June 2002 posts
Odd quote. -- Darby, 09:47:14 06/11/02 Tue
This, from the Number One Ranking Quality Show for this year, a quote from Chicago's Daily Herald.
http://www.dailyherald.com/timeout/movies.asp?intID=3741318
1) "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" - Often the bridesmaid in my top five, it was finally the bride as best show in its sixth year and first season on the United Paramount Network. Buffy's early season disappointment at returning to life dovetailed nicely at the end with witch Willow's attempt to end the world and its suffering. If it wandered in between, it was still genre TV of a high order. Willow's pursuit of vengeance was also the season's most powerful Sept. 11 allegory.
I can kinda sorta see how you could stretch the Willow storyline this way, but does anyone find this an obvious fit?
Incidentally, after a top 25, Angel was included in a list of "50 more worth watching."
[> Re: Odd quote. -- Rob, 09:59:33 06/11/02 Tue
If you stretch it very, very far, it can fit...but I just don't see it, really.
Also, I wouldn't call Buffy's resurrection a disappointment. Perhaps the mid-season slump was, but I this season had one of the strongest starts of any "Buffy" season, all the way up to "Tabula Rasa", IMO.
Rob
[> [> Re: Odd quote. -- Rahael, 10:04:12 06/11/02 Tue
I don't think it has to be stretched at all - it's already been pointed out here, but as that poster said then, it's bound to cause tempers to flare, and so on and so forth.
[> [> [> Re: Odd quote. -- Haddock, 10:10:37 06/11/02 Tue
It doesn't have to be stretched too far. Anything which raises questions about vengeance vs justice could inevitably seen as a commentary on the fallout from September 11th, regardless of the conclusion reached.
For what its worth, I don't think that the show's writers actually intended Willow's descent to be in any way a commentary on September 11th, or American foreign policy but I'm not a mindreader
[> [> [> [> Re: Odd quote. -- Rob, 11:02:55 06/11/02 Tue
Okay, I'll amend my statement. I understand how it could be seen as a Sept. 11th allegory, but I don't think it should be. The themes and emotions of "Buffy" have always had a universality about them that defy being pigeonholed into one specific symbol or meaning. By saying that it's meant as a Sept. 11th allegory, it strips away both the idea that other symbols could be coming into play there, and takes away the importance of the story, to the characters, on a literal level. Because, although symbols are great, the most important thing is the characters and their literal journey. If characters exist merely as symbols, then you lose a lot of heart from your story. And "Buffy," to me, has always been about characters first, even at the expense, sometimes, of established mythology (and that's to its credit, I believe)...September 11th was a tragic, earth-shattering event. But Willow's quest for veangance is, IMO, her own quest, her own feelings, and not meant to be representative of a country of mourners. Perhaps some allusions can be drawn, but I think it's best, for the sake of the story, to leave them be.
Rob
[> [> [> Addendum. -- Darby, 11:22:40 06/11/02 Tue
I must have missed the thread that discussed it, but I'd like to add something -
Since the basics of the season "arc" are set over the summer, the basic parameters of Willow's revenge would have predated September - I guess we should look for more specific metaphorical points (added when the show was actually written and shot) to be able the make anything more than very broad conceptual connections and seek any purposeful allusions.
[> [> Re: Odd quote. -- Jane's Addiction, 11:07:26 06/11/02 Tue
Was the writer actually referring to the early S6 ep's as a creative disappointment, or simply referring to the Buffy character being far less than thrilled to have this weighty mortal coil thrust back upon her?
[> [> disappointment -- grifter, 12:47:36 06/11/02 Tue
The way I understood it the writer meant that Buffy was disappointed in being resurrected, not himself being disappointed with the story.
[> [> [> Re: disappointment -- Rob, 12:55:12 06/11/02 Tue
Oh, I read that totally wrong! Thanks for pointing that out to me. :o)
Rob
[> Re: Odd quote. -- dream of the consortium, 10:09:24 06/11/02 Tue
What I find amazing is that they could find not only 25 series to recommend, but another 50 (!!!!) worth watching. How much time are people spending watching television anyway? (Wait - don't answer that.) These shows are worth watching compared to doing what, exactly? Reading a good book? Reading a bad book? Sleeping? Drawing, running, gardening, taking a bath? Fighting with your significant other? Generally, I am shocked by the low quality of shows people trumpet as being excellent. I've seen episodes of Friends, Frasier, and so on, and can't imagine how anyone could consider these good without having first had his standards set on low by really god-awful t.v. It's terribly depressing.
Okay, I'll let go of that now.
And, no, I don't think the pursuit of vengeance was intended as a Sept. 11 allegory. Sure, vengeance was a theme and therefore the theme can be discussed in relationship to that event, but I don't think the storyline would have gone any differently had the real-life tragedy never happened.
[> [> Re: Odd quote. -- Deeva, 10:37:12 06/11/02 Tue
I don't think that this had anything to do with Sept.11th. It is/was a profound and signifigant event to happened to all of us but should it be in involved with every story regarding vengence/justice? Nope. Sometimes a story is just that, a story.
[> [> Re: Odd quote. -- Dochawk, 12:23:21 06/11/02 Tue
The Willow storyline was conceived years before it aired, after season 4, Joss mentioned that he had "special plans for Willow" and the season arcs were done in June/July last year.
And Frazier and Friends are funny to an aweful lot more people than Buffy is great television to us.
[> Re: Odd quote. -- shadowkat, 12:05:06 06/11/02 Tue
I actually completely agree with them.
"1) "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" - Often the bridesmaid in my top five, it was finally the bride as best show in its sixth year and first season on the United Paramount Network. Buffy's early season disappointment at returning to life dovetailed nicely at the end with witch Willow's attempt to end the world and its suffering. If it wandered in between, it was still genre TV of a high order. Willow's pursuit of vengeance was also the season's most powerful Sept. 11 allegory."
For the first time I became completely enraptured by the show after watching it for six years. I also strongly felt the depression and disappointment of Buffy - making me really identify with the character for the first time ever, prior to this year...I truly didn't identify with at her at all.
And the vengeance allegory did closely fit Sept 11 - the desire to destroy to avenge a loved one. Without thought to the consequences. And all the controversarial thoughts regarding that. Must say it was the only show this year that I felt hit how my emotions and feelings regarding Sept.
11. I was beginning to think I was in the minority on that...so it's great to see a reviewer echo my feelings for once. ;-)
As for Angel - I may be in the minority here as well- but with the exception of the last five episodes and Lullaby, found
Angel to be not that engaging. I just don't emotionally
connect with the characters on Angel as I do the Buffy
characters. And I never connected with the characters of
Angel and Cordy on the same level as I did with Spike and
Willow. I think it's a purely subjective thing. (My brother prefers Angel for instance. And I don't mind if I miss an
episode of Angel...but absolutely can't miss one of Buffy.)
[> [> Re: Odd quote. -- dochawk, 12:26:15 06/11/02 Tue
Totally agree with yout thoughts about Angel. I've seen every episode of Angel now and I just don't care about any of the characters except Gunn and Fred like I do any of the characters on BtVS (including Spike).
[> [> [> Re: Homage to Both -- Brian, 12:39:35 06/11/02 Tue
I actually never miss either show. I turn off the phone, and I refuse to go out either night. I tape both of them together on one tape as many of the weekly themes cross over even if the characters don't. But I will confess that while I will watch a Buffy show over and over, it is rare that I will do that with Angel. There are exceptions of course, with the birth of Cornor being the biggest. And I never miss watching the Angel reruns, and I am delighted to realize with this second viewing that Angel is just as tightly plotted, has just as much foreshadowing, and can always blow me away just as emotionally. Angel is usually the "darker show." but this year had many "uplifting moments." Season 6 of Buffy was very dark. It was nice that Angel brought a lot of interlude light.
[> [> [> [> Re: Homage to Both -- shadowkat, 13:14:01 06/11/02 Tue
Confession ...as well. This year for the first time after Loyalty I started taping. I realized the two dovetail each other and if you miss one, you miss part of the tapestry.
Have to say the characters of Connor, Wesely, Justine,
Holtz and Lilah and Darla have had me enthralled.
Taped last nights and Sunday's for instance. While I still
prefer Buffy. I will dump Alias for Angel next season and I love Alias...but the writing on Angel is better. Guess I'm a diehard Me fan for now.
CC Update (Could be considered Spoilery for Angel Season 4 I guess) -- Dochawk, 12:18:37 06/11/02 Tue
Putting to rest a persistent Web rumor, Angel co-creator Joss Whedon told SCI FI Wire that regular cast member Charisma Carpenter will indeed return for The WB series' fourth season in the fall. Carpenter's month-long absence in the middle of last season and her character Cordelia's ascendance into a higher plane of existence in the season finale fueled rumors that unspecified personal problems had resulted in her departure from the series.
Not so, Whedon said in an interview at the Saturn Awards ceremony in Los Angeles June 10. "I hadn't heard all the vicious stuff," he said. "I just heard people saying, 'Is she coming back?' I've heard every vicious rumor about everybody, and I lend them all very little credence. She is coming back. She's a part of the show. She's an essential part of the show. ... It's not as vicious a rumor as the rumor that I directed Boy Meets World, but it's up there."
[> Thanks. Adding it to my "Tomorrow" analysis now. -- Masq, 12:47:02 06/11/02 Tue
You know, when it's from the horse's mouth and all..
[> [> hmmm..."essential part of the show"? -- Vickie, 14:10:40 06/11/02 Tue
Amber Benson was "the heart of the show." (the other show) Her character is dead now.
Should be an interesting S4 of Angel.
[> [> Link to article ....Whedon: Angel Star returning -- Rufus, 15:24:07 06/11/02 Tue
Sci Fi Wire
[> [> [> Thanks, Ruf, added the link -- Masq, 15:34:30 06/11/02 Tue
Then proceeded to read the article on BtVS there, and got a bit spoiled for the season 7 premiere. Grrr argh!
[> [> [> [> Re: Thanks, Ruf, added the link -- Rufus, 17:38:00 06/11/02 Tue
Bad, naughty, Masq....the link I gave was directly to the one article.....so that can only mean that you lost a battle with temptation to read the article about Whedon talking about Buffy....here
I just can't resist corrupting a few more souls......;)
RESTARTING the HAIKU thread to make room for other postings (unresolved ones inside) -- LittleBit, 12:38:36 06/11/02 Tue
Unconfirmed guesses:
JCC
Betraying Slayer,
a dark shroud lights the mansion,
a fake evil vamp. - JCC
?enemies (Rahael)
?BvD (Ete)
JCC
A blond mystery,
Revelations close to home,
To protect the one.
?No Place Like Home (Jane's Addiction)
cat
A diffrent slayer.
Out of history's cold dead past.
Wreaks havoc to feel.
?primeval (rc)
julia
willow flayed warren
she's off the wagon again
bad willow bad witch
?two to go (rc)
spike is so cool and
i mean the girl is hot too
andrew butt monkey
?entropy (rc)
black leather coat swirls
cigarette cherry glows bright
out for a walk bitch
?no place like home (rc)(Ete - helping)
the sky is falling
another apocolypse
tuesday chez buffy
?once more with feeling (rc)
JCC
A fallen big bad,
who is in love with his flame,
joins to drive sire mad.
?lover's walk (Ete)
Waiting for answer:
Ete
Thirsday, say welcome
Friday, hide and seek but on
saturday, nothing left!
Rob
Little Miss Muffet's
Breaths are silenced again and
Again; again and...
[> Is that a hint for me to put it in the archives? -- Masq, 12:41:02 06/11/02 Tue
[> [> Was it subtle enough? ;) -- LittleBit, 12:43:31 06/11/02 Tue
[> [> Addendum... -- Masq, 12:44:23 06/11/02 Tue
This is a good thing to do periodically for very popular threads. It helps make room for new threads, which get kicked into the archives too fast when there are long popular threads lingering on the main board.
[> Rob's Hint... -- LittleBit, 12:50:11 06/11/02 Tue
...so we don't lose it:
Little Miss Muffet's
Breaths are silenced again and
Again; again and...
1) There are more than two words in the title of the episode.
2) Focus on the "Little Miss Muffet" (and who "Little Miss Muffet" is), and the "again and again" part.
[> [> Re: Rob's Hint... -- Ete, 13:01:34 06/11/02 Tue
the wheight of the world !
[> [> [> YES!!! 20 bajillion Slayer points for you!! :o) -- Rob, 13:05:37 06/11/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> yay me :)) -- Ete, 13:20:38 06/11/02 Tue
[> More haïkus not yet found -- Ete, 13:09:33 06/11/02 Tue
face to face meeting
with one long forgotten
leads to change of name
(Surprise: wrong)
To chose between
One blind of insight and
One blind of mind
(Fool For Love: wrong; Normal Again: wrong)
Magic to break or
Magic to bring together
- Heartbreak free for all
(OMWF: wrong)
Look into my eyes
and if I taugh you well
know what is my name
(Homecoming: wrong)
Four tries for nothing
everyone think they know her
better than herself
(Something Blue: wrong)
In the big house
Mummy is recieving a guest
who's very hungry
(Angel: wrong)
[> [> Re: More haïkus not yet found -- GreatRewards, 13:22:16 06/11/02 Tue
In the big house
Mummy is recieving a guest
who's very hungry
Inca Mummy Girl???
[> [> [> I'm sorry NR, it's not Inca Mummy Girl. Try again. -- Ete, 13:32:35 06/11/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> Re: here's yet another haiku -- Brian, 14:32:32 06/11/02 Tue
Lock of binding love
Blessed by actions from above
Delivering hawk or dove
[> [> [> [> [> Re: here's yet another haiku with a corrected rhyme -- Brian, 05:42:35 06/12/02 Wed
Lock of binding love
Blessed by actions from above
Brings forth hawk or dove.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: here's yet another haiku with a corrected rhyme -- Deeva, 09:41:44 06/12/02 Wed
Primeval?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: here's yet another haiku with a corrected rhyme Nope! -- Brian, 11:04:34 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hint, please? -- Deeva, 11:16:17 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> Re: More haïkus not yet found -- O'Cailleagh, 14:41:30 06/11/02 Tue
Is the first one 'Anne'?
[> [> [> no, Oc, (by the way, come over to chat) -- Ete, 14:55:33 06/11/02 Tue
[> [> Re: More haïkus not yet found -- Rahael, 15:44:42 06/11/02 Tue
Look into my eyes
and if I taugh you well
know what is my name
A new man?
[> [> [> well found Rahael (and Bit too) -- Ete, 15:45:45 06/11/02 Tue
[> [> Hinting -- Ete, 16:16:03 06/11/02 Tue
face to face meeting
with one long forgotten
leads to change of name
(Surprise: wrong)
HINT : that's a double ep
To chose between
One blind of insight and
One blind of mind
(Fool For Love: wrong; Normal Again: wrong)
HINT : the two blind ones are girls
Magic to break or
Magic to bring together
- Heartbreak free for all
(OMWF: wrong)
HINT : Magic shop
Four tries for nothing
everyone think they know her
better than herself
(Something Blue: wrong)
HINT : Four tries for the four parts of the ep
In the big house
Mummy is recieving a guest
who's very hungry
(Angel: wrong)
HINT : the hunger was sated; but not the way he expected it.
[> [> [> Re: Hinting -- Rahael, 16:29:53 06/11/02 Tue
face to face meeting
with one long forgotten
leads to change of name
(Surprise: wrong)
Who are you/THis year's Girl
Magic to break or
Magic to bring together
- Heartbreak free for all
Lover's Walk?
[> [> [> [> correct ! -- Ete, 16:32:23 06/11/02 Tue
[> [> [> Re: Hinting -- Doriander, 22:13:07 06/11/02 Tue
Four tries for nothing
everyone think they know her
better than herself
Life Serial?
[> [> [> [> well done Doriander you've found that one ! -- Ete, 04:24:20 06/12/02 Wed
[> Another one. -- Deeva, 15:15:25 06/11/02 Tue
Question and answer
A directorate challenged
Loath assent given
I sorta cheated on this one. I had been following the 5-7-5 syllable format. This one's more 5-8-5. I know bad, bad me!
[> [> Re: Another one. -- Ete, 15:21:28 06/11/02 Tue
Checkpoint ?
(come over to chat you too :)
[> [> [> That's it! -- Deeva, 15:26:57 06/11/02 Tue
Should I make these harder?
[> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION... -- GreatRewards, 15:26:18 06/11/02 Tue
Haiku is defined as a 3-line verse with 5 syllables in the first line, 7 syllables in the second line and 5 syllables in the 3rd line.
It does NOT have to rhyme. :-)
[> still more haïkus -- Ete, 16:35:02 06/11/02 Tue
Go orange Buffy !
Appearance is decieving
Evil is older
(two answers possible)
Do not see me
For I am ugly they say
But you saw me trully
Blood over the shirt
Who's better at pretending
Games of chains and mind
[> [> Re: still more haïkus -- Rahael, 16:42:29 06/11/02 Tue
Blood over the shirt
Who's better at pretending
Games of chains and mind
Enemies
[> [> [> correct answer for that one. -- Ete, 16:45:05 06/11/02 Tue
[> Another chat room stumper: -- LittleBit, 16:48:14 06/11/02 Tue
power in clothing
power in meditation
power in friendships
[> [> Re: Another chat room stumper: -- Rahael, 16:59:13 06/11/02 Tue
Revelations
[> [> [> Yay Rah! -- LittleBit, 17:11:11 06/11/02 Tue
[> Another one pt.2 -- Deeva, 17:04:01 06/11/02 Tue
Nothing is wrong
Controlled by another
What I have become
[> [> Re: Another one pt.2 -- Ete, 17:07:53 06/11/02 Tue
Smashed ?
[> [> [> Nope -- Deeva, 17:15:31 06/11/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> Re: Nope -- Ete, 17:19:36 06/11/02 Tue
Dead Things ?
[> [> [> [> [> That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, bingo! -- Deeva :oD, 21:06:07 06/11/02 Tue
[> New chat room stumper -- Ete, 17:45:51 06/11/02 Tue
to die or not to
if it's not i only want
to kiss you - oh no !
[> [> Re: New chat room stumper -- Rob, 19:17:35 06/11/02 Tue
Inca Mummy Girl?
Rob
[> [> [> Nope. -- Ete, 04:26:06 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> Re: New chat room stumper -- Cactus Watcher, 06:27:33 06/12/02 Wed
Becoming, part 2?
