June 2002 posts
Whither the Watchers? -- Darby, 07:11:23
06/04/02 Tue
A line from Grave:
GILES: The Council hasn't a clue.
About much of anything, really.
What are they setting up?
[> Re: Whither the Watchers? -- O'Cailleagh, 07:23:43
06/04/02 Tue
Been pondering that very point...the line seemed so...throwaway that it
really can't be! ...its...all.....too....much.....!
Roll on S7!
[> Re: Whither the Watchers? (spec S7) -- SpikeMom, 07:24:06 06/04/02 Tue
Perhaps that could be part of the Ripper storyline. Giles overhauls the Council.
[> Re: Whither the Watchers? (wild speculation) -- John
Burwood, 07:27:31 06/04/02 Tue
Maybe the old leadership (Travers?) is getting old
and ill and losing its grip and rival factions are too busy jockeying for position to inherit the 'crown' to
take much notice of anything else!
Or maybe that sounds too much like a fanfic?
[> [> Re: Whither the Watchers? (wild speculation) --
ramses 2, 07:51:55 06/04/02 Tue
I'm hoping the council is the ultimate BB. That
Buffy finally discovers the Slayer's background. Who she really is. And it is at odds with the watchers.
Those shahmans have been manipulating the slayers.(Think of all the bad magic and dissappearing
shaman anvils of this season) I'm wondering if next season we have more info on the Slayer, the Council
and the Master's family. Just what were the ancients? Council told us they were evil. But were they?
[> [> [> Re: Whither the Watchers? (wild speculation) --
Sophie, 08:04:25 06/04/02 Tue
That would be awesome! - and tie everything back to
the begnnings of the show.
Soph
[> [> [> Re: Whither the Watchers? (wild speculation) --
LeeAnn, 08:42:07 06/04/02 Tue
I'm hoping the council is the ultimate
BB.
Me too. I'm hoping that the highest levels of the council is made up of vampires who
use the slayer to keep the numbers of vampires down so humans don't notice that they are prey.
[> [> [> [> Actually thinking -- ramses 2, 09:02:04
06/04/02 Tue
The council(original Shahmans)manipulated the slayers to eliminate a
race.(the ancients) What I'd like to see, Buffy realize that the Slayer is very close to the ancients. And that
the Master's bloodlines are close to the ancients. Thus, buffy sensing both Angel and Spike. They are
meant(Buffy and this family) to rebuild the ancients. Then next season the ultimate showdown. Buffy
versus the Council.
[> Re: Whither the Watchers? (SPOILERS for Fray) -- Robert,
14:11:54 06/04/02 Tue
>> "What are they setting up?"
I believe that
this is leading into the final confrontation between the last slayer referred to in the Fray comic book and
the decay of the watchers council. Since Joss Whedon wrote this comic book, I am assuming that he
intended there to be continuity between the stories.
On the twelth page of the third issue of
Fray;
URKONN: "They were trained. Sourght out and guided by watchers, descendants of the
shamans who created the first slayer."
This gives the history of watchers and the slayers. The
next page, I believe, sets up what we will see next season, or possibly the season after
that.
FRAY: "Why don't you tell me what happened to the last one?"
URKONN:
"Because I don't know."
"It was some hundreds of years ago, in the twenty-first
century."
"What we know is this -- there was a battle."
"A slayer, possibly with
some mystical allies, faced an apocalyptic army of demons."
"And when it was done
..."
"They were gone, all demons, all magicks, banished from this earthly
deminsion."
FRAY: "and the slayer? Did she ..."
URKONN: "I do not know if she
lived. But, the demons being gone, she was the last to be called"
Going back to the first and
second pages of the first issue we see the following conversation between a monkey demon and an
unseen/unnamed entity (possibly a god of some sort).
monkey demon: "She is
discovered."
entity: "We're certain it's she?"
monkey demon: "We
are."
entity: "No one has been called for two hundred years. The signs are dim --
"
monkey demon: "Never the less, the watchers have found her as well."
entity:
"The watchers. Lunatics and fools."
monkey demon: "They mean to approach her, to begin the
cycle anew."
entity: "That must not be."
Later in the first issue, Fray eventually
meets her watcher who, in his ecstatic zeal, soaks himself in gasoline and lights it, and burns to death.
Thus we know that the watchers council fell onto hard times. My theory is thus; as long as the watchers
council had a clear purpose, they were strong. Once that purpose dissolved (starting with Buffy telling
them to get lost) they began a descent into incompetence and, later, insanity.
Tim Minear posts on Angel Spoiler Board (Spoilers for
next season re cast only) -- Rahael, 10:53:03 06/04/02 Tue
Re Wanda's
comments that Cordelia may not be back and 'unfortunate circumstances', Tim Minear
said:
"Okay, kids. Calm down, just calm down. I, for one, haven't the slightest idea where
Wanda is getting her information. I don't know if she has some "source" that's feeding her this stuff, I
don't know if CC is working out her deal with Fox, don't know if there's an Act Of God in play or what --
just don't know. Having until very recently been an executive producer on tv's "Angel," (and currently a
consulting producer, and being very involved with the story breaking for season 4), what I can tell you is
that we've been breaking stories for season 4 with Cordelia *in* them. That's what I know. Breaking.
Stories. With. Cordelia. In. Them. That is not some "code," by the way -- so please don't try reading
anymore into it than it says.
And each time I've been in the room with Joss and the writing
staff -- Wanda hasn't been there. That's what *I* know.
So I wouldn't panic at the
moment."
The link is here.
http://www.voy.com/14810/73706.html
I for
one am reassured.
[> I for one had no doubt about it (spoilers for Angel s. 3 finale)
-- Masq, 10:57:17 06/04/02 Tue
Based on interviews with CC
herself.
Hence, my view that the "ascension" of Cordelia isn't what it seems to be.
[> [> Re: I for one had no doubt about it (spoilers for Angel s. 3
finale) -- Rahael, 11:01:05 06/04/02 Tue
Yes, I didn't either, until I read
Wanda's cryptic comments. I wish she would stop stirring like this. A poor Cordelia fan's heart can only
take so much!
[> [> [> And... (Cast spoiler for Buffy Season 7) -- Rob,
15:13:32 06/04/02 Tue
...now Wanda's starting to tease that Amber Benson might be
back next season. If she's as wrong about that as she seems to be for Cordelia, I'll be out for blood!
;o)
Rob
[> [> [> [> Don't worry, Rob ... (Spoilers for cast) --
Exegy, 18:16:55 06/04/02 Tue
Although there is no confirmation that AB will return
next year, I have heard too many rumblings from many reliable sources to discount the possibility. In fact,
I consider it very likely that the actress will come back :) ... but she'll probably not reprise her role as Tara
:(
I wouldn't be too worried about what Wanda ever says; she doesn't have a direct line to ME,
and so she acts all cryptic in order to make it seem that she knows more than she does. Other spoiler
sources have had far greater reliability, and those sources hinted at AB's return long before Wanda spread
the news.
[> [> [> [> [> Yeah, well. -- Solitude1056,
20:03:43 06/04/02 Tue
Technically we could've said "Joyce will be back in Season 6!"
and we'd've been right - only thing was, she cameo'd in one episode, playing part of Buffy's delusion. It's
possible that "AB will be back in Season 7!" could be part of another Restless dream, Willow's guilty
nightmares, some wiccan-spell thingie, a hallucination, or (worst of all) a ghost!
[> [> [> [> [> [> And it's all a game, too. --
Deeva, 20:37:12 06/04/02 Tue
The gossip and spoiler business is just a game. You
take everything with a grain of salt and have some fun. Plain and simple. I would never take Wanda's chat
tid-bits seriously because with as much stuff that she covers, pretty much all of tv-land and cable-dom, I
get the impression that she might have maybe one assistant, if that, to try and verify all these "spoilers"
that she doles out. And being cryptic is THE name of the game. She's just a lucky chic who reports on the
goings-on in tv shows, meets and chats up the actors that she is paid to watch on a weekly basis.
[> [> [> [> [> Jane Espenson hinted... -- Tillow,
05:51:21 06/05/02 Wed
...in her interview with the succubus club that if people were
boycotting over the loss of AB, the actress herself, then they might want to reconsider. I could easily see
them bringing her back in spirit or dream form to Willow.
[> [> Re: I for one had no doubt about it (spoilers for Angel s. 3
finale) -- Arethusa, 13:15:59 06/04/02 Tue
That, and the fact that Cordelia only
has visions of poeple in danger.
OMWF after season 6 -- abt, 14:03:43
06/04/02 Tue
How do you read the lineup in OMWF now the season is complete?
It
goes:-
Buffy, Spike, Dawn, Giles, Anya, Xander, Tara, Willow.
So Willow is at
the end, the link is broken when Tara is removed. The nearest available to grab her hand is Xander. Giles
is central anchor, soon to be removed. Buffy is as far away from the four who brought her back as
possible, in order of responsibility for that act too, with Willow furthest. Spike both blocks Buffy from the
rest of the lineup, and is her lifeline to them, both a help and a hindrance. His other hand holds
Dawn's.
Anya is between her husband-to-be and her 'father'. (Giles being her father in the sense it
was his action that began her human life, or maybe Giles is Xander's rival for Anya's affections,
considering Tabula Rasa!)
Anything else?
[> Nice take! -- Doriander, 14:39:26 06/04/02 Tue
So, Giles as Xander's rival huh? Normally not a shipper here, unless its Spike/Dru, but I find
myself actually rooting for these two.
Also, Spike formed a wedge between Buffy and Dawn
(BUFFY to Spike in AYW: Dawn. (looks toward the house) She's inside waiting for dinner, she's
counting on me. I'm not letting her down by letting you in.) So with Giles gone, Dawn is lost; no
anchor, left with a listless sister and the SG who were preoccuppied with their own lives.
Another thing, Spike broke off mid-chorus. Foreshadowing of of him taking off before the
finale showdown perhaps?
[> [> My belief... -- GreatRewards, 15:56:12 06/04/02
Tue
is that you can read WAY too much into nothing. Like when some psychic says "I
see someone close to you... his or her name starts with an M... or an N... or maybe a J...?" and you go
"Julie!!! My roommate's name is Julie! WOW! How did you know that????"
As Spike said at
the end of OMWF: "Bugger this!"
:-)
[> [> [> Re: My belief... -- Doriander, 16:36:58
06/04/02 Tue
Heh. True, with BtVS there's a tendency to put so much importance into
something that is for all we know entirely inconsequential (e.g. the cheese man). I guess it says something
about the insight of the viewer, if you come down to it. In this case, the line up does appear to have
significance with regard to the events of S6. Amusing if it's a coincidence, genius if it's intentional. At
this point really, whatever stirs the mind to wile away the summer doldrums is worthwhile. I'm speaking
for myself, of course. ;)
[> [> [> [> Re: My belief... -- O'Cailleagh,
19:03:43 06/04/02 Tue
IMO, the musical was S6 in microcosm. As with the rest of
the show, it was full of foreshadowy goodness.
A few OMWF examples off the top of my
head....
Xander: 'What if Buffy can't defeat it?'
Anya: 'Beady Eyes is right, we're needed.
Or we could just sit around and glare!' (pointedly, to Tara and Willow)
This refers to Ol'
Beady Eyes saving the day ( walking through Willow's 'fire')
Anya interrupts other's verses
three times, and three times she 'interferes'(The protection spell, teleporting into Andrew and Jonathon's
cell, and releasing Willow from the binding spell).
And there are many others that I can't think
of right now...
[> Re: OMWF after season 6 -- snuffynelson, 21:47:02
06/04/02 Tue
I'm glad to see that someone else is as obsessed w/ Hands Across the
Bronze as I am...
Here are some of my thoughts (particularly in relation to the way things
stand at the end of Grave):
I hadn't realized that Buffy was on the opposite end from the four
who brought her back--I was just focussing on the fact that she and Willow were as far apart as possible
and that w/ Tara's death, Willow was physically flung off. (I'm envisioning a game of crack the
whip...)
I also think it's significant that the core four scoobies (Buffy, Giles, Xander, Willow--
our cast for the whole length of the series) are separated in the line-up. It feels vaguely like season four
again--people drifting apart, not because they no longer like each other, but because they've found new
people who are important to them.
At the end of the season, the original eight have been
reduced. Tara is dead, of course--and Spike is either in Africa...or dead (or William in a can, etc). Pull
these two out of the chain, and we have the three pairings that we end up w/ in Sunnydale. Buffy-Dawn,
Giles-Anya, Xander-Willow.
Not certain what it means, but there are too many distinct
patterns lying there for it to be random.
Spike, in relation to Buffy/Spike,
Willow/Tara -- abt, 15:09:16 06/04/02 Tue
Willow abuses Tara, Tara
leaves.
Buffy abuses Spike, Spike doesn't leave.
Spike does leave eventually, but not
because Buffy abuses him.
Spike doesn't leave until he finds his own behaviour towards Buffy
unacceptable. Not Buffy's behaviour towards him. His behaviour towards her.
[> Re: Spike, in relation to Buffy/Spike, Willow/Tara --
Dochawk, 16:21:18 06/04/02 Tue
How many times do we have to go through this?
Spike has abused, lied to and manipulated Buffy to a great degree for long before the AR. There was
nothing healthy about Spike's attachment to Buffy, nor the other way around (at least Buffy was honest
about her using him and that he was a convenience). There is nothing comparable to Willow and Tara's
relationship in Spike and Buffy. Willow made some major mistakes and Tara in a healthy move left. But,
much of the relationship was wonderful and healthy, Buffy/Spike was never healthy.
[> [> Re: Spike, in relation to Buffy/Spike, Willow/Tara (Spoilers
to Grave) -- shadowkat, 16:46:47 06/04/02
Tue
True - much of Willow and Tara's relationship was healthy and much of it was
unhealthy. The part that was unhealthy had to do with Willow's dependence on Tara for her self-esteem
and her well-being. This was in no way Tara's fault. In fact - I think Willow would have problems in any
relationship - she can't have a healthy relationship without severe co-dependency issues. This girl has 0
self-esteem and relies completely on someone else or something else to provide it as proven in her speech
to Buffy in Two-to-Go. Part of the reason Tara died (the mother figure) was to push Willow past her
dependency - Willow has to separate from Tara, her spirit guide, light, and mother figure, to grow into
herself. Just as Joyce had to die to push Buffy to the next level.
I honestly don't think
Buffy/Spike and Willow/Tara are the best comparison outside of the two violations that took place this
year, one attempted and two actual. Willow's violation of Tara's mind was IMHO far worse, because that's
what scares me most - someone taking away my memories, myself, so I have no self, my mind is the most
important thing to me, that type of violation I would have major problems forgiving - but I won't argue it
further with anyone - it's moot now. I should know this is a tough comparison to make since I've tried to
compare the b/s and w/t relationships in five ways..and always run across one major problem. Spike is an
insane vampire struggling with his identity, Tara is a mature, balanced human and wiccan. This does not
in any way excuse Buffy's actions this year - she was a mucho bitca and pretty much reaped what she
sowed - which she admmits to and took full responsibility for in Grave & SR. Just as Spike took
responsibility for his actions in requesting a soul in Grave. The only one who hasn't yet is Willow. Enough
said.
The better comparison which I'm working on now is between Spike/Drusilla and
Willow/Tara. You'll have to wait for my post to see my take on it which will also be marginally compared
to Angel/Buffy. Yes- I desperately need a life. ;-)
OT: does anyone remember the reference to
Tara as Tanaara (sp?) - the Bodhistva (Buddhasitiva sp?) in Indian myth - someone posted on it and I
can't find it in my own archives or in any myth books. Am I losing it? Did I dream it? Help! If you know
please email me.
[> [> [> I did a post called "The Symbolic use of
Tara" -- Rufus, 17:19:19 06/04/02 Tue
Tara
[> [> [> [> "Ah, and what a sublime post it was,
Rufus!! I'd not read it before...much pleasure, " kitty purrs -- redcat, 18:49:59 06/04/02
Tue
[> [> [> [> Thank you! Thank you! This helps... --
shadowkat, 18:57:40 06/04/02 Tue
Was struggling on who the guide was for Tara.
Totally see it for Dru.
Been really loving your posts, Rufus. Actually been quoting a few of
them in my Spike/Willow essays - hope you don't mind, because of all the posters I've read, you have one
of the best takes on what's going on inside the writer's minds and how the writers' view the characters.
(Which let's face it - is what really matters here - at least when it comes to speculation.)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thank you! Thank you! This
helps... -- Rufus, 19:46:07 06/04/02 Tue
I'm always surprised when someone
quotes me it's an honour....thank you and no problem using any of my ramblings.
[> [> [> [> Wow, that was a great post! -- Belladonna,
20:20:32 06/04/02 Tue
[> [> [> Re: Spike/Drusilla and Willow/Tara - Interesting!
Can't wait to see your thoughts. -- Traveler, 18:04:56 06/04/02 Tue
[> [> [> Re: shadowkat's question -- aliera, 18:26:40
06/04/02 Tue
OT: does anyone remember the reference to Tara as Tanaara
I'm sorry I missed the post here but there were a couple of threads at the cross & stake
around this time last month. I also pulled it up on Google.
[> [> Re: Spike, in relation to Buffy/Spike, Willow/Tara --
aliera, 16:50:28 06/04/02 Tue
Probably for as long as the characters are
around...people have very strong feelings about Buffy Willow Xander Tara and Spike and we all bring our
own experiences our own history to the viewing. I hope there's space for that.
The non-digital
world is harsh enough.
[> [> Re: Spike, in relation to Buffy/Spike, Willow/Tara --
abt, 07:21:00 06/05/02 Wed
I think it is a point of interest that the reason Spike
finally breaks off his pursuit is not because of something Buffy did to him, but because of something he
did to her.
