
remember, I still have the pope-mobile. -- VampRiley, 20:39:33 06/03/02 Mon
I
know it's the pope-mobile 'cause I stole it myself.
VR
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oooh, VR, you make it
sound so exciting! -- dubdub ;o), 20:18:55 06/03/02 Mon
[> Sorry to chime in so late... -- Masquerade, 08:55:01
06/03/02 Mon
But let me echo what everyone else is saying. Please stay. You aren't the
first person to get flamed in chat, but I'm sorry you did. Don't take it personally and continue to post with
us.
Masq : )
[> hot topics -- matching mole, 11:39:54 06/03/02 Mon
First let me join the chorus and urge you not to leave because of one unpleasant incident.
Most of the posters here seem to believe in polite disagreement, this appears to be an unfortunate
exception. Also I see no reason that your belief in biblical creation should preclude you from discussing
the buffyverse or any other associated topic with those who might not hold the same views.
I
have a slightly O/T observation to make here about these sorts of hot-topic issues and the responses they
invoke. A mailing list that I'm on for Biology teachers has had a thread going the past few days about
debating creationists. Personally I think your statement that you don't have any interest in debating
evolution vs. creation is excellent. In my opinion the fundamental assumptions of biblical literalism and
the science of evolution are too different to engage in a debate about them. However a lot of scientists feel
compelled to debate creationists and have very strong feelings on the subjects. Some just have strong anti-
religous feeelings (usually born and raised in the south of the U.S.). But others (and I would include
myself here) although they may not be beleivers in a particular faith have nothing against religion in
general. But they often feel an enormous amount of frustration with creationists for two reasons. One is
that many creationists pose a practical problem for them by trying to supress education about evolution.
But I think more importantly they are frustrated by having to debate people with such fundamentally
different assumptions. There can be no debate because what each side takes as evidence, as proof, is so
different. But they are forced into it and tend to perceive creationists, rather singlemindedly, as anti-
intellectual and dishonest*.
I imagine that this goes both ways. When I was in grad school a
student entered out department a couple of years after I did who was a devout Christian (but who did
believe in evolution). She left after one quarter apparently (I didn't know her well) feeling uncomfortable
with what she saw as an anti-Christian atmosphere. The rest of us were kind of baffled by this (I think an
adherent of Stephen J. Gould would have had a harder time in that department than a Christian) but it is
pretty hard to put ourselves in someone else's shoes.
I guess the point of this long-winded post
is that it is pretty easy to make a statement that may sound innocuous to you (and may, in fact, be
innocuous and reasonable) that hits a nerve with someone else. For example your statement that you were
a creationist because you were a Christian might be interpreted, whether you meant it or not, to mean that
people who don't believe in the literal truth of everything in the bible can't be Christian. This doesn't
bother me any but I could easily see it enraging someone for whom this was a sore point of contention. I
doubt that your experience in the chatroom fits this scenario based on what I've read here and elsewhere.
But it might well have colored your perceptions of people who hold non-creationist views if you let it and
you didn't post your message here. I think that a lot of debates (of the non-troll variety) can get off to a
bad start (or get started when they don't need to be) because people make assumptions and respond on the
basis of those assumptions rather than asking questions.
*My statements here apply to what I
would call creationists in good faith. People whose belief in creation is based on religious faith and are
open about that. While I don't agree with their views I can respect them. However I do think that so-
called Creation Science is intellectually dishonest and detrimental to both science and religion.
[> Re: I am an ignorant fool, ask me how... -- rattletrap,
13:29:20 06/03/02 Mon
I'll add my voice to the steadily growing chorus of people
imploring you to stay. Your posts are a welcome addition to the discussion in this forum, and the litany of
names in this thread far more distinguished than mine should show you that your contribution is
valued.
thanks,
'trap (who is evidently one of the few token Christian Evolutionists
on this board :-), but that is a debate for another time and place . . .)
