June 2002 posts
AtS/BtVS withdrawal=????!!!!! (Finale
Spoilers) -- Doriander, 03:32:33 06/03/02 Mon
I'm not good at writing fic,
at all. I only have suggestions to those much more talented than I. So this came to me, via a dream.
Watched some S2 Angel before bed. Not a good idea (nightmares). Actually it depends, for it resulted to
this insane post, which may inspire or bore. It's morning, I'm delirious, I still have guts to post this, which
I may later regret. So, these are my indirect suggestions to fic writers/rant to ME. I'll call it, the
pitch (tm Showtime shorts):
(nervously sitting across Tim Minear)
Excellent
work on the show... (Tim nods)
I think you, Mr. Minear, Tim, can I call you Tim? (Tim
unclasps his hands, as if to say whatever) Very well. You Tim, shaped Angel the show's identity,
gave it status, more than that conceited Whedon or Greenwalt combined... (Tim gives a smile that teeters
between flattery and "F***, I'm dead")
I'm your biggest fan... (Tim regrets seeing "Misery"
the night previous)
And as such... (Tim edges his seat)
I'm your biggest critic...
(Tim nervously reaches under his desk for the security button)
Bear with me
here...
I'm not down with the baby arc on Angel. (Tim scrunches his forehead)
I
mean, what kind of message is that? "I'm Angel, and I've had it! I give up on people! If I could just end it
all--Ooh Darla! How perfect! Henceforth I'll have careless sex! I'll lose my soul and possibly end the
world! Because the pain, it's too much! I'll just kill all the poor bastards!-"
(gives Tim a
conspiring look)
Little inside joke there (Tim looks puzzled)
Get it? Like,
channeling Darth Willow? Add it to the many potential spectacular non-crossovers people are buzzing
about! (Tim looks puzzled)
Ermmmkay. Heh, he, he, he, hey! Hey, not done ranting here! So
Angel pretty much says, :"Screw redemption!" and the Powers' response is, "very well, we'll give you a
son?! Unprecedented miracle child of two vampires! This child will rid you at long last of that bitch sire
of yours!" Tsk, tsk, tsk, Tim...(Doriander wags finger). Thing is... (Doriander reaches across for Tim's
other hand that clutches a phone) I resent Darla's death, because I'm still holding out hope for crossovers
and a fanged four reunion... (Tim all the while gropes for security button with his other hand).
So here's a different revenge route for Holtz, if the baby were not in the picture. And Darla
never showed her face back in LA as a plot device. And Cordy hasn't been given her half-demon
status yet. Because frankly? Her character didn't generate as much interest from the fans since then. Check
the boards lately? (Tim considers)
This is a little fatalistic by the way... (Tim stills his
hand)
What if Holtz never made his presence known at all to Angel, until he has delivered
his revenge, via Cordy... (Tim retreats hand)
Cordy is still suffering from her visions, though it
remains her secret up to this point. Her relationship with Angel, however is going great. They're close,
unconsciously in love. So you'll get the sparks and fireworks you're gunning for. It really was more
interesting and cute when they both were clueless about it. It's when Angel started pining for Cordy that
the chemistry fizzled. So take it from me, save their realizations till late in the season. Anyway, this is
where you can incorporate the "let's meet at the cliff scenario" if you're insistent on that. But make it so
that Cordy had her epiphany in the morning, got up the nerve to call Angel, and they're to meet in the
evening. It'll be like their first official daaaate! (said in a manner similar to Clem's "PG
thirteeen")
(Tim lets out an exasperated sigh.)
So, our dear Holtz, with his cult,
managed to tap into the call, and found its timing all too perfect! Holtz is in cahoots with Lilah, whose
motive remains get Angel to go dark again. See cause Angel goes dark mainly when he loses all hope...
(Tim starts tapping on the desk as if to say "It's my show moron! You dare inform me of my lead's
motivations?")
Alright, alright! Yeesh. Moving on. It's night time, Angel shows up on that
cliff, finds Cordy there unconscious, her face streaked with tears. She's been crying. Imagine Asylum
Buffy, only worse (Tim gives a "Whu?" face)
You don't watch the other show, do you? (Tim
smiles sheepishly).
(Admonishing) Tiiiiim. Tsk, tsk, tsk. Aaaanyway, you'll get the scene
where Angel lifts her up carries her back to his convertible, which if you're also insistent on her flowing
white wardrobe, you can capitalize on the effect. It's eerie romantic, anything that reminds the girls of
Tristan carrying his dead wife in "Legends of the Fall" is plenty romantic and tragic (Doriander wistful
for a moment). Ahem. So Angel takes Cordy to the hotel, assembles the AI crew. Cordy murmurs in her
sleep, she's crying in pain, laughing intermittently. And oh, the words she's murmuring? (Doriander leans
over for drama, as Tim leans as far back as his aero chair can allow him)
"...snake in the
woodshed! Snake in the woodshed! Snake in the woodshed..."(Tim looks nervously at the nutty
fan)
Angel panics! He recognizes the words, see? Remember "Dear Boy"? (Tim gives a
ngyeeaaahhh look).
Good! Cause that will play into this! Suckers for continuity like moi will
chew on this! So then the crew tries to calm Cordy down, right? Cordy's eyes flutters open, she sees
Angel, she screams! She starts having seizures, she collapses! Fred to the rescue! Er, side note Tim, you
really should cut back on the things Fred can do. It's annoying some fans, the same way Sam Finn, oh
never mind. It's annoying. Moving on. Cordy's still breathing, still alive, but none the better. Phone rings.
It's Holtz! He'll start with something creepy, think "The Game" or the opening of "Scream". Like,
ahem
Holtz: "She's awake now I assume?"
Angel: "Who's this?!!!"
Holtz: "Turn
on your computer."
Fred's someone else is on it, they gather around, and on screen we
see Holtz a la Mayor Wilkins.
Holtz: "Hello Angelus."
(Doriander pauses for effect,
while Tim recovers from the traumatizing experience of being subjected to Doriander's appalling imitation
of Holtz's voice.)
Technology courtesy of W&H, in case you're wondering. And just to cover
loose ends, part of Lilah's agreement with Holtz would be that nothing should be traceable to W&H when
the plan comes through. Holtz will have to make it appear as though it's only him and his cult behind it
all. See this way you won't have to depend on fans to figure out plot holes for you (Tim looks
incredulous)
Oh don't even deny it! (Tim opens his mouth to protests but Doriander shushes
him)
I know, I know, nothing leaves this room, just between you, me and Mutant Enemy, and
thehundredsoffansthatowntheAngelseasonOneDVD. Happy? Phew! Anyway, Holtz starts his exposition
spiel. With help from Lilah's Fez-head buddy from that episode "That Vision Thing" (Tim nods), they
gave Cordy a vision, that of (Doriander anticipates, waits for Tim to come up with the answer. Tim
gives the psycho fan an eye rolling that would give SMG a run for her money)
.(excitedly)
Drusilla! You know? "Snake in the-" never mind. Anyway, it's a vision of 1860 Drusilla in the convent
being tormented by Angelus. So everything that's happened to Dru, is happening to Cordy, and her state
of mind, Cordy is experiencing that very moment. Only Fez-head tweaked it. Cordy won't just experience
the vision once, but repeatedly, ten times, possibly more (Tim's eyes bulges)
Scary, huh? So
Holtz warns that Cordy's sanity will be at risk at this point. She may or may not come out of it. And
worse! Every time she sees Angel, she'll freak, have a breakdown, whatever. And worse! Angel's presence
alone will exacerbate her condition. And worse! Every time Angel bears witness to this disintegration of
his ladylove, he will be tortured with guilt of his worst crime, Drusilla. Only ten times worse! Since Dru
was a mere obsession, whereas Cordy is someone he cares the world for. And you know what's worse?
(Tim, more eye rolling) The more he tries to comfort her, the more he hurts her, the more it's torture for
him. I imagine Angel will say something like, "but she doesn't deserve any of this " and Holtz retorts,
"neither did my wife, son, and daughter. But I imagine you never gave it a thought." (Tim grimaces from
another of Doriander's appalling Holtz imitation)
Holtz ends by saying it's too late if Angel
comes after him, Angel won't find him -insert your scenario of how Holtz disappears, via cult suicide,
something or other. This way we won't have to resort to giving Holtz a really bad make-up job. Of course,
this leaves a distraught Angel, helpless and frustrated, no one to direct his vengeful energies towards since
Holtz is gone! ::GASP!:: (Tim is taken despite himself)
Angel's last resort: approach the
Powers. He's willing to do anything to get Cordy back. The PtB's oblige. Perhaps they let him undergo
tests similar to "The Trial". And if you please, make the trials worthwhile? No cheesy action figures, off
screen fights or lurky green-eyed demons? You could go with the bugs though (Tim answers with
another "whu?")
Figures, never mind. It's a thing (Tim's forehead vein starts
throbbing from the stress of hearing the ubiquitous phrase.)
Angel succeeds as always. The
tormenting visions stop. Cordy's back to her sane self. But, a big but, here's the thing (more forehead
throbbing from Tim) the monstrosity of Angelus is too ingrained in her psyche now. Each time she looks
at Angel, she'll be traumatized with the face that ravaged her. Their relationship is irreparably strained
from here on in.
Her visions continue to stress her. Enter Skip and his quote-unquote
tests. Here's the tough choice, will she choose a memory wipe, erase the trauma, and give up on
the mission, in favor of her Hollywood dream. No catch right? Well what if instead of the scenario in
"Birthday" where she sees Angel going insane with the visions should she choose Hollywood, she sees
another girl in her place, suffering the same trauma she went through. In a sense, she's just passing on her
load, not very noble. This is a perfect time to use Fred. Make the girl Fred. Fans seem to favor her a little
nutty. And she does resemble Dru. So, also in "B-day", we see Skip show Cordy Angel negotiating with
the Powers. How about in this one, show Cordy the trials Angel endured, kinda like what you've done with
Darla, so that Cordy will have an inkling of what she meant to Angel, and will be reminded of how far
Angel has come from that monster to the current champion. Will she still accept her demon status with
this state of her relationship with Angel in the name of the mission? Remember, she experienced the worst
thing Angelus is capable of, and that's MAJOR.
What ya think? Cliffhanger material? I mean,
the next season, there's the possibility of different reality, if Cordy chooses to become a star instead.
Aaand, reference to alternate realities? More non-crossover-crossover prospects! (Doriander gives a hint,
hint, wink, wink look at a now bored Tim). And if Charisma really does intend to leave, this is a less
sucky way to go, don't you think? A little righteous, selfish, but justified, somewhat unfair, yet downright
human? It's all very layered! Very trademark "Angel"!
(Tim finds button, presses button,
security comes in seconds)
Tim: "Sorry to waste your time. Tim doesn't live here anymore. If
you have ideas for Firefly then try your luck next time, if they let you in."
(security hoists the
crazy chick out of ME's bastion of creativity.)
Tim calling out: "Try Greenwalt! Oh wait, you
CAN'T! Unless you have ideas for "Miracles"! MWAHAHAHA!!!!"
[> ROFL -- Ete, 04:51:18 06/03/02 Mon
humm and I even haven't seen Angel s3 yet :)
[> That was great! Keep the delirium-inspired posts coming! --
Exegy *living vicariously on these specs*, 11:59:15 06/03/02 Mon
Having failed to
impress Minear, you now approach the office of BtVS showrunner Marti Noxon....
*Exegy
salivates at the delectable possibilities*
[> [> Oh I wish! -- Doriander, 12:10:15 06/03/02
Mon
Can't. Tazer...pavement...restraining orders, it's a thing.
[> [> [> LOL! -- Exegy *extending thread's life*,
13:02:23 06/03/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> Re: LOL! -- Ronia, 22:30:51 06/03/02
Mon
If you can revise and find a place for the newcommer (connor/stephen) you've got
my vote. If you were devising the plot arc, the season would be more interesting because of it
Interesting JE quotes re: Willow & Tara (spoilers from
"Seeing Red" to the end of the season) -- Rob, 09:47:36 06/03/02 Mon
In the W/T thread about the kitten board reaction, etc, I mentioned a quote from a writer
that explained ME's position on why Tara's death/Willow's evilness wasn't perpetrating a "dead lesbian"
storyline cliche. Well, here it is...
It's from Jane Espenson's interview with The Succubus Club.
I got it from http://www.buffycritic.com. You can't link directly to a page of theirs, but go to their
"Villains" page from the season 6 episode list page to see where I got this
from...
Reviewer: Obviously, a lot of people are upset over Tara's
death.
Espenson: Yes as we intended. We're upset ourselves. There was... I didn't think
Joss was going to be able to do it. He really had to struggle with killing her and the fact that it was so
painful was what we knew would make it work. That's... we knew it would hurt. And that's what we
needed, otherwise we just can't take Willow where we needed to take her.
Reviewer: What
about, how do you guys feel about all the backlash?
Espenson: I hadn't been aware that
there was backlash. Although we did talk about it... um we knew... what we knew has been done with gay
characters is that you introduce one just to kill them. We knew that wasn't what we were doing. Tara had
been on the show a very long time, very long, not as long as Buffy but she clearly had not been brought in
as cannon fodder. Because when you do that, you bring them in and you kill them right away. And when
you do that it's a punishment. We felt that this was so clearly not a punishment for being gay, her being
gay... she wasn't gay bashed. She was shot accidentally. We did talk about it, we did talk about we're
doing that thing, we're killing the lesbian. But, we don't... it didn't feel that way to us because she wasn't
the lesbian character anymore. Willow and Tara are both lesbians, Willow didn't die. Willow was our
main character, if you gonna, wanted to make some horrible message about killing the lesbians, you'd kill
her.
Reviewer: No, but she went evil.
Espenson: She did go evil, but she
went evil out of deep loving grief. We knew we were gonna make her evil. We had to figure out how and
that seemed to be the best way how. And we really do think of them as one of our couples, ya know we've
got Buffy / Spike, Xander / Anya and and Tara / Willow... we really don't... when we think of a story for
them, a situation for them, we never go from what should happen to the lesbians, it's what should happen
to that couple. So we really stopped thinking of them as the gay couple and just thought of them as a
couple.
Reviewer: Then I guess I would ask, playing Devil's Advocate here, maybe you
should have thought of them as the lesbian couple because obviously a lot of people look up to them as
some kind of role models. What is your responsibility as writers to these fans.
Espenson:
Well I think we would be shirking the responsibility if Willow then goes out and get's herself a boy. Then
that seems to me that we have said something about lesbianess. What we have said instead, as we view our
characters as such real and three dimensional characters that good things can happen to them, bad things
can happen to them... they aren't templates anymore, these are people. We hope we've created people.
Rob
[> Re: Interesting JE quotes re: Willow & Tara (spoilers from
"Seeing Red" to the end of the season) -- Darby, 11:14:01 06/03/02 Mon
She didn't really address the more insidious cliche, the one of "have sex, then have something
bad happen to you," which is really the one the Kittens have been on about.
A question more
general - how much significance does a creator owe a symbol that winds up essentially "in their care"?
W&T were essentially a unique symbol on American TV, providing a social service above and beyond
their role in the show. I agree that you couldn't let that fact be the total determiner of what should and
shouldn't be done to the pair, but does it deserve no consideration at all? The quote indicates that ME is
claiming no consideration, which I'm okay with over the death and less okay with over the contextual
choices framing the death. (I just had a truly grotesque image of beating a dead Tara)
In a
related area, given the criticism directed at ME for their casting choices, should Gunn be more protected -
he is ME's only regular black character, like, ever - than the others at Angel Investigations? Maybe I'm
wrong - is that even a comparable situation?
[> [> Doesn't that PROMOTE labeling? -- Earl Allison, 12:42:15 06/03/02 Mon
The problem, as others far more eloquant than I have already said, seems to be either that to
do so hobbles the stories one can tell, or that it plays right INTO pigeonholing people, and labeling
them.
ME just couldn't win with this storyline -- people were going to be pissed off no matter
the direction it took, and I think, of the possible venues ME COULD have taken, this one was their best
option (assuming one still wants the Dark Willow storyline). I said as much below in a previous
thread.
If we DO assign "special status," where does it end? Spike is the only British-speaking
regular, and the only chipped vampire -- does he deserve a protected status? Does Buffy, being the only
active Slayer? Willow, as the resident geek of the Scoobies? Anya, as the only vengeance demon, or the
only avid capitalist? I'm deliberately being stupid here, but how far off would I be if there WERE
untouchables because of their perceived status?
Why can't the writers just tell a story without
incurring the wrath of viewers? Maybe, after a fashion, it's a GOOD thing, after all, people have invested
a lot of emotion into these characters, high praise for the writers and actors/actresses
indeed.
Maybe it's foolish, but someday, it'd be nice to simply tell the story, and not worry if
character X suffered predicament Y simply because they were part of group Z.
Maybe Willow
and Tara were the best example on US television, but does that mean ME was obligated to keep them
happy and untouchable? I answer with a firm NO, to do so violates the premise of the entire series, that
NO ONE is happy forever :) Seriously, to do otherwise would go aginst the grain, Willow and Tara were
PEOPLE first, lesbians second (as almost anyone is, a PERSON before they are black, white, gay, straight,
Catholic, Wiccan, etc).
Bad things happen, even to good people. If we can't tell stories like
that, why even bother?
Take it and run.
[> [> [> Yes and no. -- Sophist, 13:10:08 06/03/02
Mon
I see 2 problems with your argument, though the danger you point out is quite real.
First, ME voluntarily undertook to create an honest, caring lesbian relationship on TV (and
YAY to them for doing so). They also took the plaudits (and profits) of many for having done so. Having
accepted the responsibility of the relationship, ME had the responsibility to handle it in a way that didn't
play to stereotypes.
Second, I do think it important that W/T were not just the first realistic
lesbian couple on TV, they were the only such couple ever. That fact may create an obligation to handle
their case differently. For example, when the Dodgers brought up Jackie Robinson in 1947, they were
pretty sure he would be a star player. What if he hadn't been? Suppose he had been average or below
average. Should we say that the Dodgers were obligated to keep him on the team rather than send him
down to the minors? I think that, within limits, the answer is that yes they were. For one thing, lots of
white players stay in the majors despite being average or below; sending him down might well have
perpetuated the double standard he was promoted to eliminate. For another, in 1947, Jackie was unique. If
he had been sent down, and seen as a failure, it might have been years before anyone took the risk again.
That doesn't mean Jackie got to stay if he hit like me, but it does mean that he deserved more slack than
an ordinary player might.
I want to re-emphasize that this is a special case. I don't know the
exact point at which "helping" someone turns into condescension of a different sort. I do think the issue is
arguable, especially in this situation.
[> [> [> [> Re: Yes and no. -- Traveler, 20:08:03
06/03/02 Mon
"First, ME voluntarily undertook to create an honest, caring lesbian
relationship on TV (and YAY to them for doing so). They also took the plaudits (and profits) of many for
having done so. Having accepted the responsibility of the relationship, ME had the responsibility to
handle it in a way that didn't play to stereotypes."
ME also had lots of upset viewers who
thought that lesbian relationships were immoral, so they recieved both plaudits and criticism for this
decision. The same is true for the current storyline. ME is not a social welfare orginization; It is not their
responsibility to right all the wrongs of the world. Their sacred duty is to stay true to their artistic vision.
So long as I feel they are doing that, I really don't care if a small segment of their viewership got their
feelings bruised. Stereotypes are omnipresent and unavoidable. We have Giles, the stiff British librarian.
Then there's Xander, the class clown. Willow the nerd. Buffy the super hero. Dawn, the bratty teen. And
so on. The show constantly plays up to these stereotypes and makes fun of the characters using them. Yet,
nobody mentions this because there isn't a vocal minority group defending them. Of course, you can argue
that none of these characters is defined by their stereotype, that each has grown beyond it, and this is true.
But then, so have Willow and Tara. Personally, I don't think that Tara's death fit any type of
offensive stereotype at all, but if you are going to complain about stereotypes, I want to see you address all
of them.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes and no. -- Dochawk,
20:27:16 06/03/02 Mon
Traveler said: " Their sacred duty is to stay true to their
artistic vision"
Nope, not at all, Their sacred duty is to deliver the largest number of viewers in
the 18 - 34 demographic. They do it by doing a compelling story. But, they also have a social
responibilty because they claimed it. They used the evolution of W/T to help themselves and they did
crow about it. And no they don't have to be responsible to all the stereotyopes, because they didn't go out
on television interviews and say how great they were because they have a black character which they did
about W/T.
[> [> [> [> [> [> OK, I'll bite. -- Traveler,
13:21:14 06/04/02 Tue
"Their sacred duty is to deliver the largest number of
viewers in the 18 - 34 demographic."
This statement invalidates the rest of your
arguments, so I'll ignore it for now.
"They used the evolution of W/T to help themselves
and they did crow about it."
OK, I didn't know about this. Can you direct me to interviews
in which the writers have "crowed" about the W/T relationship?
[> [> [> Re: Doesn't that PROMOTE labeling? -- Darby,
13:18:21 06/03/02 Mon
Being human promotes labeling - it's part of what we
are.
And the assumption that no decisions are made based upon one label or another seems
naive (do you really think that ME would eliminate Spike, whose main label is "viewer magnet"?) - I don't
think this can even be discussed on a "do we or don't we" basis. It comes down to how much weight
certain aspects should be given, within a broader context that includes artistic "truth" but also social
responsibility and the chance to maybe produce real effects in attitudes - is there really an artist that
ignores that potential? And a writer can't help but take certain traits of their characters into account when
writing - you can resist them, try to work around them, but don't ignore them or you do wind up in some
bad places without knowing how you got there. For instance, I can't see Joss killing off his alter-ego
Xander.
And I'm continually amazed at how black-and-white this discussion has gotten - even
here, where "dead" and "happy and untouchable" are offered as the options. I guess because it has wound
up being the difference between being on the show and not, which is a 2-setting situation, but still...
[> [> [> [> I don't think there's NO influence, but ... --
Earl Allison, 13:57:59 06/03/02 Mon
Weigh it with the options, cartainly, but once label becomes the main driving force, you have
a problem.
I wish you hadn't used Spike as an example, because you're re-enforced my opinion
that the chip was constructed largely for that reason, as was a lot of what we saw with him ... do I think
ME will eliminate him -- no. Do I wish they would? Yes, because they've played fast and loose with the
canon (IMHO only, I admit here) just to accomodate a character, largely to keep viewers -- and THAT'S
where problems start.
Please, let's NOT (not directed at you, Darby, but at everyone) let this
get sidetracked into a Spike discussion ...
Anyway, getting off track.
Does label
have its place? Absolutely, but no way it should be the first or only thing we think of -- because once
Willow and/or Tara become "lesbians" first, and interesting characters and individuals second, there's no
point to telling a story, because you aren't telling it about Willow and Tara, you're telling it about a pair of
cardboard cutouts -- heck, don't bother with names -- I'll figure out who they are by what the writers do or
don't do with them.
If the characters are good, interesting, and well-rounded, I'll like them --
and I'd like to think a lot of other people would, too.
I'm just not sure about the social
responsibility angle -- how far should it go? Sure, there have been messages about sex (the Angel-
Angelus curse), but are they automatically the right ones? To further it, has anyone in the Buffyverse ever
mentioned condoms -- specifically in the Faith/Xander coupling, the Buffy/Parker pairing, or the repeated
Buffy/Riley one? And which message should be promoted, and should it be at the expense of the story?
In other words, should the story be second to the labels SOME give the characters? Sure, the Kitten
Board is one extreme, but aren't there any viewers who DON'T see this as an attack on lesbians -- enough
to make one question it, at least?
I don't know, maybe I'm coming off as more and more
ignorant as I speak, so I think I'll drop it here and let someone better suited go on.
Take it and
run.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: condoms -- Dead Soul,
14:47:32 06/03/02 Mon
I was watching the S4 DVD's this weekend and during
WtWTA while Buffy and Riley were fueling the house's manifest-infestations of sexual tension and
repression with their boink-a-thon, they showed Riley reaching into the bedside table drawer which was
full of condoms. This was cut from the FX reruns.
Dead (but still safe) Soul
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: condoms -- Q,
23:07:01 06/03/02 Mon
Anya had some condoms when she slept with Xander, some
of them were black.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: condoms (not cut from FX that
I saw) -- FriarTed, 08:15:29 06/05/02
Wed
I watched that FX rerun last week & I saw the condoms.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I don't think there's NO influence, but
... -- matching mole, 14:58:43 06/03/02 Mon
I agree with Darby that this
argument seems to keep getting dragged to absolutes. Tara and Willow are exempt from bad things vs.
ME can do anything they want to their own creations. Neither option seems viable to me.
All
our actions are affected by our own desires and by the effects of those actions on society and society's
response to them. Just like freedom of action (we're not free to rob banks) freedom of expression and
freedom of speech can never be absolute. How close we should come is a matter of personal philosophy. I
would argue that in cases where an individual or a group has the ability to make a statement that has great
power they have the responsibility to consider carefully what they say. So I think that ME certainly had
the responsibility to very carefully consider the effect of killing Tara on their viewing public before taking
that step. I have no idea if they did so or not - probably they did. All I can do is state whether or not I
found the storyline compelling enough to justify the death (or to be more specific the timing and context
of the death). As I didn't find the Willow arc post Tabula Rasa very compelling I would have to say no. If
I had thought that end of season 6 was the greatest thing in the show's history then I might have said
yes.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Justify my death! -- Traveler,
20:32:36 06/03/02 Mon
"All I can do is state whether or not I found the storyline
compelling enough to justify the death (or to be more specific the timing and context of the death).
"
And this is where the problem is. It's like a trial where the defendant is presumed guilty;
the writers have to justify killing a minority character, otherwise we assume that they are all bigots
trying to send anti-minority messages. But if they just want to kill of some random white guy, hey no
problem. You may not being talking in extremes, but you are still suggesting (demanding?) that writers
categorically introduce biases in their writing to placate minority groups. And quite frankly, the writers
will never convince you that they had to kill your favorite character. After all, you can think of at
least 6 ways that he/she could have lived, right? Sorry, you may be a brilliant writer, but this isn't your
vision. The writers have different goals, desires, and methodology than you do. The writers decided that
they wanted to fully explore Willow's repressed evil and that the only way to do that was to kill Tara. That
was their decision to make, and I think it was well done. To their credit, they did consider the
social impact of what they were doing, but they discovered the hard way that people would still
take offense, despite their extreme care in handling the relationship. Furthermore, I doubt that it was even
possible for the writers to break up Willow and Tara's relationship in a way that would have satisfied the
Kittens. I'm sorry, but this is a group that is dedicated to the Willow/Tara ship. Of course they
were pissed off. They were just looking for excuses to blame ME for bad writing. Almost all the lesbians
I've read who have posted to this board, saying, "I am a lesbian; here is how I feel about it," were
not offended that Tara died.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> (Season 6 SPOILERS
above) -- Traveler, 20:36:56 06/03/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Justify my death! --
Sophist, 08:54:09 06/04/02 Tue
And this is where the problem is. It's like a trial
where the defendant is presumed guilty; the writers have to justify killing a minority character, otherwise
we assume that they are all bigots trying to send anti-minority messages. But if they just want to kill of
some random white guy, hey no problem.
I don't understand your reference here to
minority characters and "white guys". I thought we were talking about lesbians.
The writers
have to justify (artistically, at least) the killing of any character. If they make an artistic decision
that implicates a stereotype, surely we are justified in asking if the artistic effect justifies the use of the
stereotype. That's all mm did. You can disagree and I can agree, but it begs the question to say "it was
pure artistry".
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Justify my writing!
-- Traveler, 14:31:30 06/04/02 Tue
"I don't understand your reference here to
minority characters and "white guys". I thought we were talking about lesbians."
I was
speaking in general terms, including lesbians as a part of that description. If you prefer, I can restate the
same sentence to read, "It's like a trial where the defendant is presumed guilty; the writers have to justify
killing a lesbian character, otherwise we assume that they are all bigots trying to send anti-lesbian
messages."
"The writers have to justify (artistically, at least) the killing of any
character."
I totally agree with this statement. However, I don't remember this furor when
Joyce or Jenny were killed. Huh. I guess nobody had any artistic problems with the way the white, straight
women were killed.
"they make an artistic decision that implicates a stereotype, surely we
are justified in asking if the artistic effect justifies the use of the stereotype."
And what
does justify using a stereotype? Is there a rulebook somewhere that writers should use? Doesn't it
really boil down to whether you as a viewer thought the plotline/execution were good or not? Although
your opinions are as valid as anybody else's, they are still just opinions. There is really no way to "prove"
that a particular plot idea is good or bad, and even the excution of the idea is still open for some debate.
For these reasons, I think the idea of selectively forcing writers to justify their writing in terms of a
political/social agenda is ludicrous. As I have posted elsewhere, stereotypes run rampant in just about
every show you will ever watch. If I saw you crusading against all of these stereotypes, I would be
more sympathetic. Taking one pet cause and putting it before everything else does not interest me. Some
people are up in arms because ME had a plotline that vaguely kind of resembled a cliche stereotyping
lesbians. Yet, these same people ignore all the other stereotypes that exist on the show. Forcing writers to
pander to a vocal minority is ludicrous. I would rather see something downright offensive than some
pointless drivel that does nothing more than cater to the politically correct. Sometimes, lesbians do
die. Sometimes, lesbians are vengeful. If you want justification for why writers created this
storyline, here it is. It. Happens. In. Real. Life. I want art to reflect life; so if stereotypes exist in life, I
expect to see them in art as well.
Finally, if you can't accept any of what I have said so far, I
can use your own arguments against you. All of the re-occuring characters have either died or
gone evil at one point. Why shouldn't it happen to Tara and Willow too? Doing otherwise simply
creates the stereotype that lesbians never do anything wrong. Stereotypes are bad, ergo the writers
must make Willow evil. If Tara had lived, she would have had to go evil too at some point. This is
the kind of logic you use when you cater to an anti-stereotype mentality, and I don't buy it for a
second.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Justify my
writing! -- Sophist, 19:06:20 06/04/02 Tue
I don't remember this furor when
Joyce or Jenny were killed. Huh. I guess nobody had any artistic problems with the way the white, straight
women were killed.
I didn't frequent any boards when these events happened, so I can't say
if there was a furor or not. Even if there was no furor, it would not prove your point. It might merely prove
that most people were satisfied that the deaths were handled appropriately.
I think the idea
of selectively forcing writers to justify their writing in terms of a political/social agenda is
ludicrous.
The rest of your post is rather long, but I took this sentence as the crux of it. If
I'm wrong about this, let me know.
The reason, I think, for the disagreement here is that I see
art as inextricable from its social context. I interpret your arguments as an effort to say that art exists
somehow outside that context, that it only needs to be evaluated by "artistic" criteria which exist in
isolation from society. If that is your position, I can't agree.
In this particular case, I can't agree
for 2 reasons. One is that Doc is right in his post: ME deliberately used the W/T relationship to pat itself
on the back for marketing purposes. In such a case, they cannot isolate themselves from criticism for the
way the handle the relationship.
Even if ME had not done this, I still would not agree with
you. We always consider art in its social context. We evaluate the Sistine Chapel in light of Catholic
doctrine in the 16th Century and in light of the social and political role of the papacy. We evaluate the
Parthenon in the context of Pericles's use of public funds for a building project that paid out money to his
political supporters in the artisan class. We evaluate Milton's poetry in the context of the religious disputes
of the 17th Century.
If we do all this, then I can't see why BtVS would be
exempt.
All of the re-occuring characters have either died or gone evil at one point. Why
shouldn't it happen to Tara and Willow too?
I don't think anyone ever argued that they
shouldn't. Certainly I didn't. The question is how, given that ME wanted to take them in this direction, it
should be handled.
A factual nitpick: I don't believe Cordy ever went evil. Nor have Anya or
Oz. Giles's evil deeds were all in the past. For all my criticisms on this Board of Xander, I would never
describe him as evil, nor would I describe Dawn that way. Buffy and Riley have done some bad things, but
evil hardly seems the right word there either. What Willow did was EVIL, EVIL like Angelus. There is a
real difference here.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> who didn't
go evil? -- skeeve, 08:10:37 06/05/02 Wed
Giles was turned into a
demon.
Cordy and Anyanka were evil to start with, but they got better. The Scoobies were a good
influence on them. Anya tried to go evil again, but hasn't been very good at it.
Oz had his time of
the month.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
And... -- Rob, 13:08:27 06/05/02 Wed
Buffy was temporarily a vampire in
"Nightmares"...
And although it was in the alternate reality, we saw Xander evil as a vamp in
"The Wish"...
Cordelia...um...starting out on the show as an "evil bitch" counts, doesn't it?
;o)
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: And... (spoilers through season 6) -- Traveler, 13:25:11 06/05/02 Wed
Xander was possessed by a hyena, ate the princple, and tried to rape
Buffy.
Cordelia was a bitch, but not really evil, so maybe she is an exception.
Giles
became the ripper again in band candy.
Besides which, being evil in the past (before the series
starts) counts. Angel is currently trying to find redemption on his own show, atoning in part for wrongs
comitted before he ever appeared on BtVS.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Actually... -- Doriander, 13:37:10 06/05/02 Wed
Xander only ate Herbert
the pig, Buffy got him locked up when the rest of the pack ate Principal Flutie.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Ok, but still... -- Traveler, 13:42:25 06/05/02 Wed
I think he still
qualifies as "evil" in that episode. Also, he went evil when he became Dracula's buttmonkey, and I can
probably find other examples if I really tried. I still stand by my original point from several posts
ago.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Actually Xander did try to... -- Scroll, 15:58:18 06/05/02 Wed
Xander did try to rape Buffy in "The Pack". He didn't get very far, but close enough to what
Spike did that you couldn't discount it as just being a bully. But you're right that he didn't eat Principle
Flutie.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Actually Xander did try to... -- Scroll, 16:15:06 06/05/02 Wed
Yeah I agree. I also agree with Traveler that he was evil in that ep. I actually think he was
fortunate that Buffy incapacitated him, otherwise, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't hesitate joining the others in
eating Flutie. Were it not for Buffy, he would've been a killer.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Ugh! forgot... -- Doriander, 16:26:26 06/05/02 Wed
Not
stealing your name Scroll, sorry.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> It's okay! -- Scroll, 20:00:32 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Evil Xander -- purplegrrl, 09:26:26 06/06/02 Thu
Personally, I think the most evil thing Xander has ever done was to not tell Buffy that Willow
was trying to restore Angel's soul in Season 2. The other things Xander has done could be explained
away by "he was under the influence of something supernatural." In that episode he was only under the
influence of his own petty jealousy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm not
quite that sillly. (spoilers finale) -- Traveler, 13:38:49 06/05/02 Wed
"I
interpret your arguments as an effort to say that art exists somehow outside that context, that it only needs
to be evaluated by "artistic" criteria which exist in isolation from society."
This is not what
I am saying at all. Rather, I'm am suggesting that "social context" is a very different thing from "lesbian
context." Lesbian desires/issues are an important, but small part of society. I object to the people who are
focusing on these issues without even trying to see the "bigger picture." To me, the bigger picture here is
that ME has been actively trying to show a positive lesbian relationship, and even when breaking it up,
they presented the relationship itself as being healthy and natural. They portrayed Tara's death as tragic,
and even Evil!Willow was a very sympathetic character. At least, my heart broke for her during
TTG and Grave. I get the impression that most of the people who really had a problem with Tara's death
have an axe to grind, and I don't want to see them grind it all over my favorite television show.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
I'm not quite that sillly. (spoilers finale) -- Sophist, 18:41:21 06/05/02 Wed
Lesbian desires/issues are an important, but small part of society. I object to the people
who are focusing on these issues without even trying to see the "bigger picture." To me, the bigger picture
here is that ME has been actively trying to show a positive lesbian relationship...
To me,
the big picture has to include the end of the relationship as well as the formation and the development of
it. I don't see how I can judge the handling of a relationship without taking that into account. Given that, I
think that the discussion about the ending is a fair topic that deserves consideration on its own merit.