[> Breaking it down... -- Tillow, 06:28:02 06/05/02
Wed
You're missing a few crucial steps, abt. Try this.
Relationship
2:
1. Willow violates Tara.
2. Tara leaves.
3. Willow seemingly begins
process of doing the work of gaining a firmer identity on her own.
4. willow actually trying
to please Tara so she'll come back.
5. Tara comes back.
6. Tara dies.
7. Willow violates
world.
8. Willow is redeemed through love.
9. Willow can now begin process of truly doing
work of gaining firmer identity on own.
Relationship #2
1. Spike violates world.
Buffy saves world.
2. Spike and Buffy have tenuous truce leading to quasi-trusting
relationship/friendship.
3. Enters depression sex.
4. Buffy and Spike fall back on old roles
from past relationships. (Buffy, scorned love who keeps evil man at bay. Spike, love's bitca who will do
anything to get his woman.)
5. Ensues abusive relationship based on past pain and baggage
culminating in end of relationship a la Buffy.
6. Spike violates Buffy. (AR in SR violation of trust
and mind if not completely of body)
7. Spike leaves to get soul. (confirmed by Jane
Espenson)
8. Now Spike can begin process of redemption with or without Buffy. I'm thinking
with.
Season 5 Foreshadowing of Descent
(Spoilers) -- AgnosticSorcerer, 18:18:48 06/04/02 Tue
FX played "Crush"
today and a dialouge between Tara and Willow caught my eyes:
Cut to: exterior UC Sunnydale
building, day.
WILLOW VOICEOVER: I just don't see why he couldn't end up with Esmerelda.
Cut to inside. Tara, Buffy, and Willow are walking along the hallways.
WILLOW: They could have the wedding right there. Beneath the very bell-tower where he
labored thanklessly for all those years.
TARA: No, see, it can't, it can't end like that, 'cause all of
Quasimodo's actions were selfishly motivated. He had no moral compass, no understanding of right.
Everything he did, he did out of love for a woman who would never be able to love him back. (They come
to a vending machine and stop walking. Tara digs in her purse. Willow looks in hers as well) Also, you
can tell it's not gonna have a happy ending when the main guy's all bumpy.
Willow takes
some money out of her purse and hands it to Tara, who smiles and turns to the vending
machine.
And then some more foreshadowing:
BUFFY: I-it's just that ... Dawn ...
said that...
XANDER: Yeah?
BUFFY: Forget it.
XANDER: Buffy! (walks toward
her)
BUFFY: She thinks that ... she said that ... (Xander nods, waits for it) Spike's in love with me.
Xander frowns for a second, then bursts out laughing.
BUFFY: I'm not
joking.
XANDER: (still laughing) Oh, I hope not. It's funnier if it's true.
BUFFY: I'm serious.
Xander, this is serious!
He stops laughing with an effort, puts up a hand to show willing.
XANDER: (seriously) All right. (clears throat)
After a moment he snickers and
begins laughing again. Buffy pouts, sits down on a seat, right inside the tape outline of a corpse.
Does ME fill each episode with great foreshadowing like this and we barely even know
it?
[> Re: Season 5 Foreshadowing of Descent (Spoilers) -- Ronia,
18:27:57 06/04/02 Tue
You saw it too! You saw it too! Did you notice how Buffy is
in the same position as the outline? Too funny. Love that ironic humor. How much longer 'till next
season? Can someone more technically advanced than myself make one of those backwards counting
down clocks?
The first time I saw this, I assumed it applied only to the B/S theme. After
watching it tonight I thought it was interesting what position Tara took, compared to Willow. I may be
over reaching....hindisight is a funny little monkey isn't it?
[> Re: Season 5 Foreshadowing of Descent (Spoilers) --
O'Cailleagh, 18:28:33 06/04/02 Tue
The short answer is yes!
Everytime I
watch an old ep, I'm sat there being all 'You see! Grrrr! I knew it!' Which makes for plenty of odd looks
from the people I watch it with!
You could view just about any old ep ( even all the way back
in S1) and find veritable goldmines!
[> [> Re: Foreshadowing goldmines -- pr10n, 10:17:28
06/05/02 Wed
It happened to me last night -- in Earshot we get this Willow/Jonathan
exchange:
starts -->
WILLOW Fantasies are fun, aren't they
Jonathan?
JONATHAN I guess.
WILLOW We all have fantasies where we're
powerful and respected. Where people pay attention to us.
JONATHAN
Maybe.
WILLOW But sometimes the fantasy isn't enough, is it, Jonathan? Sometimes you
have to make it so people don't ignore you. Make them pay attention. You know what I'm talking about,
don't you?
JONATHAN You want me to pay attention?
<--ends
So, duh
it's foreshadowing Superstar, and then wango! it's foreshadowing (wait for the coinage...) WillDOW (big
thankees to Salon, and a breathmint).
Nothing beats the frisson of hind-sighted
foreshadowing.
[> Re: Foreshadowing -- Dochawk, 10:44:34 06/05/02
Wed
Once Joss knows that he is renewed (or the possibility that he will be) he starts
placing hints for teh seasons to come. Restless is the most obvious example. He uses dreams in otehr
places as well.
In Graduation Day part II, Buffy encounters Faith in a dream, where Faith
says "counting down from the big 730" (ok I didn't look up the exact quote). This was in fact the 730 days
from the date of that episode (as origianlly scheduled) to Buffy's death. In an interview, SMG tells us she
didn't undertand this reference (or the multiple Dawn references in the same scene "Little Miss
Muffett")so being sworn to secrecy, he told her that Buffy was to die 2 years later toprotect her little sister
(which was of course the first SMG heard that she had a little sister). I am constantly amazed at how
much planning Joss must do in his brain to have this knowledge ready so much in advance and to place
the seeds. It makes Buffy a so much richer and deeper environment than any other television show in my
memory (I am not a Trekkie, did ST in any incantation do this? otherwise I am not sure any television
show has ever done this before; X-files tries and fails).
[> [> One of the main reasons Eliza Dushku hasn't returned
yet... -- Rob, 11:16:33 06/05/02 Wed
Eliza said in a recent interview that she
would love to return to do "Buffy," but that, in order to do so, she has to give them notice months in
advance, so the writers could start laying seeds of foreshadowing into the earlier episodes of the year, and
she doesn't know if she wants to make that kind of commitment. Yet another clue as to how amazingly
interconnected the "Buffy" episodes are.
And, although many people say that ME have a lot of
continuity errors, I would counter that argument with the fact that, although sometimes some details
change throughout the years, on the whole, the consistency has been amazing for a show now running on
six years, that has a huge, constantly-expanding mythology. Look at the first season episodes and you can
see the seeds for the events of the sixth season. It's quite incredible, actually.
Re: Star
Trek...They do have great consistency, due to a bible they wrote out, which, on the whole, they rarely ever
defy in any episodes, although they did make a few exceptions for "Enterprise," since it's a prequel. I am
not aware of much foreshadowing, at least intentional, but the consistency is, for the most part, pretty
close to perfect.
X-Files...I agree with you. The mythology is way too confusing, and shifts way
too much. There have been great highs that show has had, but it also lets itself spin out of control. The
problem with the show, mainly, was that most of the mythology was made up as they went along, and so
consistency (or making any sense at all) is almost impossible.
The only other shows at the
moment that I think has such great consistency, and even some foreshadowing, are "Farscape" and "Six
Feet Under." While it isn't sci-fi, SFU has amazing continuity. In the first episode, for example, Ruth
makes a throwaway comment about a cousin of hers whose husband left her for a man. And much later in
the season, we meet the cousin. That remark in the first episode could have easily been ignored. I just
noticed it myself, doing the transcripts for my Six Feet Under site. "Farscape," much like "Buffy," is sort
of a novel for television. They plan everything out in advance, and there are little if any completely stand-
alone episodes. In its three seasons, "Farscape" has one of the most complex mythologies arond, second
only to "Buffy." It's not as good as "Buffy" but it's still a great show.
Ramble much?
lol
Rob
[> [> [> Couldn't Joss pony up some money for Eliza's
"down time"? -- cjl, 11:50:01 06/05/02 Wed
Put her on retainer for
six to eight weeks. Would be worth it.
[> [> [> If Eliza Dushku were to return... -- Scroll,
12:14:44 06/05/02 Wed
...it would probably be to 'Angel' first, since Faith actually
gets along with Angel and considers him a friend. Then she could mosey-on up to Sunnydale and compare
notes with Willow on turning to the dark side. She could take on a few Slayer duties and give Buffy a
much needed vacation. And maybe we could get some more synchronnised slaying, which is mucho fun to
watch!
I love the fact that Faith's return from her coma in S4 was foreshadowed in a (shared?)
dream, and since I love dream sequences, I want Buffy and Faith to have a shared dream where they lay
down a foundation for becoming friends again when Faith really does get out of prison. That would be
neat.
Grr, I miss Faith!
[> [> [> continuity of shows -- Robert, 12:16:04
06/05/02 Wed
>> "The only other shows at the moment that I think has such great
consistency, and even some foreshadowing, are "Farscape" and "Six Feet Under." "
"Babylon
5" is the show with the tightest integration. J. Michael Straczynski wrote an entire 5 year story arc before
filming started on the pilot episode. He also wrote many (or most) of the episode scripts. Consequently,
every detail in every episode was likely to have some significance later on. It was almost a game with my
wife and I to spot the details which we knew would be important later on.
Regarding "X-
Files", I'm guessing what happened there is that Chris Carter started with maybe 5 years worth of material
and subsequently attempted to stretch it out to keep the series going. I also wonder if maybe the movie
didn't take too much out of the producers, writers and actors. The show really seemed to suffer after the
movie, almost as if everyone was burned out. Joss Whedon has stated that he does not want to do any
Buffy movies, at least until after the series has run its course. I believe this to be a good
decision.
The continuity of the various Star Trek shows is fairly good internally, but weak
externally. You mentioned "Enterprise", but each spin-off series has, to some extent, repudiated that
which came before. The entire Star Trek franchise doesn't really hold up as a continuous mythology.
Never the less, I have the highest respect for Gene Rodenberry. He gave us quality science fiction on TV
back 1968, when the TV executives didn't even know what science fiction was. It was CBS who rejected
Star Trek because they already had their own sci-fi show (Lost in Space). My complaint with the frachise
is that the producers and writers haven't kept up with the changing times. "Enterprise" feels to me like
more of the same and, while it was really good stuff in its day, it is tired and stale today.
The
main reason that BtVS and AtS haven't had their continuity derailed is the fact that Joss Whedon has
maintain an iron grip on both shows. If he were to ever lose control, I believe that the quality and contuity
would not last very long.
[> [> [> [> Re: continuity of shows -- Rob,
12:29:45 06/05/02 Wed
I've never seen "Babylon 5," although I've heard great things
about it. I would very much like to see it (hopefully it will come out on DVD) because I am a huge
continuity buff and love noticing links between episodes. I used to be a fan of "Xena," which, for the most
part, had good continuity, until the last two seasons, which drove me insane, since all the continuity went
out the window. Flashback episodes were added that didn't fit into the established "past history" timelines
on the show, and even simple remarks that referenced other episodes were sometimes inaccurate. The
worst offense was an episode entitled "Soul Possession." In one scene, we see Xena holding her weapon,
the chakram. Only the problem is, we are seeing the new version of the chakram, which she did not get
until 2 years after the story of this episode takes place.
Shows, like "Buffy" and "Farscape"
and "Babylon 5," wherein episodes are like the chapters of one large book, are my favorites. I love when
subtle references are made to other episodes, especially when they are left unexplained and we have to
find the links ourselves. For example, Willow's "bored now" in "Villains" works well in the context of the
scene, but other layers of meaning are added when we refer back to VampWillow from "The Wish" and
"Doppelgangland." Another current example on "Angel" is in the recent episode Cordelia referred to it
having snowed in Southern California once. That once was, of course, on the "Buffy" episode, "Amends."
I think it would be best if all shows were planned out in advance, although there are of course
problems with that method, since a show could get cancelled, actors may have to leave, plots may not turn
out as well as the writers had wanted, etc. At the very least, I respect shows that remember what has
already been on in previous episodes. Even if the continuity was not planned out in advance, I think it's
important to uphold it in later episodes. If a character is mentioned as having one sibling, in one episode,
the character can't say he has 5 in another.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> Re: continuity of shows -- Robert,
14:25:18 06/05/02 Wed
Rob, I entirely agree with you that serial shows are the most
fun. The continuing story lines also provide great encouragement to come back and watch next week's
episode.
>> "I think it would be best if all shows were planned out in advance,
although there are of course problems with that method, since a show could get cancelled, actors may have
to leave, plots may not turn out as well as the writers had wanted, etc. "
You've identified the
major flaw in a prime time TV serial. It could get cancelled, and possibly at a horrible time. I refer to the
FOX network as the prime example. In an old discussion thread, we identified three science fiction shows
which FOX cancelled in the middle of ongoing cliff-hangers. Except for "Alien Nation", FOX never gave
us the courtesy of resolving the cliff-hangers. I consider FOX to be the most disrepectful of all the
networks to the viewership. For this reason, having "Firefly" on FOX terrifies me.
Even
worse though would be to lose a lead actor. If someone like Geller were to be seriously injured in the
middle of production, how would Mr. Whedon handle it? He wouldn't be able to write her out. I suspect
that the show would have to go on hiatus for the duration of recovery. It's a scary scenario which, no
doubt, concerns him far more than it does us. Didn't UPN recently cancel a show because the lead actor
became ill?
I think the main reason we don't see more prime time serials is because the
networks and independent stations prefer shows which have no necessary order. For instance, a number
of people here have mentioned "Farscape", which is a show that I haven't kept up with. I watched some of
the episodes shown last weekend on Sci-Fi channels "essential Farscape". These were selected episodes
from this current season. Unfortunately, they didn't make a lot of sense to me, since they rely so heavily
on prior episodes which I didn't see. Regardless, I will make a effort to watch the show next season. Once
in syndication, I'm sure the various TV stations would prefer to show the series' in whatever order they
want.
Regarding Babylon 5, the Sci-Fi channel has this show in their day time line-up. You
might want to check it out. Obviously, you will need to catch it when they re-start the series. In the early
90's, it was the best science fiction on television, better even than X-Files.
Xena was an
interesting show. I only watched it for a season and then picked up a few episodes thereafter. I think its
main problem was this it was the unplanned stepchild of the Hercules show. I have a lot of respect for
Xena, if for no other reason than it helped pave the road for BtVS. Plus the writers were doing musical
episodes on Xena long before "Once More With Feeling". Some of the comedic episodes were absolutely
hilarious.
>> "If a character is mentioned as having one sibling, in one episode, the
character can't say he has 5 in another."
... except of course for BtVS. In "Buffy vs. Dracula",
in the same episode, Buffy was both an only child and had a sister. Only Joss could pull that one off.
There's another continuity based show we haven't mentioned here -- Witchblade. It is due to
begin its second season on the 16th of this month. The finale from season one essentially negated nearly
everthing that occured prior. It should be very interesting to see how the writers pick up the series from
here.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Farscape -- Rob, 18:17:49
06/05/02 Wed
I watched the marathon, too...and I understand how it may have seemed a
little...no, very VERY confusing to the uninitiated. "Farscape" is kind of like that. Sometimes even if
you've seen every episode, you can start an episode going "Whaa----?!?"
It's a great show that
is very fast-paced and gives almost no recap of past events before plowing on with the story arcs. It can
leave you quite breathless, and required to watch each episode 3 or 4 times to get all the info right!
Anyway, if you do want to get caught up for the 4th season, which starts this Friday, I'd
recommend going to http://www.farscapeweekly.com because they have an in-depth primer of every
character, major situation, alien race, etc of the show. Another good place to catch up is
http://www.farscapeworld.com
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> Re: continuity of shows --
MaeveRigan, 14:27:57 06/05/02 Wed
"I've never seen "Babylon 5," although I've
heard great things about it. I would very much like to see it (hopefully it will come out on DVD) because I
am a huge continuity buff and love noticing links between episodes."
Reliable rumor has it that
the first season of B5 will be available on DVD later this year. It truly is a marvel, and the first season
isn't even the best.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Ooh, great! Thanks for the info.
:o) -- Rob, 18:10:01 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> Revising Star Trek canon... -- Scroll,
12:41:21 06/05/02 Wed
I never watched Babylon 5 but I hear nothing but good stuff
about it, especially its ability to maintain long arcs over years. Long arcs are the reason I find 'Buffy' and
'Angel' so appealing, the mythology is strong and coherent.
I'm quite fond of 'Enterprise', but I
can understand how many Star Trek fans think this prequel is flying in the face of established canon,
especially in its portrayal of Vulcans. I'm doing my best not be irritated by any inconsistencies I find
because I'm too busy enjoying the show. The character development is phenomenal, and for someone who
began her career as a model, Jolene Blalock is a surprisingly wonderful actor. 'Enterprise' is really much
smarter and more savvy than people give it credit for, the season finale in particular. If you want a good
example of a sci-fi show turning the tired cliche of a deus ex machina on its head, then watch
"Shockwave", the Enterprise finale. I can't wait for Season 2!
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Revising Star Trek canon... --
AgnosticSorcerer, 13:39:36 06/05/02 Wed
On Star Trek: I think one of the major
reasons that the Star Trek continuity faltered was that the shows no longer had Gene Rodenberry to guide
it (he died during one of the ST:TNG episodes).
The Vulcans in "Enterprise" I think are
purposefully being portrayed in such a way to note their infancy in that department. As early as ST:TOS
to as late as ST:VGR we see Vulcans portrayed the same, but I suppose ST:ENT is showing the Vulcans
in a period of their history where they have not mastered their emotions as much as they like to think.