[> [> [> nah -- Ete, 08:12:25 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> Re: New chat room stumper -- Rob, 08:01:22 06/12/02 Wed
Graduation Day Part II?
Rob
[> [> [> neither ! -- Ete, 08:16:16 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> Re: New chat room stumper -- Rob, 08:17:14 06/12/02 Wed
I Only Have Eyes for You?
Rob
[> [> [> still not it -- Ete, 08:46:16 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> Wow, this one is a stumper! -- Rob, 09:12:42 06/12/02 Wed
Where the Wild Things Are?
If it isn't that one, perhaps a really little hint, please? ;o)
Rob
[> [> [> Nope + HINT ! -- Ete, 09:15:47 06/12/02 Wed
My first hint is that the passage I'm refering too could be nominated as the best redemptive scene of an otherwise lame episode (IMO at least)
[> [> Re: New chat room stumper -- ponygirl, 09:17:21 06/12/02 Wed
Reptile Boy?
[> [> [> Nah -- Ete, 10:06:57 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> Re: New chat room stumper -- Deeva, 09:39:47 06/12/02 Wed
Intervention?
[> [> [> It is not Intervention -- Ete, 10:08:44 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> Trust me. You want BIG hints!!! ;););) -- LittleBit, 09:54:39 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> [> Yes, please. BIG, big hints. -- Deeva, 10:12:36 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> [> I second that! BIG hints, PLEASE! -- Rob, 10:25:27 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> Re: I second that! BIG hints, PLEASE! -- Ete, 10:41:07 06/12/02 Wed
Well I don't know if it's a bigger hint...
"bared torso"
[> [> [> [> [> Is it... -- Rob, 10:50:07 06/12/02 Wed
...I Was Made to Love You?
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> nein -- Ete, 10:54:45 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're evil!!! LOL. -- Rob, 10:58:08 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> The other hint: -- LittleBit, 11:37:20 06/12/02 Wed
...dream
but think nightmare - extra hint from me :)
[> And one more, not so difficult -- LittleBit, 18:27:05 06/11/02 Tue
ancient enemies
bound by eternal conflict
destinies converge
[> Re: RESTARTING the HAIKU thread to make room for other postings (unresolved ones inside) -- Rob, 08:12:53 06/12/02 Wed
Feeling out of place,
staring at the mirror, but
no recognition.
Rob
[> [> Re: RESTARTING the HAIKU thread to make room for other postings (unresolved ones inside) -- Ete, 08:49:22 06/12/02 Wed
Who are you ?
[> [> [> Yup! -- Rob, 09:00:10 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> Re: RESTARTING the HAIKU thread to make room for other postings (unresolved ones inside) -- Deeva, 09:04:06 06/12/02 Wed
Is it Who Are You?
[> [> [> Yup to you too! -- Rob, 09:06:28 06/12/02 Wed
[> Re: RESTARTING the HAIKU thread to make room for other postings (unresolved ones inside) -- Rob, 09:04:08 06/12/02 Wed
Illusions of light
shattered, dreams of happiness
slip through their fingers.
Rob
[> [> And another... -- Rob, 09:09:31 06/12/02 Wed
The Jedi Master
has failed in his ruse, but at
least the boy is safe.
Rob
[> [> [> Re: And another... -- Ete, 09:14:05 06/12/02 Wed
School Hard :)
("you were my sire, man, you were my... Yoda" the boy being Xander... nice one !)
[> [> [> [> Yup, you got it...and thanks! Tried to make that one a little tricky... -- Rob, 09:19:14 06/12/02 Wed
School Hard's been on my mind, since I just watched it last night in the DVD set.
I think that was probably one of the best, if not the best, introduction-of-a-villain episodes ever, on any TV show. It's definitely one of my fave all-time eps. JM and Juliet Landau were soooo perfect from the very start. Naughty Miss Polly! And of course, Joyce giving Spike that much-deserved whack to the head. ;o)
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yup, you got it...and thanks! Tried to make that one a little tricky... -- Rob, 09:51:53 06/12/02 Wed
Shame on me! I meant Miss Edith!
Rob
[> Another attempt at a tricky one... -- Rob, 09:25:38 06/12/02 Wed
Birthdays are no fun.
Except for the chocolatey
Goodness. That can stay!
Rob
[> [> Re: Another attempt at a tricky one... -- Deeva, 11:35:24 06/12/02 Wed
Family
[> 2 quickies to add to the mix -- Deeva, 09:37:33 06/12/02 Wed
Childhood love, new love
No one let's her finish
Stop hammering please
One stinky slayer
Out damn grass stain! Out I say!
Can they be perfect?
[> [> Re: 2 quickies to add to the mix -- LittleBit, 09:51:42 06/12/02 Wed
Triangle & As You Were
[> [> [> Dead on, LittleBit! ;o) -- Deeva, 10:10:58 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> Re: Haiku on the sly -- Brian, 09:55:40 06/12/02 Wed
More by each he stalks;
With bedroom eyes, still he mocks;
Angel beats the flock.
[> [> [> Re: Haiku on the sly -- Rob, 10:24:22 06/12/02 Wed
Passion?
Rob
[> [> [> Re: Haiku on the sly -- Arethusa, 10:36:09 06/12/02 Wed
I Fall To Pieces
[> [> [> [> Re: Haiku on the sly - Yup, you got it Arethusa -- Brian, 11:08:12 06/12/02 Wed
[> Try this one on for size! -- Rob, 10:35:32 06/12/02 Wed
Nummy treats to choose
from, a vampire's buffet! Blonde,
Brunette...all tasty!
Rob
P.S. Quick note--I was a little worried about the second line, since vampire sounds like it might have three syllables (vam-pie-er), which would make too many syllables for the second line, but, according to my dictionary, there are only two: vam-pire. So I apologize if I'm wrong and screwed up the format! Take it up with Merriam-Webster! ;o)
[> [> Re: Try this one on for size! -- Ete, 11:00:56 06/12/02 Wed
Is it Lie to Me ?
[> [> [> No, it is not! -- Rob, 11:02:32 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> Re: Try this one on for size! -- LittleBit, 11:10:01 06/12/02 Wed
The Wish?
[> [> Re: Try this one on for size! -- Brian, 11:11:07 06/12/02 Wed
The Harvest?
[> [> [> Neither, LB and Brian! -- Rob, 11:16:44 06/12/02 Wed
[> Before I give it a rest for a while, here's one more... -- Rob, 10:52:03 06/12/02 Wed
Temporarily,
her sorrow's gone, except for
the horrible taste...
Rob
[> [> Re: Before I give it a rest for a while, here's one more... -- Arethusa, 10:56:42 06/12/02 Wed
Beer Bad
[> [> [> Nope...but you're on the right track. -- Rob, 11:00:05 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> Re: Nope...but you're on the right track. -- Ete, 11:03:45 06/12/02 Wed
Wrecked ?
[> [> [> [> [> Nope... -- Rob, 11:15:16 06/12/02 Wed
..."Beer Bad" was closer.
Rob
[> [> Re: Before I give it a rest for a while, here's one more... -- Ete, 10:57:13 06/12/02 Wed
Tabula Rasa ?
[> [> [> Try again! -- Rob, 11:01:10 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> Re: Try again! -- Arethusa, 11:19:30 06/12/02 Wed
The Wish? (Trying to think of beer episodes)
[> [> [> [> [> Woops. Missed post with above guess. Sorry -- Arethusa, 11:22:38 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> Re: Before I give it a rest for a while, here's one more... -- Deeva, 11:23:20 06/12/02 Wed
Life Serial
[> [> [> YES!!! You win the six-pack! ;o) -- Rob, 11:26:12 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> Cool! When can I collect that six-pack? -- Deeva, 11:28:43 06/12/02 Wed
Hopefully it's not the stuff from Beer Bad. Actually I prefer the harder stuff. Manhattan, anyone? ;o)
[> I think that this just might be the last one, guys. -- Deeva, 11:26:38 06/12/02 Wed
Who are you really
Bogeyman for little bads
Diving for the word
If any one is interested in more, ask. Not sure if the enthusiasm is still out there for these anymore.
Evolution of Evil in the BuffyVerse from Simple Evil to Pogo, Part Two (re-posted) -- LittleBit, 00:32:05 06/12/02 Wed
Evolution of Evil in the BuffyVerse from Simple Evil to Pogo, Part Two
[Preface: to avoid misunderstanding of the terms as I am choosing to use them, the Big Bad is the one who drives the season and the story arc; little bads are anyone/anything else, regardless of their degree of 'badness'.]
Season 2: Evil begins to grey and becomes personal.
The BIG BAD
In season 2 the Big Bad was Angelus. A vampire whose reputation for cruelty was legendary. The most vicious creature the Master ever met, and that's saying something. As Angelus, he has no conscience, no sense of much of anything other than the pleasure he derives from causing pain to others. And he is particularly adept at giving emotional and psychological pain. He prides himself on the artistry of it. He never surrounds himself with minions. While he does work with a small group of his family members, Drusilla, whom he sired, and Spike, who was sired by Drusilla, most of what he does is still accomplished on his own. He is alone when he finds Enyos, alone for Jenny; when he leaves the portraits, the fish, the roses he does so in solitude. Actual killing seems almost an afterthought. Perhaps he brings this from the wholesale annihilation of his family and home village: once they're dead, you can't get satisfaction from their reactions. He goes after the Scooby Gang but more to hurt Buffy who has made him feel emotions he despises, than against the Scoobies themselves. It is interesting to note that the only other Scooby he bothers with is Willow with whom he had developed, at the very least, a tentative friendship. He doesn't bother with Xander at all, even though he had an adversarial relationship with him at best. He does however, go after Enyos and Jenny directly, who are members of the clan that cursed him. They who could be seen as responsible for the century of torment he suffered. These two he killed in a spectacularly vicious manner, especially in the way with which he framed the discovery of each death. He looks for the greatest magnitude of destruction or pain he can bring. Quite a contrast to Angel. Angel had set himself squarely in opposition to everything Angelus embraces. He was growing in his ability to assist the Slayer and the Scooby Gang. He is beginning to open himself to emotions other than despair, self-loathing and tormented guilt. This very change, the one that allows him to redress the deeds of his past, to ease his pain, is the one that causes the return of the perpetrator of those deeds. The one thing Angel had in common with Angelus was Buffy. As Willow said, she was still the only thing he thought about. Souled or soulless, his strongest feelings were still reserved for her and her alone. While the season had its little bads there was through all of this the pervasive presence of Angelus, Spike and Drusilla. In the end, Buffy must accept Spike as an uneasy ally, and challenge Angelus in a final battle of Vampire vs. Slayer. And she slays, but the slaying turns intensely personal as Angelus gets his ultimate artistic revenge; she slays Angel.
VAMPIRES
Spike and Drusilla are the most notable of the little bads. It is they who initially challenge the Slayer in ways other vampires hadn't simply because they have a unique relationship and attitude toward themselves and their prey. They make excellent partners with Angelus, but stand effectively on their own as well. Spike removes the threat of the Anointed (or Annoying) one simply because he finds him, well, annoying, then takes over the leadership of the remaining vampires. The relationship between Spike and Drusilla shows the beginning of the graying of the evil. They are able to show affection for each other, which we were led to believe was not possible. They were found to "reek of humanity" by the Judge for their emotional connection. Spike is very much the opportunist, jumping the gun before the Night of St. Vigeus, going out into Ethan's chaos on Halloween, allowing Ford to set up the Lonely Ones Club for the kill, using Willy to capture Angel, using Buffy to regain Drusilla. Spike also shows qualities of a leader by delegating tasks to those who are competent to perform them, such as Dalton, who translates Du Lac's book of spells, and the Order of Taraka. But in counterpoint, many of his own schemes end up in failure simply because he cannot control his impulses or delay gratification. Drusilla is initially quite weak but the reports of her demise were greatly exaggerated. Her feyness adds a level to the insanity that makes her almost ethereal. It's easy to believe she was on the eve of taking vows - she retains an, albeit evil, spirituality. Drusilla shares with Angelus a talent for subtlety and a ruthlessness surpassed only by desire to create chaos. Her torture of Angel is superbly delicate, painful to both body and mind, yet always mindful of the need for Angel to remain alive. It is Drusilla who gives Dalton to the Judge; Dru who goes to the Magic Shop to find out what Jenny had purchased and kills the shopkeeper; Dru who obtains the tomb of Acathla, and kills the curator; Dru who goes to the High School library to get Giles and slays Kendra in the process. Her torture of Giles is exquisite; she invades and violates him in ways Angelus and Spike never even dreamed of. Drusilla enjoys the jealousy and rivalry generated between Spike and Angelus, and revels in exacerbating it whenever she can. Angelus joins her in this, the two of them tormenting Spike, who is in a wheelchair while recovering from the organ falling on him. The three of them make a truly unholy trio, each of them playing off the others, each trying to sow discord among the group, and by doing so sustain the balance of power within the group; Angelus over Drusilla over Spike, in a dysfunctional familial relationship.
There were also Absolom and Colin, the Anointed One, who furthered the Master's agenda, and tried to restore him. They needed the blood (and death) of everyone who was near the Master when he was killed, thus endangering Giles, Jenny, Cordelia and Willow. Although the Anointed One is now the Master of the Order of Aurelius, he needs Absolom and his eloquence to assist his leadership. His leadership is tenuous and based on his being the one prophesied. Their attempt to restore the Master was crucial to Buffy's ability to come to terms with her own death at the Master's hands.
The Gorch brothers came into town looking for some fun. Found something else. Lyle finds a Slayer and has the good sense to run, Tector finds the inside of the Bezoar. The interaction between the two of them is so immature that it is a wonder they have lasted so long. Perhaps there is a good-ole boy luck of the vampire in effect for them, at least until they get to Sunnydale. Their recognition of Angel as Angelus helps to give us more of a sense of Angelus' reputation.
DEMONS
Machida, the embodiment of greed, was the reason for the long line of successful Zeta Kappa alumni. He had corrupted generations who gained financial success through the sacrifice of innocent victims. He's fairly straightforward as demons go: give me the sacrifice I require at regular intervals and I will grant you your avaricious desires. Finally vanquished (with no help from the Guys!-Buffy!-Snake!-Basement!-Now! group), all of the granted wealth and power dissolves.
The Judge was one of the more potentially intriguing demons, ages old, defeated, dismembered, yet not dead, whose purpose is to "rid the Earth of the plague of humanity." Once re-assembled he had the ability to "separate the righteous from the wicked and to burn the righteous down." He would spare only those with no spark of humanity. The first victims he attempts are Spike and Drusilla because of their affection for each other, but this attempt is deflected by Spike, and he is then offered Dalton instead. The books describe him and the battle that finally contained him; "no weapon forged" could kill him. Only the technological advances of our time, and the sheer luck of Xander dressing as a soldier boy for Halloween, allow Buffy to defeat him by blowing him to bits with a rocket launcher. Seriously dismembered, but still not necessarily destroyed. The Judge very nearly rids us of Buffy and Angel, and the aftermath of that encounter returns Angelus to the scene. It is the Judge who gives us confirmation of two important points: the humanity within Spike and Drusilla, and the total lack of humanity within Angelus.
MONSTERS
Daryl Epps is revived by his brother in a horribly disfigured state. He is both unwilling to re-enter society looking like this (his pre-death self was defined by his looks and athletic & sexual prowess) and to shun society in solitude. He was able to convince his brother to provide him with a female companion. Daryl was a reluctant monster; he never asked for his continued existence but in light of its being thrust upon him didn't insist on having it reversed either. He crosses the line eventually into evil when he insists that the companion be finished regardless of what is necessary to do this successfully (the acquisition of a head that has not been embalmed, i.e. a fresh kill). Daryl is an example of the natural order regarding life and death and why it is dangerous to attempt to subvert it.
Ampata the Inca Mummy Girl only wanted a chance to live after being buried alive for half a century as a sacrifice for her people. She was entombed and buried alive never to die, retaining her consciousness and was able to hear what people were saying when she was 'touring.' In Ampata's case she was not necessarily a willing sacrifice, and wanted the chance to be a normal girl. Unfortunately, the only way she could live was to take the life of another: Rodney, the real Ampata, her guardian, attempts at both Jonathan and Willow. She does have some of the experiences she wants with Xander when they fall in love at first smite. He is instantly smitten; she wants this very much. She is stopped only because Buffy and Xander delay her long enough that the re-mummification weakens her so that she can't overpower Xander, whom she is ultimately willing to kill for her own survival. Buffy sees something of herself here in the way Ampata was used by her people for their own survival while being denied any chance at a normal existence for all eternity.
Ted - the (potential) ultimate evil step-parent, insinuates himself into Buffy's life and then makes clear his intent to control her. If he can't control her then he intends to remove her from her life to make room for him. Buffy's instincts about him were quite accurate from the beginning but no one believed that she wasn't acting from jealousy. All assumed that her issues with him were simply because her mother was dating him. His drugging of all but her (only because she was too stubborn to eat his treats) gave her no one to talk to who would believe her after Ted threatened her. But when Buffy believed she had killed him, she cooperated with the police, told the truth to them. Ted's world was controlled and orderly with nothing and no one out of line. His speech was archaic, pure 1950's, as were his attitudes. Ted was Buffy's first confrontation with the possibility that she could kill a human with her Slayer strength out of nothing more than anger. That Ted turned out to be a robot could, however, explain why she was able to do it; perhaps she did 'recognize' his non-humanity.
The Bezoars were another very pervasive evil for humans. With the exception of Xander, whose paternal instincts left everything to be desired, and Buffy, whose Slayer speed and strength kept her safe, the entire school population, staff, students and visitors, were taken over by the baby bezoars and set to work to free the mother. Willow and Cordelia took Xander and Buffy out of action by attacking them unexpectedly. Giles infects Joyce. The bezoars appeared to have a form of collective consciousness in that everyone is often carrying out the same tasks, yet when necessary the mother bezoar is able to communicate specific instructions to individuals. The bezoars are intriguing in that they weren't of demonic origin, but were organic, possibly indigenous, creatures who may have been mutated by the energy of the Hellmouth, or not. In this case, it could be argued that the humans were just as evil from the viewpoint of the bezoars.