I get the impression that most of the people who really had a problem with Tara's death
have an axe to grind, and I don't want to see them grind it all over my favorite television
show.
I haven't seen anyone on this board do this. While I wouldn't defend the more
emotional posts on the Kitten Board, I don't think it's fair to say they "have an axe to grind". They were
among the strongest defenders of the show until the conclusion to S6. They felt -- rightly or wrongly --
betrayed by the ending. That's not grinding an axe, it's an expression of disappointment.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
One last attempt. -- Traveler, 03:39:55 06/06/02 Thu
I'm really sick of this
subject (not your fault, just me), so I'll respond to this post, but afterwards we'll just have to agree to
disagree. Sorry if I seem a little bitter.
"To me, the big picture has to include the end of the
relationship as well as the formation and the development of it."
The relationship ended
when Tara was accidentally shot by an evil man. This has absolutely nothing to do with lesbians or
lesbianism. Although I have seen people go through incredible mental contortions in an attempt to show
that it does, their arguments are filled with holes, and generally lack the "bigger picture" mentality that I
described before.
"I haven't seen anyone on this board do this. While I wouldn't defend the
more emotional posts on the Kitten Board, I don't think it's fair to say they "have an axe to
grind"."
I was mostly speaking about the Kitten's article that was posted earlier in the
thread. The fact that the Kittens supported BtVS when it portrayed Willow and Tara exactly as they
wanted them portrayed doesn't impress me very much. Also, just because the Kittens felt "betrayed"
doesn't mean that they don't have an axe to grind. I am refering to the axe of, "oh, poor me." The axe of,
"I am the oppressed, the victem of all society's woes." The assumption that everything is about them.
Every whisper in the dark is a vile slander against them. Every setback is a personal oppression. After
debating this topic endlessly, I am now glad that the Kitten's don't feel that ME represents them. Why
should ME represent the gay community any more than it represents the straight community? The
white community? The female community? The vampire community? I want a show, not a civil rights
movement.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Some things are more
important to do than to justify. -- skeeve, 08:13:34 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> Anya did -- Vickie, 15:04:08
06/03/02 Mon
Anya: "I have condoms. Some of them are black."
Xander:
"That's .... very thoughtful."
(This was their first sexual encounter, in the basement
pad.)
Also, when Joyce found out about Buffy and Angel, she specifically asks if they were
"careful." I don't think Buffy had the heart to tell her that preganancy wasn't really an issue (him being
dead and all). And now we find out that she was wrong (Connor).
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anya did -- Ronia,
20:29:00 06/03/02 Mon
Did she find that out in S2 or S3? For some reason I'm
thinking it was season 3 when they established that he couldn't have children. Sometime near the ep
when Angel and Joyce decided that Buffy needed someone more mainstream? In a cemetary? Can't quite
remember. Although since he was stalking her with intent to kill (or possibly make her his next craft
project a la Drusilla) and also immortal, this pregnancy issue may have fallen into the backround
;0)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Angel's impotence... --
Q, 23:12:14 06/03/02 Mon
Was first suggested in "Bad Eggs", reinforced throughout
season 3, proved wrong in "Heartthrob"
[> [> [> [> [> [> Connor was a special
circumstance -- Masq, 11:02:39 06/04/02 Tue
Vampires cannot impregnante
humans or other vampires. Period, finito.
Unless a supernatural power intervenes. So unless
there are special magics lurking about, Angel is impotent. Again. As usual.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm probably just being
pedantic here but... -- O'Cailleagh, 11:15:50 06/04/02 Tue
Angel, as far as we
know, is not impotent. He is infertile. Impotence is the name that used to be given to Erectile Dysfunction.
As Angel is capable of having sex, I'd have to say that it probably isn't a problem for him...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're right, i meant
infertile. That's what I get for posting and working at the same time -- Masq, 13:04:18 06/04/02
Tue
Obviously he has no trouble getting it up, or performing, for that matter. : )
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Same goes for me
and my little "lethal/legal" snafu...LOL -- Rob, 15:38:24 06/04/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> How was he special? --
skeeve, 07:56:45 06/05/02 Wed
For all we can tell, every male vampire with a human
soul is fertile and can even impregnate un-human-souled female vampires.
Can slayers get
pregnate? Does anyone in the Buffyverse know?
[> [> Re: Interesting JE quotes re: Willow & Tara (spoilers from
"Seeing Red" to the end of the season) -- TRM, 16:45:47 06/03/02 Mon
I don't think that an artist necessarily has a responsibility for his or her work beyond personal
motivation; on the other hand, I don't think that critics are culpable simply because they present
criticism.
ME has a right to do with its characters as it pleases. Yet, I find it difficult to
believe that ME is motivated simply by artistic drivers nor are they completely motivated by feelings of
social responsibility. ME certainly did show concern about the social impact their treatment of W/T
would have as evidenced by their extensive discussions of Tara's death that JE seemed to imply. Indeed,
ME has both artistic and social concerns in mind and neither one, do I feel, will definitively take priority
over the other. What it boils down to is what ME feels needs to be done.
We all have different
priorities. Many on this board seem to treat artistic integrity as if it should be paramount, and, as I noted
before, this is understandable since most of us have a strong literary bent. Yet honestly, artistic integrity
is not the only driving force in our world. The kittens clearly prioritize some degree of social
responsibility more than the level of artistic integrity that we choose. Thus, the kittens, in my view, are
justified in being indignant, and their opinions do not warrant the extent of derision and attack that we've
seen on this board. It's a matter of individual choice and neither artistic integrity nor social responsibility
are ever definitively the "right" route.
Speaking of the tendency to polarize, it is worth note
that artistic integrity and social responsibility are not necessarily polar opposites. Indeed, if we take the
W/T treatment as being that which would have happened to any other couple, then ME arguably
forwarded both artistic and social goals. They were able to move the plot along as they planned and
furthermore were able to present a lesbian couple in an example of full integration -- with the good and
the bad.
Yet, that is but one interpretation. This world is full of many. Furthermore, intent is
not the same as impact. I think few of us are qualified really to judge whether Tara's ending has a positive
or negative impact on the lesbian or questioning community at large. I'd think it likely has both effects
and not everyone is going to react similarly. Certainly the kittens and our board haven't.
But
once again, I am simply trying to say that the criticisms launched by the kittens are valid and justifiable,
even if I personally agreed with ME's ultimate decision.
With respect to the question on Gunn,
I've been balancing on a beam on whether to bring in the issue of affirmative action, and have been
reluctant since its not affirmative action itself that I wanted to see debated, but the arguments for its
existance. In a nutshell, while racial minorities have, by law, equal rights and opportunities in practice
this is not necessarily true. Movements such as affirmative action are meant to act as a balancing force
against residual forms of prejudice. While the arguments around affirmative action are many, it does tie
back into W/T and the debate we've since been having.
Is special treatment of lesbians
justified? Consider that discrimination based on sexual orientation is not by law prohibited. If
you check most statutes, you will read a list along the lines of discrimination being prohibited based on:
race, gender, religion, and social class and other arbitrary characteristics. Whether sexual orientation
falls under the blanket category of "other arbitrary" characteristics has not been legally defined and you
are more likely to find it in corporate codes of conduct than in US and certainly not international
law.
Ultimately, the argument is that social inequities are not resolved simply by considering
them non-existant as one might argue that racial discrimination is less of a modern issue because
minorities have equal status under law. On the same token, treatment of homosexuality has even less
protection and therefore may certainly warrant some degree of active action.
But, tying once
again to the beginning of my argument. What action is taken is up to ME to decide weighing against
their other motivations and up to the kittens to analyze and criticize.
As a final question, it
amuses me that the kittens are referred to on our board by this name and wonder (since I rarely go beyond
this board) whether anyone knows what people refer to the posters here.
[> [> Re: Interesting JE quotes re: Willow & Tara (spoilers from
"Seeing Red" to the end of the season) -- Malandanza, 17:11:36 06/05/02 Wed
"W&T were essentially a unique symbol on American TV, providing a social service
above and beyond their role in the show. I agree that you couldn't let that fact be the total determiner of
what should and shouldn't be done to the pair, but does it deserve no consideration at
all?"
I don't watch enough TV to know if all other lesbian relationships have been played
as abusive and unhealthy, but I find it hard to believe that Willow/Tara is the best role model for a lesbian
couple. To start with, W/T began under inauspicious circumstances, with Willow running to Tara to
escape her conscience -- to prove to herself that she loved Tara, so it justified what happened with Oz.
The same night he leaves Sunnydale, Willow begins her relationship with Tara. We've only seen the
couple fight three or four times, but in each case, Tara was the reasonable party and Willow was
domineering. For example, here's part of the conversation that began with Tara defending Buffy's
guardianship of Dawn:
WILLOW: No, I was snippy gal, it's just... I know I can't, on some
level... it's like my opinion isn't worth anything because I haven't been through... I didn't lose my mom, so
I don't know...
TARA: Well I'm not the expert, I mean, I only lost one... Do I act like I'm the
big Knowledge Woman?
WILLOW: No...
TARA: Is that "no" spelled Y-E-
S?
WILLOW: S-O-R-T of... it's just... I mean I just feel like the junior partner sometimes,
you've been doing everything longer than me, you've been out longer, and practicing witchcraft way
longer--
TARA: --Oh but you're way beyond me there. In just a few -- I mean it frightens me
how powerful you're getting.
Beat. That was definitely the wrong thing to
say.
WILLOW: That's a weird word.
TARA: (knows damn well)
"Getting"?
WILLOW: It frightens you? I frighten you?
TARA: That's so not what
I mean. I meant impresses, impressive...
WILLOW: Well I took Psyche 101 -- I mean, I took
it from an evil government scientist who was skewered by her Frankenstein-like creation right before the
final -- but I know what a Freudian slip is. (beat) Don't you trust me?
TARA: With my
life!
WILLOW: That's not what I mean.
TARA: Can't we just go the
fair?
WILLOW: I'm not feeling real multicultural right now. What is it about me that you
don't trust?
TARA: It's not that. I worry. Sometimes...You're changing so much, so fast, I
don't know... where you're heading...
WILLOW: Where I'm heading?
TARA: I'm
saying everything wrong.
WILLOW (vulnerable) I think you're being pretty clear. It isn't the
witch thing -- this is about the other changes in my life.
TARA: I trust you. I just... I don't
know where I'm gonna fit in. In your life, when --
WILLOW: When I'change back'? Yeah,
this is just a college thing, just a little experimentation before I get over the thrill and head back to boys'
town. You think that?
She is pretty confrontational here. Even Tara is surprised that she meets
it halfway:
TARA: Should I?
Beat. Bitter.
WILLOW: You know, I'm
really sorry I didn't establish my lesbo street cred before I got into this relationship. But you're the only
woman I've ever fallen in love with, so how on earth could you possibly take me
seriously?
And she's heading out.
TARA: Willow, please--
WILLOW:
Have fun at the fair.
She's gone. Tara is stricken.
Tough Love
Then
there are the fights that lead up to the amnesia spell, the fight after Tara reveals to Willow that she knows
about the mind games, Willow's deliberate lying and manipulation before she cast the second spell in
Tabula Rasa. The didn't seem to be a fight at the end of TR, just Tara leaving.
Looking at the most romantic moments between Tara and Willow, the romance seems to be
all on Tara's side. She makes the heartbreaking Jane Austen style speeches while Willow basks in the
glow of the attention. The first time I remember Willow saying how great Tara is for her is after Tara's
death -- and even then, there is an element of self absorption -- what Tara's death did to
Willow:
WILLOW (cont'd) Something, isn't it? One tiny piece of metal destroys
everything. It ripped her insides out... It took her light away. From me. From the world... And the person
who should be here is gone - and waste like you gets to live.
Villains
or this
speech from Two to Go
WILLOW (cont'd)- the only thing going for me - were those
moments - just moments - when Tara would look at me and I was wonderful. (beat) And that will never
happen again.
There are way too many first person pronouns in Willow's speeches
about Tara. Willow is upset less for Tara's sake and more for her own. Warren didn't do this to Tara, he
did it to Willow.
Anyway, to say that Willow/Tara was somehow an idealized lesbian
relationship that should have been allowed to continue to serve as a positive role model is something I find
as absurd as saying that Buffy/Spike was the perfect heterosexual relationship.
But as for
censoring Buffy, whether it is to perpetuate a positive role model or to eliminate a negative stereotype, I
suggest that anyone who has not read the coda to Ray Bradbury's
Fahrenheit 451, ought to do so. Here's an excerpt:
The point is obvious. There is
more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. Every
minority, be it Baptist / Unitarian, Irish / Italian / Octogenarian / Zen Buddhist, Zionist/Seventh-day
Adventist, Women's Lib/Republican, Mattachine/FourSquareGospel feel it has the will, the right, the duty
to douse the kerosene, light the fuse. Every dimwit editor who sees himself as the source of all dreary
blanc-mange plain porridge unleavened literature, licks his guillotine and eyes the neck of any author who
dares to speak above a whisper or write above a nursery rhyme.
If censorship ever does
reach the proportion of Bradbury's imagination, we'll all be watching the "Palour Walls" instead of
Buffy.
[> You are talking about the Succubus club interview with Jane
Espenson for the transcript go... -- Rufus, 00:12:25 06/04/02 Tue
here
For the
MP3 of the Jane Espenson interview go
The Succubus Club
The Metaphysics of The Realverse Vs. The Buffyverse
Part 1 (longish...may contain spoilage) -- O'Cailleagh, 09:52:34 06/03/02 Mon
THE METAPHYSICS OF THE REALVERSE Vs. THE BUFFYVERSE
Over the
past couple of weeks, there have been a number of threads pertaining to the many metaphysical aspects of
the Buffyverse. The following essays are my response. But first, allow me to explain my
perspective.
I have been a practising Witch for 12 years, just under half my life. For most of
that time, I have also studied Holistic and Complementary medicine and healing traditions (having been
qualified to practise some of them for the past 3-4 years). This gives me valuable experience in the nature
of energy, magick, and the different levels of reality.
I have also had a passion for folklore,
mythology, and'the supernatural' for as long as I can remember. Therefore, the following is purely my own
interpretation of the Buffyverse, filtered through my understanding of this
Universe.
OUR UNIVERSE
Levels of Reality
The
Universe, according to both Holistic theory and Physics, is composed of energy. This energy has various
frequencies, or vibrations, that make up the different levels of reality. There are several of these levels, or
planes, of reality, the exact number differing dependant on the authority, but most agree on a basic few,
some of which we shall discuss here. The lowest level, that which has the densest vibratory rate, is known
as
The Physical Plane
This is what we know as waking reality. It is
everything we can detect with the five senses. It is where our Physical Bodies reside (or, indeed, the
physical body, or mass, of everything else). The physical body is the lowest vibration of the Aura,
the'solid' part.
The Etheric Plane
This is the next plane of existence. The
etheric plane is'semi-physical', meaning some of its attributes are easily experienced through the physical
senses with little to no effort or attunement. The most well-known examples of etheric energy are:
magnetic; electrical; and Chi/Prana/Mana. To experience one aspect of etheric energy, run your hand past
your screen, not quite touching it, next time you switch your computer or TV on. The static that you feel is
the interference of the electro-magnetic field (EMF) around the device with your Etheric Body (which, of
course, resides on the Etheric Plane).
The etheric body is the first'band' of the Aura. It is the
most visible part and is usually seen as a blue or white haze closely surrounding the physical body. Try
looking at the top of a row of trees against a clear summer sky to see this level of the aura. The etheric
body is also known as the etheric blueprint. Upon conception (or later according to other beliefs) the Soul
enters the fertilised ovum, bringing with it its subtle bodies. Of these the etheric body acts as a blueprint
for the Soul's physical body, kind of like metaphysical DNA.
In appearance, the etheric plane,
or Parallel Earth Plane as it is sometimes called, is a more brightly coloured and'glowy' version of the
physical plane-it is the plane most commonly seen when using mild psychoactive substances such as
LSD.
The Mental/Emotional Planes
Although two planes, the Mental and
Emotional are so closely related, I have placed them together (most planes occur in complementary
pairings or groups). The names of these planes are self-explanatory. The mental plane is where we do our
thinking (via the Mental Body). It is logical, rational, literal, linear, active, masculine, Animus, positive,
Yang. The emotional plane is where we do our feeling (via the Emotional Body). It is creative,
spontaneous, symbolic, cyclic, passive, feminine, Anima, negative, Yin.
The
mental/emotional bodies are experienced as the mind. They extend from a few inches to about a foot from
the physical body.
The next relevant level is the Astral, or Psychic Plane. This is where we
find the Astral Body and psychic abilities such as Telepathy, Empathy, Psychokinesis, Astral Travel, and
Psychic Healing. (Although these abilities act within other planes, it is the psychic plane we are utilising)
The astral body may take many forms but will usually be an idealised form of the physical body. The astral
plane is also where we find other realms such as those inhabited by nature spirits (commonly known to
Pagans as Faeries, and to some other faiths as Demons/Angels), and is also where we go when we dream
(as well as other planes).
The Spiritual Plane
Is our next stop. This level is
home to many life-forms including Spirit Guides and Plant and Animal Devas/Group Souls (on the
higher spiritual plane), and contains the Afterlife realms (on the lower spiritual plane). It is through our
Spiritual Body that we may communicate with beings from this level and administer Spiritual Healing
(utilising the psychic body as well).It is rare for a person to directly experience this plane while
alive.
The Divine Plane
This is the highest level of existence and is inhabited
by various Gods and Goddesses on the Lower Divine Plane, and Deity/ the Source on the Higher Divine
Plane. This is also the original home of the Divine Body, or Soul, which forms a link to the Divine from
the physical body. However, the Soul does not return here upon death of the physical, it must first
reincarnate many times in order to experience all aspects of life before returning to its source. The Soul
may extend for several feet from the physical body dependant on its stage of evolution. The Soul is the
Divine spark that animates the physical body (although it is not the force that'powers' it. This life-force is
Chi/Prana/Mana and operates on the etheric level. It is derived from food and drink, air, bodily movement
and other sources.), the part of us which connects us to all of creation, and provides us with Divine
guidance, the conscience.
Interaction of the Planes of Existence
The
described planes, or levels, all lie on top of one another in layers (from a linear viewpoint at least)
overlapping where they'touch', and surrounded by The Void, or Chaos (the inner planes being regarded as
Order). In order to access one of the planes other than the physical, it is necessary to move or send your
consciousness into the desired plane. This is simpler than it sounds and is practised everyday with
everything that you do. For example, dreaming (especially flying dreams) is uncontrolled astral travel.
According to myth, this arrangement of the planes has not always been so. In ancient times,
beings from other realms could easily traverse the planes, as could people, because at that point the levels
were much more closely linked (from our modern standpoint, we would say that perception of other planes
was much easier as people lived more in tune with their natural environment). This continued until a
higher being (or more than one, depending on the myth) decided to separate the planes. This meant that
there could no longer be physical travel between the planes, something which has continued up until our
present time.
Magick and Witchcraft
Magick (the art of changing reality in
accordance with will) is accomplished by putting a thought, intensified with emotion/Chi/elemental
energy/Divine energy onto one of the higher planes (usually the Astral). This thought-form then filters
down onto the physical plane, taking physical form. This happens in an apparently natural way (e.g. there
is not usually a flash of light and the desired result instantly materialised).
Witchcraft, a form
of Paganism, is the name for a group of Nature religions (Indo-European in origin) that practise magick.
There are several traditions of Witchcraft, one of which is Wicca.
Wicca was founded in the
mid 20th century by Gerald Gardner, who based it on the teachings of the New Forest coven that had
initiated him, combined with Ceremonial Magick (a Judeo-Christian Magickal tradition), Stregheria
(Italian Witchcraft) and Celtic Paganism. With the help of Doreen Valiente, Gardner authored the Wiccan
Book of Shadows. Gardnerian Wicca has itself had many offshoots, most based on Gardner's
work.
There are also many other traditions of Witchcraft that are known as'something Wicca',
e.g. Celtic-Wicca, or Pecti-Wicca, these are traditions that have reclaimed the use of the word Wicca,
rather than basing their religious practises on the teachings of Gardner et al. There are also many
traditions of Witchcraft that do not use the word Wicca at all. These are usually the Traditional Witches,
most of whom apparently derive their religious beliefs from Anglo-Saxon times through hereditary
practises.
However, most today use the terms interchangeably, and should all be considered to
be Pagan as this is where the origins of the traditions are found. The three principles of the Pagan
Federation (which are usually upheld by Pagans, be they a member or not) are: 1) Love for and kinship
with nature. Reverence for the life-force and its ever renewing cycles of life and death; 2) A Positive
Morality, in which the individual is responsible for the discovery and development of their true nature in
harmony with the outer world and community. This is often expressed as'Do what thou will, as long as it
harms none'; 3) Recognition of the Divine, which transcends gender, acknowledging both the female and
the male aspects of Deity.
THE BUFFYVERSE
The Buffyverse, in
many ways, is exactly the same as our Universe, the Realverse. The main difference appears to be, given
the information above, that the levels of reality are more closely related, perhaps even still as one, thus the
apparent ease of travelling physically between dimensions, and the instantaneous nature of magick. Why
this should be so, when Buffyverse mythology tells us a tale similar to the one mentioned above (the
demons losing their purchase on this reality), is open to speculation. However, the fact remains that this is
clearly how the Buffyverse is arranged. The metaphysical laws are the same, the only difference being the
intermingling of the planes of existence.
This phenomenon appears to be responsible for many
of the differences between the two'Verses. It is for this reason that Demons and other Otherplane
inhabitants are able to exist corporeally on the physical plane, as well as the abundance of portals and
Hellmouths.
In our Universe, we have many areas that are considered sacred, or otherwise
special, because of the concentrations of energy at these points. These are usually caused by the meeting of
a number of leylines, or energy currents, creating a powerful energy nexus. Areas such as Stonehenge are
good examples of these occurrences (although here the energy is amplified by the arrangement of the
stones). In the Buffyverse however, these powerpoints become Hellmouths, or portals, through which
beings may physically pass into other realms or dimensions.
Magick within the Buffyverse is
usually has instant, dramatic effects, and is frequently accompanied by various lights and sounds. As the
planes are merged, this is understandable. The energy used to accomplish the magick is visible and
audible, and the result of the magick is instant, because it does not have to filter down through the planes.
This allows for much more powerful magick than is usually seen in our Universe (akin to the practise of
Wizardry).
We do not know much about the history, geography, or mythology of the
Buffyverse, therefore speculation is necessary, based upon our own Universe, compared with what we do
know of the Buffyverse. It appears that for the most part, the history and geography remain the same as
our Universe (with a few notable exceptions, e.g. the town of Sunnydale, this does not exist in our
Universe; only 103 elements have been discovered in the Buffyverse, we have at least 8 more), as does
most mythology, but as there are differences that we know about, it is reasonable to assume that there may
be others that we do not.
One apparently ongoing debate is concerned with the nature of
Wicca/Witchcraft within the Buffyverse as it appears to be quite unlike the Wicca/Witchcraft of our
own'Verse. I postulate that, aside from the differences between the speeds or intensity of the magick, there
is very little difference between the Wicca/Witchcraft of the two'Verses. After all, we have never met (and
got to know) a fully- (or even partially) trained Witch or Wiccan in either show. The only ones we have
met are: Catherine Madison (referred to as a Witch, although this is not substantiated by anything except
her use of magick, which was Dark/Evil and therefore not the product of Witchcraft/Wicca); Amy
Madison (again, no proof that she is actually a Witch, just a Magick-user); Willow (calls herself both
Witch and Wicca although doesn't appear to have any religious practise, still refers to herself as Jewish,
and to magick as the Dark Arts. Constantly uses magick in a selfish manner, uses it to obtain power. Not
the actions of a Witch or Wiccan); and Tara (the only Witch featured so far to have been grounded in a
Spirituality. Apparently taught by her mother, who died when Tara was 17, seemingly after a long illness,
Tara's Craft is the closest we have seen to a Realverse Witch or Wiccan. The minor discrepancies are
easily explained by the possibility that her mother was unable to impart everything she could have due to
the intolerance of the men of the family, coupled with her illness and early death).
The college
Wicca group where Willow and Tara first meet seem to be Goddess oriented Pagans, but not Wiccans
/Witches. This is because they do not appear to worship/acknowledge the God-aspect of Deity, and do not
seem to believe in using magick. Then, of course, we have Jenny Calendar, who claims to be a Techno-
Pagan, although she is later revealed to be a Romani Gypsy. Again, as with Tara, Jenny is a good
representation of a typical modern Pagan of the type found in our Universe. The coven that assisted
Giles/sent him to help, seem to be similar to Realverse Witches or Wiccans too. The other magick users
that we have met have not been referred to as Witches or Wiccans, and so are beyond my areas of
expertise!
So ends the first part of this essay. Stay tuned for'Part 2: Vampires and Demons and
Souls! Oh my!', and'Part 3: The Slayer and The Key'
[> Woa! Thanks! -- Vickie, 10:04:37 06/03/02 Mon
Please do continue, this is great stuff.
[> Re: The Metaphysics of The Realverse Vs. The Buffyverse Part 1
(longish...may contain spoilage) -- Darby, 10:11:21 06/03/02 Mon
Ummmm....
Interesting, really interesting. Some of the "plane"
assertions,especially etheric, I'd like to point out are very easily explained from a physical plane
standpoint, as just an alternative take. And I'm too much the reductionist (against my will, sometimes,
but so) to address the other planes except to say that there are certainly alternative explanations to those as
well.
Sorry, the science-guy in me is trying to bite a metaphoric lip, and I do like to read these
perspectives, but I had to say this much. And y'know, I'm sure from my experiences here that I probably
didn't really need to speak up for anyone's benefit but mine.
Done rambling now...shuffling
off...bye...
[> I liked this essay. Kudos! Waiting with excitement, but with one
? -- VampRiley, 10:28:18 06/03/02 Mon
How did you come up with the
Buffyverse only having 103 elements and not all of ours? Did I miss something?
Curious
in Philly
[> [> What if Buffyverse magick works different than Realverse
magick. -- VR, 13:24:10 06/03/02 Mon
What if the planes of existence are
separated like they are in the Realverse. What if Buffyverse magick actually alters probability fields to
produce the effects, rather than putting a thought with energy into another plane. That might explain how
the effects are rather immediate.
At this point, I'm thinking maybe the concetrations of energy,
like those used for portals, may just be used to enhanced certain spells and rituals or used to fuel magicks
when a certain amount is needed. The concentration gives the benefit of not having to wait around to
collect ambient magickal energy from the area. This might take a long time. Hence, these concentrations
lessen the time needed to perform such spells. Angel couldn't open a portal to Pylea because all of the
energy needed to perform the spell was used up and it was too soon before that particular area could
collect enough energy in the concentration it had before the spell was done so that that particular spell
could be used again. They were in a rush and it was at least a day before they left for to do the spell at
another "hot spot", I think.
Just a thought.
VR
[> [> [> Okay, I checked. It's psychic, not magickal energy for
the hot spot. -- VR, 14:51:33 06/03/02 Mon
But the concept is still pretty much
the same.
[> [> Re: I liked this essay. Kudos! Waiting with excitement, but
with one ? -- The Corruptor, 18:21:32 06/07/02 Fri
The guy that Willow is
tutoring in "Inca Mummy Girl" says that he has nearly memorised all 14 to which Willow replies "There
are 103"
[> [> [> Yes, Moloch...as I said... -- O'Cailleagh,
18:34:29 06/07/02 Fri
[> Can't wait for part 2 and 3! Gimme, gimme, gimme! ;o) --
Deeva, 12:14:19 06/03/02 Mon
[> Re: The Metaphysics of The Realverse Vs. The Buffyverse Part 1
(longish...may contain spoilage) -- redcat, 12:34:18 06/03/02 Mon
?Aloha e O'Cailleagh e kakou (other readers),
Thank you so much for the
great post. You've obviously put a lot of work into these ideas. It's exciting to see a young Witch
practicing the craft of analysis in ways that so creatively link pagan perceptions and understandings to a
contemporary cultural phenomenon like Buffy. I eagerly await your next two posts
Trying to
do this kind of comparison is an interesting intellectual exercise, although I'm not so sure that a much
simpler explanation wouldn't also work just as well, i.e., the Buffyverse and the RealVerse are different
because one is a cultural production on TV in which created characters act out pre-set scenarios during
which symbolic metaphors are embodied as if they were real, and therefore anything the writers want to
do and that their special effects team can pull off, can occur. It takes a certain wyrd mental twist of
imagination to do what you have done in your post here -- attempt a "logical" explanation of the rules of a
fictitious universe through a comparison to what many people will also consider "fictional," the
pagan/Holistic system of planes, because it disrupts their scientific world view (see Darby's post, above). I
hope you are prepared for a long discussion about the nature of reality in the coming days. And to any
who might be tempted to enter such a debate, and in the interests of supporting O'Cailleagh's "alternative"
version of things, I would like to forward an idea from physics that might be helpful in guiding such
discussions, to wit:
Light can be described as either waves or particles. Both descriptions are
accurate. However, it is difficult, if not impossible, to design a scientific experiment in which light is
originally described as waves but in which one's answers will be obtained in particles, or to design an
experiment in which light is described as particles that will produce an answer in waves. Just because
different descriptions of reality seem to be in conflict does not mean that one of them is wrong. I believe it
was the great physicist Neils Bohr who said something like (BAD paraphrase here, but I couldn't find the
exact quote - sorry) , "The universe is not only more complicated than we imagine, it is more complicated
than we are capable of imagining." (He was speaking of the outer limits of the human brain's capacity to
encompass information and, at our best, most of us use less than 20% of that.) Remembering the light
analogy allows us to be kind to each other rather than judgmental when we disagree about basic
epistemological approaches to "Reality."
However, dear O'Cailleagh, as a favor to an old
pagan - I've been practicing longer than you've been alive, although you started at a younger age than I
did, for which I respect you enormously - may I ask you to reconsider your use of language in the
RealVerse world in which real women and men have to live. I quote below your paragraph on the Mental
and Emotional Planes:
"The mental plane is where we do our thinking (via the Mental Body).
It is logical, rational, literal, linear, active, masculine, Animus, positive, Yang. The emotional plane is
where we do our feeling (via the Emotional Body). It is creative, spontaneous, symbolic, cyclic, passive,
feminine, Anima, negative, Yin."
You do here what so many continue to do, influenced
by the corruption of nearly four thousand years of patriarchal hegemony on this planet. The opposite of
active/masculine is not passive/feminine, but RECEPTIVE/feminine. The differences between the two
words, passive and receptive, are enormous. The consequences of those differences are lived out in the
scarred psyches and bodies of women AND MEN around the world and across time and history.
"Receptivity" is an creative function, it asserts conscious choice and willed participation in the creative
act. "Passivity" suggests the absence of choice and the presence of "necessary" domination - the definition
of the lives of most women and a large portion of non-economically-dominant men in most cultures in
most regions of the planet since about 2,000 BCE. This is also the difference between a woman willingly
being an active participant in the act of heterosexual sex, pulling her lover's penis into herself, thrusting
up with him and pulling him deeper into her, as opposed to what happens when a man rams his penis into
an unwilling and non-participating woman during the violence of rape. I'm sure we can all supply the
relevant comparisons to gay male and lesbian sex as well. This is extreme language, I know, but I feel
very strongly about the ways in which language reflects our understandings of "the way things are," which
in turn helps create things as that way.
The perceptual definition of the opposite of active as
passive, coded in language which links that definition to the bi-polar dynamic of male and female, has
historical origins - but it need not continue to have contemporary relevance, IF we refuse to allow it to.
My writing to you on this subject is part of my contribution to the contemporary reconstruction of gender
ideology. I hope you take it in that spirit. And so I plead with you, someone who is obviously on a path
toward personal spiritual development and intellectual clarity, to reconsider your diagrammatic use of
these bi-polar terms.
Besides, this way, you can cleverly resist the diacritic imperative and
patriarchal hegemony at the same time!! After all, that's one of the most fun things about being a pagan!
(Well, aside from the face-painting, that is .........)
IPLIPTBB,
redcat
[> [> Re: The Metaphysics of The Realverse Vs. The Buffyverse
Part 1 (longish...may contain spoilage) -- O'Cailleagh, 16:20:27 06/03/02 Mon
Thank you all for your kind words, I'm glad that you liked it. Parts 2 and 3 will be along over
the next couple of weeks...I'm still researching at the mo.
Some good points were raised, and
I'll try to address them now.
Darby, I agree, each of the'phenomena' associated with the
different planes do have a scientific basis, but this is not an alternative, merely a part of the bigger picture.
Metaphysics means exactly that-an extension of physical law, not a contradiction or denial of its existence.
Holism encompasses the'Whole' and that includes those pesky science bits!
Holistic theory can be
thought of as science viewed through the eyes of a'mystic', and science as magick through a scientist's
eyes. Both perceptions are right, Holism just adds more, has a wider'world-view'.
VR, the
elements question-in Inca Mummy Girl, Rodney tells Willow that he's almost memorised the fourteen
natural elements, Willow says that there are 103, and I, for one, am taking her word for it!
The energy spec...this was one of the avenues I explored in my research, but it didn't totally support the
fact that'Otherplaners' are able to exist corporeally on the physical plane...although I might just mull that
over for a while...
Redcat, first off, you are absolutely right,'passive' was the wrong word to
use, and I apologise to anyone I may have offended with that-ordinarily I would have used'receptive', I'm
not sure why I didn't here, except that I was a little concerned about using'positive/negative'. I am aware
that these can also be taken to have'alternative' connotations.
Secondly, thank you, for both the
physics info (I was trying to save space!) and the'wyrd mental twist of imagination' bit...thats if it *is* a
compliment!
And just to clarify...I do know that the differences are down to the'Hollywood
factor', I just like to obsess over these things! Plus it helps with the suspension of disbelief! Thought I
ought to mention that...just in case...
[> [> [> Yes, it was a compliment - if a bit on the
"wyrd" side... ;-) -- redcat, 16:41:49 06/03/02 Mon
I do like your
work here so much and am glad that you took my request for language clarity in the spirit in which it was
meant. These issues are often so hard to come to grips with -- positive/negative, black/white, good/bad,
male/female. We live in a world in which bifurcated or bi-polarized terms both accurately describe the
world and also act as co-creative agents in the continuation of social and cultural power structures. I
struggle with this issue in my work with students every day, and so am perhaps more sensitive to the
possible gender and race subtexts of the common oppositional pairs. But you did not "offend" me, and do
not owe me any apology! I'm just grateful that you understood my concern, are sympathetic to my point of
view and are being so civil about the whole thing.
I really look forward to your next posts, as
well as any discussions between you and the board's resident scientists that may arise because of them.
(...and I know you are just obsessing, dear. It's a great and very fun way to pass the time until S7 begins
in the fall.)
IPLIPT,BB
rc
[> [> [> The nature of knowledge -- matching mole,
15:08:25 06/04/02 Tue
Reading these posts reminds me of discussions I've had with
my mother. They are extremely interesting but also baffling because on certain levels our world-views are
so different.
I don't have time write a huge amount here so I'm going to phrase what I have to
say as a question. I don't intend that this question challenge anyone's world view but rather give me an
insight into how other people think.
O'Cailleagh presents a fairly detailed model of the
realverse with multiple planes. This is information. The Scoobies and A.I. are getting constantly getting
information about demons and whatnot out of books. Both types of information came from somewhere.
In the Buffyverse this information is put to the test frequently and it is accurate an astonishingly high
proportion of the time. But how do all of you decide whether information in the realverse is accurate or
not?
Darby offers alternative explanations to O'Cailleagh's model. The response is that the
model includes those things and more. My question (s) are how do you (anybody not just O'Cailleagh)
decide what the'more' is? And how does your decision making process relate to your belief (or lack
thereof) in some sort of objective reality?