[> [> Re: I am an ignorant fool, ask me how... -- Ronia-no
debate please 'trap :0), 22:57:48 06/03/02 Mon
[> [> [> none planned ;-) -- rattletrap, 06:58:26
06/04/02 Tue
[> Fine, here's my side of this -- vampire hunter D, 13:41:29
06/03/02 Mon
Since most of you have pretty much decided that I'm the one Ronia is
refering to, (and it doesn't seem to matter to you whether I am or not, you all seem to be taking the
opportunity to flame me and gripe about me anyway) can I say a few things:
I do not
appreciate beign talked about like this. While I may be undiplimatic in my wording, I do not try to be
intentionally insulting. And I take your accusations with great offense. ALso, I do not go around talking
about people behind their backs. If I have a problem, I take it up with them, usually privatly and face to
face. I do not ususally carry out fights on the public board like this.
OCalleigh, I didn't even
know you were a pagan, let alone am intollerant of it. Quite the opposite, I have more respect for pagans
than monotheists. And i take your accusation with more offense than the others.
LittleBit,
same thing. I said nothing to you and do not appreciate the flame.
MundusMundi: FUCK
YOU!
and everybody else, for a while now it has been getting more and more clear that
everything I say ios being ignored. I thought it was just that you didn't like my opinions or that my posts
weren't up to your great intellectual standards. Now I see what's really going on. It's that you all don't like
me personally and don't want me here. So fine. I'm leaving. Unless someone emails me and specifically
asks me to return (which judging by your resonses is probably not going to happen), you'll never see me
here again.
Good bye
[> [> I didn't know it was you, vhD. -- VampRiley,
15:03:17 06/03/02 Mon
Since I have now found out that it was you, I'm actually abit
confused here. There has definitily been some miscommunication somewhere and I don't even have a
map. I've been a bit busy to chat a lot these last couple of months, so I don't know what has been going on
recently. But how are we supposed to e-mail you if you didn't leave you e-mail
address?
Very confused in philly.
[> [> Re: Well, clearly we're mistaken! -- mundusmundi,
15:38:14 06/03/02 Mon
MundusMundi: FUCK YOU!
Let's get
down to brass tacks first, okay, D? There is no need to capitalize the two m's in my posting
name....
Now that that's settled, while I haven't gone back and reread every post, I don't recall
anybody actually calling you by name. Ronia was far too polite for that. The fact is, you outed yourself.
That you indeed proved to be the one who insulted Ronia, as was suspected, and that you knew it
as well, speaks volumes that needn't be mentioned.
I do not appreciate beign talked about
like this. While I may be undiplimatic in my wording, I do not try to be intentionally
insulting.
Oh, poppycock. You go out of your way to be insulting, vhD. I don't particularly
feel like perusing the archives for examples (perhaps I could prompt d'Herblay? No, I didn't think so), but
suffice to say your despicable behavior has been on ample display. Your favorite word appears to be
"bitch." You have personally flamed too many posters to mention (though Liq and Slain and darrenK are
three who immediately come to mind). Your behavior in chat is often, quite simply, appalling.
for a while now it has been getting more and more clear that everything I say ios being
ignored. I thought it was just that you didn't like my opinions or that my posts weren't up to your great
intellectual standards.
The tragedy, D, is sometimes I think you're one of the smartest
people here. Occasionally you write a post that's brilliantly insightful. And our New Year's Eve chat,
where you discoursed on the Mongol Khanates, had me and several others who were there
enraptured....No, what your posts are not up to is simple common courtesy. We all cross the line
now and then, but you are the majordomo of reigning insults. This was helpful with Boke and TWIZ; it is
disastrous with newbies or some of our more sensitive posters.
So fine. I'm leaving. Unless
someone emails me and specifically asks me to return (which judging by your resonses is probably not
going to happen), you'll never see me here again.
When I first arrived at this forum a year
ago, I was frankly terrified of receiving a response from you. I just assumed that you had become the
board's honorary troll and so I went out of my way to avoid incurring your wrath. That I'm considerably
less awestruck nowadays prompted me in my earlier reply to Ronia to insult you in return. I'm sorry for
hurting your feelings (and don't fret, you are incapable of hurting mine). But you attacked a new poster.