Der Kinderstaad, one of the more frightening monsters, had been encountered by Buffy when she was quite young and her cousin, Celia, was in the hospital. Buffy had even watched it kill, but didn't know what she was seeing. Since he is discernible only when the victims are most vulnerable, Buffy must put herself at risk in order to see and defeat the child-killer. It is not clear what kind of monster the child-killer is other than clearly predatory. He feeds on the life-force of his victims, and apparently had determined to take the course of least resistance in doing so, which was a wise choice on his part. Although, children are not his only victims: he also removes adults who stand in his way or are in a position to reduce his ready energy source. When he faces the Slayer, sick though she is, he faces a strength he had never faced before; she still has the ability to defeat and destroy him. Buffy is able to face and destroy an old enemy that had defeated her when she was a child because she couldn't see what was happening and couldn't understand. This allows her to avenge her cousin and remove the threat to other children.
The Amphibian Monsters were created when the swim team 'over-dosed' on a fish DNA steroids and metamorphosed into mammal/fish hybrids which can function both in and out of the water (thus, amphibians). The swimmers who used the most were the first to change, but if nothing had stopped the process eventually all of them would have transformed, including the newest member of the team, Xander. In the 'tadpole' stage they are changing beneath the human skin, then achieve their mature form by breaking out of the confining form through the skin. They are predators (the DNA used could also be considered predator) and when fully transformed have only the instincts of the new form. They are not actually defeated, but allowed to go into the ocean. While they are all male, it should not be assumed that this means they cannot reproduce, especially with the mystical energy of the Hellmouth involved in their existence. Trying to obtain the championship without truly winning it, subverting the process that should be necessary to achieve the goal, when weighed against the consequences is shown to be a far greater price than putting in the effort required to gain it legitimately.
POSSESSION
Eyghon the Sleepwalker who returns to those who once summoned him and then attempted to kill him, including Giles. Ethan Rayne is back once again, as one of the group who, with Giles (Ripper), summoned Eyghon. The three others in the small group, five in all, have been dealt with. Eyghon possesses their dead bodies long enough to get to the next victim but hadn't found a suitable permanent host. The demon attempts permanent possession of Jenny and is thwarted by the unique and most likely unprecedented method of allowing two demons to fight it out for possession of a host; Angel threatens fatal damage to the host body (Jenny) causing the demon to jump to the nearest dead body: Angel. Eyghon lost the battle to a well-entrenched vampiric demon who was "Just waitin' for a good fight." Eyghon crumbles into dust. He wasn't a match for the demon in Angel. Eyghon forces Giles to reveal more of his past and his nature than he wished, but allowed a valuable insight inot his character.
The ghosts of James and Grace haunted the halls of Sunnydale High. They weren't seen in current times until the revival of the event that coincided with their deaths: the Sadie Hawkins Dance. Once again, James and Grace are fated to play out their tragic night. Only this time, Buffy becomes involved. She 'sees' the real events in bits and pieces. Things begin to happen in the school that do not reflect the replaying of the murder/suicide. These happenings are of the sort that literally call for the intervention of the Slayer. It is actually not clear which of them is responsible for this. It is generally believed that James was responsible, but a case could be made for Grace doing this. It is Grace who wants to forgive James, to relieve his pain, to allow him to move on. For this to happen she needs the Slayer and the Vampire. She needs to block Willow's spell because binding James would only result in stasis. She surrounds the school with an impassable barrier (thus also preventing more innocent victims) that will allow only Buffy and Angel to pass. The roles are reversed. This is no longer an inevitable re-enactment. Buffy/James 'kills' Angel/Grace, but Angel cannot be killed by gunshot, thus freeing Grace to intervene at last and end the cycle. It is Buffy who recognizes why the two are still bound to the school, and in her comment that James' act does not deserve forgiveness, she reveals how she feels about herself in relation to Angel/Angelus. When James uses her as his representative and she experiences Grace's love and forgiveness and the release of the anger and hurt that tied them here, she is give a beginning to forgiving herself for Angelus, a realization that Angel would forgive her.
The Order of Taraka is a mix of demons and humans who are bounty hunters. They hire out as assassins and don't stop until the job is complete. If the ones originally assigned to the job fail, others simply come in their place until the task is successfully completed. They exhibit a complete disregard for anything other than completion of their mission. The demons involved in the Order are a much more sophisticated variety, far above see-kill-eat. The humans who join are also of a particular type; willing to hunt and kill other humans for a price, possibly just for the satisfaction of getting the job done. The rules are simple: do whatever it takes. The consequences are equally direct: if you succeed, you live, if you don't, you're already dead. For some the simplicity of this has it's attraction. It is not clear why they were called off, unless perhaps finances played into it. In the confrontations with the Order, we find Angel learning that Buffy has completely accepted his vampiric side, Buffy and Kendra working together with a common agenda, and Xander and Cordelia discovering that they don't exactly hate each other.
HUMANS
Chris Epps and Eric, the Doctors Frankenstein of Sunnydale, have revived Chris' brother Daryl and are now assembling a female companion for him from parts of dead girls. They encounter a problem however in the necessity of acquiring a head, with no fresh death in sight and time running out. Chris balks at
killing someone but Eric moves blithely along by showing Daryl pictures of Cordelia, Buffy and Willow for Daryl to pick his favorite. Chris is unable to carry out the abduction and assists Buffy in saving Cordelia. Eric, however, sees only his own agenda, which happens to coincide with Daryl's. He wants to create the girl of his/Daryl's dreams just to see if he can. In the end, we don't really know what happens to them except that Chris and Eric both survived. We find that while the two worked together on the same project with the same outcome in mind, their motivations were polar opposites: Chris did it out of love for his brother; Eric did it because he could, out of contempt for those who couldn't.
The Zeta Kappa Frat boys, and all their esteemed alumni, were a long-standing evil. For at least half a century they had consorted with the demon Machida to bring them fortune and power without effort. They were wealthy, charming and lethal. No conscience bothered any of them regarding what was necessary to continue their success. They corrupted generation after generation, each succeeding class indoctrinating the next. They show us how shallow and insubstantial these things are in the absence of any real effort; and also give Cordelia her start into becoming someone of more substance.
Ethan Rayne is more of an enigma. It is not only unclear exactly what power he is invoking (Janus the Roman God? Chaos?), but what his purpose is. He wreaks havoc among those who wear his costumes. They become what they are dressed as in mind and body. Their physical and mental abilities are completely altered. But Ethan remains in the back room of his store taking no advantage of the chaos he has brought forth, unless his purpose was to see what would happen. Being beaten into submission by Rupert (Ripper) Giles was not likely what he had in mind. In some ways this is some of the purest evil we've seen - bringing chaos forth just to see what it would do. When trying to avoid Eyghon, his motives are much clearer: remove the mark from himself and place it on someone else. This is an act of self-preservation by finding a substitute target, since Eyghon is drawn by the Mark, not by the bearer. In the ensuing chaos, Ethan, being no fool, runs. Ethan continues to give us insights into Giles' background and character that the self-effacing Watcher/librarian wouldn't ordinarily divulge.
Billy Fordham wanted to become a vampire so he won't completely die. To achieve this he was prepared to set up a group a innocent fools to be killed while he arranged that he alone would be turned. Ford was Buffy's crush in 5th grade and obviously a friend who knew her fairly well. He is both sympathetic and villainous at the same time. One can understand why he wants what he does, but not that he's willing to bring so many sacrificial lambs to the slaughter in order to gain it. It's not entirely clear why he didn't just have the blonde vampire turn him in return for not staking her, instead of just making her tell him where he could find the vampires lair. In allowing her to go free, he is also indirectly responsible for Drusilla's recovery, as it is the book she takes from the library that contains the ritual to restore Dru's strength. It may be that he's so drawn to the tradition that he has to have his ritual, must be turned by the leader, must have all the right things said. And in the end, he gets what he wants and the Slayer is waiting. Billy's case is particularly sad because we can understand his despair, his desire to have a life to live. What we, and Buffy, can't forgive is his willingness to have so many other die for him to survive.
Cain the hunter, hunted for sport and profit. Having been prohibited from hunting elephants he turned to an entirely unprotected species for which he found a lucrative market. He has no doubts about what he does; for him it's a job that satisfies him. He rationalizes killing the human aspect of the werewolf in several ways: only killing while it is in wolf form (although granted - no pelt in human form), killing the werewolf prevents it from making future kills (death penalty versus imprisonment), they are animals and therefore subject to his whims. He is not defeated in the end, nor does he learn anything (except maybe not to underestimate little girls); he simply has to take his predations to a different venue. Cain is a villain with no moral code, no ethics, no compassion, who hunts because he's good at it, with no regard for the rules unless they impact the market for his kills.
Coach Marin wants success so badly that he is willing to achieve it regardless of the cost. He has managed to produce a 'steroid' that will enhance his swim team's performance in the pool. He uses his boys as alpha test subjects, with or without their permission. When it becomes clear that there are 'serious side effects' he ignores them. As the boys metamorphose one by one, his only real concern is that he's having trouble fielding enough swimmers to have a competitive team. He still 'takes care' of his changed boys by feeding them and providing for other needs when possible. He has absolutely no conscience regarding his actions with the boys, or those he's willing to take to keep his activities unchallenged. He murders the school nurse, he tries to do so to Buffy, and is willing to take out Xander, but Xander is ready for him. He is finally killed by his own 'boys' when he swings at a rescued Buffy and falls into the water after she trips him; the amphibian monsters attack and kill him.
Willy is the stereotype of the show. Opportunist, sneak, squealer, stooge. He's always on the lookout for the best deal, and would cross, double-cross and triple-cross anyone for the right price. He professes his loyalty, exudes his fear, but both of these are only of the moment, and when the next chance comes by, the circumstances alter to fit it. He provides a hangout for the (H)ST's of Sunnydale, but doesn't exclude humans. The only rule at Willy's seems to be "don't do your fighting in here."
And of course, Principal Snyder, who just won't go away. He's more active this season, involving himself with Buffy the delinquent and her gang of ne'er-do-wells. He's more directly related to causing harm to others. In School Hard, it is at his instigation that the window is opened and one life lost. If he had not insisted that Buffy 'volunteer' for the Halloween safety program, she might have been able to prevent some of the damage caused. He encouraged Coach Marin to continue his enhancement program so he could brag at the principals' meetings and required Willow to give a passing grade to one of the swimmers so he would remain eligible. And not to forget his statement to the police when they arrest Buffy at the scene of Kendra's death, and his expelling of her in the final episode. It is this season when we learn of his purpose at the school and his involvement with the mayor. We learn that he, and the police, know about the Hellmouth.
And the other bads of this season in BBB and Phases - Buffy's friends, Oz, Xander, Amy, even Giles. In these episodes, the damage that was done was unintentional. In Oz's case it was, as much as can ever be, innocent damage. And only because he takes two whole days to figure out that the werewolf might be him, after his cousin Jordy, who doesn't like to be tickled, bit him. He tries to restrain himself for the third night but is unintentionally prevented by Willow. He then willingly submits to being caged for the safety of others during his change. Xander's case is different. He intends harm, just not the harm that results. Amy is brought into Xander's plan by blackmail, but what is the subject of the blackmail? Casual use of witchcraft for personal gain. Xander wants revenge. Thank the heavens there wasn't a male vengeance demon wandering around Sunnydale at the time. Amy submits to the blackmail rather than recognize that what she was doing, casual magic for her own benefit, was wrong. Amy also doesn't hesitate to use transformation, once successfully, once prevented, against those she saw as rivals. Giles was one of the group who summoned Eyghon and then created more problems by trying to keep the group out of it. If he had told Buffy what was happening, the group might have been more prepared when they were attacked in the library; if he had told them more about Ethan, Buffy might have had more caution in dealing with him. But to do so he would have had to reveal parts of his past that no longer fit with his perception of himself as he is now: the Watcher, the keeper of the knowledge, the sage.
The evil faced in season 2 is less black and white. This time, there are still the vampires, monsters, demons, possession and evil humans. But another layer is added. This time it's personal. Angel becomes Angelus; now we have a Big Bad whose motives are examined. Buffy and Angel are used to exorcise the HS ghosts and their personal relationship is reflected cruelly. Two schoolmates, one of whom is a friend of Willow's, attempt the murder of Cordelia to create a Bride of Frankenstein. Billy Fordham was a crush of Buffy's in fifth grade who is now willing to sacrifice others to ensure his longevity. Giles' past comes back to endanger them all when he is unwilling to share it. Ted is romancing her mother, and insinuating himself into her home life. The frat boys present themselves as friendly college boys who are interested in Cordelia and Buffy, neither of whom find this unlikely, then become dates from hell. Amy is a friend of theirs. Oz is beginning to develop a romance with Willow, and is, of them all, the one who most takes responsibility for himself. Xander betrayed them all with his desire for revenge on Cordelia. Willow and Cordelia appear to turn on Buffy and Xander when they are under the influence of the Bezoars. Most of the swim team, including someone she went out with, turned into monsters. Machida, Daryl Epps, the amphibian monsters and Eyghon were brought to Sunnydale through human machination. Even Buffy's mother is taken aback when she learns that Buffy is the Slayer and slow to adjust to the significance of the calling. The evil faced this season is most significant. It is not clear cut. It forces the Slayer and the Watcher as well as the Scoobies to reassess their vision of evil, since it now includes themselves, as well as demons who show humanity. In the end, Buffy is reft and bereft; not welcome at home, expelled from school; not knowing how Angel had returned, knowing only that she had sent him into hell. Again, the ultimate revenge for Angelus: no weapons, no friends, no hope. In the end, just Buffy.
Your feedback is welcomed!
[> Great post! Missed it the first round...here's some responses -- shadowkat, 18:13:26 06/12/02 Wed
1. Angelus as Big Bad. I love your point about how Angelus forms a small vampire family and does not really surround himself with minions. While he does have them at the end to help in the large campaigns - most of his evil he does personally. Similar to Spike and Dru who also tend to act personally. While the other big bads tend to send out minions to do their dirty work. With the exception of the Order of Taraka - Spike tends to like to do it himself. I think he used the Taraka, because he didn't have time to waste on buffy while he was trying to heal Dru, Dru was first priority.
Angelus - reminds me of Humpert Humpert (sp?) in Lolita.
The older man/teacher obsessed with the teenage girl. Upon sleeping with her - he goes insane. Angelus is a dark Giles - which is why it is almost fitting that Giles is the one he captures and tortures in Becoming PArt I and Giles is the one he hurts the most by killing Jenny. He did not just kill Jenny b/c of the soul or as revenge on her clan - he also did it for Giles - after all he goes to a great deal of effort to set up his little gift - one of the creepiest and horrific things anyone has done on Btvs. Upon finding out about this little scheme - Spike tells him he's nuts. But Spike is Angelus's son here - I honestly think Whedon had Angelus the sire of Dru and Spike up until Season 3, when he changed his mind and decided to do something different with the characters. Not that it matters - Angelus plays a dark father figure/watcher to them both.
You mention that Angelus doesn't bother with Xander - actually he does. Twice. The first time in BBB - where
he literally pulls Xander out a window. Xander would have been dead if Dru hadn't saved him. An ironic twist to that love spell if there ever was one. (I pray they bring Dru back and have her try to vamp Xander again... in Season 7 and have Spike save him - would great/ironic closure to more than one character subplot. Doubt it will happen, but I can dream.) the second time is in epiosde with the hospital demon, Angelus comes to visit Buffy in the hospital, Xander stops him and he baits Xander. He also attack Cordy in front of Xander.
It's interesting that Angel treats Buffy as fragile girl,
a daughter and lover, taking her ice skating and Angelus treats her like a possession, a doll to torment. Both act like versions of the teacher.
The metaphor of Angel/Angelus - is the kind teacher you have that crush on who turns evil once you sleep with him, trying to possess and destroy you. A metaphor that is echoed by James and Grace, where the roles are reversed and instead of the teacher with the cruel obsession, the student has it. Obsessive love seems to be a constant theme on Btvs.
2. Spike and Dru symbolized Lust metaphorically. Incestuous lust - since they were clearly supposed to be brother and sister vampires. Still incestuous after it is revealed Spike is Dru's vamp child. The dark side of love. Dirty.
3. The Judge - this is order at it's most evil. The Judge represents authority - the righteous preacher who burns you because you do not follow his preachings. Or for committing the mortal sin of sex. He tries to kill Spike and Dru because of their affection and jealousy = you will pay if you have sex, I judge you not worthy. It is fitting that Angel becomes Angelus after he and Buffy run into the judge and sleep together. Angelus breaks things off with Buffy, desireing to destroy all affection and love - the judge forgives him finds him clean and worthy.
4. Then we have the monsters who would do anything for love
or affection, even if it meant taking life: Daryl and Ampata
who lust after Cordy and Xander respectively. Fitting that
Xander and Cordy get together not too long afterwards - lusting after one another, kissing in secret and cutting each other up with words in public.
5. Ted is the first of the robots. The first male one, to be followed in season 6 with the Warrenbot. Ted reminds me of Bluebeard story - the male version of the black widow.
In Bluebeard - he chopped off each wife's head before she could leave him - hmmm similar to King Henry the 8th. Joyce gets involved with the nice, orderly, predictable guy only to discover he's a homicidal robot - even for grownups, love
can be cruel.
6. Bezoars - hive mentality. Reminded me of Alien. The idea of being impregnated by an egg. Sex = baby or parasite who takes over your body and makes you do it's bidding. Gee tend to agree with Xander - being a parent is not a good.
Also made great fun of that home ec class a lot of people took in high school.
7. Der Kinderstaad - sucking the innocence out of the child. Only children can see him. Also once again death appears to happen with a kiss. This demon sucks out life with a kiss just like Ampata.
8. Eyghon - the demon jumps from person to person like an infection - insistent on infecting those with the tattoo.
Makes me wonder if this is the metaphor for Sexually Transmitted Disease or Aides - which are transmitted through needles? Rayne gives the tatoo to Buffy via said tatoo, thus infecting her until Angel saves the day - he is already infected, vampires are the result of an infection remember - so the two infections literally battle it out inside Angel. The older one winning!
Season 2 was all about sex, the problems of sex, group mentality, and competition. Great stuff.
Well that's it. Great post. Hope I added to the discussion.
[> [> Humbert Humbert -- Dead Soul, 20:55:37 06/12/02 Wed
The Buffy Cosmology- Sort Of -- Wizardman, 04:00:14 06/12/02 Wed
First of all, I would like to state that this collection of my thoughts will be somewhat incomplete, as a I am more of a 'Buffy' watcher than an 'Angel' watcher. That being said, here goes:
A post or religion in the Bronze ( the Official Buffy Posting Board) got me thinking. It asked whether any of the characters, besides Willow- Jewish- and Tara- Wiccan- were religious. As I said, it got me thinking. And in my thoughts, I entered onto a tangent- the presence of higher powers in the Jossverse.