I would be quite willing to believe in almost any kind
of metaphysical model if I had some reason to choose it over anything else. O'Cailleagh's model sounds
fine to me but I don't know why I should pick it over some other model that was slightly different (had an
extra plane in it) or completely different. Or the alternative that reality is completely subjective. Or that
there isn't anything else besides the physical plane? So I choose to believe in the physical universe
because it seems reasonably consistent and maintain a hopefully open-minded skepticism about everything
else. But that's just me and I don't really expect anyone else to think the way I do. But I am interested in
what other people, especially those who think really differently than I do, think.
[> [> [> [> The definition of metaphysics -- Etrangere,
15:33:04 06/04/02 Tue
is something that can't be proved either wrong either
right
in other worlds, the only reason you consider something of metaphysics true or not is
because you choose to consider it so.
That's the only legitimity you need for metaphysics
knowledge.
[> [> [> [> [> Hmm. -- Sophist, 18:23:10
06/04/02 Tue
What you say is true if and only if metaphysics makes no claim about the
universe. If metaphysics makes no claims about the universe, why should I care about it?
If it
does make such a claim, that claim is (usually) testable. If it's not testable, then it's hard to see it as
anything more than an opinion (I like chicken better than fish). If it is testable, then we can decide
whether you are reasonable to believe it. N'est pas?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmm. -- redcat,
18:07:22 06/05/02 Wed
Well, yes and no. Depends on who the "we" is.
Testing a metaphysical claim is not necessarily the problem; deciding what type of test one
considers "effective" is. Traditional holistic practitioners are often the most empirically and
experientially-oriented knowledge-seekers in their individual cultures. This is certainly true of traditional
indigenous herbalists, but is also true of contemporary Witches, Yogis and others whose work links
holistic theory and praxis. Contemporary western scientists tend to particularly discount the knowledge
gained through the holistic practice of this second group far more than they do the knowledge of
indigenous herbalists, for example, because: 1) testing procedures normative to certain types of holistic
practice do not always give results in ways that make sense within the scientific paradigm; and 2) it
cannot always be demonstrated to scientists' satisfaction that the testing procedures and parameters are
rational, repeatable and discrete. How does one quantify, for example, spiritual awareness, or connection
to universal energies, or unconditional love? And yet Yogis and Witches argue endlessly among
themselves about exactly these issues - what practices DO work best? What discipline, behaviors, study or
enactment of principles will bring one closest to the state of true understanding of the universe in both its
physical and beyond-physical states? What makes rational sense to a Witch or a Yogi or someone else
interesting in working at the always-fluctuating intersection of matter and energy might not be the same
thing as what seems rational to either a scientist or (pardon the pun, PLEASE) a sophist.
Just a
thought - rc
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmm. -- Sophist,
18:26:31 06/05/02 Wed
Since sophist has a double meaning, I'll take it as a
compliment.
I agree that the details of the test may be difficult to arrange. I also agree that
there may be controversy about such things as whether one is sufficiently "aware". At some point,
however, there must be a claim that (a) X is sufficiently spiritual, and (b) X can accomplish something in
the universe as a result. That claim is testable.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmm. --
redcat, 19:43:47 06/05/02 Wed
"At some point, however, there must be a claim that
(a) X is sufficiently spiritual, and (b) X can accomplish something in the universe as a result."
This statement illustrates my point, IF by "accomplishing something in the universe" you
mean "produce some physical difference that can be quantified and measured with current scientific
technology." If this IS what you mean, then my argument remains valid, since such physical "proof" is a
tenet of science (and certainly herbology) but may not be a tenet of proof for some types of Yoga or
Witchcraft. If you mean something else by your statement, please clear up my confusion. Thanks!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That is what I
meant -- Sophist, 09:06:53 06/06/02 Thu
I wouldn't describe it as a tenet of
science, so much as one of epistemology. It brings back mm's orginal question: how does someone else
know if the claims of the yogi or witch are true?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That is
what I meant -- O'Cailleagh, 09:26:18 06/06/02 Thu
I'm not sure that you're
asking the right question....one might aswell ask,'How does someone else know that the claims of the
scientist are true?'. By reading their research? Taking their word for it? In that case a person can easily
accept my (or another's) word. The only way you are ever going to know if something is real, or true, is to
experience it for yourself.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's
the sticking point -- Sophist, 10:53:10 06/06/02 Thu
Epistemology is a difficult
issue, but I can't agree that self-experience is the only method of true knowledge. That's too
solipsistic.
It is not possible to experience personally, for example, whether Lincoln was shot
or travel at the speed of light. We nevertheless have ways of agreeing about these things. mm's question,
and now mine, is what way is there of agreeing about the concepts you discuss?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I
guess I would frame the issue differently from any of you -- matching mole, 14:41:40 06/06/02
Thu
It's not really the issue of believing or not believing someone's claims that concerns
me. It is deciding for yourself whether what you've experienced is the'truth'. In science the belief is that
the properties of the universe are essentially random with respect to our feelings and desires. Therefore
scientists often try to be very careful to avoid having their feelings influence their tests. Whether or not
they are successful is not really the issue the point is that they try. As redcat so eloquently points out
many types of spirituality take precisely the opposite approach. Knowledge is self-knowledge to a large
extent. Trying to divorce yourself from the process of enlightenment is futile. I basically understood all
that before hand.
What I was really intrigued with, and I realize that I didn't make this clear,
was the specificity and detail of the original model at the top of the thread. Maybe it's just my ignorance
never really having tried this particular way of knowing myself but I was interested in how the details got
resolved. I wasn't really expecting to resovle science vs. other ways of knowing. I was going to take the
other ways of knowing for granted for the purposes of my question. I can't think of a way to phrase this
that doesn't sound flip because I don't mean it that way at all. Maybe it's just my lack of knowledge but I
find it hard to get my head around someone undergoing a quest for knowledge of the sort redcat describes
and coming out with x planes of existence as opposed to x-1 or x+1. I really don't want to insult anyone's
beliefs so I hope you don't take it that way.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I guess I would frame the issue differently from any of you -- redcat, 17:35:12 06/06/02
Thu
You don't sound flip at all, and I've always taken your questions seriously. I do not
think thatfolks as polite and curious as you and Sophist have been in this thread could possibly offend me.
Challenge me, yes. I cannot speak for O'Cailleagh, of course, but I appreciate your honest response and
hope the answer below helps.
You say you "find it hard to get my head around someone
undergoing a quest for knowledge of the sort redcat describes and coming out with x planes of existence
as opposed to x-1 or x+1." Well, they don't always. As O'Cailleagh notes, there is some differentiation
among systems and "authorities." Mystics argue among themselves as much as evolutionary biologists, it
seems. ;)
In this particular system (described in O'Cailleagh's original post) there are seven
planes from the physical to the divine. This is a classic system and is generally accepted in a broad range
of Holistic and pagan teachings, in part because it is quite useful and easy to understand, and in part
because it does accurately describe - at least from its own perspective - a wide range of human experiences
. Seven, moreover, is also the most common number used in metaphysical descriptive systems globally,
including the most famous and one of the oldest examples of a seven-tiered explanatory system, the seven
chakras of the human body as described in Vedic Yoga. Twelve and four are the next most common
numbers used in such descriptive systems. All but one of the major systems of astrology, for example,
uses twelve houses/signs (there is more variation on the # of planetary bodies); and while Western and
Chinese astrology do not use the same twelve signs/houses, nor break them at exactly the same place, the
systems are relatively comparable, although they developed in *almost* (not complete) isolation from
each other. Chinese metaphysics is relatively unique in its recognition of five elements. Western
paganism divides the world into four elementary categories, which are very similar to both Polynesian and
most Micronesian metaphysics that also code by fours; there are a numbed of West African cultural
groups that consider four and twelve to be sacred numbers; and there are specific correlations, of course,
between Jung's four personality types and the four suits of Tarot, etc. O'Cailleagh's system is a wonderful
device, rich, insightful, with powerful explanatory functions both as he uses it in his post and in other
real-world applications. Unlike other systems, this one does not work very well if one wants to build a
better computer or a better nuclear bomb. It works very well if one is trying to understand the broadest
range of possibilities of the connections between the physical and the divine.
As for
undergoing a quest for knowledge and coming out of it with a specific type of knowledge, it might be good
to think of the magick practitioner as being quite similar to others on such quests. The apprentice
magician or witch does not work in a vacuum. Although we see this dis-connected learning of magic
from books in the BuffyVerse, and its horrible consequences, in general Witches, witches and magicians
undergo a rigorous, complex and usually also somewhat eclectic training regime that requires the
commitment of many years, all of her/his intellectual, emotional, physical, spiritual and (usually)
financial energy, and the willingness to make changes in one's life as necessary. The longer you do it, the
better you get at it, and a predisposition -- a liking for the subject -- doesn't hurt either.
Now,
think about what it took for you to get your advanced certifications (BS. MS, PhD) in your field. You
were probably drawn to it relatively early, or at least before full adulthood. You then probably spent
countless hours being trained by others who had mastered the material before you. This is good, as you
did not have to reinvent either the wheel or Einstein's theories. You probably sacrificed a great deal,
including a significant portion of your youth (nights not spent drinking with your buddies listening to 70s
art rock bands) and a small fortune in tuition.
Perhaps you got a bad neck or developed bad
eyes from hunching over a microscope, or perhaps you lost the big-paying job with the giant corporation
because you discovered that you'd become quite oddly dedicated to your quest for knowledge for its own
sake. I imagine that as you got better at what you studied, you struggled to understand the meaning of the
texts written by the great masters, but retained enough scepticism to repeat their experiments for yourself
or to think through their theorems on your own. And finally, having mastered both the depth and breadth
of your discipline, you probably felt qualified to teach others.
At its best, the Craft requires
the same dedication, time and energy commitment, intellectual rigor and an skeptical, experiential
approach. Like in most of the sciences, a lot of the early wannabe practitioners don't go all the way (i.e.,
never make it past Freshman Chemistry), not because the magic isn't real, but because like everything that
is real, it takes hard work and a great deal of care and the help of a whole lot of other folks. It is not
surprising that given long training in a seven-tiered system, that one would then begin to think in seven-
tiered ways.
As for how it got to be that number instead of a different number, I think the
Chinese elemental system is instructive. The concept of the five elements - air, fire, water, wood and
metal - developed out of an earlier system of four - air, fire, water and earth. Discussions between
practitioners and seekers eventually led to the expansion of earth into wood and metal, probably because
the original four no longer was as useful *as a descriptive system* given the changes in Chinese culture,
society and technology. Who knows where the seven-tiered systems will end up. Most of them have been
pretty stable for several millennia, but the only constant in human culture is change.
Does any
of this help? Or am I just making it more confusing?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I guess I would frame the issue differently from any of you -- O'Cailleagh, 00:10:05 06/07/02
Fri
Hi Mole. Sorry to have misunderstood your point (and no, I am not offended by your
questions!).
If I understand you correctly (this time!), you wish to know how these concepts
were arrived at...well, I have to confess that I don't know. I'm guessing that it was through working with
the energies, those experiences, filtered through their understanding of the world. I could be wrong. What
matters to me is that these systems work, and show themselves to be accurate (in that there are other
planes that interact with the physical). How exact they are is another question, as redcat notes, these'maps'
change from culture to culture, tradition to tradition, even practitioner to practitioner! All I can say to you,
if you do have an interest, is go out to your local library and get books on magick, Holism, physics,
anything that deals with energy. See what system you come up with yourself.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thanks for your responses rc and O'C -- matching mole, 08:09:09 06/07/02 Fri
They were very helpful. I think that my impressions of mysticism have been heavily
influenced by my mother who basically'does her own thing'. She reads books and talks to other people but
she doesn't follow the practices of any particular group and definitely doesn't have a specific cosmology at
all.
Also, for some reason, I find it easy to conceive of a completely subjective universe where
everyone's reality is equally valid. Or a completely objective universe in which there is one true reality. I
have harder time thinking about a universe in which the fundmental properties are both objective (in the
sense that some things work and some things don't) and subjective (in that the consciousness of the
observer is involved in making them work) which is what I think you are getting at. I don't see any reason
to think that this possiblity is less likely than any other but for some reason it isn't the first (or even the
second) that jumps into my mind when I think about such things.
And, unfortunately, listening
to 70s art rock has generally been a solitary occupation for me. When I have played some of my more
avant garde faves in the hearing of others I was told at times that it made people nauseous and that it
sounded like nails being pulled out of a wall.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Thanks for your responses rc and O'C -- Rahael, 08:25:19 06/07/02 Fri
"Also, for some reason, I find it easy to conceive of a completely subjective universe where
everyone's reality is equally valid."
Well, you are a fan of Philip K Dick, after
all!!
LOL re the avant garde art rock.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Thanks for your responses rc and O'C -- redcat, 09:33:14 06/07/02 Fri
"a universe in which the fundmental properties are both objective (in the sense that some
things work and some things don't) and subjective (in that the consciousness of the observer is involved in
making them work)"
WOW! This is the clearest explanation of my worldview I've ever
read. Thanks!!
-- and don't feel bad about your taste in music. I once played some traditional
Hawaiian chants for my mainland students and they all just looked at me like I was a creature from outer
space. Then I played them some contemporary Hawaiian music and they just got bored.... oh, well, Israel
Kamakawiwo'ole ROCKS!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Whose
epistemology? -- redcat, 10:47:41 06/06/02 Thu
Your use of the singular form of
that word underscores my point that it is often difficult for "rationalists," especially those trained in
western-culture-based linear-thinking disciplines, to accept that there is more than one "way of knowing."
Even when used only in its singular form, epistemology as a concept (rather than as a'named' branch of
western philosophy) means "the investigation of the origin, nature, methods and limits of human
knowledge." That on its face, it seems to me, requires the inclusion of all the different human world
views and epistemic approaches to understanding the universe. That would therefore also require the
broadest possible definitions of "knowing" as well as "ways of knowing." You are fixed on the notion
that visible or measurable change over time at the physical level is the only verifiable test of truth claims,
because such physically-measurable changes over time are easily recognized by linear-based, physically-
oriented science as we know it today.
So let me ask you a question. Prior to the moment when
gravity or the magnetic force (either weak or strong) were "proved" to exist, or that we had the current
descriptions of light as both waves and particles, did these things - gravity, magnetic force or light - not
exist and act in exactly the same ways they do now? I'll answer my own question - of course they did,
even though the developing fields of science, and all the well-intentioned men and women working in
those fields, could not explain them prior to the time that they *could* explain them. The problems were
not light, magnetic force or gravity. The problems were the limitations of scientific thinking and our
abilities to understand -- with the ways of knowing that we were then using -- what was around us.
More recently, the allopathic medical profession has begun investigating bio-feedback
techniques. Some of these are quite similar to the meditative techniques of some advanced Yogis and
Witches. I was personally trained in what is now called bio-feedback by a Witch who was passing on to
me techniques of mind-body integration and conscious control -- "Magicks" -- that she had learned from
her Witch mentor 30 years before and that he had learned from ..... well, you get the idea. This was
about 15 years before I'd ever heard any "scientific" explanation for how I was thus able to deal with a
specific and very real (not imagined) physical ailment that I had suffered from since early puberty and that
several M.D.s had told me and my parents was untreatable without surgery. Western allopathic medical
science is just now beginning to investigate traditional medical knowledge and techniques found not only
in highly "civilized" places like China, but among certain non-literate cultures such as traditional Hawai'i
and certain Native peoples in the Amazon rainforest, etc. What we *don't* know about the ways the
universe works is far greater than what we do know -- YET!
And that "yet" is an important
modifier. I would argue that O'Cailleagh's exploration of the links between physics and metaphysics is
both valid and necessary, even if it doesn't make sense within a very narrowly-defined set of parameters
for "proving" either "Truth" or "truth." To close off any avenue of exploration, of human investigation of
the universe, simply because you don't "believe" it can be fruitful, or worse yet because it doesn't present
its findings in ways that exactly match the style of other types of investigation's findings, seems both
downright silly to me and perhaps extremely damaging to our (humankind's) future. Who knows what
kind of knowledge we will need in the next millennia. Science has given us the power to destroy the
planet. Perhaps the disciplines of magick and other alternative ways of knowing, with their emphasis on
balance and responsibility, will finally be able to teach us how to use that power without destroying
ourselves and our quite lovely planet in the process.
Soph - this is a debate that, like
O'Cailleagh's says above, is not going to be won or lost with words. I, like him, have directly
*experienced* transformation through a particular kind of disciplined practice and way of thinking,
including healing a specific physical problem in my own body. This is enormously satisfying, You
obviously find linear, rational science similarly satisfying. Good on'ya!! As a matter of fact, I do, too,
although perhaps with less suspension of scepticism than you seem to employ. Being a professional
historian with a strong background in anthropology tends to make me quite skeptical about all sorts of
single- epistemology-based truth claims, and perhaps more open to accepting at least the possibility that
other ways of being and knowing also "work." O'Cailleagh is talking about light as waves of energy and
you keep wanting him to give you answers in particles that you can weigh in your hand. But I see the
light shining from your eyes, shining quite brightly through your obvious intelligence. I have always
enjoyed reading your posts because you are so articulate, curious, opinionated and civil. I hope that we
can agree to disagree about the nature of knowledge and still respect each other as intellectuals and
colleagues in the morning.
Malama pono, redcat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Whose epistemology? -- Sophist, 13:08:23 06/06/02 Thu
I hope I didn't leave the
impression of being as closed- minded as that. I completely agree that there are many ways of knowing. I
completely agree with your broad definition of epistemology. That's why I shifted the terminology from
the narrow ground of "science" to the broader ground of epistemology. I'm asking the question: what is the
method by which two or more reasonable and fair-minded people (you and I) could agree that the concepts
under discussion are factual?
The examples you gave -- gravity, light, magnetism -- seem
different to me. In each case, no one doubted that such forces existed (doubters of gravity didn't stick
around very long). What was missing, and what science supplied, was an explanation for how these
worked.
By no means do I believe that science can, today, explain the entirety of the universe.
A healthy skepticism about all claims of knowledge -- very much including science itself -- is essential. It
is very important to give a fair opportunity to non-traditionally Western wisdom. I'm not limiting the ways
of knowing, I'm just curious. To me, that's the beginning of knowledge.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I also suffer from the lawyer's disease of cross-examining. Don't feel obligated to respond. -- Sophist,
13:20:58 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
It's an excellent question and deseves a response -- redcat, 13:37:43 06/06/02 Thu
Actually, Sophist, I don't think of you as closed-minded at all, but as someone who is
extremely intelligent (I'm still amazed by your review of Gould!), very curious and intellectiually honest,
but who has had limited personal experience in "alternative" ways of being/knowing that O'Cailleagh and
I (and perhaps others on the board) have had.
Because I respect you so much, I am almost
intrigued enough with this conversation to engage in the quest you suggest, of trying to figure out, "what
is the method by which two or more reasonable and fair-minded people (you and I) could agree that the
concepts under discussion are factual?"
But first, please answer the following questions. Do
you believe that two "facts" can absolutely contradict each other? If so, why or how? If not, why not or
how not?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> A very good question yourself -- Sophist, 14:37:56 06/06/02 Thu
The
short answer is yes, I believe two facts can contradict each other.
My explanation for why this
is true is complicated. Are you familiar with Godel's Theorem? If you are, that's my explanation. If not,
I'll explain in more detail.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: A very good question yourself -- redcat, 18:49:37 06/06/02 Thu
Sophist,
I've written you an answer, but feel bad about further hi-jacking O'Cailleagh's
thread and posting any more on the board that isn't really about Buffy. If you'll send your email address to
me via mine below, I'll send you my response. If you're still interested, that is.
rdupuis@hawaii.rr.com
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: A very good question yourself -- O'Cailleagh, 19:49:43 06/06/02
Thu
Redcat, please don't feel bad about hijacking the thread. Your answers have been far
more eloquent and articulate than mine could have been, so you are doing me a favour!
BB
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> And some of us have been enjoying the discussion. -- LittleBit,
20:00:14 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Please keep the discussion going, it's fascinating ! -- Ete, 05:40:33
06/07/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> OK, here'tis -- redcat, 10:13:18 06/07/02 Fri
Dear Sophist (and LittleBit, Rahael, Ete and whomever else chooses to read
this),
Just to recap where we are:
I employed the historical scientific discovery of
the properties of gravity, magnetism and light to argue that scientific descriptions of the properties of
other types of energies, such as those described in metaphysical systems like the one O'Cailleagh uses,
might also be possible, even if they have not yet occurred.
While you concurred that science
has a bright future, but an incomplete present understanding of the universe, you argued that, "The
examples [I] gave -- gravity, light, magnetism -- seem different to [you.] In each case, no one doubted
that such forces existed (doubters of gravity didn't stick around very long). What was missing, and what
science supplied, was an explanation for how these worked." Then you asked if we might find, "a method
by which two or more reasonable and fair-minded people (you and I) could agree that the concepts under
discussion are factual?"
To which I replied that I found your questions interesting, but wanted
to know whether or not "you believe that two "facts" can absolutely contradict each other?'
You answered, "A very good question yourself. The short answer is yes, I believe two facts can
contradict each other. My explanation for why this is true is complicated. Are you familiar with Godel's
Theorem? If you are, that's my explanation. If not, I'll explain in more detail."
To which
I now respond: Good question but a tricky answer! Maybe you're a postmodernist after all...
:)
I'm certainly no mathematician, but as I understand it, Goodel's Incompleteness Theorem
originally was pretty specifically limited to the idea that closed axiomatic mathematical systems will
always contain some true assertions that cannot be proved within that system only. At the numbers level,
I don't pretend to understand **any** of it. But I've also seen the theorem referred to in non-
mathematical debates to suggest that any description of a closed and self- referential system (such as the
human mind) that is derived from that system will ultimately be incomplete and that no such description
supplied by the system itself can adequately contain everything available within the system. The question
I remember from an old discussion was something like, "how can you prove to yourself that you are not
insane, since the mind with which you construct the proof may well be insane?" You can't, but that
doesn't prove that you *are* insane, either. Thus the axiomatic system within which the question is asked
is incomplete, i.e., not able to give either an absolute positive or absolute negative answer to its own
question.
Am I making sense of Godel or mangling him? More importantly, is this the sense
in which you're using the Theorem to answer my question about contradictory facts? Because if you want
to talk math, you'll have to do it with matching mole or someone else a WHOLE lot smarter than me. If,
however, you're referring to the philosophical ambiguities and conundrums abstracted from Godel like
the one above, then, cool, let's talk and I'll try to keep up.
If that is the sense in which you use
Godel (dear goddess, this post is beginning to sound like a math theorem!!), I think I may have an
example for you that may help us think about a type of "method", to re-quote your earlier post, "by which
two or more reasonable and fair-minded people... could agree that the concepts under discussion are
factual." I'm still not sure that we agree on the meaning of "factual," but your reference to Godel gives me
hope that what I've written below will make sense to you.
I think what you're looking for is
some sort of rational, systemic, repeatable verification of the effects on the physical plane of living and
thinking within a Holistic system. As I understand it, in most (all?) scientific fields, if an experiment is
repeatable and always gives the same results as long as the conditions of the experiment are constant, then
the findings of the experiment are said to be "true." Metaphysics works somewhat differently, in part
because the "laboratory" in which the "experiment" occurs is a human, and since no two humans are
exactly alike, that portion of the experiment cannot be constant. However, humans are generally alike and
so variations due to the inconstant human component can be (even if only roughly) accounted for.
Also, metaphysics does not generally demand that the results will *always* be exactly the same. In fact, it
urges one to suspect that they might be different and to pay attention to what conditions seem to cause
those differences. One's intention, one's background and level of development, and the moment in history
in which the "experiment" is done are all different with each new practitioner and each new "experiment."
However, the notion that processes or practices need to be successfully repeatable by different humans
across time, and that such processes or practices will generally give the same or very similar results, is
pretty much standard in Holistic/pagan practice. This seems quite close to the foundational aspect of
western science described above, or at least close enough to allow me to continue the discussion.
Concur?
Most Holistic practitioners would claim that an important part of their practice entails
being able to repeatably achieve relatively standardized results on the physical plane - healing an ailment,
for example, or achieving control over the satisfying of one's physical desires -- given the disciplined
application of a specific set of holistic processes or practices. Designing that set of practices for the
desired end result, from the Holistic or pagan perspective that O'Cailleagh describes, entails taking into
account all seven energy planes at both the diagnostic and prescriptive levels. This is a rational and
experientially-driven process. It would be hard to imagine either indigenous medicine or magic systems,
or their practitioners, surviving very long among the imminently practical peoples that most of our
ancestors (and most contemporary Native and indigenous peoples) had to have been in order for those
peoples to have survived long enough that we, their descendants, could be here today, IF such systems
were not relatively successful. Further, such practices are, not surprisingly (and quite unlike allopathic
practices), thus intended to achieve results on a number of planes *in* the practitioner or patient
simultaneously.
Using the example I briefly referred to in my earlier post, then, I would
contend that when I began the long process of learning how to heal, without surgery, my own particular
physical ailment, I was, in fact, repeating a set of practices and processes that others had utilized before
me. I was very lucky in that I found a specific mentor who was willing to help me find out what I needed
to learn and then helped me learn it. I had to master specific skills, such as active and sustained
meditation, dynamic visualization, control of my blood pressure, heart rate and breathing, and control of
my circulating life-energy or chi [sorry, I don't have a western scientific word for this one]. I also had to
make specific changes in my diet and my approach to and type of exercise, and to my sleep cycle (this was
the hardest thing for me). Most importantly, I spent about a year and a half learning to bring my psyche
into balance with a specific set of bodily functions. Not only did this entail tracking specific pressure,
temperature and pulse rates (in some cases with easily available medical western equipment like
thermometers -and I never did get very good at tracking my own pulses), but more critically it meant
learning to "move" a specific type of energy through and around my body *every* day in such a way that
the physical condition and alignment of my organs and skeletal system (a specific congenital
malformation) did not cause the type of excruciating and quite debilitating pain that I had experienced
rather regularly from ages 13 to 23. The process was not immediate - in fact, at times it seemed
downright hopeless - but ultimately there were multiple health, emotional and spiritual benefits to me
other than getting a huge part of my life back (I cannot count how many times I had wound up in a
hospital shot full of drugs as a teenager before taking this turn toward Holistic healing in my life). The
person who acted as my mentor for much of this journey had herself also suffered from a debilitating
ailment, a congenital heart defect. She had learned many of these techniques from a man who had no
comparable ailments, but who had been a healer in his home country (Ireland) before training her in
northern California (yeah, I know, I can hear the hot tub jokes already...). He claimed he had learned
these techniques from a long line of such healers, and in a country setting where he only got paid if he
kept his patients healthy (I have no way to verify this information). My teacher went on to teach others,
some of whom had ailments serious enough to inspire them to do the hard work required by this particular
type of discipline. I went on to incorporate, as had my teacher, elements of both western pagan and
eastern holistic practice into my personal healing regime. And the healing "stuck." I have not been in a
hospital for that ailment for the last 24 years.
This example does not prove the same type of
repeatability that a traditional biology or physics experiment might, but I contend that I am not terribly
unique and that this set of practices, based on an understanding of the human physical body *and* on the
etheric, mental, emotional, astral, spiritual and divine planes described by O'Cailleagh, could be repeated
by just about anyone who was willing to put in the time and effort. But that "just about anyone" clause is
important. There are probably people for whom no amount of holistic healing will work. It is neither
absolute, nor fool-proof, but like the Godel's Theorem example about insanity above, while I cannot prove
that this method will always work, that does not prove that it will never work. And in fact, it does work
most of the time, pretty much exactly as advertised.
Finally, I wanted to say that I chose my
examples of gravity, magnetic force and light exactly because, IMO, they are very much like some of the
levels of the Holistic seven-tiered paradigm, at least in certain ways. They are "invisible" yet were
eventually describable by science and, indeed, there were a *great* many people who did not "believe" in
at least two of them even though they experienced the effects of them daily. I think it's really funny that
you used gravity as your example of why my list doesn't work. You said, "In each case, no one doubted
that such forces existed (doubters of gravity didn't stick around very long)." I get your joke, but in fact,
gravity is perhaps the hardest of all three forces for a non-modern person to have understood. However, an
12thC German abbess' lack of "belief" in or understanding of gravity wouldn't have mattered a hoot
because, in fact, she did exactly "stick around" on an earth she believed was flat and did not float up into
the air. I would argue that, similarly, whether or not that same abbess (or her sister's 21stC scientist-
descendant) acknowledged the existence of the etheric, emotional or mental planes, or more improbably
yet the astral, spiritual or divine ones, she may well have lived within them. My point is that her (or our)
lack of understanding of O'Cailleagh's system would have made no difference to that 12thC abbess' ability
to gain knowledge of those planes through her own experience, even if she described that experience
through a different symbolic system, like the metaphors of ecstatic poetry or the dogma of her beloved
Church.
The larger question of whether or not the seven metaphysical planes "exist" in the
same ways that gravity, magnetism and light do seems to be at the heart of your scepticism; assuming that
they might, and that whether or not they do, I'm willing to accept that the system acts as a useful
explanatory tool, is at the heart of my defense. To conclude, I'll repeat something I said in a post to
matching mole above: "O'Cailleagh's system is a wonderful device, rich, insightful, with powerful
explanatory functions both as he uses it in his post and in other real-world applications. Unlike other
systems, this one does not work very well if one wants to build a better computer or a better nuclear bomb.
It works very well if one is trying to understand the broadest range of possibilities of the connections
between the physical and the divine."
So - does any of this make any sense to you at all???
Would love to hear your thoughts. I've enjoyed this discussion VERY much, BTW. Thanks for the
opportunity to respond at such length.
Malama pono, redcat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> LOL. We crossed posts and even had similar subject lines -
- Sophist, 11:08:47 06/07/02 Fri
Very well expressed. And your explanation of Godel
was quite good. Wish I'd read yours before posting mine (but I did beat you by 3
minutes!).
One nitpicky comment. Whether the earth was flat or not, gravity still operated.
Your fictional abbess (or did you mean Hildegard of Bingen?) would have recognized gravity itself, just as
she would light.
I have no problem at all believing your experience of benefit. I have no doubt
that modern medicine is unable to achieve cures that sometimes occur in other ways.
What I
would add is this: a medical cure may come about for many reasons. Doctors certainly do not understand
them all. They can be wrong. But there may also be an explanation that incorporates part, but not all, of
your experience in a larger whole that allows us to extend your experience to others (maybe even
everyone). To me, science is a way of looking for that larger whole. Does that make me
WHolistic?
Thanks redcat for a very enjoyable discussion.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: LOL. We crossed posts and even had similar subject
lines -- redcat, 12:48:33 06/07/02 Fri
"But there may also be an explanation that
incorporates part, but not all, of your experience in a larger whole that allows us to extend your experience
to others (maybe even everyone). To me, science is a way of looking for that larger whole. Does that make
me WHolistic?"
Yeah, I guess it makes us *both* that...and maybe we're both a little bit
"armchair scientists," too. I try to make a very strong case to my students that the factual nature of the
historical evidence is the greatest incentive for an historian's humility.
And yes, I was sure
you'd get the HvB reference ..hehe.
"Whether the earth was flat or not, gravity still
operated." Yes, and O'C's point, I think, is that he believes that the seven planes operate just as fully, even
if you and I aren't aware of them. No proof possible, but then he never claimed that he was trying to get
anyone to agree with him or even to believe with him, merely to engage with him in the intellectual
exercise. Which we certainly have done these last few days.... ;)
And I, too, thank you,
Sophist, for a quite enjoyable discussion. Shall we put it to rest now?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Ok, I'm going in. -- Sophist, 10:10:30 06/07/02 Fri
Since there were
3 posts after yours encouraging a continuation of the discussion, I decided to respond here rather than by
e-mail.
You asked me if I believe that 2 facts -- 2 true statements -- can contradict each other. I
believe they can. I'm going to explain why I think so, starting with mathematics (of all topics) and
extending it beyond that.
One way to think about math is that it's another language. It has
numbers instead of words, and it has operations (addition, subtraction, etc.) instead of grammar.
Nevertheless, you use numbers and operations to form sentences like 2+2=4. This is pretty much the same
as a similar sentence in English such as "Peter and Paul are brothers". Just as in English, some statements
are true and some are false.
Mathematicians break down their discipline into different topics
(just like any other profession would do). One topic is called number theory. If you think of this as
arithmetic, that's close enough. It actually includes pretty much all aspects of numbers like algebra and
other things.
One of the things mathematicians have tried to do is put together a book that
contains all the rules of number theory. Again, this is like putting together a book that has all the rules of
grammar and all the words in English. In putting together this system (they call it a formal system), they
also had 2 other goals in mind:
1. The system should be internally consistent. That is, it
should not be possible to have contradictions in the system.
2. The system should be complete.
This means that if you use the rules of the system, you should be able to put together all the true
statements that are possible using those rules. This does not mean that the system would let you
make all the true statements in the world, just that you could make all the true statements allowed by that
system.
Those mathematicians who tried this, failed. "Yet that failure was not inglorious tho
the event was dire." (Sorry, thought I'd break this up by quoting Milton.) Godel, who I mentioned in my
last post, explained why.
What Godel proved is that every formal system can be either
consistent (no.1 above), or it can be complete (no. 2 above), but it cannot be both. This is not because
mathematicians are making a mistake, it is because it is intrinsically
impossible.
Mathematicians have a dilemma. If they want to be consistent, they can do that at
the cost of being unable to prove true statements. If they want to prove all the true statements, their system
must contain contradictions.
To try to make this a little less esoteric, think about how English
or any other language deals with paradoxes. Here's one: The barber of Seville shaves every man who
doesn't shave himself. Does the barber shave himself? If he does shave himself, there is a contradiction
because he only shaves those who don't shave themselves. If he doesn't shave himself, then he must shave
himself because he shaves everyone who doesn't. What Godel did, in essence, was show that mathematics,
like any other language, contains paradoxes.
Godel's theory, strictly speaking, applies only to
mathematics. However, by my analogies to ordinary language, you can see that I think that the same
principle applies to languages like English. I therefore think that either there are true statements we can't
prove using English, or that it's possible for 2 true statements in English to contradict each
other.
Godel's theorem also, in my view, applies to science. Again, I'm arguing by analogy
here (as I did with English) because there may be differences between a scientific theory and a formal
system in mathematics. Nevertheless, I believe that his theorem applies to science. If I try, for example, to
create complete explanation of the laws of physics, I'm likely to create a system that is inconsistent. If I
avoid the inconsistency, I'll miss out on some true facts.
Now, there are limits to my belief
here. One is that Godel doesn't say anything about how important the contradictions might be. They might
be trivial. Similarly, the true statements we can't prove might be trivial, or they might be earth-
shatteringly important. There is no way to know. The important thing is that there are limits to our ability
to express the truth (a conclusion that might appeal to you).
Another point is that you can
solve some of the problems by going outside the system. For example, if you can't prove a statement in
arithmetic, perhaps you can using geometry. Eventually, though, all you've done is create a larger system,
and that larger system itself will be subject to Godel's theorem. See, I really am a skeptic on a universal
scale.
Whew. I hope that made even some sense. Now that I'm prepared to accept contradictory
facts, it's your turn.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Head spinning....must...sit...down...! -- O'Cailleagh, 15:05:06 06/07/02 Fri
Wow!!! Well Sophist and rc, you've gone completely over my head with that one! I think I'm
beginning to get it though!