Yet again. And it seemed time that some things, however bluntly, needed to be said.
-
mm
[> [> Don't be an idiot, and stay please. -- Etrangere,
17:02:38 06/03/02 Mon
[> holy sh*t, you guys are ridiculous -- lone wolf, 16:23:27
06/03/02 Mon
man, this board is f*ckin ridiculous...
Ronia, you are are d*mn
drama queen. and to think, you actually want people to write in begging you to stay? how much more
pathetic can you get? who cares what one individuals says to you. and to write a *sob* story like that?? to
do what? seek sympathy? i hate it when people play the victim.
vamp D, stay if you want.
who gives a sh*t. i come on this board for info on buffy, for info and discussion, not to listen to lame ass
complaining and crying.
[> [> Well, okay... -- Wisewoman, 16:56:13 06/03/02
Mon
i come on this board for info on buffy, for info and discussion, not to listen to
lame ass complaining and crying.
Might I suggest that you're on the wrong board? There
are plenty of others where you can find "buffy...info and discussion" and not be offended by our
sensitivity.
Bon Chance et Bon Voyage!
[> [> [> Re: Well, okay... -- LadyStarlight, 17:34:11
06/03/02 Mon
Can I nominate you for a Clemmie too? Or has VR got it all sewn
up??
[> [> [> [> Thanks sweetie! -- dubdub, 19:08:57
06/03/02 Mon
Maybe we'll have to come up with categories, rather than just one
award?
Let's see...I'm a shoo-in for emulating Clem's junk food taste test!
;o)
[> [> [> [> [> Different categories sounds great. --
VR, 19:45:49 06/03/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> Remember corn chips hurt his
tongue....does he like Chocolate? -- Rufus, 23:07:51 06/03/02 Mon
[> [> [> and THIS is why I L*ve this board ... -- Liq,
19:58:17 06/03/02 Mon
Dub, can you share your Clemmie with me?
[> [> [> [> You bet! ;o) -- dubdub, 20:14:56
06/03/02 Mon
...but you should really get a special Clemmie for Spike-support!
[> [> [> [> [> Can we make a category for the Clem
lover with... -- redcat - still willing to believe, until WW says not to, 20:45:59 06/03/02 Mon
...the most faith that Clem doesn't actually EAT the kittens?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Good CAT-egory! -- dubdub,
21:02:33 06/03/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> Re: You bet! ;o) -- Liq, 20:54:00
06/03/02 Mon
... I'm not exactly Spike-support... more like JM-support....
*subliminal message iminent* you will go to www.ghostoftherobot.com..... you will sign zee
guestbook.... you will buy a t-shirt.....
/subliminal message completed
...and
besides, shouldn't I get a Clemmie for designing the Clemmie?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, but of course! -- dubdub,
21:05:32 06/03/02 Mon
How could I be so silly? Well, actually, there is that thing
about brain surgery and short-term memory loss, but let's not get into that now...a special Clemmie in the
design category it is!
And, I feel as if I'm forgetting to do something important, something I
thought of just a minute ago but...nope, it's gone...
;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh, but of course! --
Ronia beats a dead dog, 22:15:18 06/03/02 Mon
This will be the last thing that I post
regarding this issue, so I'll try to cover everything in a reasonable amount of space.
vhD, I
have enjoyed your posts, and fanfic, and chatting with you in the past and I would like to again...that is
why I didn't name you. However, I refuse to be your victim. Your right to swing your fist ends where my
face begins. I would have preferred to deal with you privately but you would not allow me to. I am sorry
if this causes you to have friction with others on the board. This was not my intent. If I had been looking
to make trouble for you I would have used your nick. If you disagree with me feel free to tell me that, or
ask to change the subject, or just don't respond to me at all when you happen apon me. I'm taking this
personally because you hurt my personal feelings, and you did it intentionally. No one has ever spoken to
me like that before and I am not about to allow you to spew venom in my lap and walk away. I left
chatting with you nauseated and disturbed. If you are embarrassed at the feedback from people who had
no way of knowing who you were, then it is your guilty conscience giving you a wake up call.