As we have seen, the Jossverse is very supernaturally oriented- Humans rub shoulders with Vampires, Werewolves, Demons, Trolls, etc. We have also seen gods, or at least beings with godlike power. Buffy has even fought one of them- Glorificus, aka. Glory.
But of all of these beings, the most powerful seem to be the First Evil, and the Powers That Be. These are the absolutes: good and evil, with the universe- THAT universe, at least- as the battleground.
(This is where I begin to get vague and speculative- to my knowledge, the Powers have a major presence on Angel, which I did not start watching until the middle of this past season, so I will be speculating based on what I do know. If I say anytthing that has been directly contradicted, that is why, and please let me know.)
The Powers may just be called that to avoid showing religious favouritism, but I believe that they are referred to as plural because they are a group of beings of more or less equal power who lead the forces of goodness through consensus and harmony (obviously not OUR Harmony, although if Cordelia is now a higher being, then who knows...). By contrast, the First Evil is alone, a being who dominates others with no regards to their thoughts and opinions. In other words, they resemble democracy and autocracy.
Operating on this theory, then the First is trying to dominate the Jossverse, whereas the Powers tries to keep it free to choose its own fate. In the mix, there are a number of neutral or undecided parties- demons among others. All of these neutral/undecided parties are working to their own agendas, which may or may not coincide with those of the First or the PTB. These beings are from other dimensions/universes, either directly- exiles ie. Glory-, or indirectly- through racial origin ie. vampires.
Both the PTB and the First know that these neutral forces are a factor, and both try to work around them, or even to enlist them. This is where Angel- the character- comes in. It can be no accident that Whistler ( a demon himself) went to Angel to persuade him to help Buffy. This implies that the PTB had their eyes on him as a possible recruit. Even after his reversion to Angelus and return to/from grace/Hell, he was still a candidate (this could have even cemented him in their eyes). Enter the First. What did the First want? For Angel to go back to being evil. To what purpose? To serve the First, knowingly or not. Failing this, the First was willing to have Angel die, to deprive the PTB of his service. But Angel eventually chose life, and to make amends for his actions, which resulted in him being picked as a Champion. (Or perhaps, resulted in him choosing to be a Champion, if the PTB had picked him from the get-go).
But all of this ignores the human factor, and since the planet has a heck of a lot of humans, overlooking them would be a mistake. The PTB have Champions, handpicked to fight evil. But do only Champions fight supernatural evil? Of course not. This is where the Slayer comes in. I have been led to believe that the First Slayer, and her spiritual daughters, were the result of a spell cast by a number of powerful shamans in order to create a warrior to fight against the darkness. (We all know how it goes: In each generation...) This is important because it shows that humans are willing to take control of their own destinies. It is vital to note that the Slayer has nothing to do with either the First or the PTB. In her purest form, she is as neutral as the Vampires she fights. She exists to kick Vamp ass. But we all know that there's more to them that that. 'The cause' can lead to Slayers like Faith, whose raw unbridled passion helped contribute to her fall; to Slayers like Kendra, who were so devoted to the Cause that they didn't truly live; and to Slayers like Buffy, who balanced duty with passion and love to become a true protector of the world- not just from Vampires, but from any who would destroy it. The PTB can work around the first two types, but probably work with the third type. But even though they may work with the "Type 3" Slayers, they don't do so openly, or often, perhaps because they view a Slayer as doing the most good when she follows her own path. They save their meddling and direction for their Champions, which only makes sense- I mean, they are Champions OF the PTB's. In the same way, the First could probably work with a Slayer like Faith, but mostly ignores Slayers on the whole, maybe for the same reasons as the PTB.
Well, this wraps up my little discussion on my thoughts on the Cosmology of the Jossverse. As I said, if I'm wrong about something, it is through ignorance, and please tell me so! This was just my attempt at making the 'Cosmic' side of the Jossverse make sense- why the PTB are such a presence on Angel, but not present in Buffy. Just my two cents worth. Please tell me what you think!
[> Counter Cosmology (Speculative S7 Spoilers) -- Darby, 05:49:52 06/12/02 Wed
As we're being shown (some might say force-fed) this season, the Jossverse is only black-and-white if you buy into the propaganda - there's lots of lip service but very little evidence for absolute Good or Evil. I believe that our Champions are caught in a demon civil war for earthly territory, being used as pawns by being told what they want to hear about how the world works.
I've often said that I think that the PTB are a force that exists in the Buffyverse only in those areas where the Angelverse intersects it, and that they arose overtly as a path for Angel out of Hell. I also believe that the First Evil was a manifestation of the PTB designed to test Angel's willingness to commit to their anti-vampire, anti-"bad" demon side - when he was found worthy but driven to suicide, they intervened with the snow (I know, radical interpretation of the text, but it does fit).
This demonic war also leaves the shows somewhere to go - keep in mind, Buffy is supposed to be returning to the spirit of the first season, but fighting a Big Bad Vamp is a worn gig - we need some major mojo to get the Scooby Gang back to kicking butt with abandon. What better season arc than to slowly let them learn their true position in things, and drive them to an ultimate conflict with both sides?
And on a side note that will probably hijack the thread, I (as a non-believer) think that the Jossverse has too little religion in it, and what does exist is mostly primitive cultism - as a representation of a semi-real world, I don't think that you can ignore the ubiquity of religion - no one in Sunnydale ever seems to evoke reactions you'd expect from members of any major organized religion. It was one of Babylon 5's strength that they occasionally focussed on things from the religious perspective of the characters, and treated sincere belief with great respect, raising interesting questions, but I don't see that really happening on Joss' shows.
[> [> Re: Counter Cosmology (Speculative S7 Spoilers) -- skpe, 07:36:25 06/12/02 Wed
How do you fit in something like Skip? Which seems to indicate
That the PTBs run the punishment hells. And what is their relation to the hell dimensions?
[> [> [> Re: Counter Cosmology (Speculative S7 Spoilers) -- Darby, 09:33:01 06/12/02 Wed
It's like any conflict - just because someone is evil doesn't mean their actions benefit the "evil" side. Look at Wolfram & Hart's vacillation vis-a-vis dealing with Angel. At times he seems important to their side, although lately the focus has shifted to Connor. But I think that the PTB are less able to manifest on "this side" than the other guys, and are using more non-demonic agents in a holding action until they can take a more direct approach. Hey, it's less complicated than the mess on the X Files...
There was a reason Skip's bosses wanted Billy locked up - as an agent for W&H he was some sort of threat to them. He certainly had the capability of affecting the balance of power.
I kind of like how Skip has seemed more ominous, less clearly "on the side of the Angels" (can you believe I had that written before I noticed the pun?) every time he reappears.
[> Slayers and the Powers -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:04:27 06/12/02 Wed
I think there is a very simple reason why the Powers That Be don't interfere with Buffy much:
Each Slayer comes from a line of warriors dating back millenia. At first, the Powers probably had to guide them a lot. But, with time, the Watchers came around and developed a Council to train the Slayers. Granted, the Council seems to be filled with a lot of jerks, and they're morally ambiguous in some cases, but they provide a lot of good. They inform the Slayer of her calling, train her to be a warrior, supply knowledge of the supernatural world, etc. The Powers don't get involved with the Slayers because there is a mortal institution in place that does the job of guiding the Slayer sufficiently.
Meanwhile, Angel is a freak. He is the only vampire with a soul (that we know of). There is no council or guides or anything set up to prepare and lead good vampires in the fight against evil. Therefore, the Powers That Be need to get involved or else they won't have a souled vampire to fight for their cause.
Also, I dislike the notion that the Powers That Be are supposed to be a force of good. It is quite likely that the First Evil (if that was really the First instead of just a magic induced hallucination) is one of the Powers. Most likely, there are good Powers, evil Powers, and grey Powers, forming alliances with some of their kind and fighting against others.
[> [> Re: Slayers and the Powers -- O'Cailleagh, 13:38:30 06/12/02 Wed
I feel its most probable that the PTB are just that, the Powers That Be. They just are, rarely interfering in the events of 'mortals' unless specifically requested to (and then their help is indirect), or if the events will affect them in some way.
Really good series of essays on each character -- SingedCat, 05:58:25 06/12/02 Wed
http://dianamichelle.5u.com/host/jacksee/home.html
[> Looks good. Thanks for the link. -- Deeva, 09:33:06 06/12/02 Wed
Blood Ties… Yet Another Connection between Spike and Dawn? -- K-Dizzy, 06:44:25 06/12/02 Wed
Is Dawn related to Spike? Time will tell, but until then, consider these additional "random" parallels… Coincidence, you say?
Contrast the events of "Fool for Love" and "Blood Ties." In both situations, an extremely sensitive individual (William/Dawn) is brutally rejected by those whom they most love: Cecily to William's face, while Dawn overhears Buffy and Joyce talking and assumes the worst. The real William (a good man) and "real me" Dawn (a teenage human) are inherently diminished and not seen: he's "beneath" Cecily, and Dawn's not "family, we don't even know what she is." Totally devastated, both rip up their writings, where they have revealed their deepest emotions and true selves (his poetry, her diaries), and crying, run out into the dark, dangerous night.
Both are initially found by nice people (Drusilla, Ben) who try to comfort them. And then both watch as said person literally morphs into an evil hell-bitch (vampire Drusilla, Glory) right before their startled, confused eyes. Both Drusilla and Glory use odd turns of phrase and are a bit mentally unstable, both want something of value that can be found in William/Dawn. Dru wants a devoted knight, and sees potential in William's vision, glory, spirit and imagination; Glory wants the Key to return home, to secure her freedom and unlimited power. Both conversations, interestingly, also involve the search for something transcendent: Drusilla speaks of William wanting "something glowing and glistening; something... effulgent," while Glory is looking for a "bright… swirly, shimmer," what Spike called a "mystical, glowy, key thing."
Both characters are forever changed by these momentous encounters. Both lose the casual, comfortable, security of their human lives/realities, and learn about hidden aspects of their nature. And both gain a new identity as creatures of unrealized power and agents/symbols of barely-contained chaos… William becomes the undead vampire, Spike, killer of slayers, and Dawn learns of her undeniable heritage as the Key, able and destined to break down the very walls between dimensions....
Again, Spike has always seen the best of Buffy- her spirit and spunk- in Dawn. No weeping in deserted alleyways for her... when Dawn is crushed by the loss of her mother, she takes proactive "bitty Buffy" steps to remedy the situation. But if Dawn is also made from the vampire, will this be revealed, and when it is, what will the "parent" Spike think when he recognizes the qualities he most despised about William (observant, emotional, extremely sensitive) in the child, Dawn? Accepting her means eventually accepting whatever's left of William in him…. And yeah, this sounds like a compelling connection to be explored, and interesting story to be told!
[> Re: Blood Ties - Spoilers for all eps aired in the US -- Rahael, 07:01:06 06/12/02 Wed
Great post, with so many good points!
Both Spike and Dawn are also incredibly ambivalent/ambigous characters. They have something about the unknown, the uncharacterisable about them.
For example the "am I good or am I evil" conversation that they have (I forget the ep).
The fact that they stand squarely on the line of moral ambiguity is reflected within their very bodies themselves - Dawn, as you point out is energy made flesh, whose essense is to break down boundaries and walls.
Spike is a paradox - being dead/alive. So much about Buffy is the breaking down of boundaries/hierarchies/dichotomies.
Dawn as you point out is a very dynamic character - goes out and does things, such as find Rack, or try to ressurrect Joyce. So is Spike, always having a plan, preferring doing to musty ritual, going out to Africa to be what he once was.
[> Re: Spoiler -- LeeAnn, 08:40:04 06/12/02 Wed
Very nice comparison. Maybe Spike really is Dawn's genetic father like some spoilers say.
Joss speaks about Season 7!! (specific season 6 spoilers, and more vague season 7 spoilers) -- Rob, 07:43:48 06/12/02 Wed
I got this article from http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2002-06/11/13.00.tv :
"Joss Whedon, whose Buffy the Vampire Slayer took home the Saturn Award for best network television series, told SCI FI Wire that he will move production to England for the seventh-season premiere episode. 'I am going to England ... in a couple of weeks to shoot some second-unit with Tony [Head, who plays Giles,] and Alyson [Hannigan, who plays Willow,] for the season premiere of Buffy,' Whedon told reporters after receiving his award June 10 in Los Angeles. 'So that'll be fun. Our first production values ever. We're very excited. Usually it's 'So we're in Venice. Hand me that goblet.' So it's a thing.'"
"As for next year's storyline for the UPN series, Whedon remained coy, but promised a change from this year's dark themes. 'I can only tell you a little bit,' he said. 'This is something I've been sort of gearing towards since the very beginning of the show. It's a question of bringing it onto a much larger scale and at the same time making it much more personal and much more personal to Buffy herself. This year was a chance to let the other characters [shine.] ... The big climactic scene [was] between Xander and Willow, and that was because, as characters and as actors, they'd earned that opportunity. And I thought it was right for them to sort of be the spokespeople for what was going on at the end there. But next year Buffy will be much less peripheral to the climax. The climax will be the biggest thing we've ever done.'
"Whedon added, 'You know, every year it might be the end. Except, actually, this year. This year I really did sort of leave it up in the air. You could have said this could have been an end, but the [cliffhanger] with Spike and the thing on Angel, this was sort of the exception to the rule. But I am looking for closure next year in way because we're making a more positive statement. This year was just about surviving the year. Sometimes the audience felt that actually it's their chore too. What? You don't want to be depressed all the time like me? I don't understand. But next year is something that's a lot more positive and definitive. And in that it has to end with an exclamation point, not a question mark.'"
---------------------------------------------------------
What is he gearing towards?!? I'm personally hoping for an exploration into the mythology points on the show that were never fully explained--how the Watcher's Council works, how much power do they really have, how a Slayer is called, how they know which girl is the Slayer, where Slayer power comes from, etc etc.
What do you guys think?
Rob
[> Re: Joss speaks about Season 7!! (specific season 6 spoilers, and more vague season 7 spoilers) -- ponygirl, 07:56:54 06/12/02 Wed
Oooh! It does sound like the long-hinted origin of the Slayers type of arc. The big climax also makes me think of that old comment Joss made about his original plan to end everything, back when he didn't think the series would last past 5 years, was to have Sunnydale sucked into hell. But in a positive way. Ok. Well, this will certainly make me say hmm for the next few months.
[> [> Re: Joss speaks about Season 7!! (specific season 6 spoilers, and more vague season 7 spoilers) -- alcibiades, 09:10:00 06/12/02 Wed
I think they set up what next year would be about in the Finale.
Buffy told Giles, wtte of "I still don't know why I was pulled back fro heaven to live again."
We certainly didn't find out last year, all she did was fight the fact that she was back. Next year, we will find out. Plus, how Spike will be necessary in that fight.
[> [> [> Re: Joss speaks about Season 7!! (specific season 6 spoilers, and more vague season 7 spoilers) -- Dedalus, 09:39:07 06/12/02 Wed
Veerrrrryyyy interesting. Thanks for posting that Rob.
Hmm. Biggest finale ever, huh?
[> [> [> [> You're welcome...I was intrigued as well. ;o) -- Rob, 12:21:07 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> [> Re: Joss speaks about Season 7!! (specific season 6 spoilers, and more vague season 7 spoilers) -- maddog, 08:16:48 06/13/02 Thu
Or more importantly for Spike, why having a soul is necessary in that fight.
[> The Red Axe (Fray spoilers, Buffy spoilers, my imagination spoilers) -- darrenK, 09:37:26 06/12/02 Wed
Joss has also said that he'd be doing some filming in England, including the first episode which ,supposedly, he's going to write and direct.
This points to the Slayer legend be explored, maybe even in the headquarters of the Watcher's council?
Him saying that next year's climax would be the "biggest thing they've ever done" dovetails with SMG's recent comments saying that they want the show to end with a bang. He's not saying it's the last season, but you can sniff around his comments and see that that's what he means.
These vague hints definitely click with the past talked about in Fray--the big showdown, the demons being locked behind a door that looked mysteriously like the one that Glory tried to open and the recent heavy handed reminders that little Dawny is the "Key to the future of the universe."
And if the season (show ender) is going to be bigger than the Graduation Day battle and bigger than The Gift, then I think Buffy will indeed be going to war.
In Fray, that demon, whose name I can't remember--Urrkon?, said that the Slayer has to be a leader in time of war.
I don't think Joss planted that line or that plotline accidently. And even if he came up with it for Fray, it's too juicy not to pursue.
I think we're going to be seeing that Red Axe very soon...
[> [> Biggest finale ever: Hell(mouth) on Earth? -- cjl, 09:57:22 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> Red Axe? -- skeeve, 10:16:19 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> [> Re: Red Axe? -- Dochawk, 11:44:14 06/12/02 Wed
from memory havne't read frey for awhile:
The Red Axe is given to our herione/slayer Frey by her watcher ukron. He tells her that it is a weapon that has been weilded by slayers for time in memoriam, especially at times of war with demons. It looks suspiciuosly like the axe (but not exactly) that Buffy uses as Anne to defeat the underworld demons. She left it behind then. Most people don't think it was the same though.
[> [> Giving a Shove & Shutting the Door (spoilers, spoilers, spoilers) -- Darby, 11:09:34 06/12/02 Wed
If the Fray depiction of events (by some Slayer sometime in this century) is carried out, the Buffyverse becomes the realverse - all demons and magicks get banished. That kills the cash cows of Angel (before the magic syndication number of 100 shows) and the much-hinted-at Buffy spin-off that Marti Noxon is supposedly developing (Fray would be too expensive as a tv series and probably too oblique to get made as a movie). And Joss permanently trashes his own private universe, which isn't easy.
It does set up Xander Harris, Bingo Champion as a possibility, though...
[> [> [> Or bowling champion (he has his own shoes) -- Vickie, 12:51:04 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> [> Unless... -- Rob, 12:56:32 06/12/02 Wed
..the other seasons of "Angel" and whatever other spin-offs take place before the end of "Buffy." That timeline, though, could be very hard, if not impossible to keep. But, hey, M*A*S*H made the Korean War stretch out to 11 years. So ya never know...