I'm just hoping this will all be resolved in time for part 2 of the
essay...does anyone remember part 1? ;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Part 1 is Even Better on third reading! Please Hurry with parts 2 &3! --
redcat, sheepish at how often my name appears on your thread, 15:41:00 06/07/02 Fri
I especially like your argument that the reason we seem to see the Craft working so differently
in the BuffyVerse than it does in the RealVerse is that we don't actually SEE much of the true Craft in the
show. We see lots of folks who appropriate the names "Witch" or "Wicca" without much of a sense of
those words' religous or historical connotations. Of course, its extreme elasticity across cultural and social
meanings is one of the critical aspects of the word "witch." "Wicca" is far less plastic because it is both
legally and culturally specific to a recognized religious group, and "Witch" suggest a formal and quite
conscious stance toward a certain set of practices and beliefs. The word "witch" without the
capitalization, however, still has an extremely wide range of culturally-negotiable meanings, from "old
hag" to "seductive young temptress" to "goddess-worshipper/pagan" to "healer" to "daughter of Satan" to
"bitca" to "halloween costume possibility." Your post's definitions and analysis of the Craft in both Verses
brings a wonderful level of clarity to the discussion!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Don't be sheepish..... -- O'Cailleagh, 16:01:54 06/07/02 Fri
I really appreciate the time you've spared to comment on the points raised about the essay
(Same goes to everyone!).
I would have been dead in the water by now, without your support in this
thread...and so would the thread itself!
I can't begin to tell you how happy I am that my first essay
here has generated this much interest. Although most of the discussion has been concerned with the finer
details of the essay, I feel that it has helped to clarify a lot of the points I made...one of my failings is that I
tend to forget that just because I understand something as fact, it doesn't mean that anyone else has the
slightest idea of what I'm rambling on about!
The clearer'my' models of the'Verses are to
everyone else, the better, as much of the other essays depend on those models! Thank You and Brightest
Blessings.
[> [> [> [> Re: The nature of knowledge --
O'Cailleagh, 18:04:05 06/05/02 Wed
Hi Mole, some good (and fairly tricky)
questions. I apologise in advance if my answers come across as arrogant or overly
emotive.
You asked:
>In the Buffyverse this information is put to the test frequently and
it is accurate an astonishingly high proportion of the time. But how do all of you decide whether
information in the realverse is accurate or not?<
I'test' the information I have frequently within
my practises, every time I perform a healing, practise Reflexology or Aromatherapy, work a ritual, cast a
spell, etc. It is rare for any of these processes to be unsucessful, so I have to say that the information I have
is accurate. It is also backed up by many scientific theories including Quantum Physics, Chaos Theory,
The Gaia Hypothesis and The theory of the Holographic Universe.
>My question (s) are how
do you (anybody not just O'Cailleagh) decide what the'more' is? And how does your decision making
process relate to your belief (or lack thereof) in some sort of objective reality?<
First off, I don't
believe that reality is objective-its all down to individual perception. I'm not quite sure how to answer
this...Basically, for me at least, the'more' is whatever makes sense, feels right.
>O'Cailleagh's
model sounds fine to me but I don't know why I should pick it over some other model that
was.....different....So I choose to believe in the physical universe because it seems reasonably consistent
and maintain a hopefully open-minded skepticism about everything else.<
There is no reason
in the world why you should choose this system over another (other than feeling drawn to do so), and no-
one is expecting you to, that was not the point of my post. It is merely a simplified form of the'map' I work
with (which may, or may not, coincide with, the'maps' used by others) presented to help make sense of the
Buffyverse metaphysics.
About your belief in the physical universe-I have to say that I do not
*believe* that the physical universe exists. I *know* it does, I experience it therefore it is'real'. Its the
same for the other planes!
[> [> it's not just that -- anom, 23:34:38 06/04/02
Tue
redcat quotes O'Cailleagh:
"The mental plane is where we do our
thinking (via the Mental Body). It is logical, rational, literal, linear, active, masculine, Animus, positive,
Yang. The emotional plane is where we do our feeling (via the Emotional Body). It is creative,
spontaneous, symbolic, cyclic, passive, feminine, Anima, negative, Yin."
...& objects to the use
of "passive," preferring "receptive." Well, I object to equating the whole list w/"feminine," & the other
whole list w/"masculine," in addition to the placement of "positive" & "negative." I've known men &
women w/different combinations of the characteristics in both lists, & I'd rather see "masculine" &
"feminine" taken out of the lists entirely. It just perpetuates stereotypes.
I also have to comment
on this, re receptive vs. passive:
"This is also the difference between a woman willingly being
an active participant in the act of heterosexual sex, pulling her lover's penis into herself, thrusting up with
him and pulling him deeper into her, as opposed to what happens when a man rams his penis into an
unwilling and non-participating woman during the violence of rape."
I wouldn't equate
passivity w/victimization or helplessness (& I hope in some cases an attempt at rape would be met
w/resistance). I think of passivity as accepting whatever comes, which doesn't necessarily imply that what
comes is violence. Passivity in sex would be more like what "respectable" women in more repressed times
did w/(usually) their husbands--just lie there because they weren't "supposed to" enjoy it (women who did
weren't respectable). And just wondering--if "receptivity" means a woman is an "active
participant," shouldn't some other word (which?) replace "active" in the yang list, just as you'd have
"receptive" replace "passive" in the yin list?
[> [> it's not just that -- anom, 23:36:51 06/04/02
Tue
redcat quotes O'Cailleagh:
"The mental plane is where we do our
thinking (via the Mental Body). It is logical, rational, literal, linear, active, masculine, Animus, positive,
Yang. The emotional plane is where we do our feeling (via the Emotional Body). It is creative,
spontaneous, symbolic, cyclic, passive, feminine, Anima, negative, Yin."
...& objects to the use
of "passive," preferring "receptive." Well, I object to equating the whole list w/"feminine," & the other
whole list w/"masculine," in addition to the placement of "positive" & "negative." I've known men &
women w/different combinations of the characteristics in both lists, & I'd rather see "masculine" &
"feminine" taken out of the lists entirely. It just perpetuates stereotypes.
I also have to comment
on this, re receptive vs. passive:
"This is also the difference between a woman willingly being
an active participant in the act of heterosexual sex, pulling her lover's penis into herself, thrusting up with
him and pulling him deeper into her, as opposed to what happens when a man rams his penis into an
unwilling and non-participating woman during the violence of rape."
I wouldn't equate
passivity w/victimization or helplessness (& I hope in some cases an attempt at rape would be met
w/resistance). I think of passivity as accepting whatever comes, which doesn't necessarily imply that what
comes is violence. Passivity in sex would be more like what "respectable" women in more repressed times
did w/(usually) their husbands--just lie there because they weren't "supposed to" enjoy it (women who did
weren't respectable). And just wondering--if "receptivity" means a woman is an "active
participant," shouldn't some other word (which?) replace "active" in the yang list, just as you'd have
"receptive" replace "passive" in the yin list?
[> [> [> reply to anom: very long, historical and generally
OT -- redcat, 13:22:15 06/05/02 Wed
You raise an interesting point
regarding the linking of'masculine' and'feminine' to the other attributes on O'Cailleagh's list, but you
make the mistake of equating'male' and'female' with the cultural traits collected under the gender
descriptors 'masculine' and'feminine.' This is something that neither O'Cailleagh nor I do. This
distinction is important and is, in fact, at the center of my objection to his original use of'passive' as the
opposite to'active' and my suggestion that he replace it with'receptive.'
Masculine is not the
same as male, nor is feminine the same as female. 'Male' and'female' are the names for the two
biologically-different sexes into which almost all humans and other mammals are divided (I say almost all
because a small but persistent percentage of humans are born either with the physical attributes of both
sexes [hermaphrodites] or with only truncated physical attributes of either sex [androgynes]). In
contrast,'masculine' and'feminine' are words which refer to socially, culturally and historically-constructed
and defined sets of linked characteristics which are, furthermore, socially and culturally ascribed to the
biological sexes of male and female, primarily through devices of language such as metaphor-
construction and story-telling, and through the social and cultural conventions that define norms of
behavior and performances of identity.
'Male' and'female,' on the other hand, are descriptors
of biologically-sexed bodies, in which real people live lives that are constrained by, but which may also
challenge, the socially and culturally constructed notions of gender coded as'masculine' and'feminine.'
Real human beings of both sexes are, of course, perfectly capable of exhibiting those characteristics that
are traditionally coded through gender as belonging to the opposite sex. This is why, for example, we can
understand Xander, a biological'male,' displaying traditionally'feminine' characteristics such as
compassion, nurturing and acceptance, while Willow , a biological'female,' displays characteristics
traditionally coded as'masculine,' such as anger, violence and the will to dominate others. One of the
most important insights for both real men and real women derived from late-20thC feminist theorizing is
the clarity of the distinction between sex and gender, and the insistence that such clarity can and should
lead to dynamic political, social and cultural change, during which both men and women can engage in a
more conscious act of constructing cultural ideas about gender and the social systems which arise from
them.
I did not ask O'Cailleagh to re-think his use of masculine and feminine in the list of
attributes because, as I noted in my second reply to him above, bi-polar language itself always presents
difficulties, in that it both accurately describes the physical world (male/female, day/night, light/dark, etc.)
while simultaneously ascribing specific cultural (and therefore social and political) significance to those
oppositions through the linking of symbolic attributes to the physical phenomenon (i.e., white/black =
pure/impure = good/bad = white folks are good/black folks can be lynched with impunity). Anom, you
note that you'd "rather see "masculine" & "feminine" taken out of the lists entirely. It just perpetuates
stereotypes." As long as humans are born with two sexes and into complex and layered cultures and
societies, I think it highly unlikely that humans will ever get away from the tendency (some
anthropologists would argue need) to ascribe behavioral and identity-linked characteristics to the
biological distinctions between the sexes. One of the great benefits of contemporary anthropology is that
it forces us to acknowledge that, while there are certainly some characteristics that are NEARLY
universally ascribed to each sex, there seem to be no characteristics for which one cannot find at least
ONE human group that ascribes them to the opposite sex. Even violence and nurturing, the two most
likely candidates for universal sex/gender definition are, in some Papuan cultures, believed to be reversed
for both wife and husband during a woman's pregnancy, as well as under certain conditions of extreme
grief. It is the act of consciously reconstructing notions of gender through language that I asked
O'Cailleagh to engage in. My own act of asking him to replace'passive' with'receptive' in his list comes
from my sense of the critical nature of such activism and the very real and sustained impact that millions
of such acts around the planet can produce in the lives of real women and men.
You also argue
that, "Passivity in sex would be more like what "respectable" women in more repressed times did
w/(usually) their husbands--just lie there because they weren't "supposed to" enjoy it (women who did
weren't respectable)." I assume that you are speaking of the Victorian era. If not, please forgive my
assumption, but if you are, I beg to differ with your historical analysis, again based on the evidence of real
Victorian-era English and American white, middle-class ("respectable") women's lives. The cultural
ideology that you describe above comes primarily from the prescriptive literature (sermons, medical texts,
social commentary) of the mid-to-late 19thC, such a the work of Dr. William Acton, whose sexual- advice
books went through more than twenty printings in both England and America at mid- century. Acton,
along with other male medical and religious professionals of the time, argued that women "are not very
much troubled by sexual feelings of any kind," that "the existence of sexual appetite means that a woman
is too male," and he thus prescribed treating real women's sexual feelings as "dysfunction." Much of the
women-authored literature of the Victorian era either obliquely or directly confronts this stereotype and
indicates to us that real women did not, in fact, feel the way Acton thought they should. The tragic
medical evidence of the damage done to thousands of women in sex-therapy institutes in Britain and
America in the late 19thC supports those women writers who argued that most Victorian women did, after
all, have active sexual feelings.
In fact, American physician Dr. Clelia D. Mosher (1*) actually
interviewed and collected surveys from educated, middle-class white women in order to determine if these
male-produced cultural notions about women's sexuality were experientially true. She worked with 45
women, most of whom were American but a few of whom had been raised in England. Importantly, 44 of
them were born before 1870 and thus can be assumed to have been exposed to the cultural stereotype of
female passionlessness described in the prescriptive literature. Of these 45 women, 35 described in detail
having strong sexual feelings of pleasure during intercourse, up to and including orgasm (34 reported
experiencing orgasm always or frequently); more than half noted that their husbands were aware of and
acted to increase their sexual pleasure during intercourse; and almost all the women noted that sex with
their husbands had gotten better over the course of their marriage as the couple had learned how to satisfy
each other.
Dr. Mosher's work, while admittedly drawn from a small sample of women,
indicates that cultural ideology is never fixed, nor does it automatically have a direct and definable
impact on people's actual experiences. Further, her survey indicates that both Victorian women and men
experienced sexuality in ways not expected within the stereotype.
Finally, you note that I
confusingly used the word "active" to help define "receptive" ("active participant") as the opposite to
active. My bad. I should have written something like "dynamic participant," which would have cleared
up the confusion. Would that be acceptable to you?
Further, you are exactly right that when a
woman does resist being raped, she is not passive, but active. I should have been more clear about my
metaphor and specified that I meant a rape during which the woman is incapacitated (by Rohypnol or
alcohol, for example) and is thus truly passive.
I am grateful that O'Cailleagh took my
original request to reconsider his language in the spirit in which it was meant. I'm not sure in what spirit
your post was meant, Anom, (it reads as though you're upset about something, although I'm not sure
what), but I find that, in thinking through these issues, both linguistic and historical specificity are often
quite useful.
Thanks for reading. I know this is quite long and generally off-topic for this
board, but I've been both a feminist and a pagan for too long to let a post like yours (or O'Cailleagh's
original one)go by without comment.
redcat
1* For information on Dr.
Mosher's work, see: Carl N. Degler, "What Ought To Be and What Was: Women's Sexuality in the
Nineteenth Century," American Historical Review (December, 1979): 1467 - 90; and Nancy F. Cott,
"Passionlessness: An Interpretation of Victorian Sexual Ideology, 1790 - 1850," in A Heritage of Her
Own, eds., Nancy F. Cott and Elizabeth H. Pleck. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979, p. 162 - 81.
[> [> [> [> A very fine post Redcat -- Rahael,
14:10:52 06/05/02 Wed
As someone who is/was very interested in cultural/sexual
history, I couldn't agree more with your post. There is very little to add to it at all, though no doubt when
work gets really slow tomorrow, I'll find something!
The distinction you make between
prescriptive literature and real experience is very important. One often wonders why women had to be told
so often that they were meek and passive. And why'masculinity', which is ascribed'strength' and'virility' is
so easily threatened. One of Philip Sidney's male hero's in'The Old Arcadia' (a work chiefly interesting for
gender history rather than any literary merit imo) dresses as a woman to get close to his protected lover.
From the minute he puts on women's clothing, he becomes a'woman', and Sidney refers to him as'she'
throughout.
Prescriptive literature of the early modern period was forever warning men how
easily they could stray from the'true path' and women how easily they could become ruined. Virility and
femininity was pretty hard to hang on to, if you believed the didactic literature.
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks! -- redcat, 16:33:11
06/05/02 Wed
Thanks, Rahael! High praise from someone who's opinion I
respect. I sometimes find it useful to think of three different sets of bi-polar opposites in discussions of
sex/gender:
1) the biological sexes of "female" & "male," which accurately describes all
dimorphic (bi- sexed) mammals (humans AND hippopotamuses [hippopotamai?], for example)
2) the socially, culturally and historically constructed ideologies of gender differentiation and
identification that we call "feminine" and "masculine," in which clusters of ideas and prescriptive
behaviors are (generally hegemonically) linked to the biological sexes, primarily but not only through
language. Gender ideologies are not only amenable to change over time and across cultures, they are part
of the very process of cultural negotiation and social change that we call history. But they are not
applicable, therefore, to non-human species (it would be ludicrous to excoriate a female hippopotamus for
not being "feminine" enough, for example). In most cultures, gendered characteristics range across a
spectrum, with a rather large area of shared attributes in the middle.
3) "women" and "men"
are, to me, words which describe the humans who live both in biologically-sexed bodies AND within the
cultural and social constructs of gender ideology, and whose identities are thus a product of both sex and
gender, as well as all the challenges, negotiations and changes that may occur within any particular
construct of gender ideology during their life times (as well as their own personal experiences, drives,
inhibitions, desires and a great deal more, of course. I'm not trying here to DEFINE "women" and "men,"
simply to place those words in relation to the words "sex" and "gender.") It is real women and real men,
not ideologies or just bodies, who live at the intersections of biology and culture, nature and history.
(And this is why a female hippopotamus is not a "woman.")
O'Cailleagh's original list of bi-
polar attributes is a classic list of oppositional pairs, useful both in metaphysics and cultural studies.
While the categorical nature of bi-polarism sometimes disturbs me, I do not believe that humans as a
species will likely ever completely rid ourselves of bi-polar thinking. There is not a single human culture
or society that has ever been discovered in which bi-polarism is not a central epistemological signifier,
probably exactly because oppositional pairs are such useful descriptors. This makes the critical analysis of
our own metaphorical uses of sex/gender terms imperative, at least from my perspective. In that sense,
my contributions to this whole thread are simply my attempts to think carefully about the bi-polarist
thinking that *I* do.
And I sincerely hope O'Cailleagh doesn't mind us hi-jacking his
wonderful thread on the metaphysics of the BuffyVerse to talk about the way language works in
ours!
Again, thanks for reading,
rc
[> [> [> [> [> [> Not at all RC, its an interesting read
*and* keeps the thread alive while I compose some replies! -- O'Cailleagh, 16:55:52 06/05/02
Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Plus you manage to fill in the
gaps I leave. There's a big bag of Kitty Treats (tm) on its way ! -- O'Cailleagh, 18:15:09 06/05/02
Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ooohh, thanks! ...did
you send the chocolate ones? (hint, hint) -- rc, 18:34:04 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks! -- Rahael,
08:56:48 06/06/02 Thu
I agree with your formulation - the relationship between sex
and gender is so complex that it deserves a complex formulation. It was the subject of the dullest essay I
ever wrote (the only one I got published too). I have mixed feelings about it. I tried to tackle it and gender
won.
You hit many nails on the head, very clearly. The points on how gendered self identity is
created at the intersections of biology, culture and history - how language and its use plays a key part. It
shows how deceptive dichotomies are.
I also completely agree with you about the
attractiveness of dichotomies, and the importance of being aware of our uses. And this also is true of the
dichotomy between a very constructed view of gender and a essentialist one. Reality is more complex. One
can't erase material differences, but it does not follow that the existence of these differences means
accepting what society tells us it means. Just because'nature' exists doesn't mean that what society
perceives as'natural' behaviour follows.
Sigh .once again, this subject turns me into a woolly
waffler ..what can I say, you have expressed yourself with admirable clearness!
[> [> [> [> [> [> biological nomenclature --
matching mole, 10:38:00 06/07/02 Fri
a couple of comments about the way biologists
use certain words that you might be interested in re your item number 1. Not that you should necessarily
follow their lead or anything.
and one question
Why did you restrict the terms male
and female to mammals? (as opposed to birds, reptiles, insects, etc.)?
The terms male and
female in biology are used to describe individuals (or parts of individuals) that produce different sized
gametes (reproductive cells such as eggs and sperm). Males produce small gametes (and lots of them),
females produce fewer and larger gametes. Having two kinds of gametes of different sizes is enormously
common, although not universal, among organisms with sexual reproduction. There are some organisms
(mostly algae and fungi) that are isogamous - they have different'sexes' (usually called mating types) but
the gametes of each mating type looks the same.
In many organisms (most plants for example)
both types of gametes are produced by the same individual. Biologists talk about male and female
function in these organisms and there is a branch of evolutionary biology devoted to understanding the
factors that influence how much energy an individual should invest in being male and being female in
different circumstances.
For historical reasons the term dimorphic, when used in the context of
males and females, is not applied in a strictly sensible manner by biologists. Darwin's theory of sexual
selection was created to explain differences other than those involving the reproductive system (or were
otherwise directly involved in making and raising babies) between the sexes. Strictly speaking no
mammal species is sexually monomorphic because males and females have different reproductive organs.
However biologists tend to only use the term sexually dimorphic for species (such as ourselves) in which
there are other differences in size, shape, color, ornamentation between the sexes.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: biological
nomenclature -- redcat, 11:02:05 06/07/02 Fri
1) "Why did you restrict the terms
male and female to mammals? (as opposed to birds, reptiles, insects, etc.)?"
--'cause I'm not a
biologist and was terrified of making an ass out of myself in front of you, but I guess I did it anyway...oh,
well. My dad's work involved plant genetics and so I was pretty sure that at least some plants (orchids,
which is what he raised - I grew up on an orchid farm) have both male and female organs (goddess, I used
to hate those Saturday afternoons I'd have to help my dad pollinate orchids'cause my fingers were small
enough to do the work!). Wasn't at all sure that all other individuals in other types of species are also
strictly bi-sexed. In humans, there is such a persistent, if tiny, percentage of hermaphroditism that I didn't
want to make assumptions about other species I haven't studied
2) "However biologists
tend to only use the term sexually dimorphic for species (such as ourselves) in which there are other
differences in size, shape, color, ornamentation between the sexes."
-- this is exactly the way in
which I used the term, to suggest that not all sex differentiation (in terms of what I was discussing in that
post) is due strictly to differingly-shaped sex organs.
Thanks for reading the original post and
responding. I enjoy learning so many things on the board from so many different people in different
fields!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Me? terrifying? --
matching mole, 11:55:25 06/07/02 Fri
This is one of those cognitive leaps that are so
difficult over the internet. I find it so difficult to think of myself as being intimidating (being quite meek
and timid in person) that it always throws me.
Actually one of the things I like about this
board is the ability to talk about lots of things that I know little about and learn quite a bit from people
such as yourself. I am quite prepared to say something wrong about history or literature and be corrected
(I'm sure I already have - said wrong things that is). Quite along the same lines I don't expect everyone on
the board to know as much about biology as I do (if that was the case then an awful lot of money and my
time was wasted) but that shouldn't keep those interested in pitching in (or from using biology in some
other discussion as you did). I'm constantly amazed at how much people like Sophist, d'Herblay, and
mundus know about evolution and quite humbled by it (as I know next to nothing about their fields).
And you just happened to touch on one of my favourite subjects. The diversity of reproductive
systems is quite fascinating although mammals and birds are fairly dull. I mostly wrote it because I
thought you might be interested in the perspective of maleness and femaleness not as attributes of
individuals but of reproductive organs. There are fish that change sex as they age (probably some
swimming around a coral reef not too far from where you are now). Orchids themselves are really cool
mostly because of the positively evil ways in which they get insects to move pollen around. I think the big
bad for season 7 should be an ambulatory orchid! So I just couldn't help myself.
And sorry for
misinterpreting your use of the word dimorphic.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The Ambulatory
Orchid Demon Strikes Again! -- rc, 12:30:53 06/07/02 Fri
Ooh, I have terrible
visions dancing in my head...
And you didn't misinterpret (dimorphic), I was trying to say that
I *was* originally using it just as you suggested it should be used.
And yeah, orchids - don't
EVEN get me started on how much my dad always gloats over the fact that the one he bred and named
after me has an extremely high rate of (color) change over generations! He manages to bring this up
publically just about every time I do something he thinks is wacky, like changing professions in my mid-
thirties...
[> [> [> [> shee-eesh, redcat--it was just a shortcut! (but
this post is long) -- anom, 23:19:19 06/06/02 Thu
Not a mistake. Please--
I know the difference between sex & gender, having flouted the gender conventions that supposedly apply
to my sex most of my life. And having paid a certain price for that, I'm entirely familiar w/how strictly
society enforces the identification of one w/the other. But I was posting very late, & as is too often the
case, I didn't have time to go into the distinction. And I didn't say that either you or O'Cailleagh was
treating them as the same (although I'd say you did quite graphically link one of the "feminine" qualities
w/the female body; more on that near the end). I really didn't need 2-3 screenfuls of what felt like a lecture
on that distinction, & I'm having a hard time keeping the feeling of being patronized (yeah, I know--
gendered term), even if that's not what you intended, from giving this post an insulted/resentful/sarcastic
tone.
"I did not ask O'Cailleagh to re-think his use of masculine and feminine in the list of
attributes because, as I noted in my second reply to him above, bi-polar language itself always presents
difficulties, in that it both accurately describes the physical world (male/female, day/night, light/dark, etc.)
while simultaneously ascribing specific cultural (and therefore social and political) significance to those
oppositions through the linking of symbolic attributes to the physical phenomenon...."
That's
exactly why I think these concepts do need rethinking. Both that linkage & that polarity are so embedded
in the English language (& more so in many others) that it takes conscious effort to notice & question
both of them. And in fact I question how accurately such language really describes the physical world. Are
male & female really opposites? Genetically, only 1 chromosome out of 46 is different. Are masculine &
feminine even opposites, or is that an assumption that leads to the assignment of "opposite" characteristics
to each? How is light masculine & dark feminine? Hell, I've even seen a racial-awareness TV program,
called "The R.A.C.E.," in which the host referred to "the opposite race." (As you might guess, it didn't
give much consideration to races other than "black" & "white.") Even leaving people (& other organisms
that have sexes) out of it, are the sun & the moon opposites? Or the sky & the earth? Is rainforest the
opposite of desert? Yet they're often referred to that way. It's been by rethinking such dichotomies that
we've arrived at a more complex, integrated way of looking at natural phenomena.
"Anom, you
note that you'd'rather see "masculine" & "feminine" taken out of the lists entirely. It just perpetuates
stereotypes.'"
I actually debated whether to include that sentence. But I believe the inclusion of
those words in lists that include value-loaded attributes (especially "positive" & "negative"!) does
perpetuate stereotypes, due to the very difficulties of "bi-polar language" you note above. I think most of
the people on this board know the difference between sex & gender (another reason I didn't address it), but
not only do many people not know it, the equating of genders w/attributes & of sex w/gender has been
used in many cultures to devalue women ("negative") & to keep both women & men from crossing the
boundaries of their accepted roles. (I don't remember when it came out, but a survey of psychologists--or
maybe psychiatrists--in less enlightened times--1970s?--found that most listed the same attributes they
thought characterized a "healthy man" as also characterizing a "healthy person"...& the opposite traits as
characterizing a "healthy woman.")
"One of the great benefits of contemporary anthropology is
that it forces us to acknowledge that, while there are certainly some characteristics that are NEARLY
universally ascribed to each sex, there seem to be no characteristics for which one cannot find at least
ONE human group that ascribes them to the opposite sex."
Yup--& Margaret Mead said that
(paraphrased) in some cultures men did the fishing & women did the weaving & in others men did the
weaving & women did the fishing, but either way, what the men did was considered more important. (If
this has been superseded, someone please tell me.) Maybe it's not true for the temporary
circumstances you mentioned:
"Even violence and nurturing, the two most likely candidates
for universal sex/gender definition are, in some Papuan cultures, believed to be reversed for both wife and
husband during a woman's pregnancy, as well as under certain conditions of extreme
grief."
(Hmmm...Willow & Xander, anyone?)
"You also argue that,'Passivity in sex
would be more like what "respectable" women in more repressed times did w/(usually) their husbands--
just lie there because they weren't "supposed to" enjoy it (women who did weren't respectable).' I assume
that you are speaking of the Victorian era....The tragic medical evidence of the damage done to thousands
of women in sex-therapy institutes in Britain and America in the late 19thC supports those women writers
who argued that most Victorian women did, after all, have active sexual feelings."
Actually, I
was thinking more of the'50s...& many different cultures & times. And before you quote Kinsey on me, I
didn't say anything about how these women felt; I was talking about how they acted. They were indeed
probably well aware of the stereotype, & that it was what was expected of them. There are also records of
women who didn't conform to this stereotype & were drugged, institutionalized, &/or subjected to surgery
to remove the pesky female parts that caused them to act so "abnormally."
"Finally, you note
that I confusingly used the word'active' to help define'receptive' ('active participant') as the opposite to
active. My bad. I should have written something like'dynamic participant'....I should have been more clear
about my metaphor [in describing "passive"] and specified that I meant a rape during which the woman is
incapacitated (by Rohypnol or alcohol, for example) and is thus truly passive."
Hm. The thing
is, the lists are made up of supposed opposites, & "dynamic" doesn't seem like an opposite of "active"
either. Is "active" the opposite of "receptive"? They don't seem to be on the same axis to me. What would
be at the opposite pole of "receptive"? As for "passive," I wouldn't define it as "unconscious," either; how
can that be a characteristic of anyone? If you're going to apply these to people, or use people's
activities as examples, it seems to me the traits must be either consciously chosen (by each person) or
intrinsic, neither of which goes w/unconsciousness. As for the counterpart to "receptive," I assume you'd
draw the same distinction between the male lover & the rapist as between the female lover & the rape
victim in your metaphorical scenarios; what adjective would you use for the lover? That's not a challenge--
I'm asking you because I can't think of one.
"I'm not sure in what spirit your post was meant,
Anom, (it reads as though you're upset about something, although I'm not sure what), but I find that, in
thinking through these issues, both linguistic and historical specificity are often quite
useful."
No particular spirit, other than a sleepy one; I thought I was just expanding on what
you said. And maybe a hurried one--as I said at the beginning, I didn't have time for detail or looking
things up, so I ending up writing from memory & in generalities. By the time I'm finishing this, it's
almost as late tonight as it was when I posted last night, so my specificity may have slipped toward the
end. If anything's still unclear...I'd better start a lot earlier tomorrow.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: shee-eesh, redcat--it was just a
shortcut! (but this post is long) -- O'Cailleagh, 23:46:41 06/06/02 Thu
Anom, I
agree that many of the qualities included in that list may carry with them certain connotations. These are,
however, traditional archetypal polar opposites (btw, postive and negative in this context should be viewed
in terms of electrical currents). Having also been one to flaut gender conventions, I can see where you're
coming from on that issue. The context these qualities are in though, is that of Paganism, and Paganism
teaches that everything is made up of both sides of these poles (and indeed, some traditions have
completely different correspondences for each pole).
I'm sorry if you found these lists
unacceptable, perhaps you could provide me with an alternative? (this isn't snarky, quite serious in fact.
As a gay Witch I am very interested in gender/sexuality issues within magickal practise)
Well,
as I am also tired, I'm going to finish up before I pass out!
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: shee-eesh, redcat--it was just a
shortcut! (but this post is long) -- anom, 12:04:22 06/07/02 Fri
Wow,
O'Cailleagh--I've seen lists like the one you posted before, but I never saw "positive" & "negative" treated
in terms of electrical currents. That's certainly a less value-laden way to look at it. But don't the traditions
such lists are derived from predate electrical, & maybe even magnetic, concepts of pos. & neg.
polarity?
When you say the lists' context is Paganism, are you talking about one specific
tradition? I usually see "paganism" w/a small p, & I understand it as referring to multiple polytheistic
belief systems. I'm guessing you're talking about a European Paganism, which would be interesting,
because I first came across lists like these in explanations of the yin/yang duality. Those lists, as best I
recall, were very close to yours--can you tell me more about the "completely different" ones that exist in
other traditions?
As for my opinion on those lists, I didn't say they were unacceptable; I said I
objected to the equating of one set of traits to "masculine" & the other to "feminine." I don't think I could
propose an alternative list; I can see how most of the lists' pairs are considered opposites, but I don't know
why each member of a given pair is assigned to the same list as each member of another pair (e.g., I don't
see why "creative" is on the same list as "passive" [or "receptive"], & I don't see what basis there is for
choosing "positive" & "negative"--even, or maybe especially, in the electrical sense--for either list). And
some of the pairs don't even look like opposites to me: "logical" & "creative" don't seem to go on the same
axis. I'd consider the opposite of "logical" to be something more like "intuitive," & the opposite of
"creative" to be...hmm, that one may have >1 axis! It could be either "destructive" or...um, well,
"uncreative." (Guess that's why I'm an editor, not a writer. Not that I'm uncreative....) I notice none of the
words on either list starts w/"un-"; maybe someone else has a suggestion for a non-un opposite of
"creative" on that axis.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: shee-eesh, redcat--it was
just a shortcut! (but this post is long) -- O'Cailleagh, 14:55:37 06/07/02 Fri
Hey
Anom.
Due to the sleepiness, I wasn't as clear as I could have been in that post...sorry. When I
referred to positve and negative in terms of electrical currents, I was trying to detract from the
positive=Good, negative=Evil associations that seemed to be at the basis of your distaste. As you may have
noticed, Good and Evil were concepts conspicuous by their absence, this was intentional as they are not
concepts that most would view in a polar sense. The popular conception of these two are as a duality (and
this is where I must pick you up on *your* wording!) which is an entirely different concept.
Polarity implies that any two opposite qualities are, in reality, merely extremes of the same
quality, eg hot and cold are extremes of temperature. Duality suggests that any two opposites are separate
things, to use a Christian example (since we Pagans don't have any!), God and the Devil. Thereby,
Yin/Yang is a polarity and not a duality. I know that may seem nit-picky, but it is an important
distinction.
When I say Paganism, I am referring to the entire religion in all its forms. It is
capitalised as it is a religion, the same as Islam, Catholicism, Hindu, Shinto, etc. European Paganism
works on the same principles as Native American Paganism, African Paganism, Aboriginal Paganism,
Asian/Oriental Paganism, the whole gamut. So, understandably, we share many of the same concepts,
polarity being just one of them. As I said, the details of those concepts differ from one tradition, or
individual, to another. Taking the Sun/Moon pairing you referred to in an earlier post, some traditions (eg
Roman, Greek) would see the Sun as masculine and the Moon as feminine, and others (eg Celtic) view the
Sun as feminine and the Moon as masculine. The attributes of each also'switch places'.
As to
the list itself...I will attempt a reworking of it that may be more to your liking...but I can't promise
anything, but to start with, a possible alternative for'active' could be'directive'.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: shee-eesh, redcat--it was just a
shortcut! (but this post is long) -- redcat, 01:48:57 06/07/02 Fri
anom,
I've just reread my post to you and I realize that I owe you an apology
and a thank you. You are right, my post could certainly be read as patronizing, which I did not intend,
and for which I apologize. I am sorry that you had to read something of mine that was so long and
inappropriate. You have taught me a valuable lesson about the board and my patterns of engagement
here, for which I thank you. All I can say is that I will attempt to construct my future responses more
carefully, paying more attention to length, subject and tone. Again, I apologize for having offended you.
redcat
[> [> [> [> [> [> i may be reading too much between
the lines... -- anom, 11:08:49 06/07/02 Fri
...but I get the impression you felt
flamed, which wasn't what I intended. I did say I was trying to keep my feeling of being
patronized from coloring my response, but I don't assume my feeling means anything about your
intentions. Rereading my post, I can see how the opening is a little...stinging, but that's really more in the
way of defensiveness on my part, which may have been unwarranted. I certainly wouldn't call your entire
post inappropriate--you make a lot of good points, & I answered several of them to explain why I said
what I did in my earlier post, not in any attempt to chasten you. I really would like to see what responses
you might have on the same (or other) points. My questions were sincere (like about how accurately
polarized language describes the physical world & whether Margaret Mead's statement is still considered
valid--I'd love to know if exceptions have been found or if anthropologists' understanding of it has
changed). I was hoping to open the discussion further, not shut it down.
And I'm truly
interested in finding a corresponding term to "receptive." It seems to me that if "passive" is changed, it's
appropriate to take a new look at "active" too. Whaddya think?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: i may be reading too
much between the lines... -- redcat, 12:19:18 06/07/02 Fri
Thank you,
anom, but I did not feel flamed. It was reasonable of you to point out a behavior of mine that was poorly
thought-through and I don't think you need worry if your sincere emotions about that surfaced in your
post. I feel like Oz after he read the bad review of Dingoes Ate My Babies in the school paper: "No,
that's fair." I should have been more considerate.
As for your three questions, I'd like to
address them out of order.
1) "whether Margaret Mead's statement is still considered valid" -
the question of universal male dominance is still exceedingly viable in feminist anthropology, if not in the
rest of the field. This means that feminists and anthropologists of women (not all of whom are feminists)
argue about it a great deal, while everyone else seems to have decided that the question is relatively
unimportant. You might check out Sherry Ortner's anthology of her own articles written over a critical 25
yr period in fem/anthro, "Making Gender: The Politics and Erotics of Culture." She directly addresses the
question in her original and quite famous article, "Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?" and then in
her reconsideration of it in light of twenty years of further work and criticism across the field. Also useful
at the level of field ethnography are monographs by Maria Lepowsky, "Fruit of the Motherland: Gender in
an Egalitarian Society" (a fem/marxist perspective on a Solomon Islands group) and, at the other end of
the spectrum, Jocelyn Linnekin's "Sacred Queens and Women of Consequence: Rank, Gender and
Colonialism in the Hawaiian Islands."