Again, I think it goes well with the storyline as the Federation has not even been formed yet. I'll have to
check my Star Trek Omnipedia for dates of first contact between species and Vulcan/Romulan history.
(Yes, I was a trekkie as well as an uberXena fan.)
The only loose end that bothered me which
even Gene Rodenberry failed to explain was the transition from ST:TOS Klingons to the ST:TNG
Klingons.
Personally, regarding ST:ENT, I would have liked for the next series after
"Voyager" (by the by, the continuity in that series is very good also with the exception of the series finale)
to follow in the foot-steps and go FORWARD in time as opposed to backwards.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Revising Star Trek
canon... -- Robert, 14:56:27 06/05/02 Wed
>> "The only loose end that
bothered me which even Gene Rodenberry failed to explain was the transition from ST:TOS Klingons to
the ST:TNG Klingons."
I really appreciated the Deep Space 9 episode where the writers made
fun of this contradiction. Actually, this contradiction never bothered me because it was obvious that the
issue was technology and money. Remember that the original Star Trek series ran on a budget of about
$200k per episode. They had to invent many of the special effects they used. The original "Planet of the
Apes" movie came out about this time, and it showcased some of the expensive new make-up techniques
and technologies which we now take for granted.
To put it in a different perspective, if you
watch Star Wars episode 5 today, you will see scenes in it that I did not see in 1977 when it first came out.
The issue was money and technology. In this case, Mr. Lucas had the opportunity, and took it, to go back
and finish the movie he had envisioned. Mr. Roddenberry did not have the opportunity to do the same
thing for the original Star Trek series, but that did not preclude him from making Star Trek:The Next
Generation in the way he had envisioned it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Revising Star Trek canon... worst
sin (spoilers for "Journey to Babel" and the fifth movie) -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym,
20:45:52 06/05/02 Wed
I think the worst problem was the shift in Spock's family. In
one of the great episodes, "Journey to Babel," they stressed that Spock was an only child -- it really fired
up the tension between Spock & his father, Sarek.
Then c. 20 years later, in film 5, they invent
a half-brother. Really weakened the concept and angered a lot of old Trek fans, including me. What was
worse was that some semi-capable re-writing could have made the character very close to Spock but keep
the "only child" point.
[> [> [> [> Re:Buffy the Movie (from
darkhorizons.com) -- Dochawk, 13:39:34 06/05/02 Wed
Deeva had emailed me
this earlier and it seems apropos. Doesn't sound like there will be a Buffy movie even after the series
ends, though money changes everything.
Buffy: The Movie: Fans of the great Joss Whedon
show have been holding out hope that after the series ends
next season, the tales of the slayer will go
back to the big screen in the true form it deserves. However in an
interview to be published here
tomorrow, Sarah Michelle Gellar gave a quite unexpected answer to the question
"Are you
committed to doing a film version of Buffy". Gellar replied: "You know, I don't...I'm not in to it,
and
I've got to be honest and say that I believe that, first of all, it was a movie, it didn't work as a
film and we battled
for so long, just getting out from underneath was essentially a failed feature film
and I feel that with the beauty of
the story, that the attachment you have and the ride that you take
with these characters, and I feel like we make
a movie every week. So to take one episode to expand,
it's kind of a waste. And I also feel it's kind of a
shocking thing for television. I feel like it's saying,
well okay, now we move on to bigger things because your
moviegoers expect it, but I am the one
who is actually, I've always said I don't think it's right to be out and I
don't think it's fair". Gellar
also admitted there's no plans to do a follow-up 'musical' episode due to the sheer
amount of
preparation involved.
[> [> [> [> [> Re:Buffy the Movie (from
darkhorizons.com) -- AgnosticSorcerer, 13:42:56 06/05/02 Wed
I think I will
place my trust in Joss and ME concerning this movie issue. If they and the actors feel that a movie will
considerably ruin our perception and love for the show, then I wouldn't want one made.
[> [> [> [> Re: continuity of shows-A kind of OT
Thanks -- Calluna, 18:05:57 06/05/02 Wed
This is going to sound weird, but
bear with me.
I've spent the last 6 months writing a book (actually it will be a series of 6
books). I'm on Ch. 13 of Book one at the moment, but since about March I keep getting big hunks of book
six floating around in my head (like 44 pgs worth). It's really been annoying me, because I should be
working on the first book, but when I read this thread about the continuity of TV shows it suddenly hit me
why this has been happening. There are things that happen in book six that have to be foreshadowed in
the previous 5 books, so I kind of have to figure out what happens in the end to write the beginning.
Has Joss ever talked about whether he has/had everything figured out from the very
beginning? I know Straczynski (Bab 5) did. Is this something that happens a lot (mostly to writers)? I
have to admit I've always loved TV shows (and books for that matter) that were big epic stories with
monumental arcs that were all interconnected. It's kind of fun to finally be writing something that tries to
do the same thing:)
And no. Only four people (at the moment) get to know or read what I'm
writing. I don't know if it's going to go anywhere, but it won't get out of my head. And it's not Buffy
related. Influenced, yes, but not related.
Thanks for helping to finally explain what's been going on
in my head.
Unapologetically OT: The Structure of Evolutionary
Theory. Long, but, hey -- shorter than the book. -- Sophist, 09:04:39 06/05/02 Wed
When I bought this book in February, I rashly promised a review. I didn't stop to think that it
might be impossible to write a standard "review" of "this interminable book" (Gould's own description).
All I can really do is offer some general comments and hit the high points. Any errors regarding the
details of evolution or biology are certainly mine, not Gould's.
The book is difficult to read.
Gould's style has grown discursive, to the point where parentheticals pile on parentheticals. His non-
technical vocabulary is highly sophisticated, and he intended the work to be technical. If you're not
familiar with words like "anagenesis" or "plesiomorphy", be prepared to struggle. The book lacks a much-
needed (by me, anyway) glossary, but there is enough explanation that I was able to follow everything but
the most technical points of some of the evo-devo studies he describes.
Gould is, as we all
know, widely read. The range of quotations from the humanities is impressive: Nietzsche and Milton,
Byzantine mosaics, Civil War history all leaven the technical dough. Gould himself pulls off some
sparkling phrases:
"Facts have no independent existence in science, or in any human
endeavor; theories grant differing weights, values, and descriptions, even to the most empirical and
undeniable of observations." (Page 758)
"...an analogy between speciation and
gestation of an organism may not be ill-conceived." (Page 768).
Or how about these for
our Board:
"...we so often allow our hopes for intrinsic meaning to obscure the realities of a
natural order..." (Page 1232)
"... this debate between immanent vs. narrative styles of
explanation contrasts different modes of factual knowing, and ... both alternatives stand firmly opposed to
trendy and nonsensical claims about the relativity of empirical 'truth' in the light of social embeddedness
for any transiently privileged intellectual procedure. When a champion of contingency ... argues that he
can explain with rigor after the fact what he could not have predicted in principle before the fact, he
presents his best judgment about the empirical structure of historical complexity. Moreover, he does not
confess thereby either any limitation imposed by an inferior form of science, or any irreducible subjectivity
engendered by the admittedly ineluctable interaction of human perception and mentality with external
'reality' in all efforts to understand nature's ways." (Page 1336)
The title of the book
immediately brought to my mind the title of (IMHO) the greatest book published in the 20th Century,
Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I can still remember the profound
impression Kuhn's book made on me. It obviously had a similar impact on Gould, who discusses it in
several places. Though he never says so, I have no doubt Gould consciously chose his title both in
imitation and in expectation.
The Introduction outlines - if you can call 89 pages an "outline" -
the issues that take up the remainder of the book. In brief, Gould argues that the core of Darwin's theory
remains valid and true, but that the Modern Synthesis froze the theory into a rigid structure that now
requires important modifications. He identifies three claims by Darwin that he now sees as incomplete:
that natural selection operates solely on organisms (you, me, the tiger in the jungle); that natural selection
can generate changes in the function of an organism without significant input from structural constraints;
and that the processes of geology we see today are essentially the same as those which occurred in the
past, such that natural selection had the time to generate the diversity we see from small scale processes
we can see for ourselves today.
Gould spends the first 7 chapters reviewing the history of
different theories of evolution, contrasting Darwin (entirely favorably) with the various alternatives, and
ending with the consolidation of Darwin and Mendel in the Modern Synthesis. These chapters serve more
than an historical interest. Gould argues that the themes he emphasizes today have persisted in debates
about evolution since the 18th Century. He then devotes 2 chapters each (2 books each would be more
accurate; one "chapter" covers 279 pages) to the first two proposed modifications and the last chapter to
uniformitarianism.
Gould focuses most of his attention on the issue of levels of selection.
Darwin, of course, did not know about genes and based his argument for natural selection on the
interaction between the organism and the environment. Modern reductionist theories (Williams, but
Dawkins even more) claim that selection operates on the genes alone. Gould (surprise) rejects gene
selectionist arguments. He gives several reasons for doing so, chief among them that selection can only
operate on those "things" that interact with the environment, which genes cannot do in this sense; that
organisms have emergent properties that can't be accounted for by their genes; and that genes are a
bookkeeping device, not interactors with the environment on which natural selection can "cause"
change.
Gould would modify Darwin from the opposite perspective. He asserts that selection
operates at 6 different levels: gene, cell, organism, deme (this is what we might call a subspecies, i.e., a
group that may differ from the species but can still interbreed with it), species, clade. At each level, the
environment selects from the "individuals" which live in that environment. Thus, the gene is the relevant
"individual" in the chemical environment it inhabits, while the species is the relevant individual in the
ecology it inhabits, and so on.
The longest chapter in the book offers an extended defense of
punctuated equilibrium and ties that to the issue of species selection. Most readers familiar with Gould
will find this the easiest chapter to follow. He explains that the concept consists of 2 parts. The simplest is
equilibrium, the fact that species, once they appear in the fossil record, remain virtually unchanged until
they disappear. The more controversial aspect is punctuation. By this, he means that species appear
"suddenly" in the geologic record. Sudden does not mean overnight, it means that our ability to measure
time in geologic strata is not very good. We can't break a bedding plane into annual layers, so 40,000
years or more might be compressed into one "layer".
Darwin argued that speciation occurred
anagenetically. This means that, for example, a species of snail would slowly but surely change over
millions of years, so that at the end of that time a new species would exist. Gould says that punctuated
equilibrium favors a different method of speciation known as allopatric speciation. This means that a
deme somehow becomes isolated from the rest of the species (say, because a new river separates them
from the rest). Eventually, those isolated animals undergo enough genetic change that they are different
from the old species. The reason we don't see this change in the fossil record is that genetic change begins
in a small, isolated population. He cites studies showing that both types occur, but claims that the studies
indicate that allopatric speciation and punctuated equilibrium are much more common.
Gould
argues that the pattern of punctuated equilibrium supports the concept of species selection. In essence, he
says that the stability of species allows them to interact with the environment in a way that is analogous to
the way individuals like people do. He also emphasizes that changes at a small scale, even if they operate
over a long expanse of time, often cannot explain trends in groups (like increasing brain size in hominids)
or the differences in diversity among groups (why there are 300,000 species of beetles and only 4,000 of
mammals). We must, Gould says, look for explanations at a higher level than the gene or organism if we
are to explain these, and species selection offers this.
Gould devotes a long appendix to the
chapter on punctuated equilibrium to the various controversies that have followed the theory since he and
Niles Eldridge first offered it. In one way, this is a very interesting, if admittedly partisan, account of the
criticisms. On the other hand, I've always found much of the controversy distasteful, since it tends to bog
down in petty and often personal terms (are you listening Daniel Dennett?). I would have omitted this
section; historians of science will sort it all out if necessary.
The strongest internal challenge to
Darwin has always come from structuralists. They have contended that natural selection cannot create
new forms, but that only the basic chemistry and physics controlling the laws of development can do this.
Gould rejects the more extreme arguments of the structuralists and favors natural selection as the agent for
change in many or even most cases (the exact percentage to be determined empirically). However, he does
contend that the laws of development do constrain natural selection in its ability to create new
forms.
There are 2 types of constraints. Negative constraints simply prevent new forms from
arising. These are not controversial - everyone agrees that elephants can't grow wings, and that they
couldn't fly if they did. Positive constraints are the heart of the structuralist case. These "channel" the
development of the organism into certain patterns of change. Gould asserts that recent developments in
the study of evolutionary development ("evo-devo") require us to take seriously the possibility that some
change occurs as a result of positive constraints rather than by natural selection.
The data of
evo-devo demonstrate that there are homologies (common pathways of development) that reach far back
in time. In particular, Gould's excitement about homeobox genes is palpable. These genes control the
order in which body parts are generated. For example, they tell an arthropod to make the first segment a
head, the second segment wings, the third segment legs, etc. It turns out that these genes exist in similar
form in phyla separated by 550 million years of evolution.
This means that natural selection
must operate in a context of far greater constraint, positive and negative, than would be expected if natural
selection alone changed the function of an organ or other body part. Among other insights, this explains
why we see such gaps in the various body forms that animals have, that is, why cats and dogs, for
example, don't have intermediate forms. The pure selectionist would argue that this occurs because such
intermediate forms are not well adapted for some reason. Gould suggests that it is the difficulty of making
such forms through the developmental process which accounts for this fact.
The other half of
the structuralist argument covers Gould's claim for the importance of spandrels. A spandrel is an
architectural term for something that wasn't deliberately designed, but occurs in a building as a side
consequence of something that was designed. Gould provides a visual metaphor for this concept
with the Cathedral of San Marcos in Venice. This Cathedral has a dome in the shape of a hemisphere
sitting on top of four rounded arches in the shape of a square. The natural result of this shape is that there
are 4 triangular spaces that exist between the dome above at each corner where 2 arches come together
below the dome (this is hard to visualize, easy to see with a picture; maybe someone more computer
literate than I can link to a picture).
The point of this metaphor is that there are aspects of
organisms which arise for similar reasons. They do not exist because of natural selection, but merely as a
side effect of selection for something else. For example, the now-extinct Irish "elk" (actually a deer) grew
huge antlers. A side consequence of these antlers was a hump on the neck for the extra neck muscles
necessary to support the antlers. The hump was a spandrel; natural selection did not create it per
se.
There are several consequences of spandrels in evolution. One is that it is a mistake to
think of every characteristic of an animal as an adaptation. We have to be careful in saying, for example,
that male nipples have some adaptive purpose; more likely, men have nipples because women need them
(an adaptation for women) and both sexes follow a similar developmental pathway.
Another
consequence is that we have to distinguish how something arose from how it is used now. In San Marcos
Cathedral, the spandrels had no original purpose. However, they were later used by artists and decorated
in themes consistent with those used in the dome itself. Similarly, a feature of a creature (sorry, couldn't
resist) might arise as a spandrel, but later take over an adaptive function by the action of natural selection.
Gould enlivens his discussion here with a lengthy description of Nietzsche's The Genealogy of
Morals, in which Nietzsche makes a similar point to distinguish the origin of a rule of moral behavior
from its current use.
The last, and shortest, section of the book challenges Darwin's assumption
that natural selection has operated under essentially uniform conditions throughout the long history of the
earth. Darwin needed such uniform conditions in order to make his argument that species could improve.
Darwin identified 2 types of competition: between the animal and the environment, and between two
animals. The first was unlikely to lead to improvement in the animal, but the second could (cheetahs
generally could become faster by competition with other cheetahs and with gazelles because the slower
cheetahs would not leave as many descendants).
The problem is that Darwin did not account
for mass extinctions, especially those caused by events unrelated to the general survivability of a species.
If an asteroid hits the earth, the fact that dinosaurs were well adapted for 140 million years before that is
pretty much irrelevant. Mass extinctions are more frequent, more rapid, more intense, and more different
in their effects than Darwin would permit. We cannot merely extrapolate from processes we see today in
order to explain how life got to its current state. This means that the factual assumption Darwin made in
order to accommodate his concept of "progress" is not true. The "progress" of the dinosaurs was
completely undone by the impact that caused their extinction; it was the previously unsuccessful species
which replaced them. This calls into question the entire vector of progress that Darwin built into his
theory. At a broad scale, the history of life on earth is far more random than usually
acknowledged.
As I read back over this summary, I'm greatly disappointed. A review like this
cannot possibly state Gould's arguments in the detail they deserve. The biologists on the Board may see
the omissions as holes in Gould's arguments. Those not familiar with the subject may be unable to follow
his points because I left out an essential step. The book itself does not suffer from these flaws. Gould's
argument is extraordinarily subtle and complex. He weaves together a tapestry of metaphor and erudition,
logic and fact, that remains cohesive over 1343 pages. That's remarkable.
Darby commented a
couple of times that Gould needs an editor. I was going to develop this at some length, but intervening
events caused me to reflect on Mark Twains' famous postscript: "I apologize for the length of this letter. If
I'd had more time, I'd have made it shorter." Stephen Jay Gould didn't have more time. Now that I'm able
to look back with satisfaction on having read the book, as opposed to looking forward with trepidation on
struggling through it, I'm glad to have his thoughts in such copious detail.
[> Tiny addendum, if I may -- Masq, 09:23:27 06/05/02
Wed
Just to keep the equilibrium on the board (*snerk*).
Sophist's post is
part of a long-standing on-going discussion among biology enthusiasts on the board and is in no way a
response to any of the issues raised by Ronia below.
As for the OT nature of the thread, I've
enjoyed the biological discussion that has appeared on this board from time to time. Of course, I taught
this stuff for eight years in my Philosophy of Biology course and would rather be an observer of it
now!