Rob
[> [> [> [> Hellmouth open/Hellmouth closed -- darrenK, 13:23:56 06/12/02 Wed
The events in Fray are told to Melaka by Urquon the demon. They do not necessary hold true word for word, that's just the way Urquon tells it.
It's certainly possible that the demon dimensions are shut off from our universe at the end of Buffy, but that those demons who are hybrids or were already here are not affected and must be hunted down. That would certainly give purpose to a spin-off show. It would also give Angel investigations something to do.
Personally, I think that it'll be like the Hellmouth open/Hellmouth closed phenomenon. Originally we are told that vampires are the only demons--demon hybrids--left on Earth, but soon there seem to be all sorts of demons here (LA seems to have a 1:1 human demon ratio) and that's with the Hellmouth CLOSED. What difference does it really make what the Hellmouth is doing considering how permeable the doors between dimensions seem to be? I have a feeling that Buffy could permanantly close the door to the Hell dimensions and there will still be a caveat that lets demons and the supernatural continue to operate.
Either that or the end will be problem specific e.g., a demon army wants to break through to this dimension and Buffy will find a way to seal it out.
There are a million explanations and I have a feeling that they will find one that satisfies the needs of Angel, Fray and Buffy while still giving Buffy a big finish.
dK
[> [> [> [> [> Demon/human ratio -- Cleanthes, 07:50:55 06/13/02 Thu
(LA seems to have a 1:1 human demon ratio)
Yeah, don't you hate inaccuracies like this? The last time I was in LA, the demons had the humans outnumbered at least 10-1. Okay, I only drove through on the freeway and I suppose that's where the demons congregate, but still...
[> [> other Joss Notes (Real Spoilers for season 7) -- Dochawk, 11:37:26 06/12/02 Wed
I didn't post another part of the same interview yesterday because I thought it was too spoilery for the main board (as Masq noted when she accidentally read it). Cinescape seems to be milking this interview for about 5 articles.
In one of them he talks about filming in England. Only Alyson and Anthony Stewart Head are going with Joss to England. This strongly suggests not more info about the watchers council, but the healing of Willow at the hands of the Witches Coven in Dovor. I really really like what this plot line represents, but my fascination with slayer history really wants to know more about that too. (Of course nothing says he can't shoot WC stuff at the same time)
[> [> [> You sure of that Doc?............;) -- Rufus, 18:06:20 06/12/02 Wed
[> Unstoppable Army of Slayers! -- Wizardman, 15:04:53 06/12/02 Wed
Hmmm... the finale will be bigger, and yet more personal to Buffy herself. I read on a post on the Bronze a while back that a possible 'big bang' for the finale would be for Buffy to lead the entire town of Sunnydale into battle against demons from the Hellmouth ala "Graduation Day." I like that, but I can think of a similar idea that will top even that. What if Buffy were to lead the spirits of her predecessors into battle? Think about it- an army of kick-ass spirit warriors led by our favourite Slayer. Or, to take it further and shift it a little bit, what if it's Buffy's job to fight the Big Bad all alone, and it falls to everyone else to protect her while she does it, or at least fend off demons so that the fight is Slayer-a-mano. That fight would be big, as it could conceivably involve not just the Scoobies, but could give the writers a reason to do a one-time crossover with the Fang Gang (especially if this is the last season) as well as my conceived Slayer army. And who would lead the Slayers? Well, its been awhile since we've seen Faith... What do you think?
[> 'You know, every year it might be the end -- Q, 18:50:14 06/12/02 Wed
> Except, actually, this year. This year I really did sort of leave it up in the air. You could have said this could have been an end, but the [cliffhanger] with Spike and the thing on Angel, this was sort of the exception to the rule.<
I kind of disagree with this statement. I feel that Season 4 would have been an awful ending! Let's look:
Season 1. A good ending to the show. If it would have ended here we could have just supposed that this was about a slayer being drawn by fate to Sunnydale to stop the masters ascension, after succeeding-- the parts of the story we need to know are over.
Season 2. A TRAGIC ending-- but it would have worked as an ending. Buffy can't take anymore and runs away to never slay again. Depressing, but could have been an END.
Season 3. Suppose the show was meant to be a horror metaphor of HIGH SCHOOL LIFE, and the stories of a high school vampire slayer. It makes sense that when the school blew up, the parts of the story we need to know were concluded, and the series could have EASILY ended here.
Season 4. This is the one I can't see being the end. There wasn't ANY closure at all. It wasn't the end of a phase of their life like season 3. It wasn't the end of the slayers story, like season 2 could have been. And since we had more than one season, it couldn't have ended with the closing of one story like season one did. Not to mention Restless was CHOCK FULL of hints of what's to come... I disagree with Joss that this could have been the end, at least not a GOOD end.
Season 5. Couldn't have picked a better ending. The most giant saving of the world EVER-- and the end of our slayer. I'm shocked that that WASN'T the end!
Season 6. Like season 4-- this seems more like a "just begun" than an end.
Joss' comments on "what happened to Angel" makes it sound like he tries to wrap up Angel each year too, but I TOTALLY disagree. Not a SINGLE season of Angel finished with a good series ender!
[> [> Re: 'You know, every year it might be the end -- Dochawk, 22:24:43 06/12/02 Wed
Season 4 and Season 6 were the two years that Joss had a pickup before the season started. he knew already there was anotehr season, so I don't think he meant it quite literally the way you are taking it. I think he thought of season4 and 5 as a 44 episode arc and 6/7 as a 44 episode arc.
AGAIN RESTARTING THE HAIKU THREAD! -- Rob, 11:37:48 06/12/02 Wed
Here are the ones of mine that are not yet answered:
Nummy treats to choose
from, a vampire's buffet! Blonde,
Brunette...all tasty!
So far, 3 incorrect guesses: Lie to Me, The Wish, and The Harvest.
--------------------------
Birthdays are no fun.
Except for the chocolatey
Goodness. That can stay!
--------------------------
Illusions of light
shattered, dreams of happiness
slip through their fingers.
---------------------------
Ete's Unanswered Ones:
to die or not to
if it's not i only want
to kiss you - oh no !
Incorrect Guesses so far: Inca Mummy Girl, Becoming II, Graduation Day II, I Only Have Eyes for You, Where the Wild Things Are, Reptile Boy, Intervention, I Was Made to Love You
Hints: My first hint is that the passage I'm refering too could be nominated as the best redemptive scene of an otherwise lame episode (IMO at least)
and
"bared torso"
----------------------------
Go orange Buffy !
Appearance is decieving
Evil is older
(two answers possible)
----------------------
Do not see me
For I am ugly they say
But you saw me trully
----------------------
Brian's Unanswered One:
Lock of binding love
Blessed by actions from above
Brings forth hawk or dove.
Incorrect Guess: Primeval
Now, continue, everybody!
Rob
[> And Deeva's new one... -- Rob, 11:39:00 06/12/02 Wed
Who are you really
Bogeyman for little bads
Diving for the word
[> [> Re: And Deeva's new one... -- Doriander, 12:24:49 06/12/02 Wed
Doomed?
[> [> [> Yay for you, Doriander! -- Deeva, 12:56:08 06/12/02 Wed
[> Thanks Rob --- You beat me to it! :D -- LittleBit, 11:45:23 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> You're welcome! It took a while, but it really had to be done, didn't it? ;o) -- Rob, 11:57:18 06/12/02 Wed
[> Rob, is your first one... -- JCC, 11:49:42 06/12/02 Wed
Homecoming?
The slayer buffet one.
[> [> No! Here's a hint... -- Rob, 11:55:45 06/12/02 Wed
The most important word in the poem, as related to the episode, is "choose".
Rob
[> [> [> Oh, for crying out loud! -- Deeva, 11:59:50 06/12/02 Wed
is it Choices!
[> [> [> [> Sorry! Here's another hint... -- Rob, 12:01:43 06/12/02 Wed
Here are the three most important words in the poem:
Choose.
Blonde.
Brunette.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sorry! Here's another hint... -- Ete, 14:00:01 06/12/02 Wed
Is it Ennemies ?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Good guess...but, unfortunately, still wrong! -- Rob, 14:15:37 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> Re: Rob, is your first one... -- shadowkat, 19:06:07 06/12/02 Wed
I think this was answered below but Crush.
[> [> [> Yup! :o) -- Rob, 20:11:26 06/12/02 Wed
[> The Birthday one... -- Deeva, 11:52:14 06/12/02 Wed
is it Family?
[> [> Nuh-uh! But here's a hint for this one... -- Rob, 11:58:58 06/12/02 Wed
The birthday is not as important as the chocolately goodness.
Rob
[> [> [> Re: Nuh-uh! But here's a hint for this one... -- Deeva, 12:01:34 06/12/02 Wed
Older and Far Away
[> [> [> [> No, there wasn't quite enough chocolately goodness in that one... -- Rob, 12:03:42 06/12/02 Wed
The birthday in question in the ep this poem refers to is NOT the main focus of the episode. In fact, we do not actually see the birthday in this ep. It is (mostly) only discussed.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> Re: No, there wasn't quite enough chocolately goodness in that one... -- Doriander, 12:23:05 06/12/02 Wed
Is it Nightmares? (Xander's b-day)
[> [> [> [> [> [> YES!!!! -- Rob, 12:25:59 06/12/02 Wed
Xander's b-day when he was a little kid...
which was "no fun" because of the clown that scared the bejesus out of him...
But on the bright side, there was the chocolately goodness...those chocolate bars he loved so much that he found scattered on the floor.
Rob
[> Ete's "The to die or not to"... -- Deeva, 11:57:28 06/12/02 Wed
I can't think of the name of the episode but is it the one where Spike has the dream/nightmare of him loving Buffy?
[> [> Yes! Yay you!!! -- LittleBit, 12:07:59 06/12/02 Wed
I had an absolute blind spot for it, and it's one of my favorite moments!!
[> [> [> I was thinking "Lover's Walk"... -- Rob, 12:12:32 06/12/02 Wed
...with the "we could die" and then the kiss and then "oh, no" since Cordelia walked in.
Oh, well!
Rob
[> [> [> d'oh! -- ponygirl, 12:22:07 06/12/02 Wed
Out Of My Mind! Do I feel dumb now! Though Ete, I don't think it's a lame episode, lots of good moments/lines, Riley in pain, always something I like to see, and of course the final scene is the lovely chewy centre!
[> [> [> [> Yeah, I agree... -- Rob, 12:24:27 06/12/02 Wed
...I liked that episode, too, especially the force-the-Initiative-doctor-to-remove-the-chip subplot, and Harmony deciding she should smoke, because she's evil now, and that's what villains do.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> Bravo Deeva ! -- Ete, 13:37:47 06/12/02 Wed
I love OOMM, but really only for the dream and a few of the Spike passage. The cheesiness of Riley and his machismo is quite unbearable to me. And I'm not a big Riley hater... it's just... oh bored.
Well, it also has one of my favorite Tara/Willow moment... what are you looking at... your hand. Cute :)
Or maybe it's my fascination with tarot.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Tank you, tank you veddy much! -- Deeva, bowing and curtsying ;o), 20:08:48 06/12/02 Wed
[> Re: AGAIN RESTARTING THE HAIKU THREAD! -- Doriander, 12:37:02 06/12/02 Wed
Nummy treats to choose
from, a vampire's buffet! Blonde,
Brunette...all tasty!
All the Way?
Go orange Buffy !
Appearance is decieving
Evil is older
Er, Doublemeat Palace?
Do not see me
For I am ugly they say
But you saw me trully
FFL?
[> [> Wrong on the first one...Can't say about the other 2, since I didn't write them. :o) -- Rob, 12:54:38 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> answers -- LittleBit, 13:09:50 06/12/02 Wed
two out of three: Rob's and Doublemeat Palace
[> [> Re: AGAIN RESTARTING THE HAIKU THREAD! -- shadowkat, 19:09:50 06/12/02 Wed
Go orange Buffy !
Appearance is decieving
Evil is older
Actually - Witch from Season 1 also works better there.
Buffy in orange cheerleader custom and does Go! Go! Go!
Appearence decieving - think it's Amy, actually her mom.
And evil is older - actually is Amy's mom.
[> Ete... -- Rob, 13:28:48 06/12/02 Wed
Is the "Go Orange Buffy!" one "Hell's Bells"?
Rob
[> [> Nope Rob -- Ete, 13:34:07 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> [> Well then how about -- Deeva, 14:19:29 06/12/02 Wed
As You Were
[> [> [> [> nah -- Ete, 14:50:34 06/12/02 Wed
[> #6 answer is... -- GreatRewards, 14:03:30 06/12/02 Wed
Family.
-----------------
Do not see me
For I am ugly they say
But you saw me trully
-------------------
[> [> yeah ! -- Ete, 14:14:43 06/12/02 Wed
[> Another clue for the "nummy treats" one -- Rob, 14:18:04 06/12/02 Wed
Who says "Nummy treats"?
Tie that in to "Choose...blonde...brunette".
And then you'll have the answer...
Rob
[> [> Last attempt -- Doriander, 14:20:50 06/12/02 Wed
Crush?
[> [> [> That's it!!! :oD -- Rob, 20:12:40 06/12/02 Wed
[> Here's one for one of my favorite episodes! -- GreatRewards, 14:56:48 06/12/02 Wed
Too good to be true.
Won't stand for that malarkey.
Putt putt, anyone?
[> [> Ted? -- Doriander (fresh from S2 DVD marathon), 15:09:00 06/12/02 Wed
[> [> [> Yup! -- GreatRewards, 08:53:57 06/13/02 Thu
[> This is getting addictive... -- Doriander, 15:22:23 06/12/02 Wed
Illusions of light
shattered, dreams of happiness
slip through their fingers.
Hell's Bells?
[> [> You got it! -- Rob, 20:37:51 06/12/02 Wed
[> Re: AGAIN RESTARTING THE HAIKU THREAD! -- Rob, 20:40:49 06/12/02 Wed
Do my eyes deceive
me with double-vision or
is it true? But how?
Rob
[> [> Re: AGAIN RESTARTING THE HAIKU THREAD! -- Deeva, 21:03:13 06/12/02 Wed
The Replacement
[> [> [> Yup! -- Rob, 08:13:06 06/13/02 Thu
[> One more before bedtime! -- Rob, 20:52:00 06/12/02 Wed
A flock waits for its
saviors, welcoming them in.
Anne Rice would be proud.
Rob
[> [> Re: One more before bedtime! -- Deeva, 21:09:59 06/12/02 Wed
Lie to Me
[> [> [> You beat me to it, dammit! -- Addict!Doriander, 21:25:44 06/12/02 Wed
Was it you or me who was turned into a rat one time ;) Say, I'm jonesing for a new one. Got any? I think Rack!Rob won't be supplying till tomorrow.
[> [> [> [> Rack!Rob....lol. You need a fix? Here's one! -- Rack!Rob, 08:16:16 06/13/02 Thu
Balance has shifted.
Now I am the strong one, who'll
nurse you back to health.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Rack!Rob....lol. You need a fix? Here's one! -- Doriander, 08:33:03 06/13/02 Thu
What's My Line 2? Do I get a cookie?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Yes you do! -- Rob, 08:33:44 06/13/02 Thu
[> [> [> YES! -- Rob, 08:12:01 06/13/02 Thu
[> [> Re: One more before bedtime! -- Junkie!Doriander, 21:16:44 06/12/02 Wed
Do my eyes deceive
me with double-vision or
is it true? But how?
Too vague! (grumble, grumble, pout) I've several answers for this one, but seeing as this aired this week, I'll go with "Afterlife".
A flock waits for its
saviors, welcoming them in.
Anne Rice would be proud.
Lie To Me?
Careful Rob, I'm in danger of becoming Dark!Doriander when this thread dies. ;)
[> And another... -- Rob, 08:42:11 06/13/02 Thu
Come take your nasty
medication; you'll feel all
better! Down the hatch!
Rob
[> [> Helpless? -- Doriander, 08:45:08 06/13/02 Thu
[> [> [> Wow, you're good at this! -- Rob, 08:50:40 06/13/02 Thu
[> [> Re: And another... -- Deeva, 08:47:26 06/13/02 Thu
Normal Again
[> One for the morning -- Deeva, 08:52:31 06/13/02 Thu
Cleansing the abode
Shiny piece of temptation
Soon to melt away
[> [> Re: One for the morning -- Rob, 08:55:18 06/13/02 Thu
Gone?
Rob
[> [> [> Abso-freakin-lutely! -- Deeva, 09:02:46 06/13/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> Yay! Oh, and by the way... -- Rob, 09:06:26 06/13/02 Thu
...that one was awesome! Loved the "melt away" thing, about Willow's left-over magic candle!
For a little while, I thought the "cleanse the abode" thing might be about the burning of Spike's crypt in "As You Were," but the demon eggs weren't exactly melting! lol
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> I wasn't thinking about the candle... -- Deeva, 09:20:10 06/13/02 Thu
I was thinking about how if Buffy didn't un-invisible herself, she would melt away like the traffic cone/pudding. That's the neat thing about these haikus, interpretation is all in the way you read it. BTW, I think there's only a handful of us playing now, makes me feel a tiny bit guilty.
[> Here's a new one. -- Rob, 09:04:08 06/13/02 Thu
Miraculous dark!
You stand here triumphant, as
the night breathes its last.
Rob
[> [> Re: Here's a new one. -- LittleBit, 09:15:47 06/13/02 Thu
Amends?
[> [> [> Yes. :o) -- Rob, 09:20:19 06/13/02 Thu
[> And another... -- Rob, 09:24:48 06/13/02 Thu
fear grips my soul, for
just one look, and I knew the
countdown had begun
Rob
[> [> Just to finish it off, the answer to my above one is... -- Rob, 10:50:09 06/13/02 Thu
...Villains.
Been fun playing, guys!
Rob
[> LET'S END IT HERE -- LittleBit, 09:27:46 06/13/02 Thu
It's been fun, but time to stop playing.
[> [> But what about with the fun? ;o) -- Rob, 09:59:12 06/13/02 Thu
[> [> Re: LET'S END IT HERE -- Ronia, 10:00:27 06/13/02 Thu
Don't want to wear it out do we now... :0)
[> [> Ok mom. ;o) -- Deeva, 10:19:12 06/13/02 Thu
[> [> [> Re: Ending the game - OK -- Brian, 11:24:51 06/13/02 Thu
Lock of binding love
Blessed by actions from above
Brings forth hawk or dove.