2) "how accurately polarized language describes the
physical world" - maps are funny things. It depends on what you are looking for as to how you will read
one, and no signifier is ever the same as its signified. As I noted in a response to matching mole (way up
there somewhere in this thread), representational and/or descriptive number systems are useful devices but
tend to change with the circumstances. For me, bi-polar language "feels" right much of the time. I grew
up in a place where there is less than a one hour difference between the length of night and day at any
given time of the year (21'N) and where night falls and day breaks with a swiftness that can be breath-
taking; where the always fluctuating division between ocean and land is clearly marked and critically
important to survival; where male and female "mean" quite different things, even as *what* each means
continues to change; but where other sorts of dichotomies, black and white for example, make no sense at
all. Here, I am not white but kama'aina haole (like less than 8% of the people in my hometown were,
when I was a keiki [kid]) and the only"black" person I knew growing up was half-Okinawan, but everyone
else was some shade of brown - Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Thai, Filipino, Puerto Rican, Tongan,
Samoan, Fijian, Marquesan, Malaysian and just what we called "poi-dog" -- all mixed up. So other types
of number systems also feel "right" to me. But just as oddly, some don't. I've tried very hard to make
sense of the Mayan calender, which links a 13-day week to a 260-day year. I don't know what it is about
that system, but I can never keep it straight in my head - it just doesn't "feel" right. But then, I'm Irish,
Cherokee and French by heritage, so maybe I'm just not "mapped" that way? I think your question here is
incredibly interesting, but I'm not sure that I will ever be able to approach the world without some form of
deeply internalized bi-polar discriminatory function being engaged. Lucky you if you can break from it!
What a relief that would be sometimes....
3) "finding a corresponding term to "receptive." It
seems to me that if "passive" is changed, it's appropriate to take a new look at "active" too" - again, just
on a feeling level, receptive and active feel like very perfect opposites to me. Both are strong and require
conscious choice, and they seem less hierarchical than "active/passive." What would you suggest as an
alternative to active that you would link to receptive? And what other ways might you have drawn
O'Cailleagh's original list?
aloha e malama pono, redcat
[> [> Gotta fight the myth... -- Darby, 08:55:53 06/06/02
Thu
This is a pretty interesting discussion to which my reactions at the moment are too
scattered to be coherent, so I'm just going to focus on a offhand comment that pushed one of my
buttons...
This thing about "humans only use 20% of their brains" is one of those "truisms"
that has flown around for decades but has no basis in fact. The closest reality is that, at any given
moment, your brain is using a fraction of its circuitry, but that in no way means that, over time, all of the
circuits don't get used. This idea that we have oodles of "wasted space" in our heads (although I do know
people that this describes) is one of those funny things that makes no sense on so many levels that no one
should accept it but it keeps getting passed along without examination...and it drives me
nuts!
Okay...done now...feeling better...
[> [> [> Thanks for the correction!! I was obviously one of
those taken in by the myth... -- redcat, using more of her brain than she thought she was ;),
10:52:08 06/06/02 Thu
[> Re: The Metaphysics of The Realverse Vs. The Buffyverse Part 1
(longish...may contain spoilage) -- Sophie, 16:03:50 06/03/02 Mon
Wonderful
post! I am really looking forward to reading what you have to say about souls. I am interested in
philosophy and souls and how souls can be lost, gained, lost, gained as we see happen with Angel and
others in the Buffyverse. Where do souls come from? Where do they go? Your persepctive on souls and
the various planes will be enlightening, I'm sure.
Soph
[> Re: The Metaphysics of The Realverse Vs. The Buffyverse Part 1
(longish...may contain spoilage) -- aliera, 19:00:09 06/03/02 Mon
Thank you for
the post. I have to admit we share an interest in this aspect of the show and also that there have been
some things this season that have been bothering me about the manner in which magic(k) has been
portrayed. However, at least one of those isn't related to what you posted so I'll leave it for another time.
I would be very curious to know if this aspect of the show is coming from one person or a mix
of writers/others because my perception on watching has been that they don't have a formal theory of how
magic works in this world. I don't really expect to see a parallel to any of the systems written about today
or in our past but I have been feeling that it is somewhat inconsistant?
I especially enjoyed
reading the section on Wicca because this was one of the areas of puzzlement for me. The combination of
your view of the effect of the hellmouth and Wicca gave a different perspective. It is also a very good
point about what we have seen so far of the practioners. We have yet to see very much about a practicing
group or a teacher/mentor. Most of the magic users we have seen (I believe) seem to be self taught?
To be able to read so many insightful posts on different subjects is one of the truly great
aspects of this group: the different viewpoints, the thought that goes into them and the wondereful writing
in many of the posts. Thank you again.
[> Excellent Post, but... -- AgnosticSorcerer, 19:15:42
06/03/02 Mon
I loved the post. It was informative and all-around great work. It was
excellent.
The only thing that bothered me was the continuous use of the word "witch" as
synonymous with "wiccan" or at least the term "witch" being applied to only those who practice magick
within the frame of a religion. I would just like to point out that there are a great many people who would
disagree with this, but as I have said before, it's semantical. I just thought I would be worth
mentioning.
Curious though. What would you call someone who practices magick, but has no
religious framework to use magick? A "magick-user"?
[> [> Re: Excellent Post, but... -- O'Cailleagh, 19:45:50
06/03/02 Mon
I did actually point out the minor differences between Wicca and
Witchcraft, I just referred to them as I did for ease. I'm aware of the feelings of those practitioners who use
the term Witch although they do not follow a spiritual/religious path, I'd be more inclined to call them
folk magickians (if they are only practising the magickal side of the Craft). My reasoning for this lies in
the fact that historically, Witches (or Wicca and Wicce as they would have been known) were the
priests(esses) and magickians of their villages (which were peopled by Pagans).
The term I
generally use for non-religious magick users is magickian, although I tried not to in my post due to the
confusion issues over a) the'k' and how it affects the pronunciation (it doesn't btw, to those of you who
don't know), and b)stage-magicians.
I posted the "Teacher's Pet" pages at
"The Annotated Buffy" -- Rob, 11:16:27 06/03/02 Mon
You can check them out here.
Unfortunately, the
image file may not come up, but I'm currently working on fixing that little snafu.
Other than
that...
Enjoy! :o)
Rob
P.S. If you have any more "Never Kill a Boy on
the First Date" annotations, please keep responding to my thread lower on the page or e-mail me. Thanks!
[> Oh, and I forgot to put this in the updates page, but I updated the
links page, too... -- Rob, 11:30:44 06/03/02 Mon
[> Thanks Rob! -- Rahael, 14:14:32 06/03/02 Mon
and for neatning up my ramblings.
[> [> You're welcome. Your ramblings are very much
appreciated. :o) -- Rob, 19:19:54 06/03/02 Mon
Honestly, you found depth in
that episode I didn't even know was there!
Rob
[> Re: I posted the "Teacher's Pet" pages at "The
Annotated Buffy" -- O'Cailleagh, 16:48:22 06/03/02 Mon
Once again Rob,
wonderful site! However...Ummm...I was going to mention this when you made your request for the
episode, but I thought that it was significant, somebody else would have noticed and told you...but they
didn't so I probably should've...oh, the point! The song the band is playing in the Bronze...(paraphrasing-
'You're so familiar, I've met you before, You're just like my last girlfriend, and the one before...'). Could
this be alluding to all of Xander's romantic interests being, or later becoming, a demon/monster and/or
evil? Sorry I didn't say anything earlier....
[> [> Interesting point... -- Rob, 19:16:05 06/03/02
Mon
I'll try to add it into the notes, with my next update. Sorry you missed the postings. I
announce them often, but a lot of people e-mail me responses instead of respond to the threads, so they
tend to slip off the page quickly.
Rob
[> Yay! My site's been added to the BuffyGuide.com link database
under "Critical Analysis"!! :o) -- Rob, 19:17:40 06/03/02 Mon
[> [> Here's the link... -- Rob, 19:31:32 06/03/02
Mon
http://www.buffyguide.com/links/Everything_Else/Critical_Analysis/index.shtml
[> [> [> Re: Here's the link... (Spoilers for the'Eyre
Affair') -- Rahael, 10:59:21 06/04/02 Tue
Congrats Rob.
Btw, I
bought and read'The Eyre Affair' while on holiday, which I enjoyed, so thanks very much.
I
found the plot intriguing, the ideas very clever, and loved his whole thing on plot loopholes.
I
did find the writing a little disappointing - the dialogue felt stilted to me. Also, the Bronte characters were
far more real and alive than the'real' characters - though that is quite clever in itself. Tuesday Next and
Laine Parke felt cardboardy next to Rochester and Jane. I don't really like Jane Eyre, but it's made me
want to go back and reread it, which is great.
I loved the who wrote Shakespeare thing, though
I felt very cheated by the authors michievous ending! argh! Liked the whole'Felix Tabularasa' thing as
well. Very amusing.
I would recommend it to everyone as a fun read, and a page turner as
well!
[> [> [> [> Re: Here's the link... (Spoilers for the'Eyre
Affair') -- Rob, 13:06:03 06/04/02 Tue
I agree on most your points, although I
think you kind of answered your own question on how the'real' characters were supposed to be stilted in
comparison to the literary ones. So I think it may have been on purpose. If it wasn't, it really didn't bother
me that much, although I understand what you're referring to. On the whole, I saw it as more of a fun,
spirited Douglas Adamsy type book where the jokes and puns are more important than the actual
characters.
I also loved the plot loophole thing, especially the murder of the character from
"Martin Chuzzlewit." And he's right...If you read the book now, that character isn't there!
And
I'm soooo with you on "Jane Eyre." I actually had JUST finished it for a torturous college class on Major
British Writers of the 19th Century, and had great trepidation about reading "Eyre Affair" because of my
most unpleasant experience with the original book. I will say this--if nothing else, it made me glad I had
read "Jane Eyre," just so I could understand all the references in this book.
I had the
opportunity to meet the author, Jasper Fforde in person at the Barnes and Noble on Astor Place in the
Village (in NYC, of course), after he read two chapters from the book and answered questions. He has a
great sense of humor in person, as well, btw...Anyway, I told him that I'd just read "Jane Eyre" for a class,
and he told me that he was "dreadfully sorry you had to read that! But now you can pick up on any
mistakes I may have made in my book!" That made me laugh out loud. He said that he'd picked Jane Eyre
because she was a well-known romantic character in the literature of the time period he wanted, and he
liked how "Eyre Affair" sounded. He, himself, is not a huge fan of the book itself. That just made me
smile.
Can't wait for the next book to come out! Oh, also, if you haven't checked out the
website, http://www.thursdaynext.com, you really should. It is a lot of fun!
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> 'The Dream of Scipio' -- Rahael,
15:03:51 06/04/02 Tue
LOL Rob, I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't like Jane
Eyre. It was so unrelentingly gloomy!
I have a book recommendation to make in return.
The Dream of Scipio by Iain Pears, which I also read on holiday. Great characters, beautifully
written, a page turner, and just an all round good read, with a bittersweet message. A very important
message too. It too has literary references, little jokes and is very learned. It is also very moving. I
recommend it highly to everyone. It was just as good as Pears' other book'Instance of a fingerpost' but in a
totally different way.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re:'The Dream of Scipio' --
Rob, 15:11:30 06/04/02 Tue
Sounds great. I'll definitely check it out. I've seen
"Instance of a Fingerpost" in the bookstore a bunch of times and have come close to getting it but haven't
yet. So I'm glad to get a good recommendation on the author. Right now, I'm actually in the middle of
Neil Gaiman's (so far) brilliant "American Gods." When I'm done with it, I'll definitely get "Dream of
Scipio." Unless my opinion changes by the time I finish the book, I love "American Gods" and I'll advance
the recommendation on that one to you. I'll keep you posted if the last 150 pages stink.
LOL.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> American Gods is just
GREAT -- Ete, 15:25:15 06/04/02 Tue
But then every Gaiman's books are
:)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> He's my favorite
author!! -- Rob, 15:36:32 06/04/02 Tue
I've read every "Sandman" comic, and all
of his books...
In fact, when I first started reading him, it was around when "Stardust" came
out. I finished it in one night, and then proceeded to read his other two books, "Smoke and Mirrors" and
"Neverwhere," and every single Sandman comic (they come in a 10-volume set) in under a
week!
He has a new one coming out in September or October that looks like it's going to be a
dark fairy tale. Can't wait!
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> Go, Jane! It's You're Birthday! --
Arethusa, 08:22:42 06/05/02 Wed
I love Jane Eyre; I reread it every year and get
something new from it each time. A Victorian heroine who demands to live by her own moral code and
believes whole-heartedly in her self-worth, despite what society tells her she should think and feel-perhaps
someone would have to grow up being told their opinions and wants were worthless to understand how
important that message is.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Then you should definitely read
"Eyre Affair"! -- Rob, 08:54:35 06/05/02 Wed
Being a fan of the
book, you'll find BILLIONS of cool references in "Eyre Affair." Although the author is not a huge Jane
Eyre fan, you'd never be able to tell by reading the book; Jane Eyre is never disrespected. The plot is
basically about a villain who steals a machine that lets you (literally) jump into a book, and kidnaps Jane
Eyre. Our hero, detective Thursday Next, has to save her from the 2nd most evil man in history! I think
you'd really enjoy it. In fact, I think any literature fan would love "Eyre Affair." There are so many cool
literary references and jokes.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks, I Will --
Arethusa, 09:24:45 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> I'm so ashamed.
"Your" -- Arethusa, 14:13:40 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> Congrats! Welcome to an exclusive little club! --
Masq, 07:06:54 06/04/02 Tue
[> [> [> Many thanks, Masq! -- Rob, 08:14:34
06/04/02 Tue
I owe so much to you and your amazing site. So, thanks.
:o)
Rob
[> The "Teacher's Pet" image is fixed! -- Rob,
18:44:46 06/04/02 Tue
Willow/Faith/Buffy (s6 finale spoilerish) --
abt, 11:48:35 06/03/02 Mon
Do you think that Willow was not just jealous of Faith's
relationship with Buffy, but of Faith herself, and the power she had? She didn't like Faith even before she
slept with Xander, IIRC.
Or maybe Faith was a version of Buffy that Willow felt it was
acceptable to be jealous of?
[> Re: Willow/Faith/Buffy (s6 finale spoilerish) -- O'Cailleagh,
16:53:05 06/03/02 Mon
I did notice one thing...Willow's "I'm in *wicked* trouble
now." to Giles...struck me as a bit Faith-esque is all...
[> [> Re: Willow/Faith/Buffy (s6 finale spoilerish) -- Ronia-
Ah hah!, 19:39:09 06/03/02 Mon
I did notice the use of the word "wicked" and
although I nod to the Faith example as an option, what I mostly was registerring were shades of Drusilla.
Because she shares a past set of behaviors with Drusilla, and something about her body language, the way
she would stalk her intended victim, and just sort of sway back and forth in front of them..just get
unnervingly close to them...and then with an almost total lack of emotion, she'd play with them..ask them
questions..seemingly empathize with them. I half expected her to say "be in me". Faith knew she was
walking on the wrong side of the road, and she liked that idea, in contrast Willow maintained her sense of
self rightousness the whole way through. Even her decision to end the world was veiled in mock pity.
Differrence being Willow still had a sense of humanity in there way down deep. Drusilla has lost hers
irretrievably. The Willow we see in The Wish was also Drusillaesque. IMO
[> Re: Willow/Faith/Buffy (s6 finale spoilerish) -- Doriander,
21:32:53 06/03/02 Mon
Or maybe Faith was a version of Buffy that Willow felt it
was acceptable to be jealous of?
Now that's thought provoking. In light of S6, with
Willow's "I understand it now, it's all about the power", "six years as the side man, now I get to be the
slayer," and so forth, we find just how much Willow had been harboring latent jealousy of Buffy. She
wants to be in the club of powerful girls--
Willow: ...if you could be ... you know, plain old
Willow or super Willow, who would you be? (looks at Buffy) I guess you don't actually have an option on
the whole super thing (Wrecked)
She's sick of being the sidekick, the best friend, she said
as much to Spike in that infamous bedroom scene in The Initiative:
Willow : It's
me, isn't it?
Spike : What are you talking about?
Willow : Well, you came looking
for Buffy, then settled. I--I... You didn't want to bite me. I just happened to be around.
Spike : Piffle!
Willow : I know I'm not the kind of girl vamps like to sink their
teeth into. It's always like, "ooh, you're like a sister to me," or, "oh, you're such a good friend."
And remember Willow had been jealous of Buffy since S1 because Xander prefers her to
Willow. Remember this exchange in The Pack?
Hyena Xander: Before she came
here our lives didn't need that much saving, did they? Weren't things a lot simpler when it was just you
and me?
Willow: (moves closer) Maybe...
Surely she's glad Buffy came along,
delivered her from mediocrity, so to speak, but this thought had been lingering in the back of her mind,
would it have been better if Buffy were out of the picture.
It's been said that Faith is Buffy's
shadow self. The darker aspects of Buffy is embodied and amplified in Faith.
Now Willow
couldn't quite bring herself to hate Buffy, in spite of her jealousy. Why? When Buffy came along and
shook up the Willow-Xander clique, Buffy made it a point to include Willow. She lets Willow participate
in slayage, gives Willow a new sense of purpose. Xander may have had a crush on Buffy, and in the S1
finale he professed his feelings for her, but Buffy rejected him.
The same can't be said of
Faith. Faith had no qualms. S3, Faith shook up the Willow-Xander-Buffy clique. Unlike Buffy, Faith
could care less what Willow thinks. Faith sees herself and Buffy as above them all. Willow may have her
magics, but that's inferior to the slayers' prowess. Faith excluded Willow. Faith had sex with Xander. Of
course Willow hates her now.
Still, Willow kept to herself. She cried in the bathroom stall,
murmured her resentment when Buffy leaves the room. But once Faith turned to the dark side, her hatred
is legitimized (similar to Xander's hatred of Angel in S2), it's when she became really vocal about it.
Faith realized Willow's insecurities with regards to Buffy. So yeah, I think you've hit
something here. Faith indeed, was a version of Buffy that Willow feels is acceptable to be jealous
of.
P.S. If you haven't yet, I strongly suggest you read shadowkat's essays on Willow, she has
an extremely profound grasp of the character's journey.
[> [> Where do I find those essays by shadowkat that you refer
to? -- abt, 13:55:35 06/04/02 Tue
[> [> [> Re: Where do I find those essays by shadowkat that
you refer to? -- Doriander, 14:12:22 06/04/02 Tue
She's linked here actually
(click on links on top of the page), but for your convenience, here.
[> Re: Willow/Faith/Buffy (s6 finale spoilerish) -- Jane's
Addiction, 21:35:48 06/03/02 Mon
You may have a point about the jealousy angle.
However - call me crazy - I think a large part of the Will/Faith conflict was that Willow on some
subconscious level saw some of her own tendencies and deep seated emotional issues in Faith. While
seeming to be very different personalities on the surface, both characters appeared to be riddled with
similar insecurities and self-loathing and maybe Willow picked up on that subconsciously. At that point
in time (S3-4), I imagine having to watch her own very hidden issues so near the surface on someone else
might have been a very uncomfortable situation for Willow and might have explained a lot of her anger
towards Faith. Kind of a "How dare you revel (or pretend to revel) in what I'm trying to repress?" sort of
thing. Granted, I think this was all happening on a subconscious level at the time.
Just a
thought.
[> [> Re: Willow/Faith/Buffy (s6 finale spoilerish) --
Doriander, 21:50:15 06/03/02 Mon
No, not crazy at all. Rather, a very astute
take.
"How dare you revel (or pretend to revel) in what I'm trying to
repress?"
Hee!
[> Re: Willow/Faith/Buffy (s6 finale spoilerish) -- SpikeMom, 07:22:16 06/04/02 Tue
There is also a flip side to this. Willow wants to be superhero Buffy but Buffy wants to be
normalgirl Willow. Her line in OMWF at the Bronze about how she works so hard just to be like other
girls, to fit-in in this glittering world, etc. She has tried to ignore the Slayer gig on many occaisions. I
think that the finale shows a Willow who's going to come to terms with who she is: an amazing but still
"normal" girl. And Buffy also finally accepted that she will never be like "other girls", she is the
Slayer.
I would also humbly suggest that Buffy's repression of Dawn's abilities was to try and make
Dawn into the normal girl she herself was never going to be. No wonder Dawn was so frustrated. Who
likes being forced into someone else's definition of who you are?
As long as the characters were
emphasizing the weakest aspects of their personalities they were never going to develop to their full
potentials.
accents -- LozzieB, 18:31:10 06/03/02 Mon
why does spike still have a british accent but angel has lost his irish accent - even though he
still had it when spike was turned?
[> Re: accents -- AgnosticSorcerer, 18:45:51 06/03/02
Mon
I believe that Angel has been in America for a much longer time than Spike. We
know that Angel has been in America as early as the 1960s and often when people relocate they tend to
pick up the accent of their new home.
Spike and Drusilla travelled the world for centuries
before they came to Sunnydale.
Does anyone know where Darla was born? She didn't seem to
have an accent at all throughout the entirety of both series.
[> [> Re: accents -- Ronia, 19:14:58 06/03/02 Mon
the only reason I can think of would be that DB isn't up to the task of speaking with an Irish
accent full time. I could be wrong, but I thought JM was American, and just had a talent for
accents.
[> [> [> Re: accents -- cjc36, 06:26:09 06/04/02
Tue
I've read or heard DB works very hard for his accent, even having a dialect coach on
set when he's doing flashback scenes.
JM seems to be able to go into and out of several
different accents at once. In an interview on BBC.com, he demonstrated a Southern American Spike
(which was considered early in Spike's development). In the same paragraph he went from JM's Cali
accent, to Southern, to Cockney.
Doing accents well is like having a good ear for music, I
suppose. Some have more natural talent than others.
[> [> [> [> Re: accents -- Yellowork, 06:54:12
06/04/02 Tue
James Marsters' accent as Spike is shit! Everyone in the UK wonders how
come an aristocratic young man from London came to speak in an AUSTRALIAN accent! Juliet Landau's
accent is never mentioned by US fans, but trust me, it's much more convincing. The one nit-pick might be
that it is too'Estuary' (that is, a symptom of a less-than-class-ridden society) and therefore not
authentically Victorian. But hey, we don't know what they talked like back then. Though we can be
pretty damned certain it was not à la Marsters!
[> [> [> [> [> Oh, its a jolly'oliday wiv Mary........ -
- O'Cailleagh, 07:16:21 06/04/02 Tue
Although not a Cockney accent, JM's accent is
far from sounding Australian. The reason he has the accent now is either a) as people have mentioned, its
an affectation, or b) as a result of moving around the world a lot. I happen to think Spike's accent is very
convincingly English, generally London-y...in fact, I was shocked to discover he was American. JL's
accent is also well done, same with AD....now, DB's Irish...hmmmmm
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh, its a jolly'oliday wiv
Mary........ -- Arethusa, 08:36:33 06/04/02 Tue
> >or b) as a result of
moving around the world a lot.
Good point. I moved around a lot as a kid, and I now have the
regretable tendency to copy the accent of whomever I am talking to. After a week in Edinburgh on
vacation, I was (unconsciously) speaking like a native.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh, its a jolly'oliday wiv
Mary........ -- cjc36, 10:28:27 06/04/02 Tue
I've read on posting boards for years
posts from people from the UK that a) JM is a hack and has no business doing a British accent of any
kind, and b) It's as close to pitch perfect as one could want.
I'm American (yeah, what do I
know?). JM sounds convincing to me, whereas DB's Irish doesn't.
I've heard similar
praise/criticism for JL's accent as well.
I've read that a lot of British actors rarely use their
own, exact accent in roles - there's always a bit of a difference between their native voice and that of their
character, even if it is another Brit.
For the record, I think Kate Beckinsale's American accent
is fine.
Depends on who's hearing the music, I suppose.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> JM's accent, depends which
season -- abt, 11:30:24 06/04/02 Tue
When I first heard Spike in School
Hard it was painful to listen to.
By the time of Crush, it was perfect North
London, with just the occasional American vowel, and American emphasis. Which isn't surprising
considering he lives in America. In Crush, the line "Women marry'em all the time" was spot on
perfect, with that slightly nasal North London note. The accent has a few more American vowels now, I
think.
As for the accent change from posh human to North London vampire, yes, it's just an
affectation, like uppermiddle class boys and their mockney. See Giles in Band Candy.'Teenage'
Giles affects a more lowerclass accent than his usual standard RP.
I just hope he still has an
English accent next season.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: JM's accent,
depends which season -- yabyumpan, 12:02:55 06/04/02 Tue
Joining in here to
say that I find JM's accent fine, no problem with that but JL's makes me feel nauseas and has a lot to do
with why i've never really liked her character. I sounds like she learnt her accent at the Mary
Poppins/Dick van Dyke school of acting . ARGH
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> having said that...
-- abt, 13:19:35 06/04/02 Tue
...now that I'm used to it, Spike's season 2 accent
doesn't really bother me.
I hope he keeps his English accent..
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> hmm...does
anyone remember... -- anom, 20:35:30 06/05/02 Wed
...if "Randy" had a
different accent from Spike's? or William's? Seems to me (w/o checking) he sounded like Spike.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It;s not just the accent,
it's also the words he uses -- Daisy, 05:12:08 06/05/02 Wed
Hi, London UK
opinion here (for what it's worth!)
it's not really that JM's Brit accent is always right or wrong,
for me it's the actual words and expressions he uses that get on my nerves.
There's'bloody','mate','cakehole' to name but a few ... we don't speak like that! Every time he
uses a supposedly'colloquial' expression, I cringe because it just doesnt work.
He's not the only
guilty party.. Daphne moon in Frasier speaks with the same expressionisms.
I seriously think
some American TV shows need British input into the dialogue development of their British characters. It
works both ways.. over here, it's so easy to spot a UK actor putting on an American voice - not only
because of the accent, but because of the words which are used inappropriately, they stand out a mile.
Know what I mean?
there, had my rant.
JM's accent itself I dont mind, though I
dont think i'd be able to say it's perfect. It's good enough :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Try and think of
it in terms of age! -- Marie, 06:20:36 06/05/02 Wed
As I said further down, my
father was a Londoner, and these expressions were quite common in my house, as I grew up! I don't know
your age, obviously, so maybe it's a generation thing - and Spike is a hundred and, um,
something!
Marie
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree
-- abt, 01:57:28 06/06/02 Thu
I've heard older Londoners say'bloody' and'mate'
and'cakehole', I agree that occasionally Spike uses those words in an odd way (he said 'knickers
twisted' instead of 'knickers in a twist') but he's very old, and been living in the USA for a
while.
Think of it as a Spike accent.
Personally I think they've done a good job showing
his original upper-middle class accent, and the affected North London accent, considering it's an
American programme.
As for Daphne on Frasier, I can't bear to listen to her
brother.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I
agree -- Daisy, 08:35:03 06/06/02 Thu
In terms of the storyline, I can't argue
with your points that Spike is not speaking the'London-speak' of today, for the very fact he isnt a
Londoner of today... er, you know what I mean!
but on the whole, the use of such false
language still smacks (to me) of blatant stereotyping... its a mistake so many scriptwriters make, in the
States and also over here (with American characters). We've got an English character, so he must
say'bloody, mate' all the time, and throw in the odd English expression which they all use over there, such
as'cakehole'...
do you guys get any british programs over there, which include british actors
playing americans? If you do, doesnt it infuriate you how we portay these american character, and make
them speak??
It's probably just me, innit! :))
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
'Mate' -- Rahael, 09:09:57 06/06/02 Thu
I live in London, and I still here this - it
stands out to my ears because I don't use it.
In fact, not only do I hear it in London, but also at
University - public school contemporaries. In fact, they used it much more than the Londoners I
know.
I say bloody hell - but then I'm a colonial. I use all sorts of English words that are
decades out of date.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Out of date? Perhaps. But never out of Style ;) -- Brian, 09:27:00 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Spike isn't even a Londoner anyway -- abt, 10:00:53 06/06/02 Thu
or so it is
implied in FFL.
So Spike's affected North London accent and vocab may be a little off because
of that, as well as the class rebellion thing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Spike isn't even a Londoner anyway -- Arethusa, 12:00:42 06/06/02 Thu
I watched FFL yesterday and finally got that-Spike said he'd "heard" of London pickpockets,
implying he wasn't from London-my guess is he lived in the country and was in London visiting, perhaps
for the Season. And that could explain why he didn't fit in very well, being a country mouse instead of a
city mouse.
On the other hand, many people went to London from the country for the Season,
so maybe not.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
British actors and American accents -- matching mole, 13:54:02 06/06/02 Thu
This varies just as it obviously does the other way around. I've heard British actors put on
flawless American accents not just in films but on TV shows as well. I remember being surprised when I
learned that the actress who played Peri on Dr. Who was actually English because she sounded pretty
convincingly American to me. Her one slip up was in vocabulary rather than pronunciation - she used the
word shan't which is basically unknown in North America. But I've also heard really fake sounding
American accents, usually because they were overdone.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: British actors and American accents -- mundusmundi, 19:45:52 06/06/02 Thu
I think it was Albert Finney who said the American Southern accents were the easiest for
British actors, and indeed as I watch Patrick Stewart in King of Texas tonight (okay, that's a
Southwestern accent, but close enough) I see his point. On the other hand, non-Southern
American actors donning Southern accents invariably set my teeth on edge.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah, yeah, people
trashed ASH's accent too. -- SingedCat, 14:00:14 06/06/02 Thu
--and said JM's
was far more convincing. For the record, the british ASH doesn't use his own accent as Giles, and JM has
said he perfected his by talking the way ASH does off-screen. What a soap opera of speech!
[> [> [> [> [> Re: accents -- anom, 09:37:25
06/04/02 Tue
"Everyone in the UK wonders how come an aristocratic young man from
London came to speak in an AUSTRALIAN accent!"
Doesn't sound Australian to me. If it's
not authentic Cockney, maybe it's upper-class William's idea of a Cockney accent, or at least of a generic
lower-class English accent.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: accents -- sarahieo,
10:05:31 06/04/02 Tue
Well, the most impressive thing about JM's accent is the fact
he's fooled so many people into thinking he's of UK descent. I personally didn't know he was a CA guy
until about the 4th season. Anyone who can keep an idea like that in so many heads is quite convincing. I
can't wait to see what happens with Spike this season. Maybe he becomes the newest "Angel" for Buffy's
heart?
[> [> [> [> [> Please don't speak for "everyone in
the UK"! -- Marie, 02:12:19 06/05/02 Wed
As a Welsh person with an
excellent ear for accents, it's my opinion that JM has a pretty good London accent. Not Cockney,
definitely (my dad, an authentic, born-within-the-sound-of-Bow-Bells, Cockney, would laugh his socks
off, were he alive to hear that!). Listening to early episodes, I have to say the accent wasn't bad, but
certainly not as good back then, but now - brilliant. After all, wouldn't you say that William was upper-
middle class? Spike's just trying to give himself some street cred by putting on a low-class (to William,
that is) accent. In my opinion. Australian?! I just can't see how you get
Australian!
Juliet Laundau - also brilliant. And what about Alexis Denisof? His accent is one
of the best Americans-doing-British I've ever heard. (OT - Gwyneth Paltrow also one of the best, but
Anthony La Paglia trying to do Mancunian as Daphne's brother in Frasier - can I just say
"Urrrrgh!").
As for DB's Irish accent - I have friends in Ireland, and go over fairly often. I've
asked them what they think of Angel's Irish, and they, as a body, don't think it's too bad at all. Not
brilliant, but not the worst they've ever heard. Glenn Quinn was Irish, and I've read some people
criticised his accent. Go figure!
Marie
[> [> [> [> [> [> Glenn Quinn's accent --
agent156, 09:04:55 06/05/02 Wed
I've heard that a lot of people thought that Glenn
Quinn's accent seemed to go in and out. Someone from ME mentioned in a commentary I believe (or it
could have been an interview) that this was because they made him do it. He had such a strong Irish
accent that some words he would say couldn't be understood. So they would have him go back and do the
unintelligible parts again not using his accent. Thus to anyone listening keenly, you can hear that he
sometimes doesn't have the accent, but it's not because the actor couldn't maintain it. Unless of course ME
was just lying again.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes - that was Jane
Espenson... -- Marie, 01:03:25 06/06/02 Thu
...in the commentary I posted
for'Room w/a Vu' a while back. There was quite a lot of interesting stuff in that commentary. (It's
probably somewhere in the archives!).
Marie
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Glenn Quinn's
accent -- Cleanthes, 11:07:43
06/06/02 Thu
Someone from ME mentioned in a commentary I believe (or it could
have been an interview) that this was because they made him do it. He had such a strong Irish accent that
some words he would say couldn't be understood. So they would have him go back and do the
unintelligible parts again not using his accent.
This makes sense to me, and explains
something else that's happened to me. I've lived in Ireland off & on for the past nine years. I think I can
tell west accents from Dublin and Kerry (where I live - it's in the west but not really of the west)
from everywhere else. Northern accents (like Paisley & Adams) are easiest of all. Quinn was from
Dublin, right?
Well, we were watching 'Touched By and Angel' a couple of years ago when my
wife's friend from Mayo came in one day. She railed about Downey's "fake" Irish accent. We told her
Downey was from Derry. "Oh, well, she's not really Irish, then, is she?"
You can't win when
it comes to accents. I'm guessing that the directors have always made Downey cut back on the accent
whenever it seemed that American's might not be able to understand, as the ME directors evidently did
with Quinn. (this may have happened with 'Harry Potter', too? Anyone know? I hear the actor playing
Ron as really English sounding in one scene and then not so much in the next.) This would account for
inconsistencies and, if the change were made via looping, the dialogue might sound very odd indeed if the
listener was following along with the mostly consistent accent that changes suddenly to something broader
but easier on the non-natives.
It goes around in the USA, too. My father, who has lived in
Iowa all his life and whose cousins and aunts are all from Minnesota thought the accents in'Fargo' were
unbelievably fake. I thought they had a perfect ear but had overdone them for camp effect. I loved it. But
then, I've moved around a lot and I don't have anything invested in any one place.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> adapting accents --
anom, 17:18:14 06/06/02 Thu
"I'm guessing that the directors have always made
Downey cut back on the accent whenever it seemed that American's might not be able to understand, as
the ME directors evidently did with Quinn."
On one episode of Star Trek: The Next
Generation, Picard said a couple of times that another ship was scheduled to arrive...pronouncing it
"skeduled." I wondered if Patrick Stewart had been told to pronounce it that way for the benefit of
American viewers. (One time he reverted to his British accent & said "sheduled"--they should've just let
him use it all along!)
ps--nice to see you, Cleanthes!
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Please don't speak for
"everyone in the UK"! -- O'Cailleagh, 13:10:12 06/05/02 Wed
I
always thought Glenn Quinn was American...wasn't he Becky's boyfriend in Roseanne? (can't remember
the character's name) Not that you have to be American to be in Roseanne, of course!
His
accent was quite authentic though, imo (and I am also Welsh with a couple of Irish friends!)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Glenn Quinn is Irish, faked
American accent for Roseanne -- Scroll, 15:55:14 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wow! Well he had
*me* fooled! -- O'Cailleagh, 16:05:24 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> Re: accents -- Kitt, 19:15:04 06/03/02 Mon
Darla is from South Carolina in the 1600's...and the accent then was more recognisably of
English derivation than it is now.