[> 'As I read back over this summary, I'm greatly disappointed' -
Please don't be! -- OnM, 09:54:53 06/05/02 Wed
As someone who over the last
several years has managed to not finish many other books that were a mere few hundred pages,
let alone over a thousand, your summary provided me with some additional enlightenment on a subject
that interests me, but that is not one I have great time to pursue.
So, big time thanks for your
'succinctness'!
Learn somthin' new every day...
:-)
[> Thank you! -- Darby, 10:16:32 06/05/02 Wed
Part of what I've seen change in Gould over the last few years' Natural History
columns has been length, true, but also unnecessary convolutions - I don't think any of the editors felt
comfortable saying, "Steve, couldn't you make this point more clearly?" Comparing his early work to the
later, I don't really think his prose got more dense on its own, I suspect it had always been that way in
draft.
Sophist, this was an excellent review, which I appreciate because I just don't have the
patience for a first-hand experience (I'm lazy, I'll admit it). I've always found Gould an excellent example
of a great thinker, a reasonable and eloquent man, who became linked to an idea (punctuated equilibrium)
so firmly that it became the huge blind spot in his life. I've never understood how the facts that a)
evolution is driven by critical aspects of the environment and b) critical aspects of the environment change
at different rates - sometimes slowly if at all, often rapidly between periods of stability, usually differently
in different parts of the same "place" (there are a lot more mini-environments affecting beetles than
mammals!) - have led to two camps who each feel that the pattern of evolution has to follow only one of
those two paces.
But I now feel like I have some idea of the content of this book I'm not going
to read. You've performed a great semi-public service!
[> I agree with OnM (and a few thoughts) -- matching mole,
11:27:46 06/05/02 Wed
First of all Sophist you have my gratitude and admiration for
actually reading the entire book and for writing such a clear summary of it. I'm sure you did leave a lot
out but how could you not? In fact when you quote Gould I found your straightforward writing much
more enjoyable than his greater verbosity.
Unfortunately this is a very busy week for me and
I'm leaving on vacation on the weekend so I don't have time to comment as much as I might like. My
problem with Gould has always been that he seems to make mountains out of molehills (no pun intended).
I think this is largely a matter of perspective.
I would, very roughly, divide biologists who
study evolution into three groups, based not on philosophy but practical approach. One group I'll call the
evolutionary ecologists. Their approach is to study evolutionary processes as they are happening, in wild
populations of organisms. This sort of work can include anything from the adaptive story-telling
criticized by Gould and others to enormously detailed studies of single populations that can go on for
decades.
The second group are the evolutionary geneticists. They study the interaction
between the genetic structure of organisms and evolutionary forces. Evolutionary genetics is largely an
experimental, lab-based field but there is a fair amount of field work as well.
The third group
are the comparative or pattern oriented evolutionists. They are interested in large-scale, long-term
evolutionary patterns that cannot be easily be studied in real time. The processes that caused the patterns
must be inferred rather than directly observed.
The distinction between these three groups is
much less clear now than it was twenty years ago largely because technical advances in molecular biology
have allowed biologists to ask questions they couldn't have dreamed of in the 1970s. But I think it is
somewhat useful. Gould, as a paleontologist, is clearly primarily a pattern evolutionist. I was trained
primarily in the ecological side of things but with a heavy emphasis on genetics.
What Gould
sees as a revolutionary idea might seem only mildly interesting to a geneticist. Punctuated evolution is a
good example. The pattern of stasis interupted by periods of rapid evolution in and of itself scarcely raises
the geneticist's eyebrow. To her/him evolution is the change in frequency of genes in a population over
time. The fact that it happens faster at some times than others because of external factors is interesting
but doesn't really affect the structure of (their) evolutionary theory. However if you suggest that the rapid
evolution is caused by macromutations (single changes in genes that have very large effects on the
organisms bearing them) then the geneticists get upset. As I understand it Gould has largely or wholly
abandoned the idea of macromutations.
The other issue is one of his ideas about natural
selection which seem a bit odd to me. I really don't follow the argument that the hump of muscle in the
Irish elk is any less of an adaptation (i.e. the product of natural selection) than the antlers. This is called
correlative selection - selection favoured (presumably) elk with large antlers and large humps over any
other combination. It is true that the hump is only useful in the context of having antlers - I don't think
even the most naive of adaptationists would argue otherwise. But I would argue that the reverse is also
true - the antlers are only useful in the context of having a strong enough hump to support
them.
I am really behind at work now but I have one more thing to add which is a question to
Sophist. Did you bring in the dog/cat intermediate form example yourself or did Gould? I wouldn't
expect you to know this (but I would Gould) but within Carnivores dogs and cats are not particularly
closely related (dogs are more closely related to bears, cats to hyaenas). The common ancestor of cats and
dogs probably didn't look too much like either of them.
[> [> Thanks to you, Masq, OnM and Darby for your kind
words -- Sophist, 12:36:40 06/05/02 Wed
Your distinction between types of
evolutionists is new to me and interesting. Thanks. Gould divides them into population geneticists,
paleontologists, and damn I've forgotten the third category.
To answer your question, Gould is
the one who used the cats and dogs example (I can't find it right now, but I believe I got it right). He was
discussing Dobzhansky's concept of peaks of adaptive fitness as explaining the clumping seen in
morphospace. His point was not that the two species are closely related (of course they're not), but that
here are two carnivores which vary widely in bodyplan, and there are no intermediates despite the fact that
it seems easy to design an intermediate that would be well adapted to the same role.
Your point
about the hump is fair. I chose this example (Gould did use it) because his other example involved snails
and their chambers, and was a bit obscure even though it supported his point better. I'm sure Gould would
agree with you; he only meant that the hump itself was not directly selected for. He went on to comment
that the hump was then exapted (his term) for sexual selection, which we know from cave paintings
showing its color.
Gould vehemently denies that he ever favored macromutations or saltation
as part of punk eek. He does adopt the view that speciation is the method by which adaptations are
preserved and fixed, but the rate of change is independent of this.
Enjoy your vacation.
[> Even more unapologetically OT: Green Eggs & Ham was the
greatest book published in the 20th century! -- Caroline (hijacking the thread), 13:32:26 06/05/02
Wed
Wow, great work Sophist. Got a little lost but I know just enough about this to
appreciate your efforts. And, I just felt like having some fun with Dr. Seuss!
[> Amazing post, Sopist!! & great response, matching mole --
redcat, 14:03:36 06/05/02 Wed
This is an incredible review essay!! Thanks so much
for taking the time to write it. And thanks to matching mole for his(?) response, especially the discussion
about Gould's example of the elk's hump, which also bothered me. But then I know almost nothing about
any of this stuff, except about the ways Gould has been used by historians and cultural critics, which is a
very different thing than understanding the ideas of Gould himself. And I very much appreciate the
wonderful clarity of your writing, Sophist, both here and in other posts. You've given us much to think
about.
[> Ahhhh, brain buzz. Thanks, Sophist! Great work on a subject I
love. -- mundusmundi, 15:14:08 06/05/02 Wed
[> Thanks! -- d'Herblay, 15:33:05 06/05/02 Wed
I finally ordered the book on Tuesday. Should I promise my own review in, maybe,
November?
[> Excellent review, Sophist, thank you. -- Ixchel, 18:26:07
06/05/02 Wed
You shouldn't be disappointed at all. I think you represented Gould's ideas
(that I know from his non-specialist works) quite clearly (and these concepts can be very elusive to grasp
fully).
Now, I know I must read this book eventually, daunting though it is.
I
especially liked the "intrinsic" quote you chose for this Board. Very fitting!
Ixchel
Afterlife Thoughts on *Bargaining* - Eine grosse
nacht-anguish, fer sure... -- OnM, 09:22:28 06/05/02 Wed
I'm going to
start off by quoting myself-- this is from the very first of my season 6 ep reviews, which I
wrote after
viewing Bargaining Pt's I &
II:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~
*******
It was so... clear... on this spot. I remember how... shiny... and
clear... everything was. But now... now...
*******
I will make a prediction that this
episode will cause a lot of division of opinion among the Buffyverse faithful, for in the entire five years
that I have watched this series, I simply cannot recall a darker episode than Bargaining.
Make
no mistake, I find myself-- as is usually the case with the writers and actors of the Buffyverse-- in awe of
people who take what should be the most banal of cliches and turn them into something as powerful and
disturbing as this is. I'm thinking of all the carping and bitching of those who, when the first (now
obviously fairly accurate) spoilers were leaked in the early summer, were immediately presuming that 'it
could never work', 'it's too trite', 'oh please, not a spell', 'oh please not more of the Buffybot', etc. etc. Well,
they were wrong. The writers and actors did it, they made it work, and they kept it reasonably true to the
mythology as it has so far been presented over the last five years.
Joss has stated on many
occasions that he writes for the fans, and that he gives them what they need, not necessarily what they
want. For sure, when I tuned in last evening, as anxious as any out there to see how the very non-trivial
issue of death and rebirth/resurrection was going to be taken in hand, I really didn't want to see the results
that I saw.
Not because it was done badly, but because there is only so much pain one cares to
stand, and Bargaining is all about pain, and guilt, and loss, and how to deal with it. As one ATPo
poster has already remarked, this is still a show that doesn't pull any punches, and I feel pretty safe in
saying that there must be many out there like myself who were left reeling by what for all intents and
purposes amounts to the pyschological rape of the heroine who, three short/long months ago, so willingly
gave the ultimate gift of her life to save those that she
loved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~
OK, back to the present again, and some additional thoughts after watching the
rebroadcast of Bargaining Pt. II last night, which I followed up by digging out my tape of the next
ep, Afterlife, and then watching it again also.
You know, even after six full years of
watching BtVS, I had always considered the most powerful, emotional moment of the series to be the one
after Buffy 'kills' Angel and then worse yet, sends him to suffer in 'hell' in Becoming Part II. Yes,
I agree that there are many other times that come very close, possibly even equal it, such as in The
Body/Forever, or Spike's sudden change of heart after seeing Buffy steeped in sorrow over her
inability to help her mother in Fool for Love.
None of these, in my current opinion, can
equal what what transpired in this trilogy of episodes, once you look at them with the benefit of knowing
what we didn't when Bargaining was first broadcast last fall. Again, quoting my
review:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~
A large part of the disquiet I feel so far towards this new season is directly a result of
Sarah and her work.
She now completely inhabits this character, and all of the character's
incarnations. Effortlessly (or so it
seems, of course we know it's anything but effortless in actual
practice), she moves between the endearing perkiness and surprising warmth and presence of the
Buffybot, into the haunted, soul-ravaged visage of the resurrected NeoBuffy, the latter portrayal in
particular so heart-rending that I shudder to think from what part of her psyche she somehow pulled those
emotions out of. The scene on the tower, where the positions have now reversed, and it becomes Dawn
who must save her, and by extension the rest of humankind, is a flawless counterpoint to the way the
previous season ended. Gellar's dead-on reading of the critical moment conveys to us a clear emotional
understanding of that existential despair that NeoBuffy faces, and why she would consider leaping to her
death not as an act of heroism, but only to seek the solace of unsensing, unfeeling oblivion. This would be
an act that no one would ever associate with the original Buffy we all know and admire, the one who
understood the nature of love, and whose soul both recognized and seized upon that one perfect moment
of spiritual clarity and brightness, and did what needed to be done, to the saving of us all. No matter how
skillfully this scene was written and directed, it required the actor to make us accept the unthinkable, and
believe it to be real. Sarah came through. I bow down most humbly in
appreciation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
... and why she would consider leaping to her death not as an act of
heroism, but only to seek the solace of unsensing, unfeeling oblivion ...
Oh, but now we
know why, don't we? It wasn't about 'unsensing, unfeeling oblivion', was it? The elemental horror is now
multiplied several-fold. Things move from heartbreaking but earthly angst into 'My God, why have
you abandoned me?' soul-rending territory. This new knowledge does make perfectly clear the
why behind the character's motivations, which leads me to a subject for possible
discussion:
How much sacrifice is enough?
Several times over the
past year or so I've used the term 'grace' when referring to what I consider one of Buffy's most admirable
qualities. Maybe the term comes readily to me because of a Catholic upbringing as a young child, and the
regular repetition of the phrase 'Hail Mary, full of Grace' during prayers. Is Buffy Mary? Mary had
to endure the sorrow of watching her son die on the cross, (as Buffy had to watch her lover drawn into
hell) but on the other hand, one presumes that Mary has never been called back from heaven to suffer
some more in the earthly plane. Even Jesus, who did reappear briefly as a mortal after his death, still
ended up back in heaven in fairly short order.
In Afterlife, Buffy chooses to deceive her
friends about the true horror of her plight in order to spare their feelings, because (being 'full of Grace')
she understands that they meant well, that they were trying to help her, and also do a good deed
for the world by returning a warrior for good to it.
It takes her the rest of the season to 'recover'
and regain some perspective of 'moving on', and dealing with the 'fate' you have been dealt as best as
humanly possible. She does so, ultimately, for the same reason that she initially lies to her friends--
because she loves them, and wants to see them happy. Her happiness is a reflection of theirs, surely a 'state
of grace'.
Now granted, the whole point of the season would be lost if this arc had not been
followed, but as a theoretical quandry to address, should Buffy have 'fessed up' right off the bat, and told
her friends the truth? Would this have diminished her 'grace' to any degree to have done so?
In
the 'real world', where practicality often tends to rule over spiritual goals, it would make sense for her to
tell them, thus sparing her soul much personal anguish over the months to come. But Buffy is a 'hero', and
heroes have an obligation to set an example.
Your
thoughts?
*******
BTW, as an aside, an interesting experiment some of you
may wish to try: You may have noticed that I referred to the first three eps of S6 as a 'trilogy'. I feel this to
be the case, and that the airing of Bargaining in seperate parts, rather than a seamless two-hour
show makes this organization significantly clearer.
If you have two VCRs, or ready access to a
second one, try making a copy of the first three eps, filtering out all the commercials, and splicing the
three eps together into one continuous 2 hr and a few minutes long 'movie'. Then, watch it that way,
preferably with other friends/fans who have never seen it presented in this format.
Is it a
'movie', or still three eps? I vote 'movie'-- like the quasi-cliffhangers of previous season-enders, this trio of
eps is, in a way, completely 'self-contained'. The story could have ended at the end of Afterlife,
and Ingmar Bergman or one of those other gloomy, broody director-types would have been much pleased,
methinks!
What say you?
*******
[> Re: Afterlife Thoughts on
*Bargaining* - Eine grosse nacht-anguish, fer sure... -- Ete, 09:46:58 06/05/02 Wed
You says : "It takes her the rest of the season to 'recover' and regain some perspective of
'moving on', and dealing
with the 'fate' you have been dealt as best as humanly possible. She does so,
ultimately, for the same
reason that she initially lies to her friends-- because she loves them, and
wants to see them happy. Her
happiness is a reflection of theirs, surely a 'state of
grace'."
I disagree. I took Buffy's final going back to life as the realisation that she has to enjoy
life for herself, not by duty for her friends or the world. Ofcourse, her friends and family is also a big part
of it, but the realisation comes when Dawn asks her if she wanted to see the world end... and Buffy says
with vehemence of course not !
This is a season that showed how too much of rightousness
could lead to darkness and evil.
Sometimes it's more healthy to be a little
selfish.
There's no respect of the others without self-respect.
[> Re: Afterlife Thoughts on *Bargaining* - Eine grosse nacht-
anguish, fer sure... -- Deeva, 10:30:23 06/05/02 Wed
The trilogy idea is an
interesting idea. And now thinking about it, I think that you're right about the first 3 of S6 being a
"movie". The feeling I get is that it all takes place in one looong night and then the day after, maybe
roughly 24 hours. I just know, now that I've typed that, that I'll be corrected about the actual
timeline.
[> [> Which ties in perfectly to the finale
"Quartet"... -- Rob, 11:02:22 06/05/02 Wed
Just as the first three
episodes of the year can be seen as one continuous movie, so can, I believe, the last four episodes. "Seeing
Red" leads directly into "Villains," which leads directly into "Two to Go," which leads directly into
"Grave." The story picks up in each episode exactly where the previous one left off. Further, just as the
end of "Bargaining" through the early part of "After Life" are the same night, and then the day after, the
end of "Villains" all the way through the middle of "Grave" take place in the same night, and then the
morning after. There's nice symmetry to that.
Rob
[> Re: Afterlife Thoughts on *Bargaining* - Eine grosse nacht-
anguish, fer sure... -- ponygirl, 13:23:44 06/05/02 Wed
Lovely post OnM!
Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing -- watching Bargaining 1 & 2 was so much easier to watch
now that I can see it as part of the larger whole. Not that I didn't appreciate the ep. the first go around,
but now I can enjoy the setup of the arcs. What really struck me in Bargaining 2 was the scene in the
woods where Tara hands over the care of the unconscious Willow to Xander. He promises to look after
her for Tara. So good! Foreshadowing that you can only appreciate now that it's all over! (or is that
pretty much what foreshadowing is?)
[> [> Re: Afterlife Thoughts on *Bargaining* - Eine grosse
nacht-anguish, fer sure... -- maddog, 09:32:39 06/06/02 Thu
Its an interesting
point that you make about appreciating the season so much more now...after you've seen how effective the
arcs were in the end. It happens EVERY year and yet every year at the midway point there's one group of
people that are ready to write the show off cause it just doesn't make sense to them. But by season's end
90% of them go, "Oh, I get it now". People have to learn patience. We don't always get what we want
when we want it.
[> Tara as Tinker Bell (Season 6/Peter Pan Spoilage) -- Jon,
14:00:54 06/05/02 Wed
I was struck by the Tara as Tinker Bell bit - the light she
sends flitting through the woods in search of Willow & Xander. Xander draws attention to it explicitly
saying something like, "how long have you known your girlfriend is Tinker Bell?" to
Willow.