Is Lullaby
[> [> Re: LET'S END IT HERE -- cat, 13:53:26 06/13/02 Thu
A diffrent slayer
out of hist'ry's cold dead past
wreaks havoc to feel
>>>Answer<<<
Incan Mummy Girl
Dawn and Connor -- Wizardman, 03:14:23 06/13/02 Thu
One thing that I have seen on the Net that involves both of the 'Jossverse' shows involves a potential relationship: that of Dawn and Connor. There are a number of people who believe that the two should romantically hook up, at least for a while. There are a number of reasons why I think that this might be a good idea, even if it never happens- and probably won't.
1: Just to get this part over with... there is an almost soap operatic quality to the idea- after all, they are the younger sister and the only son of Buffy and Angel, respectively, which is one of TV's most famous doomed romances. Seeing how Joss & Co. would handle this aspect would be hilarious- and then probably emotionally rending (this is ME we are dealing with here, after all...)
2: The two characters have a fair bit in common. For various reasons, both characters are far older than they should be- Dawn is technically almost two, and Connor technically 6 months or so. Also, they both have had major issues with their parental figure this past year- Dawn's with Buffy's emotional paralysis, Connor with Angel's... well, Angel's EVERYTHING. Both acted out against said figure, although Connor did so in a rather... dramatic way. In a way, both also dealt with their issues- Dawn in a lasting way, Connor in a temporary way (I can't wait until he finds out the truth about Holtz's death, even as I simultaneously almost hope that he doesn't- he's been through too much already). And finally, although both characters may be seen as somewhat unlikeable because of their actions (ie. kleptomania and constant whining and/or locking their loving father in box and dumping said box into the ocean), both have had VERY crappy lives. Think about it- first Dawn finds out that she is not real, then her mother dies, then she finds out that she can potentially destroy the entire universe, then her sister sacrifices herself to save her... and that's all before she turned one! After all that, her sister returns to her, only she's only a pale shadow of the Buffy that was, her first crush turns out to be a vampire who tries to kill her, she is almost abducted by a singing, dancing demon to be his queen, and the list goes on. As for Connor, he was taken away from his loving family, and raised by a vengeance crazed man in Hell (okay, Quortoth, but its close enough I'm sure), only to return to the dimension of his birth trying to kill his birth father, only to have his adoptive father commit suicide in a manner that frames his real father, whom Connor was just beginning to feel good about, leading Connor to wreak vengeance in a manner that will leave him with even more issues when he discovers the truth. Angstville, here we come!
3: Finally we get to the way in which they are most similar- both are very special beings: the Key Between the Dimensions, and the Miracle Child. Dawn should not exist as she does, and Connor should not exist at all. In Spiral, we are told that the Key represents Ultimate Power. Throughout most of this season of Angel, we are told that the Miracle Child represents Ultimate Possibility. Think about it- Ultimate Power, and Ultimate Possibility. When I heard a rumour- which still may come true- that Dawn was going to get new powers, I thought that she would be learning to actively control the powers of the Key- in fact, I thought that her Key-ness would be what brought Buffy back, or at least helped. And Connor, as the son of two- ensouled- Vampires, posesses great physical strength, is incredibly tough, and has almost inhuman reflexes. And all of this before he grow to full maturity! He can- and probably will- get much better. Now, think of what these two might accomplish together. Ultimate Power, and Ultimate Possibility- together, Dawn and Connor may destroy the entire world several times over... or become two of its greatest protectors.
Finally, they may be good for each other. A relationship with an ordinary person is probably impractical for both of them. Also, they could 'get' each other- both know what it is to be special, and otherwise alone. And Dawn would probably get a chance to balance out her karma by giving Connor the type of support which she once needed and received. Having someone around to provide comfort while not being too emotionally close to what happened (Angel-in-a-box) would be good for Connor, and Dawn needs friends who both know about the dangers of the Hellmouth AND are her's alone- not just Buffy's- not that I'm knocking Dawn's friendships with the Scoobies, but they DID all start out being Buffy's friends, and Dawn needs a few of her own.
As always, please tell me what you think!
Spread the Buffy character love! -- Rob, 12:31:38 06/13/02 Thu
A lot of people who watch "Buffy" will say they love everybody in the story except for...(fill in the blank: Buffy, Xander, Willow, etc etc).
I have personally never disliked any of the characters...In fact, besides Riley, who I had reservations about (okay, maybe I disliked him lol), I adore every character on the show. Except the people I'm not supposed to adore...like Warren grr aargh.
Anyway, please respond if you also love every character on "Buffy." Yes, all of them are capable of being very unlikable...but even, when they do something unlikable, it only makes them more human in my opinion. A recent example--Xander, who got a lot of flack for his behavior at the wedding and his anger at Spike, etc. I was not happy with his character there, but I still love the guy. Same goes for Willow, whose actions were a tad bit more overboard than his. ;o)
Friends in RL can do crappy things, and we still forgive them. I feel the same way about my "Buffy" characters.
Any one else agree with me?
Rob
[> I'm in the same boat with you, Rob. -- Deeva, 12:47:03 06/13/02 Thu
Though I may profess a slight bias towards Spike and may cringe when Dawn whines, (for a while there it was everytime she was on screen!) but over all I like everybody.
[> [> I agree... -- Rob, 13:31:07 06/13/02 Thu
Dawn did bug me a bit around the middle of this year, but I'm back to liking her, ever since she shifted from Me!Me!Me!Dawn to Empathetic!Dawn...and especially after "Grave." Although I will admit to snickering during Willow's verbal attack of her at Rack's place.
Rob
[> Joining in: I love every character in BUFFY -- cjl, 13:01:37 06/13/02 Thu
I even liked Riley. Yes, he was a straight-arrow from Iowa, but I found that a refreshing contrast to our usual gang of oddballs.
Dawn has been a bit underwritten and whiny this year, but MT has been doing a great job, and I anticipate great things from her as the mysteries of the Key are explored in Season 7.
Xander. I've been rooting for him since the beginning. Same with Willow. One year of temporary insanity on both their parts isn't going to stop the love.
Spike packs more fun, angst, and snarkiness than we deserve in one character. James Marsters has just been amazing. He does anything Joss throws at him and keeps coming back for more. Anya's character has been expanding in remarkable directions since the wedding. EC all but dominated "Grave." Can't wait to see which way she goes in Season 7.
I miss Giles badly. When he came in at the end of "Two to Go," my group of Buffyphiles yelled so loudly, we couldn't hear his dramatic "I'd like to test that theory" line of dialogue.
Bring back Jonathan!
Did I miss anybody?
Oh. Right.
Buffy. She's great, too.
[> Me too! Me too! -- Belladonna, 13:02:04 06/13/02 Thu
I have always loved every character. Okay, okay...except Riley! ;) Even when Xander is at his most irritating, I still love him! Though Dawn has bugged the *bleep* out of me sometimes, I still like her. I agree that when they are not at their best, it just makes them more believable and well-rounded characters. So...I'll spread the Buffy Character Love! :)
[> I agree... and about Warren... -- Tillow, 14:13:33 06/13/02 Thu
...man what a creep, huh? He's like one of the only human characters I never felt any sympathy for. But seeing Adam Busch this weekend (CreepCon) kinda wrecked my head. That guy is crazy (the good kind). It was great to see him and have all thoughts of maniacal misogynistic Warren completely obliterated in under 5 minutes. Of course I know these people are not the characters they play but her is like, the anti-Warren. You know, like on Seinfeld.
And Yes... spreading the love.... warm vibes...
Tillow
[> [> Re: Warren - I actually felt pity for him -- Dyna, 15:38:44 06/13/02 Thu
During the scene at the Bronze in Seeing Red, when Warren says to the jock guy--"That thing with the underwear? God, I thought I'd never stop crying"--that really bothered me. It was easy to forget, as the LoD seemed to have so much power at times, how much their evil was the product of the bullying and ostracism they'd experienced as high school geeks. Warren was all about trying to rectify past humiliations, to get some of his own back from those who'd made him feel helpless and insignificant. Buffy joined that club when she symbolically emasculated him ("smashed his orbs") at the amusement park, an act that seemed to finally make his snap. "Did you think I'd let you do that to me? That I'd let you get away with it? Think again--"
What the LoD really brought to mind for me was how bullying begets bullying, and victims become victimizers. So even as I hated what Warren did, I didn't exactly hate Warren. I could see how he got where he was, and was affected by that.
I actually think it's impossible to really hate a well-written, well-acted character. Two-dimensional villains, yes, but how often do we get those on BtVS?
[> [> [> Re: Warren - Spoilers S3, S6 to finale. -- Age, 18:24:55 06/13/02 Thu
I think Whedon's aim has been to show consequences. It's easy and illusory to simply divide the world into good and evil. It's much harder and more accurate to see the various forces that shape us, like neglectful and adolescent parents or peer pressure or misogynist culture. Whether Whedon is using a character like Warren or Cordy from seasons one to three, or Xander from 'OMWF' or Buffy from 'Normal Again' or Willow, with Warren at the end of season six having, in his desire not to grow up, stepped over the line that Willow was about to cross, his aim is to show the human being.
The hardest thing in this world is to live in it, and not die as human and revert to animal instinct like the vampires. Whedon is highlighting the forces that shape us in order to reinforce our ability to use the limited awareness and will we do possess as we make choices in our lives. Personally, I think that the concept of free will (free of what?) is an abstraction; will and awareness are always limited and we are always attached to something. But if patterns of life are highlighted, then at least we have a better means of making choices. At some point we have to take responsibility for what we are, if only because that which has shaped us, the world, isn't really separate from us. Of course adolescence, adulthood, taking responsibility etc are only concepts; where is it written down that we do have to become more responsible and let go of play? But, of course, Whedon is making this very point with the three nerds in season six, and showing us the consequences of such thinking.
As for the characters. I love them all. I especially liked Cordy in the first three seasons. There was this sense of a human being just bursting to come out. In a different way, perhaps, this role was taken over by Spike.
Age.
[> [> [> I agree -- Malandanza, 21:05:26 06/13/02 Thu
"During the scene at the Bronze in Seeing Red, when Warren says to the jock guy--'That thing with the underwear? God, I thought I'd never stop crying'--that really bothered me. It was easy to forget, as the LoD seemed to have so much power at times, how much their evil was the product of the bullying and ostracism they'd experienced as high school geeks"
Of course, Warren was evil -- no amount of suffering he's felt could make his actions in Season 6 acceptable. But at the same time, Warren as a suddenly powerful ex-victim becoming the bully he always hated makes his actions understandable. In fact, that scene in the Bronze reminded me quite a bit of some of Willow's speeches in TTG/Grave" -- and both Willow and Warren sought a battle with Buffy to prove themselves.
But I found Warren sympathetic for other reasons as well:
The murders were accidents -- Warren found himself over his head, much as Faith did. Things spiraled out of control.
He's made himself into an evil scientist, the Slayer's nemesis, yet to Spike he's still captain of the nerd squad ("Help me out, Spock. I don't speak loser.") Katrina had a similar reaction, mocking his dress and speech.
The chase: once Warren realized how badly he had messed up, he did everything in his power to escape. His resourcefulness was impressive, especially considering that he was only human and being chased by the most powerful witch in the Western Hemisphere. It was hopeless, but he still tried.
Phantom Katrina: I don't believe that Willow brought back Katrina's soul from whatever dimension it went to after her death. Phantom Katrina appeared with no ritual and spoke rather more bitterly than Katrina ever spoke in life. I believe the phantom was pulled out of Warren's own head -- we know that Willow had great telepathic powers ("Just think real loud"). The things that Katrina said to Warren were, I believe, not Katrina's opinion of Warren, but Warren's opinion of Warren. His guilty conscience eating away at him as surely as did Faith's.
The torture. No one deserves what Willow did to him.
"What the LoD really brought to mind for me was how bullying begets bullying, and victims become victimizers. So even as I hated what Warren did, I didn't exactly hate Warren. I could see how he got where he was, and was affected by that."
We've seen periodically on Buffy powerless, picked on freaks and nerds gaining power and using it malevolently. Even in the early episodes, this was a common theme (in Go Fish suddenly popular swimmers become the new bullies, in The Prom, Tucker trains hellhounds to get even with his classmates -- and the biggest nerd of them all, William, becomes Spike). The two standout examples that this cycle of bullying is not inevitable are Buffy (of course) and Jonathan. In Superstar, Jonathan has more power than Warren ever had, possibly more than Willow, yet he becomes not a ruthless bully paying back all the people who slighted him in the past, but a force for good. Deep down, Jonathan really is a good guy -- certainly better than Willow. As for Warren, anyone who can sympathize with Willow after all she's done, ought to be able to spare a little sympathy for her first verified torture and murder victim.
[> [> [> [> Hate. -- Tillow, 10:02:40 06/14/02 Fri
There's no point in hating Warren just as it's wrong for Willow's character to take vengeance on him. It's not good for the person holding on to the hate. Warren held onto his own fear and hate until he was more villain/demon than human. That's why he became what I would argue was the the first Evil human on the show.
Of course they gave us back story. But that doesn't mean we've gotta feel the love. That's reserved more for characters like Andrew and Jonathan INMO. But no, the flaying? Ick. But like Buffy said, Willow crossed the line. It was wrong. Big badness at end of season, isn't that what Marti said?
Tillow
[> [> Re: I agree... and about Warren... -- Vickie, 20:12:12 06/13/02 Thu
I would love to be able to ask Adam Busch whether Warren actually went insance in that sequence. I felt the maniacal cackle and all the rest seemed completely around the bend.
Regarding feeling the love: I absolutely love all the characters as fictional characters. They are round and interesting and dynamic. As people in my life, I'd be pretty ticked off with a bunch of them at the moment.
[> jumping on the love train -- lele, 14:19:28 06/13/02 Thu
I love 'em all too! I think mostly b/c when the s#$%t hits the fan they stand by eachother. I've had warm fuzzy's for all of them since S5 Family when buffy and the gang refused to let tara's family take her against her will.
[> Spreadin' the love! -- Wizardman, 14:24:11 06/13/02 Thu
I agree completely! I haven't disliked any of the characters on Buffy. I've loved most, and loved hating the rest. These people, for all of their quirks, foibles, faults, and flaws, are eminently loveable (or hateable, but were supposed to hate those characters anyway...).
Here's hoping for good times for our beloved Scoobies next season- at least as good as the times can get in Sunnydale!
[> I'm all about every character.... -- AngelVSAngelus, 14:41:54 06/13/02 Thu
Although some may think otherwise in regards to Spike because of previous posts I've made expressing my opinions. It shouldn't be confused though, when I have a disdain in regard to Spike, its not for his character, its for fan reactions.
I love Spike, like I love every other character, for who they are, and one of the things I love about Spike is the fact that he gets himself into situations that make him commit good acts DESPITE BEING EVIL. I LIKE the fact that he's evil. All these people talking about a path of redemption upon which he treads tend to agitate me because it doesn't coincide with who Spike is, at least to me.
I love everyone, though. All of Joss' creations can be loved regardless of species, moral inclination, or which side of the battle lines they're on. Hell I even love Warren. That's why they're great :)
[> Good Feelings -- Etrangere, 14:44:05 06/13/02 Thu
humm... well actually there is some time I don't like some of them, like everyone.
But I love Xander when he's all Zeppo like, so I could appreciate the ending, even though he acted as a jerk the whole season. And I also loved how he stood to Warren, defending the girls, in Seeing Red.
I love Willow even if i had some troubles reminding it this season But I love her compassion, her wakkiness, her curiosity and enthousiasm for knowledge...
I learned to love Tara this season like I never did before. She was a lovely lady and will be sorely missed.
I love Dawn all the time, I don't find her whinny in the least. She's a girl living really hard time and she's coming through it admirably.
I used to have a hard time loving Buffy before. I learned to love her more than I ever did since S2 this season. I loved depressed!Buffy. I'm weird ;)
Spike I always love, very much unconditionnaly. Bad, Grey or all Souled, I will always love him. And screw those who resent that :)
Giles, oh come on, is there anyone who doesn't love Giles ?
I'll make an effort for Riley, who I haven't appreciate since a looooonnng time, but back then in the Initiative, Something Blue and Hush, I though he was okay, i remember. he only became boring after that.
I'll never love Sam, never I tell you !!!
Oh... and I love ME !!! :)
[> Absolutely, I agree! -- Robert, 15:44:13 06/13/02 Thu
I even liked Riley, both before "Into the Woods" and after "As You Were". He really did love Buffy, but he had his own serious character defects. He couldn't believe that Buffy actually loved him, and he couldn't believe that he was worthy of her love. Even with all his training, skills and abilities, he just could not get past his insecurities. I was able to sympathize with his fears. In "As You Were", Riley performed a very important function for Buffy. He helped her heal her own insecurities which she had been battling.
I even like Spike. I just don't like him so much as to forget that he was an evil soulless creature. Now that he is soulled, we will have to wait to find out if he is still evil.
[> Loving all the characters -- ravenhair, 15:48:40 06/13/02 Thu
Sometimes I feel all alone in my love for Dawn, but I think MT is wonderful and her character holds a lot of potential. Even though Dawnie has been placed on the shelf this year, I expect great things from her in S7. I think Xander might try and step into the role of guardian for Dawn during the summer since Spike skipped town. The riff between Xander and Buffy regarding Dawn's relationship with Spike stood out to me and I'm curious if this will continue upon Spike's return.
I was always indifferent to Riley and wasn't heartbroken when he & Buffy seperated, but I have to admit I liked the "wheel never stops turning" speech in As You Were.
[> [> Re: Loving all the characters -- JBone, 19:31:51 06/13/02 Thu
I have a feeling that you won't be alone too long in your appreciation of Dawn, especially from the straight Y side of things. I remember in OMWF when Dawn did that hip swivel thing, I thought "a girl that age shouldn't be doing that." I believe that MT is developing into a spectacular beauty that S7 won't be able to hide. Of course, that will give many another reason to hate her.
[> [> [> Resenting the implication -- Vickie, 20:15:27 06/13/02 Thu
If I read you correctly, you are suggesting that we more mature, less spectacularly and perfectly gorgeous women would hate MT/Dawn.
Puhleeeese!
She's a beautiful young woman. Doesn't ring my chime, but she's also a talented and compelling actress--and that does. No hate in the offing here.