For that matter, Spike's accent isn't the one he grew up with: in
FFL, he speaks with an accent closer to Giles or Wes' than the one he has now. I personally think his
accent is something of an afectation, part of the 'Big Bad' persona, and I won't be surprised if it changes
along with other things next season.
[> [> [> Re: accents -- Sophie, 19:22:22 06/03/02
Mon
Wasn't Darla born in the Virginia colonies?
[> [> [> [> We know she was sired by The Master in the
Virginia colony. -- VampRiley, 19:28:55 06/03/02 Mon
I don't think we know
anything else about her past. That and The Master gave Darla her name.
VR
[> [> [> [> [> Re: We know she was sired by The
Master in the Virginia colony. -- redcat, 20:39:36 06/03/02 Mon
This
may be WAY more information than folks need, but the discussion of Darla's accent is pretty useless
because the the BtVS canon of Darla's being turned into a vampire is not historically synonymous with
the RealVerse.
Using Psyche's site, I just reread both the transcript and the shooting script of
the AtS episode "Darla," during which we see the Master of the Order of Aurelius turn the human
prostititue who became Darla into a vampire. I don't have a copy of the ep, but remember most of the
relevant scene, I think. The shooting script lists the scene of Darla's turning as "COLONIAL HOUSE -
DAY - 1607" and the transcript as "1609, the Virginia Colony. " The scene could not have occurred at
either date in the only English Virginia colony extant at that period of time in the RealVerse, Jamestown.
In late April of 1607, three English ships brought 104 men and boys to the shores of the James River to
build a colony. This was the Brits second attempt after the failure of Roanoke (the Spanish, Dutch and
French were far more successful much earlier.) Of those 104 colonists, only 38 men (and no boys) were
alive by New Year's of 1608, when the next 100 settlers arrived. Among this second group were a few
women, and although all of these women were forced to do field labor, as were most of the new men, some
of the women (at least) were also involved in "providing sexual services" to the men. They were,
however, common and quite impoverished prostitutes, not wealthy women. The first English "woman of
property" (the Master's description of Darla) to arrive in the Virginia colony was a Mrs. Forrest, who did
not arrive until the summer of 1608, although she did come with her own maid and a quite large cache of
personal items. She was the wife of a wealthy investor, but certainly not a prostitute. A "wealthy
prostitute" would not have been likely anywhere in any English North American colony until at least 1625
and more probably 1640, by which time enough wealth had begun to flow out of and back into the
colonies that a woman might seek actual wealth there through providing men sexual pleasure. The scene
also shows nuns caring for the dying woman, but nuns (or other Catholics, for that matter) were not
"allowed" in the Virginia colony for several more decades, nor were Catholics allowed to legally own land
or practice their religion there until the century was well advanced. Finally, large individual wooden
houses were not built in any number until long after 1609, and even then, they were far less well
apportioned and decorated than what we see of the interior of Darla's deathbed chamber. It is not just
highly unlikely that Darla was a prostitute in either 1607 or 1609 Virginia, historically, it is almost
impossible, and is *completely* impossible as filmed.
As to what her accent "should" be,
therefore, since the BuffyVerse Virginia colony has little or no historical relation to the RealVerse
Virginia colony, I think JW and Darla get to decide to play it any way they want! Personally, I dislike
actors mangling accents, so if she couldn't play an English accent well, I'm just as glad they kept her with
an American one.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the historical
information -- matching mole, 08:56:12 06/04/02 Tue
I brought up this general
point a while back, expressing my dubious feelings about the Virginia colony 1607/9 setting. d'Herblay
provided some of the information you list here but it is nice to get more background.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> sorry for repeating - could you
point me to the original thread? thanks! -- redcat, 09:16:56 06/04/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I can do that . . . --
d'Herblay, 10:27:26 06/04/02 Tue
The thread in which the discussion occurs starts here. The discussion itself is
rather deep in the thread, and I must say that my authoritative voice is based on the authority of Googling
a hunch, so I won't stand behind any historical statements I may have made.
Hmmm . . .
looking at this reminds me that I had intended to reconcile Gould and Dawkins in that thread. Just one
more thing I haven't gotten around to yet. Just as well: were I able to do that, I'd start wanting to deal with
that pesky Middle East situation.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks
muchly!! -- rc, 10:54:20 06/04/02 Tue
[> [> Re: accents -- Darby, 09:58:03 06/04/02 Tue
There's a purpose here too. Angel spent almost a century trying to keep a low profile in
America, and so acclimated, accent and all. Spike put on a "lower class" accent as an affectation, which
he would have worked at keeping. As I understand it from interviews, Spike's accent is similar to ASH's
actual North London accent, and JM used ASH as a source.
[> [> [> Re: accents -- sarahieo, 10:13:51 06/04/02
Tue
It was interesting to watch ASH's accent disappear and then reappear( at least it
seemed to me) over 1-6. I wonder if he would go back to England to bring the accent back when it started
to fade. AD seems to have less and less of an accent to me now, also.
[> [> [> [> Re: accents -- Darby, 10:31:26
06/04/02 Tue
One of the points that the writer Neil Gaiman mentions repeatedly (in his
weblog at http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/journal.asp - lots of fun!) is the effect living in the U.S.
(Minnesota) has on his accent, that he hears when he listens to his recorded voice. And I know my wife's
voice "southernized" when we lived in Memphis.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: accents -- leslie, 12:49:56 06/04/02 Tue
And
then there is the bizarre experience of hearing the accent of, say, Jerry Hall, whose native Texas drawl is
overlaid by the influence of years living in England. Terry Gilliam is another one, although since he
started with a fairly anonymous So Cal accent, the contrast isn't quite as mind-boggling. Ruby Wax,
now... I guess nothing can kill a New York accent.
Incidentally, if DB's Irish accent is the best
he can come up with *with* extensive coaching, I wish he would just stop. Please. Stop writing episodes
where he needs to be Irish. Put him--and us--out of our misery.
As for the waxing and waning
of ASH's accent, I think that is at least partly our own perception of it--it stops sounding like "English"
and just sounds like "Giles."
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: accents -- matching mole,
14:29:01 06/04/02 Tue
Although the contrast isn't nearly so dramatic as that between
North America and Britain I lost my Canadian accent years ago after moving to the U.S. Relatives that I
see infrequently never fail to exclaim over my American accent.
I have to say that one of the
weirdest experiences of my life was returning to my home town in Ontario for Christmas after living in
Oklahoma for a while. All of a sudden everyone I knew had an accent that I had never heard before! I
definitely agree that if you are used to a particular person's voice you don't really hear the accent any
more.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: accents -- yabyumpan,
22:34:53 06/04/02 Tue
"Incidentally, if DB's Irish accent is the best he can come up
with *with* extensive coaching, I wish he would just stop. Please. Stop writing episodes where he needs
to be Irish. Put him--and us--out of our misery."
Showed Prodigal to a friend from Galway last
night to see what she thought of his accent, she was quite happy with it. I asked her if DB was going
around Galway speaking in that accent would he get away with it, she thought they'd be no problem. I
personally have no problem with it, to me he sounds a bit like Bono.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> North American
Preconceptions? -- Scroll, 23:10:34 06/04/02 Tue
Maybe it's our North American
preconceptions of what "real" British and Irish accents should sound like that causes us to cringe at DB,
JM, and JL's accents. I've even heard people complaining about Glenn Quinn's Irish accent, though all the
while the actor is actually Irish born and raised! Personally, I find AD's'Wesley' upper-class accent more
realistic than JM's'William' upper-class accent, and while I love Spike's North London accent, sometimes
I find too much emphasis put on the accent that it loses credibility.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: accents -- Deeva, 22:56:37
06/04/02 Tue
I dunno I think that I have the accent thing pretty badly. In college I had a
good friend who was English (from a little town somewhere in Northern England). Everytime I spoke to
her, I was emulating her! Of course, it was many months later that someone pointed it out and I was
embarassed. My girlfriend thought it was funny. I haven't seen her in a few years but my "English" still
pops out. Once I was even asked which part of England I was from!
Been doing that all my
life. Visited my dad's relatives in Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore, and I picked up all their motley
accents, mostly Queen's English and French. I had a boss from New Yawk and of caws I had to tawk jus
like her. I mean it just sounds all way more interesting than my post-Valley Girl California flat "accent".
But then my relatives in Asia all told me that they loved my American accented Chinese. Go figure.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: accents -- Cactus Watcher,
06:23:39 06/05/02 Wed
Some people naturally pick up accents a lot faster and in
strange ways. I have an aunt, born and raised in Kansas, who moved to Tennessee several years after
college. She taught Spanish for a long time, and the strong southern accent she picked up is very
noticeable in her Spanish.
I can't do other accents in English. I sound horrible even to myself.
As people here have probably figured out, I studied many languages between high school and grad school.
(I've lost most of them.) Americans always complimented my German accent. When in Germany, people
assumed I was a local until I open my mouth and spoke in German, then they instantly knew I was
American. You could tell they were fooled from the look of surprise on their faces. None of my teachers
here ever said anything about my Russian accent. But, I was in Russia only days before I started getting
compliments on my Russian accent and intonation. It was a little shocking.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Gaining an accent? I've been
there. -- VampRiley, 07:39:14 06/06/02 Thu
During my formative years, my
family never really travelled anywhere, except for Disney World and Puerto Rico. I grew up in a house
that didn't really have anything of a specific culture except american culture. I've been accused of being an
americanized rican. The only part of a pig I'll eat is bacon. I won't eat a chunk of pork like a chunck of
chicken breast, roasted pork skin, the snout...none of that. Ricans who know I'm a rican look a me weird
when I say I don't want those parts. If there is any looking down upon me because I'm an americanized
rican, I wouldn't know. I haven't really spent much time around those that think of me that way, except
my father, but he doesn't look down on me.
When I used to visit an aunt of mine in Virginia,
she said one day that I spoke with a northern accent. I told her I didn't have one. And she said exactly. So,
go figure. I started getting a bit of a spanish accent in my english. When I was in high school, I worked at
a Roy Rogers where 99% of the workers were indians (as in descent of the actual country India) and they
would say "sourdough" as "showerdough" and after a week or so, I started saying "showerdough". It was
almost impossible to not say it. It was really annoying. I worked there for two months. I dropped it when I
stopped working there. But then I lost my spanish accentation of my english. I took spaish my first year of
college. I knew some. So, I figured I could get a good grade in it. But the teacher I had for the first
semester of it was this short french lady who spoke spanish with a french accent. God, that was a
nightmare. When we had our spelling quizzes, it would always take me a bit'cause I had to figure just
what she could have been saying. Thankfully, in the second semester, my teacher was a spanish lady. So,
that was good. But I have now pretty much forgotten it all'cause I never used it. My father doesn't really
use spanish that often these days, except for when he goes to philly or a little at family gatherings. My
family gatherings are usually things I avoid. So, I lose the chances to use it there. I started getting a little
bit of a spanish accent when I was taking the classes, but it dropped soon after I stopped taking the
classes.
Later, I started spending time around some north english people. My accent started
with a couple of vowels said with an accent and about 95% of the rest I spoke was without an accent. I
noticed the accent emerging. It grew to saying most of my vowels with a north english accent. About a
month ago, I said "can't" with an english accent and my mum said that she had noticed that I had
sometimes talked differently, like with my saying can't. I told her I just talked like that now. She dropped
it and we haven't spoken about it since. And now, my use of vowels with an accent is very common to the
point where it is almost all the time.
The thing is, I'm not really around them like I was before.
When I was around those english people, and from before, they spoke words like "soddin' ", "trotter",
"nonce", "ponce", "poofter", "bloody", "pillock", "wanker", etc. The more time I spent with them, the
more I started using words like them, but I'm not around them anymore. I never asked about other words
or how certain ones were used with others. My info is limited to what I've heard them say. I never heard
any of them say "knickers in a twist". So, I though "knickers twisted" was alright. I was in the chatroom
once and a word was used and I didn't know what it was. I was told it was an english thing. And that
made since, since I'm irish and not english. I think it might have been Marie, but I'm not sure. Hell, I
don't even remember what the word was.
As for DB's accent, I'd have to agree with
yabyumpan's friend. It sounds good, though there are a couple of spots where I'm not sure
about.
I really like AD's accent, but it's becoming less and less english. I'd like to see Wes try
to keep it. The same goes for Spike. He's starting to say a's like an american.
I had seen a of
couple eps of Roseanne with Glenn Quinn. Then I saw him in Angel. I liked the accent and in some spots,
it did seem a little thick and I had to rewind and listen very carefully. But I liked it.
I've always
liked Juliet's accent.
I didn't see Anthony La Paglia in Frasier.
VR
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree on Juliet's accent. I
always loved how sweet and Victorian it sounded... -- Rob, 09:43:11 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Me too...like Eliza
Dolittle in My Fair Lady! -- O'Cailleagh, 09:47:35 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Which made her
even scarier. -- Arethusa, 14:13:15 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I've always
liked her accent. It sounded sweet and insane at the same time. -- Deeva, 09:45:54 06/07/02
Fri
[> Re: accents -- tim, 13:00:29 06/04/02 Tue
Lots of good info above; I see two things that haven't been mentioned:
1) There's
an Occam's razor reason why Angel has an American accent: when he first appeared (WttH), they knew
he was a vampire, but the rest of his backstory hadn't been worked out yet. So not even ME knew where
he was from--it could have been anywhere in Europe or colonial America. (Though I agree with those
who've said DB's Irish is less than convincing.)
2) In FFL, during Spike's argument with
Angelus, Angelus says something to the effect of "And when did you start talking in that ridiculous
accent?" (This is not nearly exact; my connection from home is too slow to look up the exact exchange on
Psyche's web site.) So, yes, it's an affectation, a thumb in the nose to his upper-class beginnings. He's
"through living by society's rules" and the change in the social class he claims in his speech patterns is yet
another demonstration of that.
Of course, there may be other stuff in the canon that contradicts
this interpretation of the facts.
--th
How a Slayer works - a Fishy observation --
Majin Gojira, 19:19:55 06/03/02 Mon
Well, I just thought I'd mention this now, since
no one is going to talk about'what happened last week' for a litte bit :p
Some people might ask
"Why is it one girl in all the world?"
Or, as Ms Calender put it "The Part I don't get is how
Buffy is the Slayer, She's So Little"
That, is actually the point.
It is not patrolling.
It's TROLLING
A Slayer, like Buffy, is akin to a fishing Lure Atractive appearence with
hidden hooks.
Monsters in films and TV shows almost always go after the atractive women
first - especially the blonds (goes double if they are popular. The writers of such things are often nerds
who were ridiculed by them in high school, so this is some odd form of revenge).
With a
slayer, You get bait (pretty girl exterior) with hooks (slayer strength).
She's the fishing lure
from the PTB, complete with barbed hooks and a 30lb test line (which she has strengthened through her
family and freinds).
When a slayer patrols nightly, they do put there life on the line. Ya never
know when a demon will "Swallow the hook".
I dunno, I'm just being weird I guess.
[> Very interesting. -- VR, 19:31:35 06/03/02 Mon
[> Re: How a Slayer works - a Fishy observation -- Ronia,
20:10:06 06/03/02 Mon
No, not weird at all. I wholely agree. Just what is involved
in patrolling? A pretty girl walks around at night alone, in places where vamps are likely to be, and waits
for them to attack her. The only problem that I have with this scenario, is that the writers have allowed
her to become a legend amongst the vamps. They know her street address, and therefore the "bait" so to
speak is not as effective. In the movie (ducks) the slayer was supposed to be annonymous, I sort of wish
they had stayed with that idea. Now she is less of a bait than a target. Not a situation in which you are
likely to see your odds for survival getting better.
[> [> Becoming a legend amongst vamps seems like a natural
progression. -- VR, 20:54:19 06/03/02 Mon
You spend enough time doing slayer
stuff in one area and somebody is gonna take notice while your busy doing your thing. I can't really see
her staying a secret for very long.
[> [> Re: How a Slayer works - a Fishy observation --
LittleBit, 07:02:34 06/04/02 Tue
I agree but only to an extent. While Buffy is pretty,
tiny, blonde and seems vulnerable, I really don't see either Kendra or Faith fitting that description. Kendra
simply exuded too much'competence' in her manner, and Faith had way too much attitude for it. Faith
may have trolled in a different way by seeming accessible but not vulnerable. Kendra hunted. Kendra
actually puts me more in mind of the traditional CoW Slayer in that she hunted around the world
wherever her watcher sent her.
Also I agree that in the movie Buffy was anonymous, but her
time in it was less than 6 months. And even then Pike realized and became her 'Xander.' If she had
continued for any length of time word would have gotten around the vamp world. After all, vampires
aren't blindingly stupid about the Slayer, it humans who can be such about vampires. By the time Buffy
found out she was'world famous' she'd been slaying in one location for four years.
[> [> [> Re: anonymity -- leslie, 12:36:48 06/04/02 Tue
I was
under the impression that the Slayer's anonymity was among humans, not supernatural beings. It's the
school administration, police force, customs officials, social workers, and loan officers of the world who
can't know who she is. The vamps all seem to know even without meeting her--Spike, for instance, seems
to arrive in Sunnydale already knowing about her, not specifics, but that she's a powerful one who would
be fun to tangle (or tango) with.
[> Re: How a Slayer works - a Fishy observation -- maddog,
14:33:16 06/04/02 Tue
Well that works until you go back and look at the first
slayer(unless that look was attractive back then).
Vampire demons, culpability, and the error of ME's
ways -- Masq, 19:23:25 06/03/02 Mon
I was in chat today talking with
redcat (and forgive me if I misrepresent any of your statements here, rc) about about whether William
chose to be vamped. I believe redcat was looking to gauge William's responsibility for Spike's deeds in a
"choice" made by William when he was unequivocally William, i.e., in that alley with Dru in
1880.
This relates to the whole question of "should souled Spike feel responsible for Spike's
deeds as Angel does for Angelus' deeds?".
I argued that if we want to know William's
culpability for Spike's less-than-heroic deeds, we should not look to whether or not William chose to be
turned into a vampire (which I argued he didn't), but the influence of William the human on who
Spike the Vampire became.
In other words, the old issue of how much of the human is left
over after vamping (1)
My
thought is that we cannot answer the ethical question of how responsible William is for Spike's deeds
without answering the metaphysical question of how much of William is in Spike.
An old
issue to be sure (debated a gazillion times with both Angel and Spike and others), but I'll give you my
current take on where the issue stands, since the culpability issue may be the topic of much discussion
over the summer.
There are two major theories for the vampire-human relationship, both of
which emerge out of the text of the shows themselves:
(1) Vampire as spiritual and physical
infection, the vampire is a different "person" from the human predecessor and
(2) Vampire as
physical infection only, the vampire is the same "person" as the human predecessork, minus
conscience
-----//-----
(1) The first theory comes from bits of
dialogue that have been scattered through BtVS and AtS over the years. We've seen these quoted many
times before. Just off the top of my head, I can think of these instances (there might be
more).
Giles in The Harvest: "The books tell the last demon to leave this reality fed off a
human, mixed their blood. He was a human form possessed, infected by the demon's
soul.
Giles to Xander in The Harvest: "Jesse is dead! You have to remember that when
you see him, you're not looking at your friend. You're looking at the thing that killed
him."
Buffy in Lie to Me: "Well, I've got a news flash for you, braintrust: that's not how it
works. You die, and a demon sets up shop in your old house, and it walks, and it talks, and it remembers
your life, but it's not you."
Wesley in Disharmony: "That is not your friend.
That thing may have your friend's memories and her appearance, but it's just a filthy demon, an unholy
monster."
Angel in Loyalty: "When somebody becomes a vampire there is no turning back. No
matter how much you want to believe there is some part of him you can save, all that's left is an
evil thing."
This view depicts the vampire demon as an infection of body and most especially
of spirit--a replacement for the outgoing human soul. It states outright that that vampire is not the
same "person" as the human predecessor, and in doing so it implies that the soul that has been lost
is something more than mere conscience, it is a unique spiritual aspect of the human person, their self,
and that all that is left behind of the person we knew is a body, memories imprints in the brain, and habits
of walking and talking. The person we knew is gone, banished to the ether. All else is appearances,'cause
someone else is driving the machine.
(2) The second theory appears not in dialogue (at least
not directly), but in ME's writing in general, most especially the behavior of the characters themselves.
Basically, this theory posits that the "vampire" is not a spiritual infection, but a physical one
only. The original demon who bit a human (see Giles quote above) gave them animal-aspects of the
demon such as blood lust and violent tendencies. It altered their physiology to make them stronger and
give them vamp-face when they feed. The vampire is a brute animal; everything else about the vampire is
supplied by the human: intelligence, personality, love, family issues. The only thing missing from human
predecessor is the conscience.
The closest thing to a dialogue quote I can find for this is Darla
in The Prodigal: "What we once were informs all that we have become." The "we" here implies that Darla
and Angelus are still That-unnamed-prostitute and Liam, just with physiological blood lust and sans
conscience.
Theory #2 has its support in the long history of vampires resembling and
amplifying the traits their human hosts, from Jesse's inept stalker tendencies blooming full-grown in
VampJesse to Fool for Love Spike to, most recently, human Willow's ability under the right circumstances
to act and think like VampWillow.
Theory #2 was also made evident in two AtS episodes, Through the Looking Glass and Lullaby. In TTLG, Angel enters a dimension
where the human and the demon in him cannot blend like they do on Earth. The human Angel walks in
the sunlight and reflects in the mirror and fights nobly but not well. The demon, on the other hand, is an
insentient monster who doesn't recognize Angel's friends and is instinctually violent for blood. "TTLG"
implied that all the issues that drove Angelus, all the creative ways he tortured and murdered, were
informed by the human part of him, not the demon (i.e., although his feeding habits and tendency to chaos
were informed by the demon, the method to the madness was informed by Liam).
In Lullaby,
the Vampire Darla redeems herself by sacrificing her own unlife to save the life of her unborn child
(Connor). Up until this episode, Darla wanted to kill the child but was unable to due to protection magicks
guarding it. In Lullaby, a change comes over Darla, and she begins to love the child. Why? Because she
suddenly has a soul. Not her own soul, but Connor's soul. Connor and his soul are inside of her, therefore
she has a soul for the period of time she remains pregnant. Connor's soul allows Darla to feel her own
unique personal feelings of good (not Connor's feelings, her own feelings). It's almost as if souls are
interchangeable parts like hearts or kidneys. There is nothing "unique to the individual person" in them as
with Theory #1, they are simply one of the people-parts we are born with, in this case, the
conscience.
-----//-----
So which theory is the one does ME want
us to believe? Well, both. No, they don't consciously want us to believe both, I simply think the way they
depict vampires differs radically from the way they have their characters talk about what vampirism
is.
I guess my point here is that we cannot resolve the issue of whether William's soul is
responsible for Spike's deeds (or predict what will happen this Fall) based on the text we have been given.
The text contradicts itself. ME's writing contradicts itself. This isn't a bad thing across the board, they are
writing on metaphorical as well as literal-plot levels and that often leads to contradictions. It means
resolving the issue of William's culpability will have to wait on what ME writes. Example: ME has Angel
feeling guilt for Angelus; therefore, Angel is responsble for Angelus, whatever the various metaphysics
says.
[> Re: Vampire demons, culpability, and the error of ME's ways
-- O'Cailleagh, 20:00:02 06/03/02 Mon
Masq, a wonderful post and strangely, the
topic (more or less) of my next essay...I won't be dealing wholly with Spike, although his recent wackiness
has definately affected my theories...so check it out next week!
[> Re: Vampire demons, culpability, and the error of ME's ways
-- Vickie, 20:34:20 06/03/02 Mon
Yes! Thanks for being large enought to encompass
paradox!
I often think that what the characters say is not "The Truth" (capital T), but a truth
that they have been taught. Not wrong, exactly, but not complete. It's certainly a comforting version of
what makes a vampire. No reason to believe that the Watcher's Council and Giles's books have all the
answers (though they may have many).
Remember Wes? "I have in fact faced two vampires -
under controlled circumstances, of course."
They are theorists. They have little practical
experience, except for the active Watcher (the one with a Slayer to guide).
[> The characters aren't always right. -- Traveler, 20:50:41
06/03/02 Mon
Just because a character, or even several characters, say something, doesn't
necessarily mean that it is entirely true. It is often wise to take what they say with a grain of salt and look
more closely at their actions. That's why people's strict interpretation of "canon" often makes me laugh.
Anything that is based on what a character said could be completely wrong. Thus, the inconsistancies
aren't necessarily problems with the writing; they could just be the beliefs of different characters.
[> Re: Vampire demons, culpability, and the error of ME's ways
-- redcat, 21:33:41 06/03/02 Mon
Masq - Thanks for a great post! This
question has been bugging me for weeks! You've laid out the inconsistencies in ME's approach succinctly
and clearly. Even though I work with text all day, I guess I just keep looking at the screen and seeing
what the characters actually *look* like when they get vamped, which causes me to be confused when I
then listen to the dialogue or read the scripts. What I *see* is William's face going all orgasmic after he
gets over his "OW!" reaction to Dru's biting him, and I *see* Liam on his knees sinking his face into
Darla's breasts, and then I get the funny feeling that, somewhere deep inside him, JW believes that being
turned into a vampire includes an element of consent. But ME is inconsistent and, as Traveler notes, we
cannot always take what characters say as Truth - nor can we take what we are shown on the screen as
that same capital-T Truth, either.
However, if we are really looking at the issue of culpability
for a vampire's deeds, then your Theory #2 would allow some analysts to argue that both Liam and
William are at least partially responsible for the deeds of Angelus and Spike. In this option, you note that,
"The original demon who bit a human...gave them animal-aspects of the demon such as blood lust and
violent tendencies....The vampire is a brute animal; everything else about the vampire is supplied by the
human: intelligence, personality, love, family issues. The only thing missing from human predecessor is
the conscience." By logical extension, then, the *specificity* of the vampire's acts can be laid at the feet
of the pre-vamped human, but not the fact of the acts themselves. That is, it is the demon who kills, but it
is Liam or William's human "stuff" that allows the demon to chose this victim over that one, this type of
murder over that production of chaos, this artfully designed destruction of an innocent girl over killing the
citizens of a Prague mob with only fists and fangs. However, since it is difficult for me to conceive of
Liam having such artistic tendencies or of William having such crude ones, it's unclear to me how to
gauge, as you put it, "the influence of William the human on who Spike the Vampire became" or by
extension, the influence of Liam the human on who Angelus the Vampire became. This set of
inconsistencies is among the most interesting to me within the BuffyVerse, and is one of the reasons I
think this is the more interesting of the two theories. The notion of vampirism as a mere "infection"
contains no moral ambiguities, no grey area, no questions of the possibility of redemption nor of the need
for one once the soul returns.
Mostly, however, I agree with you that we simply cannot know
until we see what ME will do in S7, and even then we probably won't know for sure. And I promise not to
bring this topic up again. A gazillion times already is way too many times for ANY topic...
[> [> Great post, redcat. Regarding Liam/Angel and
William/Spike... -- Ixchel, 00:20:30 06/04/02 Tue
I thought I'd offer my ideas to
explain the "artistic" tendencies of Angelus and the "crude" behavior of Spike (JMHO, of
course).
I believe Angelus was reacting against his father in his desire to be sophisticated, as
though it proved something about how far removed from his father he really was (his disgusted comment
that his father eats with his hands and is a pig, Becoming). Also, his father seemed the kind that would
crush any artistic tendencies, so this could be further reaction.
In a similar way, I think Spike
is reacting against William, his social circle _and_, possibly, Angelus (his, somewhat, vampire father).
IMHO, he wants no part of being refined (even if it's vampire refinement), because William was so
refined, he was weak and ineffectual.
Ixchel
[> [> [> Re: Great post, redcat. Regarding Liam/Angel and
William/Spike... -- Arethusa, 10:32:53 06/04/02 Tue
To guess what souled Spike
is like, we could make an assessment of Spike's characteristics and extrapolate backwards. Kinda like
reverse engineering.
Spike's turn-ons: He is gregarious (compared to Angel), and fond of
company. He likes sensual pleasures-food, drink, cigarettes (blech), luxurious furnishings, sharp clothing,
music, tv. He has a good esthetic eye. He is comfortable around women and competitive around men. He
is intellegent, but not intellectual-we've only seen him reading once. (A trait I think he shares with
Buffy.) In "Pangs'" especially, we see him mock the Scoobies for intellectualizing a problem. He observes
social nicities-bringing flowers to the bereaved, chocolates for his romantic interest/stalking victim,
refusing to hunt on Halloween. He is quite knowledgeable about human nature, although that could be, as
Charlaine Harris wrote about another vampire in "Dead Until Dark," from studying humans the way a
hunter studies his prey.
These are a few mostly positive traits that survived vampirification
(*groan* I need a better word). But to know what was *really* important to William, we need to look at
Spike's more twisted characteristics, for it seems that the deepest desires and fears of the person become
the obsessions of the vampire. So what is Spike obsessed about? Acceptance. Rebellion. Romantic Love.
A need for acceptance from a peer group was not obvious in William-he did not kowtow to the others at
the party to fit in. But the first thing he did after he was vamped was join a gang, and much later he
continued to gather minions and the odd girlfriend. Rebellion-Spike rejected the class, nation, and
personality of William, than rejected the authority of Angelus and Darla, and finally the company and
habits of other vampires. And finally, the most interesting aspect of Spike to many people-his ability to
love completely, without reservations or conditions. What will post-Spike William be like as a lover? I'm
guessing he'll be much like Spike, without those nasty stalker tendencies.
I have much more to
say and no time to say it, so this post'll have to end here. Feedback, anyone? (What can I say, I'm a
feedback trollop.)
*
[> [> [> [> Great post -- LeeAnn, 16:42:53
06/04/02 Tue
Great analysis. It seems likely that William would show those traits.
[> [> [> [> very strong insights, Arethusa and Ixchel --
thanks! -- rc, who promised Masq not to post any more on this subject, 19:04:13 06/04/02
Tue
[> [> [> Angel's artistic tendencies -- Arethusa,
08:12:53 06/05/02 Wed
Angel's father said Liam wasn't a man, was always a
disappointment, etc. Now, Angel is a gifted artist. Could his father have begun treating Liam as less than
a man because he was "artistic" as a child? I'v heard some fathers react badly because they fear their
artistic sons are gay. That might also explain why Liam and Angelus were such relentless
womanizers.
[> [> Speaking of vampire inconsistencies (Spoilers for Billy
Ats) -- shadowkat, 16:59:15 06/04/02 Tue
Was watching the Billy Ats episode
last night, and once again the alarm bells went off. Angel says he's not affected by the rage and hate that
Billy infects all the others with, because he got other strong emotions like this a long time ago. As
Angelus, he really cared about pain and the pleasure of inflicting it on his victims, he wasn't motivated by
anger or hate. So Billy's demonic ability to inflict these emotions on others just washed over
Angel.
Okay - Spike exhibits rage and hate all the time. So is it an age thing? Is Angel's ability
to keep his emotions in balance & under control because of his soul or because he is 245 years old and
Spike is just 130 years old? Or is every vamp different in this regard? Thinking the latter.
[> [> [> Vampires are as individual as the persons they once
were. -- Rufus, 18:00:03 06/04/02 Tue
[> [> [> Re: Speaking of vampire inconsistencies (Slight
spoilers for ATS S3 epsForgiving and Benediction) -- oceloty, 23:10:46 06/04/02 Tue
Ah, but is Angel really not motivated by anger and hate, or does he just THINK he's beyond
that? I'm thinking of his reaction to Wesley's betrayal in _Forgiving_, or his need to confront Holtz in
_Benediction.
Anyway, I'm also puzzled by Angel's comment in Billy. It's interesting though,
because he might be right that Angelus (and maybe Angel up through ATS season 1) didn't really hate. It
seems that Angel is becoming more human, feeling and expressing more human emotions, both positive
and negative. He also seems to have less success keeping his obsessive tendencies in check than he did
before he moved to LA (though lately lately he's improving a bit). It's like he's relearning the emotional
balancing he achieved before.
As for Spike, I'd argue that he actively embraces rashness
(maybe originally as a means of acting out to get attention from his vampire elders? or just to make
himself stand out in the gang). He doesn't seem very interested in equilibrium and goes out of his way to
be extreme. Maybe he hasn't been in many situations where that would benefit. (A big exception being in
Becoming, where he does learn to level out.)
Of course none of this explains why Billy's mojo
didn't have any effect on Angel. I'm still wondering about that one.
[> [> [> [> Effect of Billy's mojo (spoilerish ATS S3
epsForgiving and Benediction &BtVS The Dark Age)) -- SpikeMom, 21:24:43 06/05/02 Wed
Referring back to the Buffy episode where Ehygon tries to leap out of Jenny Caledar and into
Angel. Angel defeats and destroys the demon. He says its because his Vampire demon is already taking
up all the available "real estate" so to speak and is always looking for a good fight (or something to that
effect). Perhaps this is the fate of Billy's mojo as well.
[> #2....all you have to do is listen to Liam/Angelus speak to his
father in the Prodigal -- Rufus, 22:42:05 06/03/02 Mon
to get an idea of how
much of the former person is there in the vampire...as a matter of fact if the person was brain dead you
wouldn't have a vampire that could function. It's an infection that acts in a way that corrupts the former
person by giving them immortality, powers beyond anything they could hope for in real life, and with the
soul/Conscience gone, the vampire can act in a way that the person may have thought of, but never could
have done.
Dad: "Be gone, unclean thing! A demon can not enter a home where it's not
welcome. He must be invited!"
Angel: "That's true. - But I was invited."
Angel
looks to the doorway. His father turns and sees little Kathy slumped against the wall.
Dad:
"Och!"
Angel: "She thought I returned to her - an angel."
Dad spins
around and charges Angel with the hammer in his hand.
Dad: "Murderer!"
Angel
easily pushes the attack aside, making his dad fall to the ground.
Angel: "Strange. -
Somehow you seemed taller when I was alive."
Dad flattens himself up against the wall:
"Lord, bind this demon now."
Angel: "To think I ever let such a tiny, trembling thing
make me feel the way you did."
Dad crosses himself: "I pray ye, give me your protection,
Father."
Angel: "You told me I wasn't a man. (Slowly stalks closer to his dad) You told
me I was nothing. - and I believed you. You said I'd never amount to anything. (His dad stares at
him with wide-open eyes) Well, you were wrong. (Angel morphs into vamp face) You see, father? - I have
made something out of myself after all."
Angel puts a hand over his father's face and
bites him. They slowly slide down the wall and out of the picture.
Darla: "This contest is
ended, is it?"
Angel has his feet up on the table playing with his father's pipe. His family lies
dead around him.
Angel: "Now I've won."
Darla: "You're sure?"
Angel puts his feet down and picks up a mug of ale: "Of course. I proved who had the power
here."
Darla: "You think?"
Angel: "What?"
Darla: "You're victory
over him took but moments."
Angel looks over at the body of his father and gets up: "Yes?"
Darla: "But his defeat of you will last life times."
Angel: "What are you
talking about? He can't defeat me now."
Darla: "Nor can he ever approve of you - in this
world or any other. - What we once were informs all that we have become. (Angel looks at his father's
body) The same love will infect our hearts - even if they no longer beat. (Angel looks at his mother's and
his sister's body) Simple death won't change that."
Angel: "Love? - Is this the work of
love?"
Why would the approval or the actions of a parent matter to a vampire if they aren't
what they once were? It would make the whole redemption kick Angel is on pointless. With both Angel
and Spike they may have been infected, possessed by a demon soul, but what they did came from their
mind...and that mind shaped everything the vampire does. And that is why Angel feels as strongly as he
does about needing to atone. We won't know how Spike feels til we see it next season. If a vampire is a
totally different entity then neither Spike or Angel should give what they have done while a demon a
second thought......but something in Angel/Liam wanted vengeance because of how he had been treated in
life. If the demon is a whole seperate entity then all memory of their deeds should be gone, but it isn't.