Was this already discussed? Two things:
1)what's Peter Pan's motto? "I'll
never grow up" - isn't that it? And the theme of Season 6? "Oh grow up." Hmm.
2)Does
Tinker Bell nearly die in every production of Peter Pan - having to be coaxed back to life by the magic of
audience participation? One of my co-workers says so. What is it that the audience has to say? "I do
believe...in magic? in faeries?" Anyway, um, Tara dies at the end of season 6. What does the audience
have to do to bring her back?
Jon
[> [> Clap if you believe in Tara -- cjl, 14:09:27
06/05/02 Wed
And it could also mean that Tara will be a sort of faerie or spirit presence
in Season 7...
[> [> [> Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap (hehe) -- Scroll,
15:42:13 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> Speculations on S7- spoilers for late S6 &
"Truly Madly Deeply" -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 14:56:32 06/05/02 Wed
Apparently Amber Benson is on retainer for S7; people have wondered why. The idea of a
lost Tara as a ghost or spirit occasionally leaves me with "Oh, good God" as a reaction; hasn't it been done
before?
Of course, some of the "doing-before" wasn't bad at all -- I'm rather partial to "Blithe
Spirit" (played successfully for laughs), "The Ghost & Mrs. Muir" (both the 1940s version and (at times)
the 1960s television show) and, of course, the 1992? '93? "Truly Madly Deeply," with Alan Rickman as a
romantic lead and Juliet Stevenson as his bereaved lover.
I might see something of this in
Tara's spectral return; she could have the job of Rickman's character in the film. For the protection of the
world she may have to reconcile Willow to her own loss. Who knows?
Last word on "Truly
Madly Deeply" -- the last scene is, was magnificent. In fifteen seconds and no words it said more than
many films accomplish in two hours.
[> [> [> Re: Speculations on S7- spoilers for late S6 &
"Truly Madly Deeply" -- Dochawk, 18:45:00 06/05/02 Wed
In
Restless Tara's spirit was Buffy's guide to finding herself and her friends. Will she do so again (and be
Buffy's guide not Willow's)? The alternate possibility is Ripper, which is supposedly about ghosts and
Giles. Could Tara be a good ghost who helps Giles in whatever role the PTB demand of him? (Like
Phantom Dennis, but more mobile and not so see through)
[> [> [> Re: Speculations on S7- spoilers for late S6 &
"Truly Madly Deeply" -- cjc36, 09:17:03 06/06/02 Thu
Also,
flashbacks and dreams would require AB's presence on set.
[> [> [> God, I love that movie -- dream of the
consortium, 10:59:05 06/06/02 Thu
I'm not the type to cry at movies (except if I'm
underslept, in which case I cry at anything), but that one reduces me to a quivering mass every time.
I would like to see Tara in the Rickman role, it could make sense. At the same time, I am
very glad they didn't do that right away, as I rather expected. I felt that if Tara (as a ghost) had been the
one to pull Willow back from the brink, the point that her death was real and unchangeable would have
been lost. Willow had to start to recover from the death of her lover without the help of her lover, which
is one of the worst aspects of that sort of loss - the horrible moments when you need someone to talk to
and think first to call the very person you lost. I really felt that Xander was the more meaningful choice.
But, Willow has a long haul in front of her and a ghost Tara might work at some point.
I think
I would prefer, though, that Buffy sees Tara. Tara's role in Restless and the support she gave Buffy this
year seem to make this a possibility. I am hoping that the "going back to the beginning" theme will mean
investigating the roots of the Slayer, and Tara could serve as a spiritual guide for Buffy in this. And
wouldn't the complications be delicious if Buffy could see Tara, or even a spirit who looked like Tara, and
Willow couldn't? Would Buffy tell Willow? (Will Buffy actually start telling people things now?) How
would Willow react? What if Tara sent Willow an occasional simple message - "Tell Willow I love her" -
but only appeared at length to Buffy. Will Willow learn to speak her anger and resentment and jealousy,
instead of hiding behind the innocent exterior until she is boiling with rage?
When does the
next season start?
[> Re: Afterlife Thoughts on *Bargaining* - (& spoilers for
*Grave*) -- MaeveRigan, 14:19:14 06/05/02 Wed
"Several times over the past
year or so I've used the term 'grace' when referring to what I consider one of
Buffy's most admirable
qualities."
Enjoyed your whole re-review of "Bargaining," OnM. Thanks!
As for
Buffy as instrument or means of grace, it occurs to me now that although "The Gift"/"Bargaining 1&2"
reveal her as a type of Christ-figure--dying to save the world, being resurrected--she's much more of a
"humanistic" version of this hero-type than is Xander of "Grave" (I'll get to that), simply because of her
reluctance to be back in the world, her unwillingness or inability to resume her mission (the whole "going
through the motions" thing), and the way that, well, let's face it--she's less than heroic throughout most of
B6.
Before the anti-Xander crew's shouts bring down the site, here's my still somewhat-
incoherent theory. Xander is usually presented to us as a total incompetent (although one can cite many
times when he demonstrated surprising competence), as a foolish jokester (that's important), and as self-
righteous and judgmental--in other words, a man of many flaws. Not saying those things aren't true. And
yet, again and again, Xander is the heart of the gang, the one who can feel truly, make an acceptable
offering. In "Grave," he's acting from another tradition: the Holy Fool, also a Christ archetype. We could
also see him as King David--capable of the sublime and the ridiculous and the truly horrific, but always
asking in the end, "What would Buffy do?" (Buffy being Xander's highest moral model; God, of course,
was David's). In the Christian tradition, David, too is read as a type of Christ, for various reasons. In
*Grave*, Xander acts not as the glorious, divine, heroic Christ-figure (Buffy in *The Gift*), but as the
human, suffering, foolish Christ-figure, the one who talks funny ("parables" just a fancy word), the one
who eats with outcasts (ex-demons?), the one who likes children (Dawn? Snoopy dance?), the one who
gets beaten up, and just keeps saying (sometimes metaphorically), "I love you." Xander doesn't have to
actually die, as Buffy did, for the parallel to be there.
Some people are outraged because
Xander got to save the day because he's not "good enough." Flannery O'Connor would have understood.
Grace is made perfect in weakness.
[> [> Meaning of Alexander -- Vickie, 22:55:59
06/05/02 Wed
Protector of mankind
I'd guess NOT an accident.
[> [> Re: Afterlife Thoughts on *Bargaining* - (& spoilers
for *Grave*) -- maddog, 09:49:46 06/06/02 Thu
I'd like to take to task those that
found his saving the day to be a bad thing...he wasn't good enough...don't you get it...that's the whole f'ing
point. Xander is the screw up. The normal one. The soldier without powers or capabilities. Yet in the
end it didn't take something like that. It took him being himself. It took his HUMANITY to save the
world. The simplicity alone had me thinking about the show for days. That and the fact that in a show
full of the supernatural they gave the big save to the one person who felt useless. To the one that shouldn't
have been able to do it. To Xander, the regular guy. There's a certain uplifting feeling I got out of that.
One of those, I can take on the world type feelings.
[> [> [> You got it! I get that. -- MaeveRigan,
10:23:07 06/06/02 Thu
[> I agree with Ete's above post. And I agree with you, OnM, ...
-- Ixchel, 20:44:08 06/05/02 Wed
Regarding SMG's amazing performance. It must be
difficult to express depression and then the overlay of false normality. BTW, I miss the Buffybot, she
_was_ endearing.
"How much sacrifice is enough?" I'm not sure, maybe at the point you no
longer wish to give? Then it changes from sacrifice to obligation or theft?
As to "grace", I
understand why Buffy wished to spare her friends and this is an admirable part of her personality (her
protective aspect). She wanted to protect them from their own guilt and her pain (which she continued to
try to do even after they knew about "heaven"). But, she was only hurting them and herself by not being
honest. I don't believe that her silent suffering benefited anyone, or set a good example. She distances
herself from her friends by sparing them and denies them the primary chance to truly assist her in
adjusting (as right after OMWF Willow's problems begin). I don't judge Buffy for behaving the way she
did (also, Willow and Xander are somewhat willfully ignorant), she is so confused and lost, she follows
her usual pattern (I believe that NA explained a great deal about this). I think it's a testament to her
strength that she was able function (even poorly) given the depth of depression I perceived. OTOH, this
strength enables her to maintain a facade (almost the entire season) of being mostly whole, when she is
really so broken. IMHO, there is a certain embittering quality of too much selflessness that creates a
convoluted arrogance (a martyrdom) that can be as corrosive to a personality as selfishness. I believe this
is what was happening to Buffy. And any anger she felt toward her friends (IMHO, feelings aren't
rational, they just are) she directed towards herself and Spike.
Ixchel
[> [> Great post, Ixchel -- Rahael, 01:47:14 06/06/02
Thu
and to go slightly off topic. Much is said about how difficult depressed people are to
be around. Well, it was certainly hard to be depressed. But now with the perspective of not being so, and
of being close to two really great human beings who are, I have to say that both of them share a common
characteristic. A real sensitivity to others, and a degree of insight and awareness others don't have.
Despite those who would argue otherwise, I would say that Buffy has shown the first characteristic this
season, but not so much of the second.
[> [> [> Thank you, Rahael. You make an interesting point
about depression. -- Ixchel, 17:38:40 06/06/02 Thu
I believe I know what you
mean about sensitivity, people who are so despairing can, maybe, perceive sadness in others and aren't
afraid of it, don't turn away from it, or dismiss it (as the less depressive may do). As to awareness, IIRC,
there was a study that showed that depressed people perceive some situations more realisticaly than people
who weren't depressed (so it seems a certain small amount of self delusion is beneficial). Of course the
expression of these traits also depends on the severity and type of depression. A depressed person may
understand and perceive another person's distress, but be in a sort of emotional paralysis and be unable to
react at all. Or he/she may be so overwhelmed by emptiness that he/she can only see the abyss all around
and others are just tiny specs on the horizon (IMHO, the earlier portion of Buffy's depression was of this
type). Regarding Buffy's sensitivity to others, do you refer to her shielding her friends and Dawn from her
hollowness? Or her reaction to Willow's problems (wanting to help, feeling guilt about not being there for
her)? Or is it something I'm not thinking of? As to insight and awareness, I would suggest that these
have never been Buffy's stronger points (not that she hasn't had her moments). Intelligent and intuitive,
yes. But, insightful or (especially) self aware, not so much.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> Interesting discussion... -- Tillow,
04:43:19 06/07/02 Fri
May I join in? :)
I absolutely agree with the point
you make about selflessness/martyrdom above Ixchel. And I think that was even addressed on the show at
the height of Buffy's mental shakedown (NA) with Spike's little bit about the hero trip.
Interesting that in alcoholic families, one of the coping mechanisms that emerges is the hero
(Buffy). As with all coping mechanisms, if held onto too long (past the point they are needed) they
become detrimental to the person's growth process. The 'hero' role is meant to be used as a tool rather than
an identity. I digress.
About the sensitivity issue... I think it is interesting to note that often
depressed people are the most sensitive people out there but depending on their level of depression, they
simply may not have anything to give or they may not know when to stop. Either way ending up with
depleted mental and emotional energies.
I think we saw that on the show this year with Buffy.
She had given her all, her life and was done. She didn't have anything left to give when she returned yet
was expected by her father figure to take point, if you will. Not only to fight the good fight, but to "hear
the cries around her." Yeesh. It's nearly too much to expect of someone at their best, let alone someone in
the midst of a major depression.
I also think it's interesting to note the different ways that
Spike and Buffy deal with their depressed states. While Spike is an active depressed character (I say this
because of his - until recently - arrested state of development), he is able be insightful to those around
him. Even people he isn't around often. He's the truth teller.(I'm thinking of when he is tied up in the
bathroom commenting on willow hanging on by a thread after Oz' departure).
He reminds me
of someone with clinical depression. The kind that is so invasive and omnipresent that he doesn't even
need to acknowledge it, instead focusing on the problems of others. It's like a second skin.
And
of course Buffy would seek out another depressed character, someone who could understand.
Just had to chime in...
Tillow
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting discussion... --
Rahael, 10:02:27 06/07/02 Fri
join away, Tillow!
Lots of nails on head
moments in both posts.
I especially like the point you make Ixchel, about 'not being afraid of
sadness'. That is very true. And the interesting point about Normal Again was that Buffy was presented
with two different versions of reality - and like most depressed people the more depressing, and bleak
world was the one that appeared more 'real'. Sunnydale has life and colour in a way that the asylum didn't
have. Moreover, one of the key people in the asylum is someone who is dead, and therefore, can be said to
personify death.
My impression of Buffy's sensitivity is not so much located in actual specific
events (am I projecting?). It comes from her willingness to be there for Willow, the way she tries to do her
best for Dawn, the way she tries to rally the troops in Hells Bells. I have to say that this has been more
emphasised in her character in Season 6 than in any previous season. It's as if she lost some kind of
protective emotional armour by dying and being called back.
As for insight? I'd say that she
isn't into self analysis, or raking over the past. She's very much of the 'now' as Giles put it, and history is
very much 'then'.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting discussion... --
Tillow, 10:22:54 06/07/02 Fri
My impression of Buffy's sensitivity is not so much located in actual specific events (am I
projecting?). It comes from her willingness to be there for Willow, the way she tries to do her best for
Dawn, the way she tries to rally the troops in Hells Bells.
Rahael, I wonder if this might
have been more emphasized in S6 because it was a feeling of responsibility... one that she was
having a hard time living up to. In Normal Again she wanted to give in to the desire to give up that
responsibility. In Hells Bells, after she has taken up her Hero mantle more fully again, she more
successfully bears her responsibilities again with the rallying the troops. And then there is the final
moment of grave when she accepts her responsibility and also is finally actually sensitive to Dawn, seeing
her for who she is, instead of as part of her duty to protect.
Don't get me wrong, I think in her
normal state, Buffy is very sensitive to other people, I would just say that in a depressed state, that
sensitivity can sometimes become a burden. It's a colored view of reality perhaps but that can be the extent
of depression sometimes. (Uh oh. Am I projecting?) :)
Ah! I'm going away for the
weekend but I will check the archives to see if anyone had any other comments...
Tillow
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Fabulous discussion, everyone
- thank you! -- Caroline, 12:59:33 06/07/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting discussion... -- yuri,
13:29:21 06/07/02 Fri
You mention the scene where Spike says what everyone is
trying not believe, that Willow isn't getting any better, and I've actually, throughout this thread, been
thinking of Willow and how the idea of the sympathetic depressed person doesn't fit her. When she was
upset about OZ, I doubt she could have spotted sadness in anyone very easily or willingly. This fits
entirely with what we've seen of her character since then, but also what I've always found slightly
disturbing about that time was how unsympathetic Buffy and Xander were to her dispair. Was it because
they were in stable places, and therefore unable to identify with her pain, or because the type of mourner
she was (selfish, consuming) didn't inspire sympathy? To get sympathy, you need to show some
awareness, I guess.
Anyhow, to Ixchel and Rahael and Tillow, it's rare when you get such
kaboomage out of such brief paragraphs, so thanks. Also, I find interesting the line between the depressed
who is able to use their enhanced ability to see other's pain and not be afraid of it and who acts upon it in
a positive way, and the depressed who uses that awareness too much and leans on it to create unhealthy
relationships in which they are the perpetual confidant, comforter, or hero. I think I've been the latter a
few times (not so much the hero, but definitely the confidant), and it's really hard because I always wonder
if I would prefer not to help out at all, or to create these imbalanced relationships with people. I worry that
I don't know how to find the balance (intellectually, I do, but in practice it is much more diffucult) and so
I feel I have to choose one extreme. I've realized that it doesn't help the person in pain any more than it
helps me, and that it is selfish of me to set things up like that, so I have pretty much forced myself away
from doing it. But this is probably why the topic so fascinates me. I'm beginning to really understand that,
as Tillow says, you must only use it as a tool, and not an identity.
[> Re: Afterlife Thoughts on *Bargaining* - Eine grosse nacht-
anguish, fer sure... -- JBone, 21:11:13 06/05/02 Wed
Re-viewing these episodes
along with your initial and updated thoughts takes me right back to watching these shows. I believe I was
the poster you referred to when you quoted this is still a show that doesn't pull any punches. This
is probably going to be one of my stranger posts (remarkably), so bear with me.
I felt like I just
went through a sparring match after I watched Bargaining. I was slipping as many punches as I could,
but I was still, ultimately, getting my ass kicked. Personally, I love getting challenged like that. It's like
the writers said "You like dark? You think Buffy plays it safe? We'll give you dark and dangerous." It
like going to see a hardcore rock band that tries to blow the crowd away from the stage, because they don't
believe the crowd can hang. You wanna rock? Rock this.
Anyway, I believe one of things that
hurt the season overall was the feeling you were getting your ass kicked every week. No one wants their
ass kicked week in, week out. An occasional one isn't so bad since getting pummeled once in a while is
better than never fighting at all.
[> [> Re: Afterlife Thoughts on *Bargaining* - Eine grosse
nacht-anguish, fer sure... -- abt, 13:58:37 06/07/02 Fri
Yes, in the middle of the
season, I felt like, do I really want to sit and watch another 45 minutes of misery, and people being
unpleasant? Are these people even friends anymore? Why should I want to 'know' them? 612, 614, and
615 made me want to distance myself, I didn't look forward to the next episode after those eps, I wanted to
delay it. It seemed like every time I thought things were getting better for Buffy, they weren't. Those are
the only times I haven't looked forward to the next episode.