[> [> [> [> Actually... -- JBone, 15:55:41 06/14/02 Fri
If I was implying anything, it was that those who hate Dawn, would only use her blossoming beauty as another reason to hate her. I'm sorry that you took offence, it was not intended.
[> What I really appreciate... -- Doriander, 16:07:24 06/13/02 Thu
is even outside the SG or the Season's villain alliance (E.g. Unholy Trinity of S2, Faith, Trick and the Mayor, the unholy triumviarate of W&H, Holtz and Justine, and yes, the Trio IMO belong in this illustious list of intersting villains), they make really memorable characters, even those that span just a single ep. Like Diego in "Lie To Me", Sunday and her stoned minion, Gwendolyn Post, Peaches and Cyrus in "Real Me", the unnamed vamp in the AYW teaser who had a distaste for Doublemeat smell, Glory's minions. I even adored Cathy, the annoying "Divas"-loving roomate.
ME is also great with spinning characters I used to loathe and make me really like them. Like Darla, for instance, who started out as this annoying, smirking vampbitch. After the FFL/Darla crossover event, she just won me over and my attachment to the fanged four has amazingly surpassed my love for the SG (which remains constant). And I'm sorry to say, I will have to include Tara in this one. I didn't really have much invested in the character until that moment in "Checkpoint," during the interview, she blurts out "Five!" when asked about their magic proficiency level. Willow gives her a questioning look and she shrugs, and does this...face. Adorable. My love for her was cemented in OMWF. And dammit they're both dead!
They're not without clunkers though. ME fails IMO, if a character, one of some significance, doesn't make me feel anything, not even hate. Case in point, Riley. I had an instant liking for him in "The Freshman," but after "The New Man," my interest just waned until I just didn't care for him any more. Another is Ben. I get that ME set him up to be this intriguing presence. Perhaps it's the actor, but somehow it didn't work. Didn't have much interest in him nor sympathy. Granted, his death shocked me, but it's entirely on account of his killer being Giles.
[> I love everyone too. Always have. ;-) -- Dedalus, 17:38:37 06/13/02 Thu
[> I love them all! -- Traveler, 17:51:54 06/13/02 Thu
Not saying that I don't like some characters better than others, but they're all cool. I even like some of the peripheral characters like Clem and Johnathan.
[> Every character ... -- DonnieBaseball23, 19:24:38 06/13/02 Thu
... has had me in their thrall at one time or another. I've always liked Buffy the best, which seems to be a minority opinion (although I can't stand SPUFFY!). As a big B/A guy I wasn't big on Riley, but never hated him, and he had his moments. Sure, they've all ticked me off from time to time, but that's because ME has given us 3D characters, not cut-outs.
BTW, ain't the S2 DVD great! My fav season along w/ S3, and a real treat to see in all its digital glory.
[> feeling the love -- ponygirl, 19:45:01 06/13/02 Thu
There have been many times when I haven't liked the characters' actions or attitudes, but I've never stopped loving them. sniff.
Actually thinking back, it's weird how I've always been resistant to new characters, yet eventually came around to like them. Oz, Faith, Anya (ok that one took me a while to warm up to), Dawn -- my intial thought is always "who are these new people? they will only take screen time away from everyone else!" but then of course I came to love them too. While I confess that I prefer to see more of Spike (ahem), an episode focusing on any of the characters will always give me a happy (though an all Anya or Dawn episode might make me pour myself a drink or two).
As for Riley - bored me to death until the end of the Replacement when he said Buffy didn't love him. Suddenly I was "who is this guy" (of course after AYW I hated him, how fickle I am). I think that's the key to loving the characters, those moments when their humanity just shines through in all its vulnerable messiness. It's why I never appreciated some villians like Glory or Adam, while others like the Mayor or poor Warren I couldn't get enough of.
[> [> Re: feeling the love -- Doriander, 20:15:38 06/13/02 Thu
As for Riley - bored me to death until the end of the Replacement when he said Buffy didn't love him. Suddenly I was "who is this guy" (of course after AYW I hated him, how fickle I am).
Me too. That was the peak of my Riley-like. From BvD to the Replacement, ME revived my interest in him. I've always liked his interactions with Xander, Willow, Giles, Spike, and gasp! Angel. Unfortunately OoMM undercut all that progress. He still had winsome moments after that, oddly, most don't involve Buffy. Liked him horsing around with Xander in "Family", unpopular opinion but I loved kamikaze!Riley in FFL, adored his interactions with Dawn. Not enough to get me reinvested in him again though.
[> Hopping on the Love Train ... -- Exegy, 23:17:07 06/13/02 Thu
I don't think there's one ME character that I don't care for. I have a bit of sympathy for them all, even at their most depraved (their actions understandable if not condonable).
Warren? Love him. He's not a decent human being, but he's a fascinating character, one I feel sorrow for because I see him choosing the wrong path every time. Yes, to some extent he's a victim of his circumstances, a product of all the bullying and ostracism. But he has a choice in how he responds to the abuse, and he chooses to lash back, to assert himself as the "real man" he could never be. The weak-willed Andrew (love him too) follows this negative role model, leaving Jonathan alone to consider the right path. And Jonathan finally asserts himself when he stands up to a sword-wielding Andrew, doing what he was too weak to do at the outset. Confronting the domineering shade of Warren. Choosing the right path.
A lot of our characters have committed the most horrid actions. But they are all responding from a position of perceived weakness, and so their actions are understandable. Identifiable in ourselves, even.
ME has brilliantly captured various psychological conditions in its characters. Even the "boring" ones illustrate some profound truths ... besides serving the storyline. God, I love ME! I love the characters, even at their worst. Exploring the darkness of humanity is just as important and insightful as exploring the heroic heights. It's all about expanding our horizons, opening ourselves fully to the human experience of life.
[> Yep -- verdantheart, 11:57:25 06/14/02 Fri
When good guys go wrong. ME's portrayal of good characters and bad deeds. Spoilers to the end of S6. -- Sophist, 13:40:59 06/13/02 Thu
Little Bit's excellent posts (still ongoing) about the evolution of evil in the Buffyverse got me thinking about the topic from another angle. I hope I'm not stepping on toes here, but I think the points I want to cover are distinct from hers. With apologies in advance if I'm wrong, here goes.
Little Bit's posts have, so far, focused on the villains. I want to talk about the heroes (no, this does not include Spike). Specifically, I want to talk about the inherent dilemma faced by ME: a perfect hero is boring, but an evil person can't be a hero. How, then, does ME have the "good" characters make serious mistakes while still preserving our affection for them?
I first have to define what I mean by "evil". All of the characters have flaws, they make mistakes. I don't mean to include here the kind of mistakes we all might make in our lives, even if they might be serious. For example, W/X cheating on O/C was not "evil" even if was a serious mistake. Faith killing the professor, however, was evil. I believe this will be clearer in practice than it is in theory; day and night are tolerably distinct even if we can't define the precise boundary between them.
The next step is to identify all the incidents. I am limiting myself to BtVS, mostly because I'm not familiar enough with AtS. If I do miss some, please let me know. It will be a good test of my analysis to see if the omitted ones fit the pattern.
ME seems to have used 3 strategies when it shows a hero in the context of Evil. Strategy No. 1 is to provide an excuse such as self-defense or defense of others. Strategy No. 2 is to show some form of rehabilitation (I'm avoiding the word "redemption" here so as not to pick up the religious connotations). Strategy No. 3 is to have the consequences be minimal. Frequently, more than one strategy is followed, presumably to assure that we retain a favorable view of the character. I need to make one important comment about these strategies. I will be discussing what ME showed us at the time of the incident. Later events may cause us to question the validity of the excuse, for example, but by then the incident has been forgotten and we've excused the character in our minds.
Let's take a look at the characters:
Jenny, Tara, Cordy, Riley: None of these characters ever did anything I could describe as "evil". Two of them paid for this insolence with their lives. Whether Cordy really is that saintly is part of the season ending cliff-floater. Riley remains MN's hero.
Dawn: The only incident that comes to mind is the wish in OAFA. I'm not sure this was "evil", because they all did escape and the only significant consequence was the injury to Richard. In any case, Dawn has a pretty obvious excuse, because she didn't know she was speaking to a vengeance demon and was tricked into making the wish. The words of the wish itself were then distorted to suit Halfrek. I don't think anyone would make Dawn culpable for this.
Oz: WolfOz killed WolfVeruca. ME gave Oz himself a clear defense here: Veruca's death saved Willow and Veruca was herself evil. In addition, ME made certain that we understood that "Oz" was not responsible for the acts of the wolf. There are too many passages to quote, but this excuse is inherent in the story line of Phases, where, before they even know it's Oz, they decide to capture the wolf instead of killing it because there is still a human inside. ME then contrasts this morally correct decision with the unsympathetic character of the hunter. This remains true to the end, as we see from how the SG reacted to the information that another werewolf (Veruca) might be in town (Wild at Heart), and then Riley's reaction to learning that Oz was a werewolf (NMR).
Joyce: The only incident occurred in Gingerbread. No doubt it was evil, but equally no doubt that it wasn't "really" Joyce who did it. She acted as she did only because she was bewitched involuntarily, a fact reinforced by the participation of most of the rest of Sunnydale in the near auto-da-fe. Of course, no actual harm resulted.
Anya: Anyanka, of course, committed all kinds of evil. The discussion below about Xander and Angel will apply to Anyanka's acts. Anya has never done evil since she started being treated as one of the "good guys" by associating with the SG. Before that time, she did the spell in Doppelgangerland, which resulted in the death (and apparent vamping) of Sandy. Although Anya's intent in doing the spell was evil, she certainly had no intent of bringing VampWillow out of the other dimension. In addition, VampWillow must bear the real responsibility for Sandy's fate. (This would be true in the legal system, btw, but the reasoning is long and not that interesting.)
Buffy: The star of the show obviously can't do much evil, and only 2 incidents are even worth discussing. In NA Buffy set the demon loose on her friends. This was a clear case of intended evil, but no actual harm was done to any of them. Moreover, she had a clear excuse because she had been drugged forcibly, against her will and over her resistance. This is similar to the excuse provided for Joyce in Gingerbread. In GD1, Buffy stabbed Faith. However, ME told us in Enemies that the police could not handle Faith and that she was Buffy's responsibility (consistent with the general principle that humans deal with human problems, Buffy with the supernatural), a point later reinforced in TYG. Buffy had to confront Faith and take her out of the fight at some point; it made sense to do so before graduation, so that she could devote her attention to the mayor. Finally, of course, Faith did not die, thereby minimizing the consequences.
Giles: Only twice in the BtVS timeline did Giles do anything which might be described as evil. In Helpless, he drugged Buffy and put her at risk. ME allowed Buffy (and the viewers) to forgive Giles by showing that she and Joyce were not harmed; that Giles was acting as a soldier under orders; and that Giles' obvious love for Buffy led him first to tell her about the test and then to risk his own life to rescue her (acts for which he then paid the further consequence of being fired). In TG, Giles killed Ben. ME set this up as indispensably necessary (and distinguished it from the Oz situation) by making Glory so powerful that she could not be controlled by any human or even supernatural means. Ben was, in the unhappy euphemism of our time, collateral damage to clear necessity. In the past, Giles participated in evil by raising Eyghon. ME provided him with 2 mitigating factors. First, no outsiders were harmed. Only the other participants suffered, and they have to bear their own responsibility. Second, Giles long ago rehabilitated himself from his youthful indiscretions.
Xander: The only obvious and direct evil committed by Xander was the attempted rape of Buffy in The Pack. ME gave us 2 reasons to excuse him. One was that no actual rape occurred (imagine if he had attacked Willow or Cordy instead!). The other was that he was possessed by the hyenas. This wasn't Xander acting, this was the hyena (just like it was the wolf, not Oz). As Giles said of Jesse in The Harvest, just 3 episodes before:
Giles: You listen to me! Jesse is dead! You have to remember that when you see him, you're not looking at your friend. You're looking at the thing that killed him.
The only other incidents that might be described as "evil" were the spells in BB&B and OMWF. In the first, Xander did not cast the spell himself. He didn't intend the actual consequence and didn't realize that love spells might go awry. He got off easy because no one was harmed. Indeed, though he was supposed to learn a lesson, he wasn't actually punished, but was instead rewarded when Cordy came back to him. In OMWF his intent was pure; while he certainly was negligent in casting the spell in light of his previous experience, the deaths were caused directly by Sweet, not by Xander. This makes his situation similar to Anya's and the same excuse applies.
Angel: In BtVS, Angel never committed an evil act. Angelus, of course, was evil on a grand scale. As with Xander in The Pack and Oz generally, ME clearly distinguished between Angel and Angelus. Giles' description of Jesse was still fresh in our minds, and ME reinforced it with dialogue from Innocence:
Buffy: "Angel, I know there must be some part of you that remembers who you are."
Angel: "Dream on schoolgirl. Your boyfriend is dead."
The Judge: "There is no humanity in this one."
ME expressly told us that Angel was not responsible for what Angelus did.
Faith: Faith unequivocally and intentionally did real evil. She was given no excuse and no mitigating factors. She was, however, punished by being sent to jail. Had she not submitted to this voluntarily, she no doubt would have died.
Willow: I saved her for last because her actions are as yet unresolved. Prior to the end of S6, we only had one real incident, namely the spell in SB. No actual harm was intended or resulted, and Willow herself ended the spell when she realized what had happened. The events of Villains, however, are more interesting. Willow unequivocally and intentionally did real evil. In this, she is in a category alone with Faith. The two are even closer if we see Willow's magic rampage as the metaphorical equivalent of Faith's rage. Like Faith's rage, the magic cannot provide Willow with an excuse, as it did with Joyce, because Willow was not a victim of someone else's spell; she not only took on the magic voluntarily, but did so with the intent of using it to do harm. Magic cannot be treated like demon possession, because it is a thing, not a conscious entity. The consequences were not minimal, they were the most horrific ever seen on BtVS.
ME has been very careful about associating the main characters with evil acts. Six of the characters (Jenny, Tara, Cordy, Riley, Dawn, and Anya) cannot plausibly be said to have done anything evil at any time when they were part of the SG. This category could include Faith, since she had left the good side before she did the real harm. For six of the characters (Oz, Buffy, Xander, Giles, Joyce, and Angel), ME made certain we understood that the acts were not really those of our hero (with one exception).
There are only three cases in BtVS where a core character has actually himself/herself committed an evil act. Giles' murder of Ben seems forgivable under the extreme circumstances. Faith and Willow are a matched set, the only ones who intentionally committed unforgivable wrongs. Faith had long since ceased to be a hero when she committed them, so Willow stands alone in this respect - the only "hero" who actually committed true evil. Faith's story (to the extent we still consider her) is one of rehabilitation. What will be Willow's? One thing is clear: ME has, once again, been willing to put aside previous certainties and to chart an entirely new course.
[> Re: When good guys go wrong. -- Etrangere, 14:23:49 06/13/02 Thu
I think you forget a few "evil" acts. Maybe they do not seem so evil compared to murder and suches, but for the characters in the show it was actions that had some kind of weight.
Jenny's principal fault was the lie about Angel's curse. She had some very mitigating circonstances (her ignorance of the consequences and she tries to help them nonetheless) and of course she died while trying to make up for it, so people hardly blame her.
Tara's only evil ever done was in Family (again very excusable because of the circunstances of her treatment by her family and her readyness to make up for it)
Riley killed Sandy.
And he went to vamp-ho.
And he almost killed Oz, remember ? :) Well most of what he did in the Initiative can be seen in an ambiguous light.
Dawn almost resurected her mother.
I disagree about Oz, when you say he was not responsible because wolf different from Oz. This is true but when he killed Veruca, he took the decision to stay knowing the wold would kill her while he was still human. His only excuse is there that he was protecting Willow.
Joyce's evilest act in the show was her words to Buffy in Becoming. But maybe that's one of the kind you would call a mistake.
Xander's most reprochable action is also in Becoming.
Angel did a few evil acts in AtS, but i can't remember any shown in BtVS.
[> [> Re: good guys (general spoilers) -- Robert, 14:58:37 06/13/02 Thu
Etrangere, you raised some very good points here I hadn't remembered. I especially liked your point about Joyce.
>> "Joyce's evilest act in the show was her words to Buffy in Becoming. But maybe that's one of the kind you would call a mistake."
According to the shooting script, Joyce's words in "Becoming" were "you walk out of this house, don't even think about coming back." Having dealt with a problem child in my day, I would never have used those words for an adult child, much less a minor child. There must always remain some room for reconciliation.
On the other hand, this was clearly a stressful moment for Joyce, and we can understand and forgive her temporary lapse in judgement. However, she continued to show that she did not appreciate her own culpability in Buffy's disappearance. From the shooting script for "Anne";
GILES
Joyce, you mustn't blame yourself for Buffy's leaving.
JOYCE
I don't . . .
(looking him in the eye)
I blame you.
Even after 3 months, Joyce is still blaming others and feeling sorry for herself. Thus, Joyce said something quite nasty to Buffy which profoundly affected her and many others in Sunnydale, and it is not clear when (if ever) Joyce accepted the responsibility for her actions. Additionally, it is not clear when (if ever) Joyce forgave Buffy for running away, even though Joyce's actions didn't really leave Buffy much room to maneuver. Yes, I would consider this evil.
[> Re: When good guys go wrong. (General Spoilers) -- Robert, 14:31:51 06/13/02 Thu
Sophist, this is a very nice analysis of our heros' unfortunate actions and one point I would like to expand upon is in regards to Tara.
>> "Jenny, Tara, Cordy, Riley: None of these characters ever did anything I could describe as evil?"
I believe that Tara's actions in "Family" also should be considered as an evil act. She cast a spell on her friends which includes the words, "work my will upon them all". These are fairly harsh words to be using against her best friends.
Please don't misunderstand me. Tara is one of my favorite and most beloved characters. The incident with the spell makes her all the more charming, because it adds depth to the character and illustrates her level of desparation. And, while I believe that she was rightly forgiven, we shouldn't minimize the seriousness of the incident.
Tara showed a lack of trust in Willow such that she could not discuss her secret fears, even though their relationship was nearly a year old. Tara was careless in the use of her spell which put all her friends in serious danger. Even worse, this spell (a form of mind control) was an attempt to put off dealing with her issues. This is no less serious than what Willow did in "All The Way" and "Tabula Rasa".
Willow immediately forgave Tara her mistake, because she knew that Tara would never do it again. Tara had learned her lesson. On the other hand, Tara left Willow after "Tabula Rasa", because at that point Willow couldn't even acknowledge that she had done anything wrong.