Vampires are hybrids, a combination of human and demon..the contribution of the demon is power and
immortality, and a new bent towards evil.....unless of course the person (think Kralic) is already
bent.
[> [> Well said as always, Rufus. I agree. -- Ixchel,
00:21:43 06/04/02 Tue
[> [> [> Don't even get me started on Tabula Rasa......;) --
Rufus, 03:28:02 06/04/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> Please do get started, if you want. There's so
much to explore in TR. :) -- Ixchel, 07:45:13 06/04/02 Tue
[> [> S/B parallels and questions? -- LeeAnn, 07:15:21
06/04/02 Tue
Angel: "You told me I wasn't a man. (Slowly stalks closer to his dad)
You told me I was nothing. - and I believed you. You said I'd never amount to anything. (His dad stares at
him with wide-open eyes) Well, you were wrong. (Angel morphs into vamp face) You see, father? - I have
made something out of myself after all."
And what about Buffy and Spike. She told him he
wasn't a man, that he was nothing. But Spike didn't kill her for it. He took it and finally reacted by
seeking redemption, which even human Liam never did. Was William such a good man that even as a
vampire Spike is so informed by his humanity that he could sometimes be good?
Has season 6
been ME trying to teach us that people can be forced to become better by being treated meanly? Was Spike
driven to seek his soul, in part, by Buffy being cruel to him most of the season? If she had been nice to
him would he have ever been motivated to change?
I don't think I like that lesson.
[> [> [> I don't believe there's a lesson here so much as an ill-
fated, ... -- Ixchel, 10:39:29 06/04/02 Tue
Interlocking sequence of events
(classic ME, really). However, I can almost see where someone could perceive it that way (which _is_ a
distressing message, I agree). IMHO, Spike chose to complete his change because of how he hurt Buffy
(not because of how she treated and hurt him). I think he truly believed that no matter how wounded,
depressed, frustrated and/or angry she made him feel, he wouldn't betray her or his love for her. That he
had changed enough. That his love and will were enough. When he lost control in SR and _did_ hurt
her, that made clear to him that his change was, unfortunately, not complete. That he needed to commit
himself fully (I'm stealing largely from Rufus' and Exegy's excellent thoughts here, I hope they don't
mind). So, IMHO, his decision was based on his perception of himself, his despair that what he felt was
such a profound change, wasn't enough. Which, I suppose, did actually _become_ enough when he
sought to obtain a soul. As to whether he would have sought a soul if Buffy had been kind to him,
probably not (or, at least, not so soon). OTOH, who knows? Maybe, after some time, he might have
decided that Buffy could only _love_ him (not just be kind or be friends) if he had a soul (not an
unreasonable belief given her history with Angel) and that chance was worth whatever pain or risk was
involved to get one. Which happened here, but in a shorter span of time with more drama and pain. That
it had to unfold this way, though, seems almost inevitable (I had reservations about the necessity of the
scene in SR, but I can see merit in it now). I remember feeling similarly about Faith's descent in S3. If
only Buffy had been able to be more open with her, if only Wesley hadn't interfered (or Giles had made
him understand), if only Angel had had more time to reach her (I believe he was). But pulling Faith back
from the precipice doesn't make for quite as good drama as how it did turn out. She _had_ to
fall.
Regarding why Spike was able to change so much with the chip that he would seek a soul,
I don't know. Perhaps, it is simply a difference of personality (as you say). Or, maybe, William didn't
have quite the depths of self-hatred that Liam did?
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> I don't mind at all ;-) -- Exegy,
14:50:47 06/04/02 Tue
Especially since your posts are always a joy to read.
If I have provided any inspiration, then I know that I've been doing something productive at
this board.
Right now I'm agreeing with almost all of what you and Rufus have to say. Great
posts!
Exegy
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks, Exegy. I've greatly enjoyed your
posts, also. :) -- Ixchel, 18:59:21 06/04/02 Tue
[> [> [> Re: S/B parallels and questions? -- Rufus,
17:58:40 06/04/02 Tue
Many changes can be caused by adverse situations. In judging
Spike you have to remember that he hasn't been a boy scout for the past hundred years but a "Warrior of
Darkness" as the demon called him in "Villians". In the war between good and evil he was a bad guy. His
change has come through his interactions with Buffy and the other Scoobies. Sure they didn't always treat
him well, but they based their reactions upon past experiences with him where he was trying to kill them.
The use of violence to illustrate the change that Spike goes through isn't just there to show how badly
Spike can be beaten up, but just how painful transformation can be. Spike hasn't wanted to lose that evil
part of himself as he only began to see himself as powerful when he became a vampire. It is through his
trials of attempting to fit in with Buffy and her friends that he learns that he wants to change, become
more than he was. This change hasn't been a day at the park, it has been painful and needed for Spike to
finally get to the point he needed to make the final step to become more than he was as a vampire.
Vampires are also seen as beings in a state or arrested development, isolation causing them to remain in a
holding pattern where they can only react with cruelty and violence....in season six, Spike also had to
grow up, and to do that he had to nourish his body with a soul, progress past that point he was stuck at.
You asked about the difference between Angel and Spike....I agree Spike didn't kill Buffy
when she called him less of a man.....but he also had been under the guidance of the chip for some time.
For Spike that chip helped guide him to that point of transformation that may not have occured with
another vamp in the same situation. Angel got a soul very quickly, his reaction horror in what he had been
complicit in. But each man's journey to redemption is very individual, and has to be judged seperately or
there is the constant temptation to compare one at the expense of the other and that would cheapen both
stories.
[> [> [> [> Agree entirely. Stealing the words from my
typing fingers. -- Exegy, 18:21:05 06/04/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> Well said. And agree entirely. --
shadowkat, 19:19:23 06/04/02 Tue
"You asked about the difference between Angel
and Spike....I agree Spike didn't kill Buffy when she called him less of a man.....but he also had been
under the guidance of the chip for some time. For Spike that chip helped guide him to that point of
transformation that may not have occured with another vamp in the same situation. Angel got a soul very
quickly, his reaction horror in what he had been complicit in. But each man's journey to redemption is
very individual, and has to be judged seperately or there is the constant temptation to compare one at the
expense of the other and that would cheapen both stories."
You are absolutely correct. I find
that every time I attempt to judge one characters path against the others - I cheapen one of them or lose
interest in one of their journeys. (There is a difference between objective comparison and judgement -
which you make clear in your post - it's okay to compare, but I think we need to watch the judgement just
a tad.)When I start judging the characters, I end up misreading the writers and lose track of where the
story is truly going.
I think Season 1 confused some of us a little about vamps - we were lead
to believe they were all the same at first - but if you watch Season 1 again, you'll see that was not the case.
Even in that Season, every vamp and vamp's journey was individual. Try if you will to compare Jesse to
Darla? Or Darla to Luke? Or Ford to Jesse? Give Whedon credit for creating as varied a mix of
personalities for his villains as he has for his heros. His villains are interesting because they aren't just
"stock" characters, they are complex. As Buffy tells Riley - evil has a spectrum just as good does - it's not
all black and white.
(New Moon Rising.)
Whedon and company have gone a step
further - which is why i've become obsessed with the show - they have worked to change a villain slowly
and gradually into a character that could potentially become good. He's not there yet - but he's getting
close. This is very difficult to do and seldom attempted. The mere fact they are attempting it - intriques
me. Angel was also a challenge - because they took a fairly good character, flipped him to evil, then
flipped him back again. They did the same thing with Willow - took a good character, gradually pulled
her to darkness, now appear to be pulling her back towards light. Each trajectory is interesting and very
different than the others. Willow's path you might say bears some similarities to Faith's yet they were
handled very differently.
So you are right in doing our character analysis - we need to be
careful to remain a little more objective and not detract from the interesting stories being told.
[> [> [> [> Wonderful insights Rufus! On all your posts,
above and below -- ponygirl, 08:48:25 06/05/02 Wed
All your posts on this
thread have been fabulous Rufus, but I particularly like your point on the use of violence as a
representation of transformation. It gives another level to near constant injury that Spike sustained
through the end of season 5, beyond the more surface self-sacrificial element. Much chewing going on in
my brain!
[> [> #1, Angel and Angelus are separate -- Malandanza,
08:56:20 06/04/02 Tue
"With both Angel and Spike they may have been infected,
possessed by a demon soul, but what they did came from their mind...and that mind shaped everything the
vampire does. And that is why Angel feels as strongly as he does about needing to atone. We won't know
how Spike feels til we see it next season. If a vampire is a totally different entity then neither Spike or
Angel should give what they have done while a demon a second thought......but something in Angel/Liam
wanted vengeance because of how he had been treated in life. If the demon is a whole separate entity then
all memory of their deeds should be gone, but it isn't."
I do see the demon and soul as
separate entities -- they share the same body and memories, but Angel is not responsible for Angelus'
actions. That Angel feels responsible anyway has been addressed by verdantheart but as to culpability,
consider the following cases:
Xander in The Pack -- possessed by a hyena spirit,
certainly, but clearly still Xander.
Wesley in Billy -- did Billy add something to Wesley's
psyche or just strip away the conscience so what was buried could come forth?
Buffy in Normal
Again -- the demon venom made crazy, but she was still Buffy
Buffy in Living
Conditions -- Kathy took her soul (or part of it) and Buffy became homicidal, but still recognizably
Buffy
Giles in A New Man -- still Giles in spite of the demonic exterior, but with a new set
of violent drives
Forrest in Primeval -- he's now a human/demon hybrid, but it's still
Forrest's personality
Everyone in The Shroud of Rahmon
I'm sure there are other
examples (I don't include Oz, because the wolf and the human do not share memories -- yet -- Veruca
implied that she could remember). In each of these cases, we don't hold the characters responsible for
their actions -- because something else was in control. The same is true for vampires: why hold Angel
responsible for something he had no control over? Angel didn't exist -- Angel is the memories plus the
soul. Angelus is the memories plus the demon. Memories by themselves do not make a person (wasn't
that part of the lesson of Tabula Rasa?) The memories influence the demon and the soul, but (at
least in the Buffyverse) there is more to a person than a body.
[> [> [> Very well said. I agree. -- Sophist, 10:54:42
06/04/02 Tue
[> [> [> Too detached a perspective -- Darby,
11:29:24 06/04/02 Tue
If Angel recalls his retained Liam side as having an influence
on the choices Angelus made, would anyone blame him for feeling responsible? We as bystanders might
be willing to absolve him, but in his shoes I might be feeling inconsolably guilty.
[> [> [> [> I think that was verdantheart's point that Mal
incorporated. -- Sophist, 15:15:49 06/04/02 Tue
[> [> Re: #2....all you have to do is listen to Liam/Angelus speak
to his father in the Prodigal -- Masq, 10:41:03 06/04/02 Tue
"If the demon is a
whole seperate entity then all memory of their deeds should be gone"
Not if memories are
stored in the brain. The demon spirit moves in, inherits all these memories from the hippocampus or
whichever part stores memories, and derives an identity from that. they believe they are that person, but
they're mistaken (looking at it from the pov of theory #1)
[> [> [> If you only consider the brain as a hard drive full of
stored memories..... -- Rufus, 17:43:48 06/04/02 Tue
then how do you explain
the continued motivations of the vampires to continue to follow patterns based upon not just memories but
the emotional response to those memories? Vampires are hybrids, meaning a fusion of the two, human
and demon...the demon gives the package immortality, power, the human is the body and mind, the
person who once was, who is infected and transformed into a vampire, but they never lose who they were,
they just react differently to what happens in their unlife. They also have this little genetic impulse to
prepare the way for the old ones...though many vampires seem to ignore that.
The whole point
of the vampire is to show the results of isolation from society, and what happens when the constraints of
our moral code are manipulated. Angel is Liam, Spike is William, Darla is the monniker of an unnamed
prostitute (wonder why she wanted to erase her past so completely?). Not only are we getting memories
here, but the continued reaction to memories in the person who once was. They may not be themselves in
that they are possessed by the soul of an evil demon, but the infection only changes how they interact in
reality, not who they were. Angelus/Liam still is the son of the father who was powerful enough to make
the vampire he became still hurt from the memories of his put downs. Still want to strike out at the person
who made him feel he wasn't a man....send him into a contest destined to last for eternity because the one
person who could ever have changed his mind towards his son was Liam's father, and he can never
approve of his one now. That is why I find Angel's interactions with Connor/Steven will become so
important......Steven/Connor can take the place of the father that never approved of the son....in changing
his son's mind (when he gets out of that box) Angel can at least change one pattern in his life and that is
how he reacts to love.
Darla mentioned that the soul of Connor "nourished" her, allowed her to
feel love. Made her feel like she was loved for the first time in her life. The vampire is the result of
malnutrition of the self caused by the loss of the soul, what happens when a person becomes seperated
from the ability to feel good about doing good. From Lullaby......
She looks at him. This is
not a realization for either one of them -- it's something they've both known.
DARLA
Completely. I love it completely.
I don't think I've ever loved anything
so much as this
life that's inside of me --
ANGEL
(not an accusation)
You've never
"loved" anything, Darla.
DARLA
That's true. Four hundred
years,
and I never did... until now.
(then)
And I don't know what to
do.
ANGEL
No. What I do know -- is that you
love this baby. Our baby. You've
bonded
with it. Nine months of carrying it, of
nourishing it --
DARLA
(cuts him off)
No! I haven't been nourishing it!
I haven't given this baby a thing! I'm
dead!
It's been nourishing me! These feelings I'm
having aren't mine -- they're coming
from it.
ANGEL
You don't know that.
DARLA
Of course I
do. We both do. Angel, I don't
have a soul. It does. And right now that
soul is inside of me. But
soon... it won't be
anymore, and then...
With a vampire we can see the point where
the person becomes isolated from society, only content to cause destruction to those who may have caused
them pain. But the vampire is a metaphor....so with a soul we see a similar thing happen to people, in the
vampire we know it's the loss of the soul that creates a monster, we don't know exactly what happens to
create a human monster.
[> [> [> [> Damn fine post Ruf! -- O'Cailleagh,
18:22:08 06/04/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> Re: If you only consider the brain as a hard
drive full of stored memories..... -- Malandanza, 22:22:44 06/04/02 Tue
"then
how do you explain the continued motivations of the vampires to continue to follow patterns based upon
not just memories but the emotional response to those memories?"
If we look at Angel
after he took over from Angelus -- what sort of memories were present? Lots of murder, mayhem and
torture. Evil. No wonder he feels guilty -- except...
Those weren't bad memories for
Angelus. They were fond recollections -- good times with good friends. Nothing but pleasant
associations. Angel didn't just pick up where Angelus left off -- he recoiled in horror at the things he
remembered doing. If he had inherited all the emotional responses associated with those memories, why
wouldn't he have continued on the same course? A souled creature with the memories of a monster ought
to be a much better candidate for corruption than a souled creature without such
memories.
We've seen Angel look back jealously about the clarity of lacking a conscience, but
we haven't seen him relive the past times with a smile on his face and a song in his heart. He's just not
the same person.
As for Darla's speech to Angel about his father's defeat -- I will quote
Traveler:
"Just because a character, or even several characters, say something, doesn't
necessarily mean that it is entirely true. It is often wise to take what they say with a grain of salt and look
more closely at their actions"
Isn't it possible that part of that speech was not Darla
lecturing Angel about the vampire facts of unlife, but Darla putting Angelus in check. He was thrilled --
he'd wiped out his family, terrorized the village and sent his father to an early grave. He was riding high -
- until Darla brought him back down to Earth with a well-placed blow to the ego. She put him in his
place -- maybe she was telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and maybe not.
I
think soul carries with it an imprint of a person's memories and personality. When Buffy and Faith
switch bodies, they do not switch brains -- their souls trade bodies. And yet, Faith in Buffy's body is still
Faith while Buffy in Faith's body is still Buffy. When Angel is resouled in B2, he doesn't remember what
happened between Innocence and B2 -- it is Angel speaking, not Angel's body (which would
have all the memories of the past few weeks on file). It seems to take a little while for a possessing entity
to assimilate the data in the brain. The first time he was souled, Angel certainly remembered everything
Angelus had done -- but we don't know how much time passed between the ensoulment and his
recollections. B2 suggests that this was not instantaneous. Likewise, when the demon takes the body, the
demon doesn't have immediate access to the memories and personalities. Not until the first kill. Until
then, the demon is barely sentient (or maybe not even barely). Newly vamped Darla was a feral creature,
acting on impulses rather than thought. Other newly risen vampires are entirely unreasoning -- animals,
as Forrest would say (and he'd be right this time). I suspect that had Buffy and Faith not been switched
back, each would have gained the others memories (from the body -- without losing the soul-based
memories of their own). I even believe that it was beginning to happen and helped trigger Faith's
redemption -- not full fledged memories from Buffy, but feelings that Faith didn't understand because they
didn't belong to her.
So if the body is the hard drive (although, considering how temporary the
body is, RAM might be a better comparison), the soul is a zip disk where all that information is
permanently stored. The demon is a hacker, temporarily in control of the computer and constrained more
by the computers limitations that the hacker's ability.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: If you only consider the brain as a
hard drive full of stored memories..... -- Rufus, 23:22:02 06/04/02 Tue
Really.........From Angel Season one..."Somnambulist"..
Wesley shows her the
folder: "When I saw this story today it rang chillingly familiar. So I reacquainted myself with certain
facts, confirming, I'm sorry to say, my grim suspicions. In the late 1700s it was Angelus' custom to'sign'
his victims by carving a Christian cross into their left cheek. (Cordy flips through the folder) He liked to
let people know he'd been there."
Cordy hands the folder back to him: "Okay, you get to leave
now. - You're not gonna come in here and accuse Angel like this."
Wesley: "Cordelia."
Cordy gets up: "No! I don't care how many files you have on all the horrible things he did back in
the powdered wig days! - He is good now. And he's my friend. And nothing you or anyone else can say
will make me turn on a friend!"
Angel: "Cordelia. (Wesley spins around) He's right."
Cordy to Wesley: "You'll stake him and I'll cut his head off."
Angel walks
forward and Wesley threatens him with a cross: "Come no closer!"
Angel turns his head
away from the cross: "I'm not going to hurt you."
Cordy: "Oh, is that what you told
Miss'third body found in alley'?"
Wesley: "Why should we believe a word you say?"
Angel laughs, grabs Wesley's arm and spins him around to grab him by the neck: "Because this is
how fast I could take you if I wanted to."
Wesley: "All right. We're listening."
Angel pushes him away.
Angel: "I have no memory of doing any of these things."
Cordy: "Not exactly the confidence inspiring denial I was looking for."
Angel goes to
sit on the edge of the desk: "I've been having dreams."
Wesley: "Dreams?"
Angel:
"Killing dreams. Always the same. (Swallows) I-I stalk them, toy with them, mark them while they are
still alive. And before they can die from their fear, I feed on them."
Cordy: "Okay. So you've
been having nightmares, it doesn't mean you..."
Angel: "They're not nightmares. I've
enjoyed them."
Angelus was Liam, without a conscience, Liam able to act out of
anger, enjoying the suffering of others because as a vampire he doesn't understand suffering past being
something he wants to inflict on others. Family is a constant theme in ATS, family that lives on long past
their ability to harm anyone, specially the vampire, but the vampire hunts on....
Cut to the
past. The Girl's is laying dead on the ground.
Angel's looking down: "There now, isn't that
better?"
Blond vampire straightens up: "Better." Morphs into human face.
Angel:
"First kill. Aptly done."
Penn smiles: "It's strange. She was my sister."
Angelus:
"And yet you feel nothing."
Penn: "No, I feel hungry."
Angelus: "Ah, you do
learn very quickly."
Penn: "My father would disagree."
Angelus: "Ah, then
perhaps it's time you shared with him just what a fine student you've become."
Penn:
"My father, yes. - They'll all be sitting down to dinner now."
Angelus: "A feast. Excellent.
When they invite you in, savor it, Penn. You'll not recapture the moment. Family blood is always the
sweetest."
The vampire isn't just assimilating the data in the brain, the vampire is
acting out like the living person would had they the power and lack of feelings to wreak vengeance upon
all who made them feel less of a person. When Angelus finished his father, he had no contest, no reason
for being......but then he found something to replace that first win against his father....a disciple willing to
engage in an eternal contest with a sire or father figure.
Cut to Angel's apartment. Angel
goes to sit down on a chair.
Angel: "I taught him well."
Cordy: "A real
psycho-wan-kenobi."
If you consider the characters of Angel and Spike
just innocent victims of something beyond their control you miss the fact that they act in such predictable
patterns that expose their inner self doubts, their innability to grow beyond the need to one up the other
guy. If Angel is just an innocent victim that had nothing to do with the carnage Angelus did for so long,
then he had no culpability at all, no redemption needed, the soul should have done the trick. But as we can
see in Angel, specifically in Reprise and Epiphany, Angel/Liam has a long way to go, and will have to go
through the long process of finally growing up, what was halted by the infection of the vampire. The
vampire doesn't just access data, the vampire is the person who once was who can only eternally react to
the perceived failures of their past, constantly trying to win contests, be better than those who they felt,
may have tormented them. Angel was complicit in all those deaths because a part of his humanity enjoyed
the power and control he had over the victims, not just the demon, the person he once was became power
drunk, and enjoyed the suffering and pain he inflicted. The big difference now is that Angel has to grow
up and go through all the development that was frozen so long ago.....no mistake that he is constantly
going through trials that dredge up the past, making him grow, transform by learning how to deal in a
mature way the things that would have led him to the bottle and escape when he was a living
man.
Angels redemption is going to be achieved by living through the things he strove to
escape from when alive. Darla, now Connor, are trials on the way to taking responsibility for who he has
been and who can can become.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Intersections vs Unions --
Malandanza, 08:33:08 06/05/02 Wed
Think of a Venn diagram where Angelus is
Circle A and Angel is circle B -- the intersection is the body, full of its memories, experiences and
emotions. Both the demon and the soul have access to the body, yet they are distinct entities. The demon
can influence Angel only indirectly -- Angel reacts to the demon memories, but Angel is not the demon.
The dreams from Somnambulist recall the dreams from
Amends:
ANGEL: I've been seeing... I've had dreams, lately, about... the past. It's
like I'm living it again, it's so vivid.
But these dreams are unusual -- Angel wouldn't
mention them otherwise. He doesn't normally feel the full emotional impact when he looks back at past
events. In general, he remembers Angelus' deeds with revulsion. In specific cases, outside forces can
bring Angelus to the forefront -- it is Angelus who remembers things with pleasure, but Angel has to deal
with those pleasurable sensations left in the shared memory. But if Angel still remembers and feels
everything that Angelus did and felt, he would still be an artistic serial killer -- why would he deny
himself the pleasurable sensations?
HARMONY: I mean, how do you stand everything?
Being what you are. How can you
deprive yourself of the taste... the sensation of rich, warm, human
blood flowing into your mouth...
Angel appears to be stirred by her sensuous
description.
HARMONY: Bathing your tongue... caressing your throat, with its sweet, sticky--
Disharmony
At the time of his cursing, he had no unpleasant sensation
associated with his past actions at all. If he's the same person, why does he feel guilty for things he
enjoyed? Angel is a new person:
ANGEL: It wasn't me.
JENNY: It wasn't
you?
ANGEL: A demon isn't a man. I was a man
once.
Amends
If you consider the characters of Angel and Spike just
innocent victims of something beyond their control you miss the fact that they act in such predictable
patterns that expose their inner self doubts, their inability to grow beyond the need to one up the other
guy. If Angel is just an innocent victim that had nothing to do with the carnage Angelus did for so long,
then he had no culpability at all, no redemption needed, the soul should have done the trick.
I don't consider Angelus or Spike to be innocent at all. They are monsters and ought to
be treated as such. But Angel isn't Angelus. I think that Angel never needed to be redeemed for the
things that Angelus did, the, as you say, did the trick. Angel suffers unnecessarily for crimes he never
committed. He takes all of Angelus' sins upon himself and even has moments when he buys into the
Xander line that he still is Angelus and deserves to die.
BUFFY: I don't have time to
explain this.You have to trust me; that thing that was haunting you --
ANGEL: It wasn't
haunting me. It was just showing me.
BUFFY: Showing you --
ANGEL: What I
am.
BUFFY: Were.
ANGEL: And ever shall be. I wanted to know why I was
back. Now I do.
BUFFY: You don't know. What, some great honking evil takes credit for
bringing you back and you buy it? You just give up?
ANGEL: I can't do it again, Buffy. I can't
become a killer.
BUFFY:Then you fight it!
ANGEL: It's too
hard.
Amends
I'd also point out that it's a lot easier to forgive Angel for killing
his family than for allowing the W&H lawyers to be killed -- because in the latter case it really was Angel
who permitted the massacre. The soul makes a huge difference:
ANGEL: I don't want her
going on. And neither should you. She's the enemy.
She looks at him a
moment.
CORDELIA: Now you're sounding like Wesley.
ANGEL: Because he's
right. Look, I know how painful this is. Believe me. But you're letting your personal feelings cloud your
judgment...
CORDELIA (cannot believe him) Said the pot to the kettle.
ANGEL:
Yeah, okay, irony not lost on me. I screwed up. Difference is, I never, once, lost sight of what Darla was...
or what she was capable of. Harmony will turn on you.
CORDELIA: Why? Because you
did?
ANGEL: Because it's her nature. She's a vampire.
CORDELIA: So are
you.
ANGEL: She doesn't have a soul.
CORDELIA: Oh. That's it, isn't it? You're
better than her because you have a soul.
ANGEL: (not defensive) Well...
yeah.
Disharmony
If you have any doubts, compare Angel pre-
Innocence and post-Innocence -- they are not the same person.
"The
vampire isn't just assimilating the data in the brain, the vampire is acting out like the living person would
had they the power and lack of feelings to wreak vengeance upon all who made them feel less of a
person."
If you are saying that Angelus is Liam, I can see your point. After all, we've seen
the same sort of behavior with Warren and Willow even with their souls intact -- they get a little power
and start wreaking vengeance. A newly vamped Angelus was just a continuation of Liam, VampHarmony
is almost indistinguishable from Harmony and VampWillow was closer to Willow than any of her friends
would want to admit. (But what does this do to all your assertions that William was a good man?)
However, I think that this is not because the demon is the man, but because the demon is not sentient -- it
assumes the memories and personality of its host because it has none of its own. The soul seems different
-- sentient. Certainly, Buffy's experience in Heaven suggests that her ability to think and feel survived her
body. The soul overrides the demon and the body. Angel's soul is in control and his soul is not
Angelus.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Outstanding Mal. --
Sophist, 09:42:45 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Intersections vs
Unions -- Rufus, 14:51:03 06/05/02 Wed
However, I think that this is not
because the demon is the man, but because the demon is not sentient -- it assumes the memories and
personality of its host because it has none of its own. The soul seems different -- sentient. Certainly,
Buffy's experience in Heaven suggests that her ability to think and feel survived her body. The soul
overrides the demon and the body. Angel's soul is in control and his soul is not
Angelus.
What makes a person but their memories and personality, our outside appearence
only window dressing. The vampire is a hybrid, human/demon.....the demon supplement allowes the
hybrid to unlive, but has no identity....the identity of the demon is clearly what they once were....which is
Angelus, Angel/Liam are the same guy without the leash of the soul to make them less likely to act out in
an evil way. The vampire retains the potential of human and demon, the human gives them their identity,
the demon corrupts the person/identity that once was. From Amends...
Angel: It told me to
kill you. You were in the dream. You know. It told me to lose my soul in you and become a monster
again.
Buffy: I know what it told you. What does it matter?
Angel: (raises his
voice) Because I wanted to! Because I want you so badly! I want to take comfort in you, and I know it'll
cost me my soul, and a part of me doesn't care.
He sobs. Buffy is at a loss for
words.
Angel: Look, I'm weak. I've never been anything else. It's not the demon in
me that needs killing, Buffy. It's the man.
We are not just our souls in the Buffyverse but a
combination of personality, memory, and soul. Only the soul is removed when the demon is created to
make the person who once was capable of acting out in a way they wouldn't normally do. Except in the
case of people such as Kralic (already a serial killer, not much of a change there cause he was already
corrupted), the soul seems to be that leash that tells the soulled they are a bad dog if they misbehave, it
isn't their identity. If Angel isn't responsible for anything he did as a demon, then for three years the show
has been wasting all our times...they should have based the show on something other than redemption, but
they didn't. Just as Willow wasn't herself in Villians til the end of Grave, Angelus wasn't quite himself
until he got his soul back....not quite himself.....but at the same time exactly who he once was. That is why
both he and Willow will fell that need to atone for what they did while under the influence of a power that
comes to control them. But it's still them, or specially all the flashbacks of Angel would be pointless. The
vampire is a metaphor, and that metaphor is what we all can turn into if the right set of circumstances
happen, like in the case of Angel, he loses his soul and gets a demon supplement, and Willow, becomes
addicted to power until she believes she is the power.
[> [> [> [> Re: If you only consider the brain as a hard
drive full of stored memories..... -- Arethusa, 07:51:31 06/05/02 Wed
>>But the vampire is a metaphor....so with a soul we see a similar thing happen to people, in the
vampire we know it's the loss of the soul that creates a monster, we don't know exactly what happens to
create a human monster.
The same thing. They die inside, and become monstrous in their
desire to negate their pain. Nitzche's famous quote can be taken different ways; stregnth based on denial
of one's emotions is a different way of being destroyed.
[> [> [> Demons that dream they are men?* -- Ixchel,
20:34:37 06/04/02 Tue
Excellent analysis in your primary post, Masq. This is a
fascinating discussion. I tend to align with viewpoint 2, but I had the following thoughts.
If
the demon is using the memories of the human by occupying the body, then why is it that with some other
"possessions" the possessor doesn't seem to have access to the memories of the body? With the Faith and
Buffy body switch (WAY), and the Angel and old man body switch (CN), something, I suppose the
"mind" and personality, shifted from one person to the other (and vice versa). Surely the neurons were
still within the brain of the possessee, so had their _contents_ (constituting the "mind", maybe) been
shifted as well (hmmm, when science and fantasy collide)? These types of "possession" seem quite
different than the vampire type, but Xander's hyena possesion seemed very like the vampire type (his
behavior seeming to be the negative aspects of his personality being expressed). Does this have to do with
the sentience of the possessor?
This also begs the question, isn't a person (at least in part)
his/her memories? So if the demon forms its personality from the memories of the human (_as if those
memories were truly its own_), then, in some sense, isn't the demon that person?
Something
interesting (and mentioned by others) about these two viewpoints is that the first should be more
comforting for those who have to kill vampires than the second. So it is unsurprising (and
understandable) that the first would be advocated by the characters (without necessarily proving that it is
correct). Of course, whichever is correct really doesn't alter the dangerousness of vampires or the
necessity of controlling their numbers.
Again, wonderful post (as
always).
Ixchel
*I'm sure I read this phrase somewhere, was it here?
[> Re: Vampire demons, culpability, and the error of ME's ways
-- abt, 04:23:59 06/04/02 Tue
There's a difference between what we're told (your
theory 1) and what we're shown (your theory 2).
Look at Lie To Me. From Buffy's
human pov a VampFord is not Ford. From Spike's pov on the other side of the vamping process, a
VampFord is still Ford. He tells Ford he cannot stand him, why would he want him to live forever? Spike
clearly considers a vamp to be a continuation of the human.
I think a soul is like a organ,
impersonal, with a function. Some seem stronger than others. Willow does not appear to have a
particularly strong conscience. Buffy does. This raises an interesting point. Darla killed herself under the
influence of Connor's soul. Does this mean Connor has quite a strong conscience?
redcat - My
theory is that Liam and William didn't really know what they were getting into. Darla knew full well she
was going to the devil, had stopped listening to her conscience some time ago. That would explain why it
took a while for her conscience to kick in when she was made human.
[> Re: Vampire demons, culpability, and the error of ME's ways
-- neaux, 05:07:06 06/04/02 Tue
I dont want to ruin such a Great thread with my
stupid responses.. but Yet I feel intriugued enough to add that I agree with you Masq and we definately
need to wait to see how ME sets things up. Either you love it or you hate it, but Buffy has always been
about the.. "Oops! I forgot to mention ..."
Giles often set up these scenarios with Buffy,
keeping her in the dark.. and therefore keeping the viewers in the dark. Its also a great way to handle
contradictions, I think. It then forces the viewer to wait for the "Oops!" Answer. And I have always been
satisfied with these answers.
[> New viewpoint, old eyes -- cjc36, 06:02:58 06/04/02
Tue
QUOTE BY ABT: Willow does not appear to have a particularly strong
conscience .
I would argue the opposite. VampWillow was Willow Rosenberg with
sudden power but minus her human conscience. Sudden power was a fight Willow was winning before
Tara was killed.
RANDOM RAMBLINGS ON TOPIC
I've always taken this
theory, and it's really informed by S1 BtVS. When a person is vamped and not just eaten, there is some
kind of'connection' between sire and sired. Sexual? More than likely. Or perhaps just sensual. And it is
unsaid, psychic sharing of the experience between the two - watching facial expressions is a good idea
here.
But I also believe, or have been led to believe, that upon becoming a vampire, the
consciousness, the interior-monologue of the victim, dies - represented by'soul' in BtVS. Brain pathways
still exist, so the demon is born into a pre-wired shell, a shell which informs his or her behaviors and look
much like the tastes, ticks and traits of the pre-vamp victim. The demons may actually believe they were
the person before vampirazation. But the essence of the previous person,'soul' in Buffyverse, is really
gone to whatever nether region souls there go to.
In Becoming II, Angel didn't remember his
actions - at first, at least - upon having his soul returned to him. He didn't have long, true, before Buffy
sent him into the vortex. I guess his memories would return eventually, but how long? In the flashback of
Liam getting cursed, it seemed it was close to instantaneously. He felt confusion, yes, but he also seemed
filled with near immediate guilt and remorse. Did the father tell him he would remember more? I think
so, but I can't remember exactly.
I'm more than likely wrong here. There's been a litany of
events that seem to discount the above. And how does having a'soul' suppress a demon in the rare (well,
not quite as rare as before) cases of souled vampires? Why doesn't the demon come out to play every once
in a while? Shouldn't the demon, being a creature of another plane, be stronger than the soul?
Angel with a soul through the mechanism of a curse designed to make him miserable over his
crimes as a vampire may not work the exact same way as another vampire simply getting his soul returned
to him.
I take the inconsistencies in the Buffyverse mythology with more leeway than, say, a
sci-fi universe like Trek (but 36 years is getting pretty unwieldy). I believe fully that whatever they do
with Spike, the tone, nature and play will have its own unique flavor, and the nuts and bolts will be made
to fit later. Bad writing? Maybe, but I used to forgive Chris Carter far, far greater sins.
[> ME has a habit of changing things. -- VampRiley,
06:43:28 06/04/02 Tue
And you do have to wait and look at both series as a whole
before any conclusion can be made. But based on what has been seen and heard, I'd have to say that it
might be a combination of both. The physical alterations are without question.
From a
psychological standpoint, of the vamps we have seen for any length of time, their bent is definitily towards
evil. If they were good as a human, then they go to evil. But it isn't in the same amount for every vamp. If
they were evil, there isn't going to be much of a change. But when you look at the mind of a vampire,
there is more than just their bent to good, evil, or neither. I would say that the new vamp is very similar,
thought they are different, to the way the human was. Their situation is different and they have lost their
soul. When humans are thrown into a new situation, they have to take from what they have learned from
the past and use it in their present situation. Not everyone is gonna have the same reaction, as we saw
with Darla, Angelus, Spike, Jesse and Dru. It's gonna depend on the individual.
As someone
recently said, how could the Old One Vamp make a human/vamp hybrid if it wasn't intelligent? I can see
it draining the blood of a human, but how could it know to stop before the human died, cut himself and
give the dying human some of its blood without some amount of intelligence. Much more than what we
have seen with hell-hounds and that creature that came up to Cordelia in the woods when she first got to
Pylea.