613 was great, 616 OK and made
me like Buffy again, and 617 onwards great, so ultimately I'm glad I stuck it out, but I hope this doesn't
happen next year. I usually look forward to each ep so much, whether it's comedy, drama, horror, tragedy
etc.
Beneath the Stairs -- Arethusa, 12:17:41
06/05/02 Wed
This is probably been addressed before, but I don't have time to research
today, so I'll ask you guys to be my whirly-eyed researchers for me.
Many, many times when
Spike and Buffy met it was on, near, or under stairs-representing, no doubt, how they are from different
worlds, and must meet in the middle. "Buffy" (Faith in B's body) first came on to Spike under the stairs,
the FFL talk started at a table next to the stairs, the "I know I'm not a man..." speech, the first non-spell
kiss, and others I can't think of now.
Would anyone care to discuss, enumerate or
elaborate?
[> Re: Beneath the Stairs -- abt, 12:46:37 06/05/02 Wed
When they first had sex, they fell through a floor/ceiling, IIRC, thus bypassing the stairs
entirely.
Stairs scenes in The Gift/Afterlife too, of course.
[> Re: Beneath the Stairs -- Doriander, 13:21:08 06/05/02
Wed
And I thought I was the only one. I've this nutty fixation on stair
encounters/interaction between thses two, they just tend to be memorable. Kinda like the bed scenes
between Willow and Spike. Actually, I've just this fixation on stairs in general. Sorry, nothing really
insightful to contribute, so allow me the simple task of enumerating:
Lie To Me-during
the stand-off, Dru in exchange for the wannabe vamps
Becoming 2-don't know if this counts,
first tag team slayage on the steps to the Summers' front door.
Harsh light of Day-daytime
fight culminates on steps down the sunken portion of the quad.
Goodbye Iowa-Spike sits on
Giles stairway as he gives Buffy his own assessment of her tragic taste in men.
Who Are You-
Oh you know the scene
Fool for Love-a)The Bronze- their table situated right next to it;b) final
shot, backyard steps
The Gift-a) Spike sits on ladder leading up to the Magic shop balcony as
he pontificates on blood; b) "I know you'll never love me....."
Afterlife-first
encounter
Flooded-a) reprise of FFL final shot; b) Spike on stairs leading to the basement "Did
you know this place is flooded?"
Tabula Rasa-correct me if I'm wrong, but the final shot here
appears to be beneath the stair, same spot as the Who Are You scene perhaps?
Smashed-
probably doesn't count, but they did some damage on the building's stairwell
That all of
it?
[> [> Gah! forgot to add... -- Doriander, 13:26:42
06/05/02 Wed
OMWF- "The sun sets and she appears.." Buffy on threshold steps, Spike
on ladder.
[> [> Re: Beneath the Stairs--one more -- Sulis, 13:46:24
06/05/02 Wed
Don't remember the name of the episode, but Spike helps Buffy fight a
demon (Qweller? Cruller? the one that goes after crazy people) on the stairs at the Summers house in S5.
He throws her the knife that she kills it with.
There's also the door scene in Dead Things on
the steps of his crypt, not sure if that counts though.
[> [> [> Re: Beneath the Stairs--one more -- pr10n,
13:52:58 06/05/02 Wed
Does any of this add significance to Dawn's shadowy entrance
to Spike's crypt in "Seeing Red"?
From the Not-Proving-Just-Thinking Department: How
many correlations are there between Buffy/Spike and Dawn/Spike interactions?
[> [> [> Re: Beneath the Stairs--one more -- Doriander,
13:59:13 06/05/02 Wed
the ep is "Listening to Fear"
Oh yeah that scene in
Dead Things. I suppose the door figured more prominently ( damn door outshining the
steps!)
another one in Crush: Spike: "Seen anything interesting?" Buffy caught on the
way up the crypt ladder.
[> [> [> [> 'The Ruffian on the Stairs' -- Rahael,
14:22:41 06/05/02 Wed
'The Ruffian on the Stairs' is a phrase (from late 19th, early
20th Lit which I can't remember where exactly from at all) which refers to Death. It's always struck me as
a wonderfully apt description.
Since I rather like my theory that Spike and Buffy were attracted
to each other by some morbid death wish (moths to the flame even) I'd like to suggest this. Not that I think
that that's what the writers might have intended. But it's my perspective.
Now I'm waiting for
someone to inform me who coined the phrase. I think it was the title of a novel.
[> [> [> [> [> Replying to myself -- Rahael,
14:28:09 06/05/02 Wed
Google informs me its the title of an Orton play. But did he
originate it? I had the distinct impression it came from a novel written by a woman. hmmm. I could be
totally wrong.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: 'The Ruffian on the Stairs' --
wina, 15:09:22 06/05/02 Wed
Madam Life's a piece in bloom
Death goes
dogging everywhere:
She's the tennant of the room'
He's the ruffian on the
stair
'echoes,9,'to W.R'
by W.E. Henley
like that!
[> [> [> [> [> [> Spike!!! -- Rahael,
15:18:38 06/05/02 Wed
How cool. dH's long running contention is that Spike was
W.E Henley.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike!!!-for Rahael -
- Arethusa, 08:24:36 06/06/02 Thu
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the
Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable
soul.
Invictus
[> [> [> [> [> [> so entertained by this, I forgot to
thank Wina. Thanks!! -- Rahael, 15:25:16 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> W.E. Henley rises again!!!
... and so cool to see d'H's theory validated! -- redcat, who also loves the poet's work, 16:57:13
06/05/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> death is from ruffia? -- anom,
20:45:13 06/05/02 Wed
(old George of the Jungle reference)
[> [> [> [> [> [> skidmarks ;) -- Soph,
21:59:38 06/05/02 Wed
[> Thanks, Everyone -- Arethusa, 14:30:04 06/05/02
Wed
Just what I wanted-mind munchies for idle moments.
Doriander-your
post reminded me of something. Reading Jenoff's reviews of Buffy Season 4, it seemed (s)he thought a
romance might spring up between Spike and Willow, based on Spike's fuzzy sweater comments and one
or two other things. Another tangent to hunt down. How might Buffyverse history have changed if Spike
fell for Willow instead of Buffy?
[> [> Re: Thanks, Everyone -- Doriander, 15:18:43
06/05/02 Wed
How might Buffyverse history have changed if Spike fell for Willow
instead of Buffy?
Well for one thing, we probably wouldn't have the Willow/Tara story. No
actually, they could've forged ahead with that, but I imagine it'd be doubly controversial. Recall the uproar
from Oz fans back then, the Tara/Willow/Oz triangle was loaded enough, it'd be really tangled if Spike
were to insinuate himself into Willow's love life.
In the S4 commentries, I think Doug
mentioned the chemistry bet. Willow/Riley as well as Willow/Spike. He said something to the effect that
they had to be careful with Willow/Riley because the two had so much chemistry, the fans might opt for
that pairing over Buffy/Riley. As for Willow/Spike, he said the two actors can generate amazing chemistry
with anyone/anything, and together they're shoo-in for really great scenes. I believe they played with the
idea of Willow/Spike, as they did with Spike/Anya in WtWTa (according to Jane E.). The Spike/Anya
thing paid off in "Entropy." Who knows what ME plans for Willow/Spike in S7? I doubt they'd be
involved romantically, but as things stand, they're kindred souls (heh), so there's a great potential for
friendship there.
[> Well, if we're going to consider stairs metaphors... -- Kitt,
14:35:30 06/05/02 Wed
then it occurs to me that a very interesting point is that he left
his duster (second skin and trophy from the slain Slayer) at the BOTTOM of the stairs before he {ahem}
ascended them to find Buffy and talk to her... an encounter which led to him seeking out his soul
and, by extension, redemption. (shedding his walls/defenses, his history of evil to go to talk to Buffy in an
emotionally naked/vulnerable state)
Now THAT's a metaphor I can get behind.
[> [> Spoileage for SR above... and he=Spike... I need
caffine{sigh}... -- Kitt, 14:41:21 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> Good one! -- ponygirl, 14:49:03 06/05/02 Wed
Had a similar thought when I saw the duster left behind. His entire outfit in that scene-- an
abandonment of the adolescent jeans and t-shirt-- seemed to point to a new direction for Spike. I've been
wanting to do an essay type thing on the symbolism of Spike's clothing (or lack of) over the years. If I can
avoid this pesky job stuff I might just do it.
[> [> [> Re: Good one! -- Sophie, 19:53:42 06/05/02
Wed
Somebody posted a thread about clothes, specifically leather clothes, as body armor
for protection this past winter of spring. Very interesting post, I will never be the same walking down thte
street as now when I see people wearing leather, instead of thinking - "ooh! how sexy", now I think, "why
do you need armor?"
Soph
[> [> [> [> Leather armor -- Fred, the obvious
pseudonym, 20:33:26 06/05/02 Wed
Leaving out the pre-modern era, leather
garments have been "armor" for over fifty years -- gang members liked them as they protected (slightly)
against knife cuts. Bikers, of course, have liked them since c. 1910 as they protected your hide against
high-speed spills. Your basic Levis aren't going to cut it if you slide 89 feet down the highway.
Most people now who wear leather are trying to "buy into" the image of the "tough guy" -- either
gang member or biker.
They should be harmless.
[> [> The Symbolic meaning of Stairs -- Rufus, 00:35:28
06/06/02 Thu
Gee, this symbol dictionary is getting well worn...from Herders dictionary
of symbols....
Stairs: A symbol of emotional and spiritual development and of
incremental gains in wisdom and knowledge, it has essentially the same symbolic meaning as the
LADDER, which was generally understood to lead from the bottom up (and thus in the direction of the
sky or of heaven), the stairs sometimes also descend under the earth and into dark realms. Thus they can
symbolize either descent into the realm of the dead or the approach to occult knowledge or to the
unconscious.
-While stairs point symbolically to clarity and wisdom; black stairs to black
magic.
-In the Egyptian solar religion, stepped pyramids represented the stairs on which the
soul ascends to heaven; there are also pictures of boats in the middle of which stairs are erected on which
the soul ascends toward the light. The Babylonian ziggurat (stepped tower) probably can be understood in
a similar sense.
-The spiral stairs share the symbolism of the spiral.
[> Symbolic Positioning (Longish, Spoilers) -- Exegy,
15:00:33 06/05/02 Wed
The stairs also signify the respective stations of Buffy and
Spike. We see that Spike is almost always placed lower than Buffy; his literal positioning indicates that he
is figuratively "beneath" Buffy. She's his moral and social superior (much like the noble lady of the courtly
romances). As with the romantic knights, Spike's love for Buffy ennobles him; his attempts to reach her
raise him to a higher level. But he can never quite attain her station; he is limited by his nature.
In The Gift, both Buffy and Spike reach their highest standings. Buffy's ascent up the stairs
will eventually lead to her moment of transcendence, but for the time she remains earthbound. She looks
back at Spike, still heading upward, and she seems to recognize his love for her. Yet at this point she is
under no compulsion to return his feelings; Spike realizes that she is his superior, someone who has never
loved him, and he is content that she should just treat him like a man. This acceptance is more than he
could ever expect from her, especially after the debacle of Crush. The fact that she can see him means so
much.
So Buffy climbs up those stairs, and then she climbs right up to Glory's tower. Spike
was there before, raised up to exquisite heights for love of Buffy, but he failed in the end. He could never
maintain such a standing. But Buffy can. She throws Doc aside as if he were a twig; she saves Dawn by
giving up herself. She dies while airborne; her spirit departs before her physical body crashes to the earth.
The real Buffy's gone, leaving the remains to be buried.
When Willow resurrects Buffy, the
Slayer must dig her way out of the grave. This is the lowest Buffy has ever been brought, and in many
ways she remains lowered until the end of the season. It's as if that sacrifice of The Gift depleted all her
energy reserves, leaving her utterly exhausted. She thought her time was over; it felt right. But now the
moment of perfect clarity has been taken away from her, and all this season is a struggle to dig herself out
of the grave, to return to the woman she once was (and still is, if she could only realize this). Buffy's still
an angel, if an earthbound one. She just can't believe it, and so she lowers herself all the
more.
As Buffy descends from the stairs in After Life (coming down from that tower), it's
almost as if Spike can see her descending to his level. Here he has been all along, waiting for her on the
ground floor, and now she is ready to meet him. She's dug herself out of a grave, just as he has; she's died
and been raised again, just as he has. Maybe the distance that separates them is not so great at all. Buffy
has suddenly become reachable, and she seems to know it. She sees Spike's eyes upon her, and she buttons
up her blouse. Then she hides her bloodied hands, clearly uncomfortable with this new association with
the vampire.
But Spike is still in awe of Buffy; she has come back to him, after all. He
bandages her hands and treats her tenderly, able to understand some of what she's gone through. Buffy
appears to respond to this care, and we later see her descending into Spike's crypt, perhaps identifying
more with the dark now than with the harsh light. She's come down to join Spike.
And she
continues to see Spike. Buffy meets him in the shadows, the place between their worlds. She admits that
she may have been pulled from heaven; she tells him what she cannot tell her friends. They'd be
concerned for her, or hurt themselves, and she doesn't what that. She wants someone who will accept her
as she is, no matter how far she has fallen. Spike will accept her no matter her condition, and telling him
secrets is like whispering in a dead man's ear anyway. Nothing Buffy can say about herself will hurt him.
Spike wants so little for himself, because he knows his status in comparison to the Scoobs. He'll desire
Buffy no matter how she comes (echoing his words to Xander in After Life and his comments to Buffy in
AYW).
Now that Buffy has come within his reach, Spike feels a stronger need to possess her.
His love seeks its end in physical union, the solace of the bedchamber. Now this end is a possibility, and
Spike cannot keep his passion hidden. He sings of his deepest feelings in OMWF (coming up to meet her
from the lower depths of his crypt, still somewhat ennobled). Buffy, of course, does the patented eye roll ...
until she senses the vehemence of his emotions. Then she appears to react a bit, edging away as if she
wants to deny the reality of his passion. But she's brought herself to his place; she's dangled herself within
his reach. That was her choice.
Buffy and Spike emerge from the crypt. When Spike vamps
out, the Slayer pushes him into an open coffin, landing atop him (she is still dominant, still superior). The
two pause, caught in the moment, and then Buffy rips herself away, running as if the legions of hell were
in pursuit. Spike elevates himself out of the crypt, wondering why Buffy doesn't want to stay. The entire
sequence of "Rest in Peace" pretty much encapsulates all the S/B interactions up until the end of AYW.
Buffy descends to meet Spike; her close proximity tortures him. He vamps out, the parallel to his
aggression in Smashed (really violent foreplay, the proof that he's not a "neutered" vamp for Buffy
anymore). And Buffy falls atop him in the crypt, just as she falls atop him in Smashed. This sexual union
ends with the Slayer running away; this pattern repeats until AYW, when Buffy definitively breaks up
with Spike, refusing to use him (and degrade herself in using him) anymore.
Buffy and Spike's
fall in Smashed is not a positive move for either character. Each has been drastically lowered; Buffy uses
Spike to escape from her responsibilities (and to disengage herself from the world); Spike's willingness to
be used degrades his character, showing the viewer how little he thinks of himself (the Scoobs aren't the
only ones who discount the vamp's worth, although they reinforce the message). If he's dirt, then Buffy's
the person who likes to roll in it. She enjoys misbehaving, and Spike's going to call her on that and pull
her down to his level every chance he can get. He's not trying to destroy her or his love for her, but he is
trying to possess her the only way he knows how. Now that he's had her, he doesn't want to let her go.
He's governed by the principles of consuming passion.
Buffy and Spike's actions lead them
down a path of destruction (just as the metaphor of the house implies self-destruction). Buffy turns away
in time to save herself, fortunately. She bombs Spike's lower crypt (and the bed beside which the dark
seeds of their relationship had begun to spring). She breaks up with her lover, determined to raise herself
out of her depths. Spike doesn't understand. He doesn't mind being used, even if the abuse is beginning to
"kill" him as well as Buffy. He's content in the darkness, and he doesn't see why Buffy at last has to climb
into the light. Why can't she just stay? (Spike's question after "RIP" finds its season parallel.)
Spike can't recover. Passion consumes until it either ends or you end. He follows Buffy, once
again tempting her to stay in the shadows. She refuses. In fact, she dismisses him, discounting the depth
of his feelings. Of course, she is rudely awakened in SR.
For the first time, Spike ascends up
those stairs after Buffy. He is no longer content to be left below and beneath. He must apologize to Buffy,
show her that he has true feelings. And when he senses that Buffy may reciprocate his emotions, he seizes
the opportunity. He'll make her feel again for him, and they can stay the way they were. Well, Buffy
doesn't agree with Spike's approach, and she kicks him off. He's just proven to her why she can't trust him
as he is. Spike realizes his complete failure; once again he's come up to "save" her and plummeted down,
and this time he's not only betrayed his promise to her, but his love for her as well.
Buffy
has pulled herself up from the depths of this season; we'll see how well Spike can reinvent himself next
season (he'll have to discard his limited notions of consuming passion). I think the two characters will still
be paired off (as they have major issues to work out), and it will be interesting to see what imagery pops
up around them.
This is not a full summary, but it's all I could think of offhand (and before I
head off to my summer class). Feel free to make additions or offer commentary. And thanks for
reading!
Exegy
[> [> If this post is "offhand," I'm massively jealous
;o) -- Arethusa, 15:17:40 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> [> Ditto. Excellent as always, Exegy! -- Doriander,
15:20:53 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> Ditto-ing that Ditto. Excellent as always,
Exegy! -- redcat, 17:06:25 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> cubic-ditto, grandiose posts, Exegis -
- Ete, 08:48:02 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> beyond massively jealous - well into the green with envy
phase -- Kitt, 18:06:47 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> Ok, I'm jealous! - Vertical movement (Spoilers BtVS and
AtS) -- Sophe, 18:45:42 06/05/02 Wed
Living in Manhattan, I move laterally
(east, west, south, north) as well as vertically (up, down) everyday without really thinking about what this
movement can mean metaphorically. I will skip what this could mean for the penthouse apartment
dwellers versus the subway riders.