I
retract the statement that I am a Christian and therefore a creationist, and replace it with I am a Christian
who interprets the bible literally, and therefore a creationist. This was just sloppy semantics and failure to
be sensitive to how that would be received. I appologize.
My question to the board was not
will you please attack the offending party on my behalf, but given that my beliefs are in conflict with the
majority of posters, are you still interested in my point of view. I read a reply stating that as long as it
applies to Buffyverse in some way it shouldn't be a problem. Well, the feedback that I have received
suggests that this is an agreeable solution to most if not all, and it will be my mo from here on out. I
know that may sound redundant, but bear in mind that a good many threads have to do with morals/ethics
of a given situation. My moral/ethical standard is one that is disagreeable to many, many people. So my
plan is to attempt to respectfully post responses to threads that catch my fancy, and if anyone feels that I
myself am being disagreeable please let me know.
I hope I coverred everything, and thank you
to all who took the time to answer my post. The situation has been resolved to my satisfaction, and I now
consider the matter closed...oh, a special thanks to VR for typing with his nose, you have my vote for
sure.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> My vote is for against
typing with one's nose. -- VampRiley, 06:01:40 06/04/02 Tue
There's a high
probablility of misspelling everything and pain (both physical and psychological frustration), but I did
have to use the backspace with my hand. I couldn't reach it. But I did pretty good for I am the God
of Links and the Float/Unfloat chat room buttons. [He thought the phase as being said with a
booming God-like voice like the kind you might hear in those bible movies] Would you have expected any
less from me?
VR
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> s'not a good way
to type (sorry) -- tost, 11:24:15 06/04/02 Tue
I resisted for over five hours. My
arms started shaking. My hands began sweating. My vision blurred and my ears roared.
Don't
hate me I'm weak.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Can't hate
you, mate. Don't even know you. -- VR, 17:16:38 06/04/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> don't bother
resisting... -- anom, 20:19:50 06/04/02 Tue
...resistance is useless, as everyone
nose.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
AAAAAaaaaaghhhhhh! -- dubdub, 20:59:27 06/04/02 Tue
I can't believe you
did that...
;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
then you don't know... -- anom, 22:01:05 06/04/02 Tue
...the Master of Pun Fu
very well! Bwahahaaa!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> s'not a good way
to type (sorry) -- tost, 11:26:23 06/04/02 Tue
I resisted for over five hours. My
arms started shaking. My hands began sweating. My vision blurred and my ears roared.
Don't
hate me I'm weak.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Now I know
how a double post happens (sorry again) -- tost, 11:29:47 06/04/02 Tue
[> [> [> personally, i dig it... -- tim, 20:07:42
06/03/02 Mon
As a newbie, I just wanted to say: the "sensitivity" is exactly what
attracts me to this place. It's so much more fun to discuss a common interest with people you actually like.
The responses in this thread (mostly) make me feel all warm and fuzzy, and I really like that feeling.
;)
--th
[> [> [> [> Thank you! And WELCOME! ;o) --
Wisewoman (aka dubdub), 20:17:10 06/03/02 Mon
All us sensitives has gotta stick
together!
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks. I like it here. :) -- tim,
06:55:59 06/05/02 Wed
[> Stay here, please -- Earl Allison, 17:10:37 06/03/02 Mon
Just took a LONG look at this thread -- stay. You have much to add, and if these guy'll take
me, you're a shoe-in :)
Seriously, don't let a bad experience get to you -- it's WAY too easy to
flame someone through chat or email, since it's not face-to-face. Let them be, and enjoy the rest of us
here.
Take it and run.
And I'm sorry I couldn't say all this to you directly -- bad me
:)
[> Aw - don't tell me I've missed another sqwabble! ;o) --
Nevermore, 13:37:14 06/05/02 Wed
Current board
| More June 2002