VR
[> [> Good points, VampRiley. However, even if the Old One
was... -- Ixchel, 16:10:59 06/04/02 Tue
Intelligent, that doesn't necessarily mean
that the demon aspect (presumably a portion of itself) that it imbued the first vampire with
was/is.
If it was intelligent, maybe it took a sadistic glee in that by "infecting" some humans
with superhuman abilities, immortality, a need for blood as sustenance, and violent tendencies (and also,
consequently, removing the soul), it had unleashed all the "evil" that exists inside humans upon
them.
Again, great post.
Ixchel
[> Re: Vampire demons, culpability, and the error of ME's ways
-- verdantheart, 07:14:23 06/04/02 Tue
What we do know: The vampire does not have
the human soul; the human soul is replaced by a demon soul (if you will). This is clear from the cursing of
Angelus with a soul and the return-through-trial of William's soul to Spike. At first, this would appear to
back up #1. Yet the vampire is clearly not a completely different person than the human predecessor, their
actions clearly inspired by, if different from, those of their human predecessor.
So, on to #2.
The soul is lost. Soul = conscience? However, I find it difficult to say that it is a "physical infection only"
when the soul is missing. There is no soul present to feel responsible for the actions of the vampire. So
why should Angel feel responsible for the actions of Angelus?
The constant here is the body.
The body contains the memories and emotions of the creature, be it vampire or human. The soul, be it
demon or human, is immersed in the body and must share the creature's past and emotions, whether they
were present to create them or not. Therefore, Angelus feels minimized by his father and takes action
against him. Therefore, Angel remembers the crimes of Angelus as his own and feels the guilt of them as
his own. After all, if Liam had died rather than becoming a vampire, these crimes would not have been
committed. That body would not have committed those crimes. As Angel, it seems that both the demon
and human souls are present, with the human soul transcendent (for the most part) in decision making. (I
wonder why? Because the human soul is the natural owner of the human body?) Let me go on to remark
that Angelus, when re-created by Angel's loss of his human soul in season 2, remembered Angel's love for
Buffy and felt those emotions. However, love, to Angelus, appears to be a toxic emotion which drove him
mad (so he turned from his hobby of torturing people to destroying the world ...). So should Angel feel
responsible for the actions of Angelus? Perhaps not. But then, the demon soul is still present. But even if
the demon weren't present, Angel would still experience the memories and the surrounding emotions of
Angelus as though they were his own.
Spike is a stranger case in that even as a
vampire he had a huge weakness (from evil vampire standpoint) in his capacity to love (not toxic to this
vampire). This was apparently a core component of William's character and could not be warped even
when William was vamped. Spike took on this capacity, which eventually turned out to be his tragic flaw
(again, taking the vampire viewpoint). When he fell in love with a human, it began warping his capacity
for evil because he wanted to do good to please his human beloved. But, because he had no human soul to
guide him in good works, he was destined to failure -- eventually to a failure so spectacular that he would
experience regret. This appears to be the emotion that is particularly toxic to Spike as vampire. It wasn't
until he experienced extreme regret that he was motivated to change what he was because he could not
continue to exist as he was. Unlike Angelus, however, he wasn't motivated to destroy himself and take the
world with him; only to destroy himself by transforming himself into something new.
As to
choice. It seems that there is some choice involved in becoming a vampire -- whether the victim
voluntarily drinks the sire's blood (the whole sucking thing). However, I'd have some doubt that most
victims fully understand what they are doing. I'd imagine there is some kind of survival instinct that
would urge the victim to drink. This would be difficult to overcome unless the victim is, say, a slayer,
watcher, or someone else knowledgeable enough about vampires to overcome the survival instinct.
However, this is based on imagination and speculation and not very much Buffy lore.
Thanks
for the post, Masq. I enjoyed thinking about it.
[> [> Oops, SPOILERs in above post -- vh, 07:19:33
06/04/02 Tue
[> [> Fascinating take. More on the turning and choice. . .
(Spoilers) -- Exegy, 17:07:11 06/04/02 Tue
From what I have seen, it appears as
if most victims want to be changed. They actively choose to drink of the vampire's blood; they
accept the vamp's offer (if not entirely understanding what the offer entails). One could argue that "the
whole sucking thing" is merely a last-ditch effort at survival, but I'd argue that it goes beyond simple
survival. The dying person wants to leave behind his or her weak human existence; he or she
wants to become something more powerful. Every moment of the unlife is a reaction against the human
who was; the human template will always inform the vampire, even if said vampire denies its humanity.
All because the human desired change and accepted it from a monster, in effect becoming a
monster.
Let's take a look at the respective turnings of Liam and William to see how each
accepted transformation (all quotations from Psyche's Transcripts):
From Becoming--
Liam: Oh... But you're a pretty thing. Where are you from?
Darla: (smiles)
Around. Everywhere.
Liam: I never been anywhere myself. Always wanted to see the world,
but ...
Darla: I could show you. (smiles)
Liam: Could you, then?
Darla:
Things you've never seen, never even heard of.
Liam: Sound exciting.
Darla: It is.
And frightening.
Liam: I'm not afraid. Show me. Show me your world.
Darla:
Close your eyes.
Liam closes his eyes as Darla vamps out. She bites him, and his eyes pop
open at the intense pain. He sinks to his knees, his blood draining away. Darla brings him to the point of
death and then slits her chest, offering Liam her blood. Once the human tastes her, he embraces her of his
own accord.
And so Liam accepts transformation. He doesn't know exactly what he has
chosen, but he acts of his own free will. He's not just saving himself from one death; he's eager to embark
on his new existence. He wants to see the world, exciting and frightening as it may be. He wants to
become something greater than Liam, a being no longer dominated by his father. Darla grants the
human's wishes in the most perverse way; his initial desire to change creates outcomes he could never
have foreseen.
But Liam has embraced the unlife. He's unhesitatingly chosen a dark path to
which he doesn't know the destination. And so to some degree the human is responsible for the vamp's
actions, for the human accepts a monster's offer in the first place. He wants it; there's no indication that
he's being forced into it. He's merely acting without total knowledge of the consequences, but that doesn't
excuse the action. There's some weakness in Liam that he wants to hide from, and so he undergoes a
radical change in order to escape from it.
But Angelus can never really escape from Liam, can
he? He'll always be reacting against the human. He'll always live in the shadow of the father he destroyed.
So although he'll always seek to deny what's human in him, something of Liam still exists within. He's
frozen in a monster state, never aging and never really changing.
So what of
William?
From Fool for Love (edited for length)--
Drusilla: Oh, I see you. A
man surrounded by fools who cannot see his strength, his vision, his glory.... You walk in worlds the
others can't begin to imagine.
William: Oh, yes! I mean, no. I mean ... mother's expecting
me.
Drusilla: I see what you want. Something glowing and glistening. Something ...
effulgent.... Do you want it?
William: Oh, yes! (touches her chest) God,
yes.
Drusilla vamps out. William reacts, confused more than afraid. The vampire bites,
and he cries out in pain. But his cries quickly turn into moans of pleasure as Drusilla ends his human
existence.
William shows more hesitancy than Liam, but his final acceptance of Drusilla's offer
is just as definitive. He wants all that she holds before him: a chance to destroy the weak William and
become someone new, someone who doesn't have to live by society's rules. Someone who can make some
rules for himself. A chance to be seen, as Cecily refused to see him. Drusilla alone sees his inner potential;
Spike thinks of himself as the actualization of that potential. Weak, bumbling William no more. A true
monster now, one who does everything in his power to reinvent himself ... for his dark lady, of
course.
And so something of the human William still lives on in Spike. He's frozen himself
into a monster state, though, just like Liam has. Who William was always determines Spike's
characteristics: the desire to create the Big Bad image, the possessive love, the masked need for
acceptance. All these traits remain the same, unchanging because the monster doesn't change. William
has enbraced this unlife; Spike is the result.
Until something happens to Spike. He can't hurt
people because of the chip. He starts to hang around the Scoobs. He acts as no vampire has ever been able
to act before. He even falls in love with the Slayer.
When Spike betrays his love for Buffy, he
finally realizes the need to change. Before he was more or less satisfied with the unlife he had chosen. A
monster should feel no regret. But Spike does; he's become something that he never would have
wanted. Not monster, not man. Nothing. This isn't what he chose!
Spike decides to break out
of his rut as a soulless vamp. His resolve to get a soul is unprecedented; it signifies an internal change that
has already taken place. Vampires shouldn't change. Their development has been frozen from the instant
the human chose to become a vamp. That's the bargain; trade away your human growth to become a
monstrous version of what you always wanted. And you won't mind, because you'll be dead and all that's
left of you will be locked inside a frozen shell. Unless some external modifier and human interaction start
to melt that shell, perhaps reawakening remnants of humanity....
I think that the soul signifies
the ability to change, to grow. Spike receives his soul because he demonstrates his dedication to change;
he wants to reinvent himself for Buffy. Angelus receives his soul as a curse to remind him of all the pain
he has caused. The soul grants Angel an awareness he did not have while soulless; he finally sees a need
to change himself. He slowly internalizes his desire to become a better man(pire), at first in an effort to
make amends for what Angelus has done and then for the sake of good itself.
Most vamps
never see the need to change (the human made that decision for them), so there's no danger of a lot of
souled vamps running around. Angel and Spike are exceptions to the rule due to truly rare
circumstances.
Um, I could write more, but this post is long enough as it is. I'll wait to see if I
have any feedback.
Thanks all for reading!
[> Me, Myself, and I -- skeeve, 09:56:07 06/04/02 Tue
The current evidence suggests at least three parts to a human. The body we more or less
know. <insert joke here> The soul, it has been suggested is just conscience. It is not its human's
identity, not even if one includes the body. "Its human" is not even necessarily well defined. The
Conner/Darla soul and the Buffy/roommate soul hint rather strongly at this. The latter suggests that a
soul is not necessarily even discrete. The third part, possibly when combined with one's soul, does contain
one's identity, not to mention one's memories. Something has to, or there would have been no Buffy for
Willow to raise. Buffy's brain was rotted, so that wouldn't have held her memory. The mostly desouled
Buffy in Living Conditions lost patience, but not her memory. That leaves something else. My
recollection is that Masquerade called the something else the spirit. It's as good a name as any.
Apparently it sticks around when one is vamped. Something with Angel's memories transfered to the old
guy's body when he switched bodies with Angel.
Back to the issue of responsibility. Having
one's human soul replaced with a nasty demon soul (not all demons are nasty or have souls), bears a
strong resemblance to the effects of brain damage. Say someone puts a wire in one's brain that causes
pain when one hasn't had blood for a while and puts in another wire that stimulates the pleasure center
whenever one is putting the bite on a human. How much responsibility would such human have?
[> Question -- Humanitas, 11:45:34 06/04/02 Tue
Can we draw the distinction between percieved and actual
responsibility? What I mean is, can there be a difference between wether or not Angel feels
responsible for Angelus and wether or not he actually is responsible?
Here's my
theory:
"Self" is an illusion caused by continuity of memory. (I think this is a Buddhist
concept, but I'm not sure. Can anyone tell me?) When a person is vamped, the vampire retains the
memories of the human being. Similarly, when a vampire gets gifted (or cursed, depending on one's point
of view) with a soul, he still has a continuity of memory, which includes both time as a human, and time
as a vampire. Therefore, the Vampire-With-A-Soul percieves himself as having done some horrifying
things, and feels guilt and remorse.
From an outside perspective, however, it is clear that the
conditions have changed sufficiently to warrant an absolution of any actual guilt. That does the VWAS
no good internally, because he can't help feeling guilty. It does, however, affect how the other characters
react to him. They start to trust him, and that is what truly puts him on the path to being a "good
guy."
So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that ME doesn't want us to believe that Angel is
really guilty of Angelus' crimes, just that he feels guilty.
Thoughts?
[> [> Sounds like an answer to me. -- Sophist, 15:17:58
06/04/02 Tue
[> [> Re: Question -- Rufus, 18:28:08 06/04/02 Tue
"Self" is an illusion caused by continuity of memory. (I think this is a Buddhist concept,
but I'm not sure. Can anyone tell me?) When a person is vamped, the vampire retains the memories of the
human being. Similarly, when a vampire gets gifted (or cursed, depending on one's point of view) with a
soul, he still has a continuity of memory, which includes both time as a human, and time as a vampire.
Therefore, the Vampire-With-A-Soul percieves himself as having done some horrifying things, and feels
guilt and remorse.
I see the self (in the case of the vampire) as who the person was and is,
the only difference being the influence of the soul or lack of. We all have the potential to be monsters and
there are human monsters that walk beside us everyday that didn't have to lose their soul to get that way.
The vampire is a human/demon hybrid meaning they are a bit of both, but the sense of self seems to still
be rooted in the experiences of the person the vampire was. The vampire gives no sense of self as it's an
infection that causes a reaction in the human of seperating them from their ability to be humane. The
thing about the vampire is that at least we get the bumpy forehead to indicate the inner monster, with
human monsters their actions are the only reflection of the monster within. The vampire is the person who
once was acting on every evil impulse they ever had, only with the power to do damage and the lack of a
soul so they don't care about the results of what they have done.
[> Propaganda about Vampires -- Buffyboy, 14:34:26
06/05/02 Wed
Very interesting post and discussion. Here are a few thoughts. Theory #1
seems to be the official story or indeed the official ideology of various institutions: the Watchers Council,
the Initiative and perhaps the Vampire World itself. Thus, it isn't simply false, but it does hide something
that these groups would rather keep hidden-sometimes even to themselves. It's the kind of story one tells
to those new to the reality of vampires or as Buffy does in Lie to Me, those foolish enough to believe that
becoming a vampire might somehow be desirable. Recall also the scene near the end of Doppelgangland
where Buffy is assuring Willow that she's nothing like VampWillow. Angel starts to correct Buffy saying
something like: "Well actually..." He then thinks better of it and doesn't finish his thought reasoning that
it's better not to contradict the official story after everything Willow's just been through. But, of course
VampWillow is like Willow in many ways. Countless examples of other characters in earlier posts in this
thread don't need repeating here. Theory #1 is propaganda about vampires and often the vampires' own
propaganda.
According to Theory #2 the major difference between a person and that person
vamped, other than the obvious physical changes, is the lack of a conscience. What does it mean to be
without a conscience? One version would say vampires don't know right from wrong; they are simply
driven by their new vampire desires; they are nothing but blood-sucking-fiends. This might appear to be
an adequate analysis of the unknown vampire we see in the graveyard who is quickly staked by Buffy, but
any of the vampires we get to know are clearly much more complex than this analysis could ever grasp.
It's simple another version of the official story told about vampires.
Another version of
Theory #2 might point out that although persons vamped do lose their human conscience, they gain a
vampire conscience. They know the difference between good and evil and seek the evil. The vampire
conscience seems to command: "Seek Evil and as End in itself." Now different vampires have vampire
consciences of varying strengths. Some like the Master or Angelus in season two seem to turn the pursuit
of evil into a religion: the destruction of the human world becomes their unholy duty. For this type of
vampire the pursuit of evil is more important than the satisfaction of any of their more immediately felt
desires, even their desire for blood. Spike, on the other hand, from the beginning seems to have a weaker
vampire conscience. When the pursuit of evil for it's own sake gets in the way of the satisfaction of his
desires, directly vampire desires or more human-like desires such as lust, simply having a good time, or
perhaps even compassion and love, Spike is always tempted to go along with the desire. Does he always
give in to these desires? Of course not, but when he does give in to his more human-like desires he often
seems to feel "guilty" as if his vampire conscience is nagging at him. Then, only after the fact, does he
attempt to rationalize his good actions as really only manifestation of his evil nature just like a human
being trying to convince someone that a self-seeking action was actually motivated by a higher duty.
TV Guide's Emmy SUGGESTIONS -- JBone,
20:00:38 06/03/02 Mon
here
Outstanding
Drama
Alias
Angel
CSI
The Shield
24
Outstanding Lead Actor in a
Drama
Ben Browder (Farscape)
Dennis Franz (NYPD Blue)
Chi McBride (Boston
Public)
Michael Chiklis (The Shield)
Kiefer Sutherland (24)
Outstanding Lead
Actress in a Drama
Claudia Black (Farscape)
Jennifer Garner (Alias)
Sarah Michelle
Gellar (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
Keri Russell (Felicity)
Sela Ward (Once and
Again)
Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama
Mark-Paul Gosselaar (NYPD
Blue)
Victor Garber (Alias)
Michael C. Hall (Six Feet Under)
James Marsters (Buffy the
Vampire Slayer)
Esai Morales (NYPD Blue)
Outstanding Supporting Actress in a
Drama
Lauren Ambrose (Six Feet Under)
Leslie Hope (24)
Mary Louise Parker (The
West Wing)
Charlotte Ross (NYPD Blue)
Susanna Thompson (Once and Again)
[> Re: TV Guide's Emmy SUGGESTIONS -- JBone,
20:08:24 06/03/02 Mon
Of the 13 shows that make TV Guides list, I only watch five
of them regularly. So I won't say who I think should be taken off their list unless I actually watch the
show. But who to add?
Of course BtVS and 6'U for Best Drama. I'd find a place to add Peter
Krause to Lead Actor. Oh, I think that I'd add Alexis Denisof to Supporting Actor. I'm not positive that
Esai Morales deserves to be on their list. He's good, but I missed half his big 2 episode story arc. So from
what I've seen, I'd take him off for now. And I'd add Alyson Hannigan to Supporting Actress of
course.
If you watch enough to do a better list makeover, throw it up there.
[> [> Sar-ah! Sar-ah! Sar-ah! -- MayaPapaya9,
20:34:06 06/03/02 Mon
[> [> [> Sarah's promotional Appearances -- Dochawk,
21:56:21 06/03/02 Mon
For those of you who can't get enough of Sarah, here is a list
of some of her TV appearances next 2 weeks:
(all times PDT)
6/6 3:30pm
HBOScooby-Doo HBO first look
6/6 6:00pm MTV MTV Movie Awards (co-host)
6/11
11:35pm CBS Late Show with David Letterman
6/12 7:00Am NBC Today Show
6/12
5:00PM E! Scooby Doo Preview
6/12 7:00PM E! Revealed with Jules Asner (this is just SMG 1 hr
interview)
6/13 7:00AM CBS The Early Show
and just for good measure:
6/14
6:00PM USA, Cruel Intentions
[> [> [> [> THANK you!!!! -- MayaPapaya9,
17:00:26 06/04/02 Tue
I adore Sarah, she is my hero. Thanks so much for the info. I
didn't even know she was hosting the MTV awards, it's been THAT long since I watched any television
besides Buffy. Finals and all. Anyway, I'm really happy now, your post made an otherwise crappy day
lots better!
-Maya
[> [> [> [> Re: Sarah's promotional Appearances --
Cheryl, 21:01:19 06/04/02 Tue
I was just checking out my TVGuide and it shows
SMG on Letterman tonight. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Cheryl
[> Re: TV Guide's Emmy SUGGESTIONS -- O'Cailleagh,
20:09:18 06/03/02 Mon
Wait a minute...Zach from 'Saved by the Bell' in NYPD Blue?
The mind boggles.......
[> [> Re: TV Guide's Emmy SUGGESTIONS -- Ronia it's so
sad..., 22:25:26 06/03/02 Mon
...that I remember him as Zach also....and he shall
forever remain Zach according to the rules that I have established in my own mind.. ;0)
[> Re: TV Guide's Emmy SUGGESTIONS -- Rob, 20:58:52
06/03/02 Mon
Very interesting, well-balanced choices, although I'd add "Buffy" and "Six
Feet Under" to the "Best Drama" list, and take off "The Shield" and "CSI." I've had it up to here with cop
shows...
Also, I'd move Michael C. Hall (Dave from SFU) to Best Actor, not
supporting...Unless, since it's an ensemble, all characters are counted as supporting. And I'd add Peter
Krause (Nate from SFU) to that list, as well.
I'd add Allyson Hannigan to the Best Supporting
Actress list, as well as Amber Benson. And Frances Conroy (Ruth from SFU). And Gigi Edgley (Chiana
from Farscape).
And I couldn't be more excited by the way if Ben Browder were nominated for
Lead Actor in a drama series. The guy's awesome!
Rob
Rob
[> [> Wha? CSI is damned good. It's not a cop show either.
:P -- neaux, 04:47:18 06/04/02 Tue
[> [> Re: TV Guide's Emmy SUGGESTIONS -- Darby,
06:01:24 06/04/02 Tue
The Shield is the best show on this year, period. And as I've
said before, something that seems like it would interest anyone here. They did a much better job with
"actions have consequences" than Buffy did this year - the karmic loop from second to next-to-last episode
was jaw-droppingly well-executed.
Most of the TV Guide choices I have no problem with, but
I'd add CCH Pounder of The Shield under Best Supporting Actress - she's a great actress, and this is the
best role she's been given.
I'm going to flinch when I say it, but if we're just going on this
season, I don't think that any of the actors on Buffy deserve Emmys. They just haven't been given enough
to do, much as I love the characters. Maybe Emma Caulfield deserves a nomination. I'd nominate Julie
Benz as a guest actress on Angel for sure. Alexis Denisof, maybe. And maybe the show.
[> [> [> "The Shield": connection to the
Buffyverse -- d'Herblay, 09:39:36 06/04/02 Tue
I stand with Darby, proclaiming
The Shield as the best show on television this year, semi-colon. However, I do think it benefits
from its short (thirteen episode) season: the first thirteen episodes of 24 are as good, and a thirteen
episode selection from this past season of Angel might blow it away. Even the oft-acknowledged
weakness of Season Six Buffy can be contained within 9 extraneous episodes. (Actually, I've
counted them up, and there seem to be ten or eleven extraneous episodes.)
Anyway, Buffybuffs
have a reason to cheer the success of The Shield: its creator, Shawn Ryan, was a writer/producer on
Angel last season. His credits include "The Thin Dead Line," and The Shield can be seen
as an extrapolation of that episode, only without the zombies.
[> [> [> Re: TV Guide's Emmy SUGGESTIONS --
mundusmundi, 16:40:56 06/04/02 Tue
I haven't yet seen The Shield,
otherwise known in my narrow mind as Yet Another Cop Show, but from what I hear I'm being
unfair.
While Gellar and Marsters were deserving last year, I agree that I just can't nominate
them this time around. If we're talking solitary episodes, I'd love to see Amber Benson be considered for
the musical, as well as Hinton Battle for a guest spot, though realistically the minimal screen time and
demon makeup probably hinders his chances.
My two favorite performances all season, bar
none, have been Ron Rifkin and Victor Garber for Alias. I just can't choose between them, so I'd
love nothing more than for them to share the Best Supporting prize.
[> [> [> [> ME actor most deserving of a nomimation
SUGGESTION -- JBone, 19:07:37 06/04/02 Tue
If only one ME actor got
nomitated for only one category, Alexis Denisof deserves it most. A very, very close second to Alyson
Hannigan, both Supporting actor and actress of course. Then of course SMG for Lead Actress, who we
may be spoiled to the excellent job that she always does. And finally Marsters, who keeps forcing ME to
do something with him. If anyone else played Spike, he would have been dusted long ago.
[> [> [> [> [> Alexis!! Definitely best (supporting?)
actor out there! -- Scroll, 21:02:26 06/04/02 Tue
AD most definitely deserves an
Emmy for all the amazing work he's done this season. Even when all he has is one line to deliver, or just
one *look*, he is ON. He's such a nuanced actor, incredibly talented and versatile. I think James Marsters
is a wonderful actor, but AD has a greater range and more *soul* (if you'll forgive the pun). And I think
Alyson Hannigan should certainly be recognised for her excellent (as always) performance, especially the
last three episodes.
And Once More With Feeling has to win something!
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Alexis!! Definitely best
(supporting?) actor out there! -- yabyumpan, 22:55:13 06/04/02 Tue
Can't say I
agree with all the praise for AD and AH, I found them both pretty one note and all either actor has done
for me has been to make me stop caring for their characters, I'd be happy not to see either of them back
next season.
I know it's not a particuarly "cool" opinion, esp on this board, but I find DB's
acting very compelling and moving.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Boreanaz has wonderful
moments... -- Scroll, 23:23:22 06/04/02 Tue
I agree that DB is overlooked a
great deal when we're praising actors. I've always loved Angel the character and I think DB has amazing
ability (he's also one of the most improved actors at ME). That line to Fred in "Forgiving" about Connor
being here when Cordelia comes back with presents was just heart-rending.
But I can't agree
that AD has been at all'one note'. Maybe the last few eps of Angel have shown him to be steadily getting
darker and more morose, but I can see the natural progression and for me, that isn't one note. Of course, if
you don't like brooding (and lots of people don't, quite a reasonable stance after last year's PsychoAngel
arc), then Wesley's depression probably won't appeal to you. IMHO, it's a fascinating take on a character
that has always been portrayed as doggedly determined to do his best, whether he was compentent or
incompetent.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Alexis!! Definitely best
(supporting?) actor out there! -- oceloty, 23:55:59 06/04/02 Tue
I was impressed
by all three, but for different reasons.
AH turned Willow upside down and then inside out and
then evil. Good, bad, and points in between. I have a beef with how Willow was written but I think AH
added some layers back with her portrayal.
AD had a lot of time in a couple of episodes to
make Wesley's betrayal believable, then just bits in the rest of the eps, to show the rest of his fall from
grace. ATS didn't show too much of embittered Wesley, but AD made the most of what there was. (And
he had some really good material to work with.)
DB -- I guess I'm not cool either, because I
thought he was one of the best things about this season. The Angel character is a like a one-man repetoire.
"Yesterday -- dorky! Today -- crazy! Later today -- grieving, then depressed!" I thought Forgiving and
Benediction were incredible, and he's a big reason why.
And as long as I'm at it -- Victor
Garber (on Alias) rocks. I think he and AD are head to head in the race for best portrayal of a morally-
ambiguous but mostly well intentioned supporting character. (Admittedly not the biggest award category,
but maybe it should be.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> feeling mean now :-( --
yabyumpan, 06:21:24 06/05/02 Wed
After having some sleep and thinking about this
a bit more, I feel bit mean calling AD & AH "one note". I think it probably does have something to do
with the way their characters ahve been written.
With AD, I don't think I ever fliped from
liking a charater to disliking in one ep before, and I'm sure that's down to AD's acting ability although I
do hope next season he gets the full use of his facial muscles again.
As for AH, again, I don't
like the way her character has been written. Partly due to the whole "I'm a powerful Witch/Wiccan" thing,
no you're not, you're a souceress, a spell doer but not a Witch. I also have major problems with the whole
addiction stuff. I guess I've just spent too much time being around, working with, living with, loving and
burying junkies to be able to see addiction as entertainment. I'm afraid that addictwillow and
coldturkeywillow just made me laugh as did bigbadwillow. The final 2 eps had me LMAO whenever AH
was on the screen, although that could also be because I lost any sympathy with the character a long time
ago.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: feeling mean now :-
( -- JM, 11:34:42 06/05/02 Wed
Don't worry, not everybody has the same tastes
for the same people. At least you have the humility and politeness to acknowledge that. We don't all have
the same tastes for character development. There are people who loved broody Angel and hate
Dork!Angel. There are those of us (or maybe just me) who are grateful that he finally got over himself.
(Some of that is actor strength to my opinion, while I think that Reprise was a tour de force for DB, I also
think he has fantastic comic delivery -- really up there with EC on BtVS -- and love every chance I get to
see it. I am probably the only viewer who thought that Provider was absolutely fantastic.) Some people
are compulsively drawn into Wes's downward spiral, some are horrified that a good man could let
disappointment and resentment destroy him.
I've always been partial to Wesley, even on BtVS
he was somebody who just tried so hard, and failed over and over again. Somewhere around SoR S2 I
started falling for him. But up to that point I don't think I appreciated the actor, I was too busy cringing at
Wes's flubs and cheering for his successes. I think I first started venturing out on the'Net around that time
and found an AD fan site. They had a article where one of cast or crew enthused about how he was one of
the most talented actors they'd ever worked with. Which kind of surprised me, so I started paying more
attention. My opinion, whoever was right . . . he's really good.
There are two phone
conversations that really clinched it for me. The one with Cordy in Reprise and the one with his father in
Belonging. He goes through so many emotions in such a short time. I agree that AD can convey much
with a look (remember the attack on Lorne?), but for me it's his voice. He can go from tentative and
anxious, to cold and steely, to tender and empathetic. Often in a single scene.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I don't call it Wesley the Series for
nothing...no offence to DB -- Rufus, 01:21:22 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Alexis!! Definitely best
(supporting?) actor out there! -- Arethusa, 08:42:23 06/05/02 Wed
Denison can
say ONE word and convey regret, pain, longing, and self-deprecation. All at the same time.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> "Apparently..."
(Couplet) I know exactly what you mean! -- Scroll, 08:46:06 06/05/02 Wed
[> Repeat After Me... -- Wizardman, 03:10:39 06/04/02
Tue
On the count of three: for Best Supporting Actress in a Drama: ALYSON
HANNIGAN!
[> [> Here! Here! -- Majin Gojira, 05:51:18 06/04/02
Tue
[> [> I'm with ya. -- Tillow, 05:53:16 06/05/02 Wed
[> Re: TV Guide's Emmy SUGGESTIONS -- verdantheart,
06:15:03 06/04/02 Tue
James Marsters AND Victor Garber in the best supporting
actor list. From TV Guide's lips to the Academy's ears!
[> No ME in TV Critics' Nominations -- Darby, 11:14:35
06/04/02 Tue
This is off-topic ('cause no ME nominations) but on-topic in this
thread.
For the nominees, go
to
http://tv.zap2it.com/news/tvnewsdaily.html?26291
The *Finale* Series Finale ( No Spoilers ) --
AgnosticSorcerer, 21:26:45 06/03/02 Mon
How would you like to see the BTVS series
end?
Who would you like to see included?
Personally, I would love to see
something similar to the Season 5 ending. The Scoobies' backs against the wall. Impending Apocalypse.
Odds stacked against them by the millions.
But, I would like to see Faith included (and
possibly Angel). Buffy and the other Scoobies, overwhelmed by the odds break Faith out of jail (how many
years does she have anyhow?) to help fight off the next apocalypse. Two slayers--back to back--fighting
the evils of the world. A redeemed Faith who has found her purpose in life: to carry on where Buffy left
off, saving the world.
Heck! Why not include ALL OF SUNNYDALE! They've been at least
somewhat aware of their surroundings and what's-the-what, so why not have all the citizens of Sunnydale
in a similar situation to what we saw in GRADUATION.
Who knows? The possibilities are
endless!
What do you think?
[> Re: The *Finale* Series Finale ( No Spoilers ) -- Majin
Gojira, 05:57:53 06/04/02 Tue
Well, This has been raised in the past, Hell, i've raised
this question. and this is what I'd like to see
AFTER defeateating the Big Bad, there is still an
overwhelming force of evil heading straight for them. Despite seemingly impossible odds, the Scoobies
don't back down. They will fight this menace, even if its too the last.
I take this ending directly
from a foreign film:
"Gamera 3: Incomplete Struggle"
Where, after defeating a beast
called Irys (and losing a limb in the prosess), it is discovered that a horde of pterosaur-like, carnivourous
black monsters called Gyaos are decending on that area. (when asked how many there were in the horde,
the general only said "Lots" - IE: MILLIONS). Gamera was willing to fight them off to help the people,
even if it was his last battle, and even if he had to do it alone. - fortunately he didn't, the people rally
behind the original mutant turtle, against the Gyaos.
and just as the battle is about to begin -
it ends!
Hence the title: "Incomplete Struggle"
I would like Buffy to end in a
similar manner - it leaves the window open for a feature film! :p
[> Re: The *Finale* Series Finale ( No Spoilers ) -- cjc36,
06:49:15 06/04/02 Tue
I've always imagined the ending as such: Buffy defeats the
really big, big bad, and then is forced to give up her Slayer powers, either due to the fact that all vampires
have been defeated (not likely, despite Fray's backstory), or because of some Council/PTB rule regarding
Slayers who survive to a certain age (22?). Thus the series would end with Buffy and her friends finally
getting to live an ordinary life.
[> Re: The *Finale* Series Finale ( No Spoilers ) -- LittleBit,
07:58:10 06/04/02 Tue
I'd like to see all the unfinished little bads coming back, like
Catherine, the hyenas (the animals weren't killed), Marcie Ross, Tucker & Andrew Wells, Drusilla,
Harmony, Ethan, Dracula, Doc, representatives of all the different demons, and of course Sweet, for a
final confrontation.
[> [> Re: The *Finale* Series Finale ( No Spoilers ) --
sarahieo, 10:10:21 06/04/02 Tue
I hope that Faith and Angel will come back for an all
out finale. Tying up loose ends would probably satisfy so many of us out there. I only have a few "I
wonders" for this season. 1. Can Buffy finally find a true love and not lose him? 2. Anya and Xander,
happily ever after? 3. Where will Dawn fit into this year? She'll be 16, same age as Buffy when B was
called. 4. What will be this years crisis?
[> [> [> Re: The *Finale* Series Finale ( No Spoilers ) --
maddog, 14:25:42 06/04/02 Tue
If they plan on finishing this year like it's been
rumored in many places then we won't be seeing Angel unfortunately. UPN would have to pull of a major
coup for that. That no crossovers thing is pretty solid right now.
[> Re: The *Finale* Series Finale ( No Spoilers ) -- j.nina,
11:04:49 06/04/02 Tue
My scenario for the finale comes out of equal impulses for
romance and irony. I'd like to see Buffy and Spike go through with the wedding they planned in
"Something Blue," with some kind of twist of course. Perhaps she'll be the immortal and he the mortal.
Perhaps they'll be marrying other people. Perhaps it'll only be a dream. Perhaps it'll turn out to be Anya
and Xander's wedding (or Willow and Tara's? or Willow and Spike's?!). But the whole scenario as they
planned it gets played out--under a tree in the afternoon, Giles giving away the bride(s), someone wearing
the very wedding gown Buffy admires in the shop window, the cake adorned with those wedding cake
toppers, and "Wind Beneath My Wings" for the first dance (but perhaps a hip hop version of it.)
[> [> Final Finale -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:36:27 06/04/02
Tue
I've always thought it would be interesting if, in the finale, somebody finally succeeds
in destroying the world. But then, there's "Angel", which I haven't seen but heard good things about, the
BBC "Watcher", and my hopes for Spike to get a spinoff.
However, what would be great is
that, in preparation for the Apocalypse, the First Vampire blots the sun out over Sunnydale and the
vampires and demons openly control the town. The people of Sunnydale are gathered together in a
massive battle in the streets against the vampires, while Buffy fights the First Vampire. In the end Buffy
has to make a decision: the First Vampire plans to sacrafice his body in order to bring on the Apocalypse,
so Buffy can't kill him without ending the world. In the end, she must let the entire town fall into the
Hellmouth in order to stop the end of the world. In the end, very few people escape (I'm hoping Spike and
Dawn do so they can get their own show).
[> [> [> Re: Final Finale -- tim, 12:34:36 06/04/02
Tue
"Why not include ALL OF SUNNYDALE!" -Agnostic
Sorcerer
"In the end, she must let the entire town fall into the Hellmouth in order to
stop the end of the world." -Finn
Somewhere (of course I don't remember where), I read
that Joss' initial plan was to suck Sunnydale into the Hellmouth at the end of S5. So you may yet get your
wish.
--th
[> I'd like to see... -- JCC, 13:55:31 06/04/02 Tue
A huge mother of a battle. The scoobies, Angel Investigations, Faith, Clem, every force of
good there is against a whole mess of demons and vamps. And at the very end, the dark power of the
slayer is released in Faith and Buffy and something biblicly bad happens. Like maybe it kills all creatures
without a soul on Earth.
That would make the last episode a Buffy/Angel
crossover.
Just a thought.
Current board
| More June 2002