So while you're cataloging, a couple of non-stair scenes
that suggest up/down movement from Buffy and Spike. Joss must of gotten off an a kick because we see
vertical movement in the "Angel" series finale, too: Angel goes down while Cordy goes up.
In OMWF, during Spike's song, he and Buffy fall into the grave - down into the earth - Buffy
on top. She reacts immediately like a scared rabbit, hops up, and nearly jumps back up onto the ground.
In "Grave", Buffy falls back into the earth - the hole along with Dawn - where the two battle
monsters.
Soph
[> [> [> End of season elevator (Spoilers "Grave"
BtVS and AtS) -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 20:39:20 06/05/02 Wed
But as
compared to Buffy's rise from the grave in "Bargaining," this time she is not alone; she needs Dawn's
cooperation to climb into the light. What is outside is not hell, but a beautiful world for she and Dawn to
share.
One resurrection begins the season -- the rise from the grave to hell. (What an
improvement.) The resurrection at the end is the rise from a shared grave to a shared beautiful
world.
[> [> [> Ooh, and in SR where Spike's on top of the fence,
holding the vamp. (A little switcheroo going on.) -- yuri, 20:59:44 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> [> Wow, thanks everyone! More assorted musings ...
(Spoilers) -- Exegy, 21:43:25 06/05/02 Wed
I'm currently majoring in English,
so it pays (my college tuition) for me to examine these metaphors. Plus, I enjoy the analysis of symbolic
elements (hence the name, from exegesis). I just don't like to do research, so I pretty much type
whatever comes directly to mind. Doesn't mean that I haven't thought about these things previously--I've
just never had a chance to share my ideas before. But now I've found this wonderful board, and I'm
OD'ing on Buffy goodness!
Kitt, you made a wonderful point about Spike leaving his duster on
the stair railing. I see it as the vampire shedding his Big Bad image as he ascends to meet Buffy. When he
nearly violates her, he's not a self-assured monster, confident in his abilities of manipulation; he's a
pathetic, lovelorn fool--the worst of William in the shell of Spike. His failure to maintain even the
slightest of his ideals brings him to the point of nothing. But when Spike comes down the stairs (no doubt
nearly falling in his haste), he doesn't grab his duster, the trophy of his bad vampire days. He's not
returning to that stage of his existence. He's going to reinvent himself entirely; he'll no longer be a slave to
his passions. He'll be someone whom Buffy can trust.
(This attempt at reinvention reminds me
of Chretien de Troyes' Yvain. Chretien writes in the tradition of the courtly romances, but he
subverts the genre's conventions to fit his Christian ideals. So Yvain at first adheres to notions of knightly
prowess and passionate romance; but when he betrays his love for his lady due to said notions, he decides
to discard his limited worldview. He chooses to reinvent himself as someone who will not betray his lady.
And in doing so, he learns of a higher end than the solace of the bedchamber. He learns the power of
charity, of good deeds for all. When he starts to place his faith in higher pursuits--motivated by more than
just erotic love--then he becomes a person worthy of his lady. I think that the S/B relationship has
paralleled the Yvain/Laudine marriage in many interesting ways so far; I'm curious to see if the
similarities will continue. I think that at least some will. You know, I could write an essay on this, but that
would actually require research on my semi-summer vacation. Sigh.)
Back to my ramble, I also
want to thank Doriander for bringing up the scene in Flooded. I thought of including that incident in my
original post, but I didn't have time. Now I can note that this may be one of the few scenes where Spike is
pointedly located above Buffy. However, I think the imagery here relates more to the "basement of the
mind" metaphor than it does to the "stairs of station" metaphor. We see Buffy literally flooded with
problems here (gotta love the figurative made literal--always good stuff). She's drowning, her
subconscious flooded with the issues plaguing her. By shoving the M'Fashnik demon into the basement,
she's just dealing with one more problem (her financial quandary). And it's not easily solved, no matter
how she represses. Spike looks in on Buffy, and it's like he's looking into a portion of her mind kept
hidden from the others, a dark area. He asks her, "Did you know this place is flooded?" and she has no
reply. Of course she knows, but she doesn't want to deal with it. And so she only ends up floundering
longer, stuck in the basement (also a metaphor for lack of development/forward movement--used
extensively with the Troika and in Xander's Restless dream).
We see Buffy finally return to her
personal growth in the basement (the end of the brilliant NA). She's tried to rid herself of her friends the
way she rid herself of the M'Fashnik demon; they're problems, symptoms of her delusion (the delusion
she's secretly believed in all this season, part of her inability to accept herself or her world). But Buffy
can't destroy the friends she's made; she has a duty to protect them. She wants to save them. And
so Buffy chooses to live in the world of the Slayer. She forever denies the possibility of that "normal girl"
when she turns away from the Asylumverse. She reaffirms her existence as a Slayer, not just on the
surface but in the depths of her mind. She's finally ready to make her way out of the
basement.
Which leads to making her way out of the grave (I was getting to you, Soph, it's just
taken me some time!). If Buffy reclaimed her duty in NA, then she reclaims her joy for life in Grave. At
long last she's emerged intact from the earth; she's brought up the part of herself that she felt was missing.
Those final monsters defeated, she climbs up with Dawn, ready to show her sister (and herself) to the
world. No more hiding in the depths for Buffy. She's ready to take on the world, risking the pain in order
to experience the joy that comes with it. She's back.
[> [> [> [> Thank you, too, Exegy -- Soph,
22:00:56 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> {blush} thanks for the ref, Exegy, and PLEASE
keep up with the brilliant posts! -- Kitt, 22:24:56 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> holy something! wonderful. -- yuri, 20:46:34
06/05/02 Wed
I LOVED your post. The only thing I feel differently about is how what
you say being "above" and "below" implies about the person. You write about it mostly as a gauge of the
balance of their personality and relationship. Yes, Spike's positioning does indeed indicate that he is
"beneath" Buffy in a way, but I see it also as though we are seeing a visual representation of the fact that
he is closer to the ground, to hell, to "bad," and she is closer to the sky, to "heaven," to "good." (Obvious,
yes, let me continue.) Well, I guess the most interesting thing is that it serves both purposes, to show
where they stand in their relation ship, and where they are on the good/evil continuum, which
then begs the question, do those two balances have a direct correlation. And then the answer would
probably be "duh, of course they do".... Must they? is that the whole problem with their relationship?
because I'm inclined to say no, it's just what buffy thought was the problem.
Then I have this
VERY tangential thought, in the buffyverse it always sort of seems like real, true, unapologetic evil
deserves a certain kind of reverence, of respect from people, no matter what their moral inclination. Same
with real good people. (It seems that there are far more examples of entirely "bad" people than there are
entirely "good" people, but someone's mentioned that before and it's an entirely different thought.) And it's
really only the those who deny who they are or are self conscious or unsure or have other such hangups
that are looked down upon. I have the feeling that someone has already mentioned this and, as per usual,
my post is more an incoherant train of thought that has helped me think about stuff more than
anyone else, but I thank you all for making this community a place where I can and am inspired to do
that. Oh, I am in a cheesy mood. Excuse me. Thanks for the post, Exegy.
[> [> [> You know you guys are just encouraging me, don't
you ? ;-) -- Exegy, 22:05:57 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> no time to comment so just - wow!!! -- ponygirl,
07:01:22 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> Re: Symbolic Positioning and Stairs. -- Darby,
08:20:08 06/06/02 Thu
When I first started reading this thread, it seemed like
situations in which psychics say, "the body will be found by water," when most locations can be said to be
"by water" if you really, really want to fit them together. With stairs and steps in so many Buffy settings,
they would show up a lot, wouldn't they, and the level variation is useful when setting up dynamic shots,
leading to putting actors on them (or under them for privacy). Ah, but the positioning - who to put where
- although often dictated by who's-been-where-in-the-last-scene - would much of the time be something
that a director could set up with an underlying message, and I think Exegy is definitely onto something
here.
Buffy speaks about the NOT So Possible
Movie -- neaux, 13:59:11 06/05/02 Wed
I read this.. and was saddened...
here
or copy this
link
http://www.chud.com/news/june02/june5buffy.php3
[> Re: I posted this in its entirety below -- dochawk,
14:03:02 06/05/02 Wed
But as I said there, money changes things. She might not
turn it down at 4 or 6 million, especially if SD tanks.
[> [> Oopsie! It was time for me to leave work so I posted
hastily!! Bad Me!! BAd Me!! -- neaux, 14:28:03 06/05/02 Wed
[> Maybe . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:11:41 06/05/02
Wed
Maybe they don't need Sarah. After all, there are other talented actresses out there.
Maybe they could do the movie as kind of an untold chapter set somewhere in the series. However, from a
writing standpoint, a Buffy movie would be hard to do. Do you stay with the continuity of the show? Do
you set it after the last finale? Do you set it somewhere in the middle? Do you start over from scratch?
How do you make the movie seem important when each season of Buffy has 22 episodes to build up its
epic plot?
[> [> Re: Maybe . . . -- Dochawk, 14:30:12 06/05/02
Wed
For a movie called "Buffy the Vampire Slayer II" they need SMG, and it would be
the end of the story, the one that ends demon inhabitation of earth (foretold in Fray). But they could still
do Tales of the Slayers. Or they could do faith the vampire slayer, or dawn the vampire slayer. Lots of
possibilities that don't include SMG.
[> [> [> My interpretation of what she's saying --
darrenK, 15:20:28 06/05/02 Wed
I think what she's saying is that everyone assumes
movies are better than TV and that what makes us--and it turns out, her--love Buffy is that it doesn't
develop and resolve a plot in a paltry 2+ hours. Instead it unfolds over 9 months.
A movie can't
match that and shouldn't try, even a movie written and directed by Joss Whedon.
P.S. Can you
guys imagine watching 2 hours of Buffy then not having another episode for a year!? Or two!?
[> [> [> [> I can imagine: LoTR's film anyone? -sure you
can read um but most people wanna watch!! -- Majin Gojira, 15:38:37 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> I don't want to imagine it. I think I'm gonna get
depressed if I do. -- VampRiley, 16:17:02 06/05/02 Wed
[> Re: Geller speaks out ... -- Robert, 14:37:48 06/05/02
Wed
I have to respect what she is saying, and she is correct. How can a 2-hour movie tell
the kind of stories which Mr. Whedon has given us these past 6 years? BtVS has worked so well partly
because Mr. Whedon has carried us through the same extended emotional roller-coster as the characters.
More than just saying that she wouldn't do a movie, Ms Geller is also saying the a movie
probably should not even be attempted. I think she is correct. At the very least, a Buffy movie would
have an entirely different character and tell a very different kind of story than the show.
[> How a Buffy movie might happen (Fray spoilers) --
heathergalaxy, 16:22:31 06/05/02 Wed
These are the conditions in which a Buffy
might happen:
1. Buffy would end after 7 seasons.
2. Angel would end after 5
seasons.
3. Scooby Doo is a flop this summer.
4. Joss decides to pick up the hint he dropped in
Fray that Buffy is involved in an apocalyptic battle which destroys all vampires for hundreds of
years.
In a movie, they would get a much larger budget to do really cool things, but they would
lose the build-up and nuance that the tv format allows us to have over 22 hours.
I would love to
see the end story that is suggested in Fray to happen on Buffy the TV show. But for that to
happen:
1. Buffy would have to go on for an 8th season.
2. Angel would have to move to the
same network as Buffy, since a battle this big surely would make Angel/Buffy crossovers necessary
(especially since no vampires exist after this battle, what becomes of "good" vampires like Angel?).
I find the other possibilities more likely to happen than the ones that allow for this battle to
take place on the TV show. Either way though, I really want to see this fight!
ATPoBtVS design/graphics -- Masq,
15:15:40 06/05/02 Wed
One of projects I'm contemplating over the long summer
months is redesigning my website. I've had the same design
since Jan 1, 1999, the inception of the site.
My current design is 100% HTML, it's easy to do,
and apparently some folks find it impossible to read.
Any input or offers of help from folks out
there? I'm talking mainly about changes in fonts, colors, and backgrounds. Whatever I end up with should
still be easy for me to maintain and HTML (I program in java for a living, but don't want anything to slow
down the time it takes for my content-heavy pages to load. Plus, there's the whole issue of inter-platform
compatibility. I want my site accessible to anyone with an internet connection).
Thanks ahead
of time
PS-Liq, I'd ask you personally, but I know how your work load is....
[> Re: ATPoBtVS design/graphics -- neaux, 16:27:50 06/05/02 Wed
I dont know what exactly you would want from me.. but I offer my bit of graphicness.
I'm not great in html. I usually use a wysiwyg editor that sucks called golive.
but I
have access photoshop and illustrator and can make some neat things upon request.
[> [> Re: ATPoBtVS design/graphics -- Masq, 16:42:45
06/05/02 Wed
I use a wysiwyg program, too. I guess i'm needing artistic direction. I know
the backgrounds and the colors on the episode analyses pages (and probably most other pages, too), make
the text hard to read.
I guess ideal readability would be black text on a white page, but...
boring.
Plus the pages themselves are pretty basic/clunky. A lot of lines
separating text with some pictures thrown in using html tables. the only thing artistic are the highlight
colors used.
I've had people email me offering to redo the design of the whole site, but I always
hold back. Those java warriors out there who want to use link hot-spots and lots of pretty graphical fonts
and pictures with filter effects and java scripts that say "please wait 20 minutes while we load this page..."
ewww.
Gotta be user friendly...er
[> [> [> Re: ATPoBtVS design/graphics -- LittleBit, 17:03:16 06/05/02 Wed
I
would very much enjoy working with you on a project like this. I agree entirely with keeping the 100%
HTML format. The site is an information site and doesn't need bells & whistles, just fast access and ease
of use.
I have had some ideas that I thought would make the pages easier to read, mostly with
font consistency, size, looking at the color schemes & graphics used for background and text to maximize
visual contrast, etc.
Let me know what you want/need. I'm up for a fun project.
[> [> [> Re: ATPoBtVS design/graphics -- aliera,
05:40:21 06/06/02 Thu
I like it Masq...I use i strong system at work but at home I
have three older sytems. My favorite is (yes this is true) a custom built 486 with a quick modem that I use
a very old very lean version of AOL with (I'm still w/ AOL for this reason).
In this country
there is a lot of cheap techno available. My office just gave away some old 233s to staff for free...but,
overseas the story is quite different. Also, in my town the middle school techno wizard has rebuilt older
systems for students to use for internet access. Even though the middle class in this country can afford the
newer systems there's a very large number of people that are shut out from this.
[> Re: ATPoBtVS design/graphics -- zargon, 16:42:15 06/05/02 Wed
If you're looking for help, Masq, you know where to find me....I still have lots of free time at
the moment...
[> [> I need suggestions... -- Masq, 16:46:34 06/05/02 Wed
Or if you want to submit a sample re-designed page, that'd be cool, too.
[> [> [> Re: I need suggestions... -- neaux, 17:40:02
06/05/02 Wed
why dont you hold a contest for your front page?
let each
person who wants to design the front page.. do so.. and then do screenshots of the site and You can
judge.
or something like that? you know how contest happy I get.
[> Re: ATPoBtVS design/graphics -- Liq, 17:01:26
06/05/02 Wed
I am pretty slammed, but I'm still available to add advise, if not design,
although I'd be happy to assist. I also want to do some serious work on ES this summer to keep it up to
date.
[> have zip techie know-how but think Masq is due a serious round
of applause for giving us a good home -- redcat who enjoys the site for more than just it's graphics,
17:32:46 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> I second that motion! -- O'Cailleagh, 18:05:55
06/05/02 Wed
[> [> Here, here! -- Ixchel, 18:41:01 06/05/02 Wed
[> [> Thirded. Thanks forever, Masq. -- yuri, 18:59:57
06/05/02 Wed
And though I only have a basic understanding of HTML, the following
month or so is pretty much some chill do-what-I-want time, and I'd be delighted to do some gruntwork or
whatever may be needed after the art is set. I'd be really interested in designing, but I think the only way I
could do it would be to draw it and that's no help! Good luck.
[> [> [> Computer-idiot, here, but if you need any
editing! -- Marie, 01:30:41 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> applauding wildly! -- ponygirl, 06:30:48 06/06/02
Thu
[> [> Well... gee! Thanks! (*blushing*) -- Masq,
06:33:09 06/06/02 Thu
It's a labor of love, as somebody said. And I'm proud of the
things I see on this board every day.
You guys are great!
[> hmmm... suggestions -- Solitude1056, 22:09:25 06/05/02
Wed
I finally finished redoing my own site, after over a year. Yes, redoing it is a hassle,
but I had a terribly heavy-duty design that looked nifty but was terrible hell to add new stuff to - and with
your weekly to daily changes, depending on the season, I suspect you'll want simple, not complex. Let's
see.
For starters, I'd suggest keeping away from frames when you redo - Netscape vs. MSIE
aside, there's also Linux users in this world who can get a majorly funky visual when there are frames
involved. And, of course, the whole javascript notion - if you javascript'd your definitions into little boxes
to pop up, that might look peachy but I'd never see it, because I have pop-ups turned off. So there's two
reasons to keep it in the page, without frames. The alternate, of course, is to use tables, nesting where
needed.
The first suggestion I'd have - before you have anyone, including yourself,
redo the design or the formatting, is to come up with a heirarchial diagram of the pages. Really,
simple first step but crucial, especially if you take neaux's suggestion for contest - that would provide a
basis for everyone to be working from the same page, so to speak, when coming up with ideas.
Then, I'd look at where your pages overlap. On all your Angel pages, do you have the same
essential header? Are your Buffy pages sorted into season, or partial season? Are your philosophy pages by
topic, or date of post, or by relation to BtVS season? That sort of thing... and I'd see where I could
duplicate code, ie, use what's in one page in another page, rather than re-writing. Then I'd create an
include file (general.asp), and include that with vbscript whereever I wanted that section to show up. The
best part of such things is that one change in the general.asp file, and it's changed everywhere -
plus, ASP doesn't usually throw the errors on different platforms like frames will. The drawback, of
course, is that if you have one huge general.asp, it gets reloaded each time a person goes to a new page, so
I'd break the ASP includes into sections of relevant includable code. For instance, you might have
Buffy_inc.asp, which contains all VB functions that relate to BtVS pages, and another one for
Angel_inc.asp, which does the same for AtS pages, and so on.
Finally, frames are nice in that
they'll stay on the side or top while someone scrolls (and your pages are long). But there's also the option
of setting up a table with a narrow left-hand menu, using an include file. Then on the right-hand side, you
might have a file for each episode. Let's say the Angel files would be A_N_X.asp, where A stands
for Angel, N stands for season, and X stands for episode. Then Buffy would be B_N_X.asp, and so on.
The menu on the left might list episode titles, abbreviations, or numbers - what's important is that each
would link to the appropriate page for the episode. This way, when it's time to add a new review for an
episode, you only have to deal with code that looks like the following (with square brackets inserted for
angle brackets):
[!-- include BTVS_inc.asp --
]
%]
writeheader
BTVS_S1_menu
[%
[td width=80%]
[b][font size=4]
EPISODE TITLE [/font][/b]
Episode content goes in
here
%]
writefooter
[%
And then you save your template under the number of
the newest episode. The drawback, of course, is this makes your subfolder look like a HUGE string of
mini-files, 22 per season, and two different shows, not including all other pages. The cross referencing,
however, would be simplified in that if you know episode AAA is Season N, episode X, then you know
your reference link would simply be [a href=B_N_X.asp]... the shorter aspect of the single-page design,
also, means you could possibly refrain from some of the messier aspects of [name] when jumping to a
mid-point on the page.
Given all that crucial infrastructure behind the design, once it's done,
then the design itself is much simpler - more black background? (please, no, so hard to read when eyes are
tired!) More wallpaper (also sometimes distracting or hard to read with multi-colored fonts)? Different
font face, different table width? All of the above are soooo easy to change for a refresh of the page, just by
changing the setup in the include file.
Hopefully I've not lectured you too much about stuff you
already realize, but just suggesting based on my own past two months of trying to organize my own site
into something manageable - both for me, and the folks who actually stop by to see it. Everything
mentioned here was stuff I found disturbingly hard to realize, and wonderfully useful once I did, so maybe
I saved you some trouble.
That aside, in terms of design? I'd say an off-white background,
black font except for nondithering colors to accent where needed, and separate pages for each episode so
those of us on dialups don't have to wait for the whole page to load to read what's at the very bottom. But,
frankly, if it came down to you redoing it and going insane versus keeping it the same and not being quite
as insane, I'm for you staying closer to sane than having a pretty page with an insane Masq. Me, I can
understand wanting a change in your pages - it's like sometimes needing to rearrange the living room, just
for a chance to finally vacuum the cat hairs hiding under the sofa.
Can't promise I'll be around
much, but I have no problem sending you copies of my own ASP includes if it helps you set yours up.
You've got my email, right? ;-)
[> [> Phew! That was English, right? -- Marie, 01:50:14
06/06/02 Thu
Much as I love you, Sol, I guess I'm with Giles on this
one:
"These musty old books have a great deal more to say than in any of your... fabulous web
pages." (I, Robot - You, Jane)
Marie
[> [> [> I know my HTML pretty well. -- JCC, 08:28:37 06/06/02 Thu
I've got a lot of time this summer. You want some one with a decent knowledge of HTML,
contact me.
Email
[> [> [> Hehehe. (& printing pages) -- Solitude1056,
09:50:31 06/06/02 Thu
It's not HTML, it's VBScript. If it helps, I think I mentioned
already that I have no problem forwarding templates which can then be used to switch the HTML around
as needed. The best part of using this system is that you go to one file, change the stuff in there, and it's
changed on all pages that use that header, footer, sidebar, or whatever.
Additionally, I've
found that a page that says, for instance, main.asp, doesn't get funky like frames pages will, where you try
to save the page & it only saves the main page, or only the frame your cursor was in, or prints all three
frames separately - bleah! It just treats it as if everything were done in HTML. It does require
thinking a bit more conceptually, in terms of the ingredients that make up your page so you can re-use
code for things you use frequently, but it's no more than a glorified means of using HTML to get what you
would have if you write it out long-hand, for each separate page.
Make more sense now? ;-
)
[> [> [> English? I thought Sol was writing in cuneiform. No
wonder my Sumerian dictionary doesn't work. -- redcat, 11:05:09 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> maybe it's babylonian -- anom,
17:06:50 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> It looks the same, but the pronounciation
is different. ;-) -- Solitude1056, 17:47:19 06/06/02 Thu
[> Re: ATPoBtVS design/graphics -- purplegrrl, 08:35:51
06/06/02 Thu
Personally, I rather like the current design of this website, but I can
understand wanting to change things up a bit. I've never had a problem loading or accessing the site
(except when VoyForums is being poncy (like yesterday afternoon), but that's a whole 'nother issue). I say
keep it simple and fun. All work on the website and no play even to watch BtVS and AtS reruns is going
to make Masq a cranky human.
Just my 2 cents.
;-)
[> [> I agree...I like it as is. -- Rob, 09:40:50 06/06/02
Thu
But if you do change anything, please make it as simple as possible. Now, your site's
pages are very easy to print out...Please don't make them hard to print!! Thanks. :o)
Rob
[> [> [> Ditto. -- VampRiley, 11:19:44 06/06/02
Thu
Except I don't print any of the pages.
VR
[> [> [> [> It's not a I'm-bored-and-want-to-change
issue -- Masq, 11:27:20 06/06/02 Thu
This is about making it more readable for
folks. User-friendly. I wouldn't be worrying about it otherwise.
[> [> [> [> [> I knew why you're doing this. I just
wanted to say that I liked the way the site is. -- VampRiley, 18:04:09 06/06/02 Thu
Not that you shouldn't change it at all. If it needs to be changed to allow access to a greater
number of people, I say go for it.
VR
[> Easy suggestion... -- Tillow, 14:15:17 06/06/02 Thu
Hey Masq!
I love your site. It's wonderful. But if the issue is simply legibility, I
would say just take out the background and go for a simple black or perhaps a gray. Some of the brighter
colored type is vibrating a bit against that flowered pattern. Simple change, big difference.
You have plenty of graphics that make it fine to look at, why do a complete revamp? Ha ha.
See what I did there?
Tillow
Angel's Going Human -- Finn Mac Cool,
16:44:01 06/05/02 Wed
Okay, I've never watched a full episode of Angel, but I've
heard enough about it to know the whole Connor situation.
I don't think it's Angel's soul that
makes him able to impregnate the human Darla. At least, not directly.
We've seen that
vampires devolve into animal forms after a very, very long life. The Master was starting to take on bat
attributes, and Kakistos has those hooves. I think the same thing is starting to happen to Angel (who
knows how old he might be if you mix his +200 years with the unknown number of centuries he spent in
hell). Except, you must remember, humans are animals, too. Since Angel has a human soul, the natural
animal for him to devolve into is a human. Therefore, he's picking up human traits like the ability to
impregnate.
[> What about Darla? -- Masq, 16:45:24 06/05/02 Wed
It takes two to impregnate, and the last time I checked, she was free-range evil soulless vamp
material.
[> [> Re: What about Darla? -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:17:29
06/05/02 Wed
Wasn't she human when they had sex?
[> [> [> Re: What about Darla? -- matching mole,
17:50:53 06/05/02 Wed
Nope she was a vampire. And if your argument holds then
the Master and Kakistos should also be able to have (animal) babies. Animals are just as able to have
offspring as humans - it's only vampires that can't.
[> [> [> [> Re: What about Darla? -- SingedCat,
09:53:14 06/06/02 Thu
Much as I like the theory, gonna have to go with Mole on this
one. That baby happened for the good old Old Testament reason-- because the PTB said so.
[> [> [> [> [> PTB=Mutant Enemy, right? ;) --
Doriander (harboring bitterness over the whole thing), 10:10:45 06/06/02 Thu
[> Intervention by the PTB? -- Scroll, 19:13:21 06/05/02
Wed
My theory on Connor's miraculous conception, gestation, and birth is that the
Powers That Be had a hand in it all. I'm pretty sure Angel's not old enough to be developing those animal
traits that the Master and Kakistos seemed to have, and since Darla was 100% pure vampire, that doesn't
seem to be a likely answer.
The real miracle--beyond the fact that Angel and Darla conceived a
child--is that Darla, whose body is essentially dead and takes in no oxygen, no vitamins or minerals, none
of those essential elements that human mothers require in order to nourish a fetus, managed to carry a
healthy human baby for nine months. She tried to abort the baby in many ways, but the baby was protected
from all her efforts. That seems to indicate a higher power intervening on behalf of the child. I'm going to
have to say it was not anything intrinsic to Angel and Darla's physiology that allowed them to conceive a
child, but that some external power worked on them to somehow make their sperms/eggs fertile
again.
[> [> Re: Intervention by the PTB? -- AgnosticSorcerer,
19:50:35 06/05/02 Wed
"That seems to indicate a higher power intervening on behalf
of the child."
-- Or a lower power intervening on behalf of them-/it-self
[> [> [> Re: Intervention by the PTB? -- aliera,
05:28:14 06/06/02 Thu
If it was a lower power...why do you think they would want a
human child?
[> [> [> [> Is that assuming higher means good and lower
means bad? -- VR, 07:53:52 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> Metaphorically, yes -- Masq,
09:14:11 06/06/02 Thu
Although since we are dealing with other dimensions here,
"up" and "down" can't be taken literally.
Except, of course, for the case where demons live
below the ground. But of course we've seen good and bad demons lurking in the caves and sewers.
[> [> [> [> Re: Intervention by the PTB? --
AgnosticSorcerer, 09:32:52 06/06/02 Thu
"If it was a lower power...why do you think
they would want a human child?"
-- I do not think the "Lower Powers" have any qualms with
using a human instrument for their goals. Besides, with what we know about Connor, I do not think he
really constitutes as completely human. He is above/below humanity in the sense that the Slayer is a
higher being, but his "above/below" connotation depends on what the source of his power is.
[> [> [> [> [> Good point... (Fray spoilers) --
Scroll, 17:32:47 06/06/02 Thu
...regarding Connor's ultimate place on the good-bad
continuum. He's a good kid, but he might be a pawn for the "Lower Powers". After all, one reason Wesley
is so ambivalent about him is that Connor can go either way, good or evil. He could be the salvation of the
human race, or he could be its destruction. He's kinda the fulcrum on which the balance of good and evil
teeter-totter. I'm hoping he'll be a good guy and that he'll get together with Dawn and together they'll
banish all the evil demons from the Buffyverse. Possibly in a crossover movie that ties into Fray!
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Good point... (Fray
spoilers) -- Robert, 07:15:37 06/07/02 Fri
>> "I'm hoping he'll be a good
guy and that he'll get together with Dawn and together they'll banish all the evil demons from the
Buffyverse."
This only works if Dawn becomes the next slayer.
Just had a weird thought regarding Spike's
hair -- The Last Jack, 18:05:07 06/05/02 Wed
Was rewatching the episode
where we learned Spike's origin when I had a weird thought: Now that Spike has William's soul back, do
you think he will stop bleaching his hair? I mean, the whole reason he does it, IMO, is to enhance his
whole bad ass persona as a vampire. Now that William is back in the picture, do you think ME will make
Spike go back to his natural color (What is James's real color anyway?)
Personally, I like the
bleached look, but I think it would be interesting to see Spike dressed up as the Big Bad, but with a
different hair style/color, sort of signifying that Spike/William combo.
[> the current rumor is... -- Kitt, 18:10:14 06/05/02
Wed
that JM is going to get to give up the bleach and let his hair go back to it's natural
color (what it was in FFL?), but we have to wait and see........
Anybody else tired of waiting
yet?
;)
[> Permanent Change -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:42:56 06/05/02
Wed
I've always thought it would be an interesting backstory for Spike if he was once
blasted by magical energy (maybe it was a mark of being a rebel, or some demon he fought) that caused
his hair to permanently turn white and his fingernails turn black (this is a constant, though seldom
noticed, style quirk).
[> [> Re: nail polish -- leslie, 10:46:05 06/06/02 Thu
Actually, the nail polish has disappeared as Spike had gotten, um, gooder. (Somehow "better"
doesn't seem to accurately describe what's been happening to him.) Likewise, I notice that Glory has a
penchant for "off-color" nails as well. And don't Willow's nails go black along with her hair when she
absorbs all that ink? Then we have Spike's bleach job, Glory's "bad home perm", and Willow's inky hair.
General trend of funky nail polish/amateur hair styling (when Buffy cuts her hair, she goes to a salon!) =
EEEEEVVVVIIIILLLLLL!!!! Is someone getting a kickback from the Cosmetologists
Union?
Oh, and furthermore, Anya seems to have penchant for hair dye too, but it's never clear
whether she's having it done professionally or not--which echoes the ambiguity of her demonic
status.
leslie (still a sucker for glitter nail polish--proof that LSD *does* have lasting, life-
altering effects [adopting creaky geezer voice]: I remember when we had to paint our nails with clear
polish and sprinkle the glitter on while it was still tacky, you young people these days can just buy it
already in the bottle!)
[> [> [> Re: nail polish -- Ronia lol, 12:03:24
06/06/02 Thu
yes, but it doesn't work nearly as well. Some nails have no glitter, some
have clumps. Most of the scoobies have adopted clear nail polish this season. Maybe some glitter
sprinkles are on the horizon?.... ;-)
[> Re: Just had a weird thought regarding Spike's hair -- Dead
Soul, 21:59:08 06/05/02 Wed
JM's natural color is dark brown/black and very curly,
William's hair was light brown and wavy. I read someplace that he ditched the black nail polish this
season, but I hadn't noticed one way or the other. There was an ep (which one, anyone, too lazy to look it
up) in S5 where he was polishing his nails black when Buffy stormed in. BTW, did anyone notice
whether William had the scar in his eyebrow? If it happened post-vamping, wouldn't it have
healed?
Dead Soul, who thinks entirely too much about things like this while painting her
nails black.
[> [> Regarding your questions ... -- Exegy, 22:44:13
06/05/02 Wed
The episode in which Spike polishes his nails while Buffy storms in is
Blood Ties, I believe.
William did not have the scar on his eyebrow. That mark is a reminder
of the first time Spike killed a Slayer; the Chinese girl slices his brow with her sword.
Apparently vamps don't heal from some wounds (Kakistos bears Faith's handiwork; and
Balthazar is still crippled due to his longtime enemy, the Mayor). Also, I think Spike wants to bear the
mark of a Slayer. Along with his duster, it's one of those "trophies" that marks him as the "Big
Bad."
What I find interesting is that the scar has seemed to fade over recent years....
[> [> [> Thanks, Exegy! -- Dead Soul, 23:20:21
06/05/02 Wed
Can't you just see Spike (in the past) purposefully irritating the wound so
he'd keep the scar?
Dead Soul, who thinks scars are kind of cool
[> [> [> [> Well, he did wear a safety pin through the brow
... (FFL) -- Exegy, 09:31:46 06/06/02 Thu
... I don't remember if that was the
same eyebrow, though. Does anyone know or have a tape to check?
Thanks in advance.
[> [> [> [> [> Referring to Subway!Scene!Spike. Forgot
to mention that. -- Exegy, 12:13:48 06/06/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> I have a tape and can check FFL --
Dead Soul, 12:17:34 06/06/02 Thu
But not until after 8:00 PM, PDT, so someone may
very well answer before me.
Dead (fondly remembers safety pins through body parts)
Soul
[> Re: Just had a weird thought regarding Spike's hair --
clg0107, 09:01:30 06/06/02 Thu
I had wondered about this myself. Specifically, if
Spike is now human, his hair would grow. (I'm operating on the assumption here that a vamp's hair
probably doesn't grow. He could cut it -- Spike's hair gets shorter from the FFL days -- but that it
wouldn't grow again. This would mean that the bleach job, for Spike, was a one shot deal).
I
think it would be cool to see the new incarnation looking as different as that hair change would be. And
since I read somewhere that JM HATES bleaching....it would be a nice break for
him!
~clg0107
[> [> IIRC, vamp hair must grow because... -- abt,
10:06:46 06/06/02 Thu
..I think Angelus had a moustache at one point, and I don't
think he had one when sired.
IIRC he had short hair in the fifties, what was it like when
Whistler found him?
Also ISTR he got five o'clock shadow along with Wesley when they were
in Pylea.
These recollections are a little vague, but I think they're correct, can anyone confirm
the details, either way?
[> I'm willing to bet he comes back with . . . -- Carol B.,
11:41:13 06/06/02 Thu
a different hair color. JM's hair is dark brown, but human
William had blondish/brown hair, so they could always either dye his real hair or give him a wig to wear.
:-)
Seriously, I can just see a "What happend to your hair?" or "What did you do to your hair?!"
running joke among the scoobies, everytime one of them sees him again for the first time. :-
)
Carol
Current board
| More June 2002