Finally, Tara's spell in "Family" wasn't even a viable solution. If she truly had manifested her demon side, she could not have effectively hid the fact for very long -- not even a day. Thus, Tara wasn't dealing rationally with her problems; just putting them off.
[> Willow Swears off the Magical Crack...all better now? -- cjl, 14:45:20 06/13/02 Thu
You're right. Willow is serious business, comparable only to Faith in sheer maliciousness and evil intent. (It's ironic how much Season 3/4 Willow HATED Faith with a passion. In fact, until Warren, Faith was the only person during the length of the series Willow absolutely despised--and for the most part, because Faith made the lame excuses for going bad that Willow did in Season 6. Did Willow see more of herself in Faith than she cared to see? Waaah waaah waaah, indeed.)
ME may give Willow an out by saying it was the Bad, Bad Magick that twisted Willow's mind--but they also have to know the BUFFY audience isn't going to be satisfied with something that easy. Willow has SEVERE psychological problems, and simply saying she's off the magic crack isn't going to cut it. I hope we get a major "Wiccan judgment day" sequence in England for Episode 1, where the coven (after studying and working with Willow for the summer) shakes its collective head and says: "Nope. You're still too psychologically unstable to handle magic." And poof--no more powers.
This may sound cruel, but if Amber does return as a spirit guide, I'd like Spirit Tara to say to Willow what we were all thinking: "What you did was not the way to honor my memory. I love you, but as your guide, I have to tell you--you have a couple of lifetimes of bad karma to work off."
And that's how Willow's path back is going to start. Major karmic smackdown, and a long, long road ahead. (The Scoobies may be willing to forgive, but the gods can be harsh.)
[> Re: When good guys go wrong . . . spoilers to the end of S6. -- Farstrider, 14:46:36 06/13/02 Thu
Rambling below!
Well-thought out post. I think your definition of evil is a little narrow, as it appears to be limited to something like "a (1) deliberate (2) act (3) designed to (4) cause injury or death to a (5) human."
I think these five factors (general intent, action, specific intent, causation and humanity) are important for the sort of evil you are talking about. Two of your excuses/justifications address these factors: Strategy one knocks out intent, strategy three knocks out causation. Strategy 2 is a little different, in that it posits that the person who committed those acts is somehow different than the person being judged, and that difference erases their culpability, but not the evil of their acts.
I think when it comes down to it, what you are really exploring is culpability, not evil. "It wasn't really me" and "So what, nothing happened" (strategies 2 and 3) don't change the nature of the act -- to the extent you believe that evil flows from intent, the act and the one doing it are still evil. Strategy one does not change the nature of the act, either, but in those circumstances, the act was never evil in the first place. (Sophist, I think you said before that you are a lawyer -- I am talking about the difference between excuse and justification). There is no such thing as murder in self-defense.
Framed that way, I think that your assessment about Willow is right; that she is culpable for her actions at the end of S6. I think that might be mitigated by her extreme distress, but that is neither here nor there. But, I think that when we talk about culpability, we have to move beyond "evil" (characterized by intent) to include "recklessness" and negligience (characerized by forsaking responsibilities and not using proper care). Under that scenario, the characters are in for more culpability.
Let me use three examples you mentioned before.
1) Although Xander did not act evilly when he summoned Sweet, he did act recklessly (as you noted). Especially given his knowledge of the occult, he should have known better, and The Average Reasonable Person (TARP) would never have summoned the demon. He is responsible and culpable for the death(s) Sweet caused.
b) Will's spell in SB was not evil, because it was not intended to injure, but it was certainly negligent or reckless. She should have conducted more research before casting such a powerful spell. TARP would have a less cavalier and selfish attitude towards magic. WIllow is responsible/culpable for the suffering caused.
iii) In contrast, Dawn's wish in OAWA was not negligent. She did not know, and could not be reasonably expected to know, that she was talking to a demon or making a wish. Thus, no blame to her, even though bad consequences resulted.
F
Here's my 10 cents my 2 cents is free , a nuisance, who sent, you sent for me?
[> Re: When good guys go wrong. (still spoiled) -- Vickie, 14:48:27 06/13/02 Thu
Etrangere and Robert have already pointed out a lot of questionable/evil acts that you have either overlooked or don't agree are evil. I'd like to add:
Most people consider stealing from friends evil, if not personally injurious. Thus, Dawn has done other evil.
Xander called Sweet, resulting in the deaths of at least two people (see on screen), possibly others (implied by Giles's dialog).
One of Buffy's nastiest acts was the "sexy dance" with Xander in When She was Bad. She gets the poor guy's hopes up, asks "did I ever thank you for saving my life," and when he says no asks "don't you wish I would." Bitca supreme, if still not world-ending evil. (Sure, she had issues that mitigated her behavior, but this was really cruel. Even Cordelia could see it was cruel.)
You may be limiting "evil acts" to those that result in physical injury or death to humans. If so, your catalog is (IIRC) pretty sound.
[> Re: When good guys go wrong -- alcibiades, 14:52:23 06/13/02 Thu
I think you left off Buffy beating Spike so that he looked worse than after Glory tortured him and then left him in the alley to die.
And all of Xander's treatment of Spike post-Hell's Bells as a way of not dealing with his own self-hatred. Including seriously attempting to kill him for sleeping with Anya. Don't know why that is not attempted murder even if Spike was suicidal enough at the time to want it to happen.
And Buffy destroying the vamp-hos and torching their place out of Riley jealousy framed to herself as righteousness.
[> [> vamp-hos (general spoilers) -- Robert, 15:27:14 06/13/02 Thu
>> "And Buffy destroying the vamp-hos and torching their place out of Riley jealousy framed to herself as righteousness."
This is an interesting point. Please allow me to split this one action into parts. Buffy burned the vampire brothel and subsequently dusted the vampires previously employed therein.
Burning the brothel as arson is illegal and dangerous. If she had hurt or killed an innocent as a result, how would she have been able to live with herself? This certainly seems to be an evil action.
Dusting the vampires was self defence. The vampires ganged up on her in revenge for burning their crib. They fully intended to kill Buffy. Besides, dusting vampires is her job. I do not consider this an evil action. This could change in the future. Mutant Enemy could write a story arc which defines the vampires as good, and the watchers council as evil. But until then, the vampires are the enemy of humanity and, as the called slayer, it is Buffy's duty to destroy them all.
[> [> [> Re: vamp-hos (general spoilers) -- Traveler, 17:36:34 06/13/02 Thu
"Dusting the vampires was self defence. The vampires ganged up on her in revenge for burning their crib. They fully intended to kill Buffy. Besides, dusting vampires is her job. I do not consider this an evil action. This could change in the future. Mutant Enemy could write a story arc which defines the vampires as good, and the watchers council as evil. But until then, the vampires are the enemy of humanity and, as the called slayer, it is Buffy's duty to destroy them all."
Buffy dusted a vamp ho who didn't look like she was a threat to anybody, and who was running away. Buffy killed this vamp because she was pissed at Riley. Even if you believe the action was noble, the reason for it was not. This was actually the first time I became uncomfortable with Buffy and wondered if she had a "dark side." Also, saying that Buffy is justified in killing any vampire "because it is her job" is specious. How would you feel if she went to LA in a fit of pique and killed Angel?
[> [> [> [> Re: vamp-hos (general spoilers) -- Corwin of Amber, 21:38:18 06/13/02 Thu
> Buffy dusted a vamp ho who didn't look like she was a threat to anybody, and who was running away.
If Buffy had let her go, how many people would the vamp kill in the future?
[> [> [> [> Re: vamp-hos (general spoilers) -- Robert, 21:47:30 06/13/02 Thu
You've raised some good points here. I will take this opportunity to address them individually.
>> "Even if you believe the action was noble, the reason for it was not."
Ah, interesting. I went back and reread my posting and, you know, I didn't find the word "noble" in it, not even once. I did not intend to convey the sense that I believed Buffy's actions to be nobel, or ignoble for that matter. You are putting words in my mouth.
>> "This was actually the first time I became uncomfortable with Buffy and wondered if she had a "dark side."
Buffy's dark side was one of the themes that ran through season five. In "Buffy vs. Dracula" (long before "Into the Woods"), Buffy revealed to Giles that she is concerned about her dark side. This was the reason she asked Giles to resume his duties as her watcher.
Besides, how is this substantially different from Buffy's normal patrols, where she stakes vampires right out of the grave, offering no opportunity for surrender?
>> "Also, saying that Buffy is justified in killing any vampire "because it is her job" is specious. "
Ouch! You misunderstood me and are again putting words in my mouth.
Buffy is not justified in killing vampires. It is her duty as the called slayer to kill vampires. It was her own moral judgement that prevented her from killing Angel and Spike. Kendra would have gladly killed Angel, because she saw it as her duty and she didn't have the moral background that Buffy had. If fact she attempted to kill Angel with a rather dastardly torture. Kendra didn't make a distinction between good vampires and evil vampires. Buffy does, and it sometimes gets her into trouble.
Because of her feelings, Buffy was unable to kill Angelus when she had the chance, and he subsequently killed Jenny. Buffy's dereliction of duty lead to the murder of an innocent. We can separately argue just how innocent Jenny was. Similarly, if Spike ever manages to kill an innocent, then Buffy will bear partial responsibility for that as well, because she has had numerous opportunities to kill him.
>> "How would you feel if she went to LA in a fit of pique and killed Angel?"
At this point, it would be an evil deed for Buffy to kill Angel, because he is working for the side of good. When he was Angelus, however, she should have killed him when she had the chance, and she knows it too.
>> "Buffy dusted a vamp ho who didn't look like she was a threat to anybody, and who was running away. "
Yes, the last vampire did not present an immediate threat to Buffy or anyone else in the immediate vicinity.
>> "Buffy killed this vamp because she was pissed at Riley."
Maybe, or maybe she was pissed at the vampire for sucking off her boyfriend, or maybe she killed this vampire because the vampire had just tried to kill her, or maybe she killed it because it was her duty.
Within the mythological structure of BtVS, there is only one organized constraint holding back the plague of vampires and the apocalypse they attempt to bring. That constraint is the watchers council and the slayer. Having said that, what were Buffy's choices of action with regard to this vampire? She couldn't put the vampire under arrest. No police force or court could handle a vampire. She couldn't just let it go, lest it subsequently harm an innocent.
[> [> [> [> [> From the shooting script (general spoilers) -- Traveler, 00:46:01 06/14/02 Fri
"Ah, interesting. I went back and reread my posting and, you know, I didn't find the word "noble" in it, not even once."
No, I was making an additional point. Even if her actions were "necessary", that doesn't make them "good."
"Buffy's dark side was one of the themes that ran through season five. In "Buffy vs. Dracula" (long before "Into the Woods")"
I know, but I never got a feeling of Buffy's "darkness" from the other episodes. They all seemed like red herrings.
"Besides, how is this substantially different from Buffy's normal patrols, where she stakes vampires right out of the grave, offering no opportunity for surrender?"
This part more or less summerizes the rest of your arguments. I will address them by quoting the shooting script.
The whole fight takes about eight seconds - and the only
other creature left standing in the alley besides Buffy is
the junkie vampire girl who bit Riley. The girl
trembles, wide-eyed, before Buffy. Clearly messed up and
harmless. Buffy hesitates. She can't kill this one. It
stinks of pointless vengeance.
Buffy slumps, spent and feeling no better for the raw
display of power. A beat as the junkie girl realizes she's
being spared. Then the girl takes off running down the
alley.
CLOSE ON BUFFY
As she hears the girl retreat. Buffy doesn't move... The
moment plays out for an unusually long time... As long as
it took Buffy to kill those vampires...
Then, without warning, Buffy hurtles her weapon toward
the retreating vampire girl. WHOMP! She impales the
junkie vamp girl. DUST. The double ended plank clatters to
the ground...
The vamp ho is clearly portrayed to be thin and weak. We have absolutely no evidence that she has ever killed anybody. I don't remember if she ever actually took a swing at Buffy. If Buffy had let her go, she would have gone back to being a vamp ho. The fact that she was a ho suggests that she wasn't strong or evil enough to kill mortals for their blood. And the shooting script itself describes her as harmless. Maybe the other slayers don't mind killing harmless creatures, but we have higher standards for Buffy. She is a "hero" as Giles says, but when she killed the vamp ho, she wasn't acting like it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> More on vamp-hos (general spoilers) -- alcibiades, 07:22:54 06/14/02 Fri
Speaking of vamphos, another example of the highly morally questionable perhaps evil action is Riley staking Sandy after they go off together so he can get bitten.
We know the backstory on Sandy that he doesn't know, how she was vamped by VampWillow, didn't want to be turned, and now apparently spends her time doing the vampho thing and not killing humans. And Riley kills her in order to justify to himself and to deal with his own attraction to his newly emerging dark side.
Offering to kill Spike for Buffy is another moment of the highly morally questionable to evil. He may justify to himself that he is doing it because Spike is the Doc --however absurd and unexplained that notion is in AYW -- but he's really offering to do it because he told Spike in ITW that if he ever touched Buffy that Riley would kill him.
[> Excellent responses so far. A few quick thoughts in reaction. -- Sophist, 17:53:15 06/13/02 Thu
alcibiades: You are entirely right. I'm embarrassed to have missed the scene in DT. I assume it's unfinished business. If not, then ME must expect that either (a) it's ok to beat a vampire (even Spike) because Buffy's duty is to slay him, or (b) that Spike accepted the beating for Buffy's sake even though he could have stopped it. I don't find these alternatives very persuasive, so I'm counting on resolution next year.
Robert: Your analysis of the vamp-ho scene is spot on.
Vickie: You're right, that is basically the distinction I'm trying to make. There were lots of suggestions of incidents I omitted. I left those out because they involve the kind of mistakes commonly made by people in daily life (lying to friends, etc.). We are generally willing to forgive these sins because it's all too easy for us to commit them. I was looking for scenes that push the envelope, that test how far the story can go without destroying the characters. In that sense, and while I agree that all the suggestions are morally dubious, I'm comfortable with the ones I listed (adding in DT). It would be interesting to take a look at some of the more venial sins and see if ME provides excuses for them also, or if the SG just forgive each other generously (perhaps a good message in its own right).
Farstrider: There is indeed a distinction between committing the act and being culpable for it. I think 2 of the strategies cover these points. The third is an escape clause after the fact, so to speak. As in IOHEFY, sometimes forgiveness and/or rehabilitation are the only options.
[> [> The Infamous Beating -- Malandanza, 22:13:03 06/13/02 Thu
"You are entirely right. I'm embarrassed to have missed the scene in DT."
I like the fact that you steered clear of the ambiguous cases (the twilight in your night and day analogy) and did not try to manufacture evil where poor judgment, accident or outside controlling entities were involved, but saying that the Spike beating was unambiguously evil undermines your arguments.
Have we see beatings this savage before? Certainly. Remember when Faith first came to town? Her first patrol with Buffy ended up with Faith beating a vampire into a bloody pulp, oblivious to Buffy's cries for help. We also saw Faith (in Buffy's body) beating Buffy (in Faith's body) -- eerily reminiscent of the alley scene from DT. In fact, Faith's rambling monologue in Who Are You" while she struck Buffy could have been said by Buffy to Spike with little alteration. There was no malice aforethought -- this was Buffy out of control.
And consider the circumstances! Why was Spike in that Alley? What precipitated the beating? Buffy believed that she had killed Katrina -- and was headed to the police station to turn herself in (just like Faith). Spike stopped her -- he hid the body and offered her a way out. Conceal the crime and live with her conscience. Which would kill Buffy. Furthermore, it would haven given Spike yet another hold over her -- Buffy was afraid he'd tell her friends she'd been sleeping with him -- imagine how afraid she'd have been if he threatened to reveal that she was a murderer who had hidden her crime. If had accepted his deal, she would have followed Faith's path into darkness. Spike wasn't going to permit her to enter the police station without a fight -- once the fight began, Buffy lost control.
And why did she say all those things to Spike as she beat him? I think the consensus is that, like Faith in WAY, she was really talking to herself.
BUFFY (cont'd) You don't have a soul! There's nothing good or clean in you. That's why you can't understand! You're dead inside! You can't feel anything real! I could never... be your girl!
And does Buffy feel this way? A big part of it had been Spike's influence -- he kept telling her she was wrong. She was dirt. He pushed her to the point where she had this breakdown, then he goaded her into starting the fight.
While I don't think that Buffy's actions were admirable, I can't see the outcome as evil. I'd be more likely to agree that Buffy's season one torture of a vampire (crucifix in the mouth) was evil than that this incident was evil. (Speaking of torture -- Giles tortured a minion for information on Glory -- does that rate as evil?)
[> [> [> Interesting arguments. -- Traveler, 01:17:53 06/14/02 Fri
"Have we see beatings this savage before? Certainly. Remember when Faith first came to town? Her first patrol with Buffy ended up with Faith beating a vampire into a bloody pulp, oblivious to Buffy's cries for help."
How does this support your argument? Since Faith did it, it must be all right?
"We also saw Faith (in Buffy's body) beating Buffy (in Faith's body) -- eerily reminiscent of the alley scene from DT. In fact, Faith's rambling monologue in Who Are You" while she struck Buffy could have been said by Buffy to Spike with little alteration. There was no malice aforethought -- this was Buffy out of control. "
Maybe not much "aforethought, but there was plenty of "malice." Besides which, I thought we had already agreed that Faith is a character who has done unmitigated evil. Comparing her to Buffy doesn't flatter Buffy at all.
"Why was Spike in that Alley?"
He was there to stop Buffy from throwing her life away, and he was willing to take a beating to do it.
"imagine how afraid she'd have been if he threatened to reveal that she was a murderer who had hidden her crime."
Spike has shown that he is extremely trustworthy in regards to secrets; he kept Dawn's secret under torture, for God's sake. You seem to always assume the very worst about Spike, even when there is little evidence to support you. Even when he threatened to tell Buffy's friends about their relationship, it wasn't blackmail. He wasn't trying to coerce her into doing anything; he just said, "if you don't tell them, I will."
"once the fight began, Buffy lost control."
Wow. What a truly amazing argument. So if someone loses control, they aren't responsible for their actions?
"And why did she say all those things to Spike as she beat him? I think the consensus is that, like Faith in WAY, she was really talking to herself."
So it's OK to beat other people, so long as we do it because we hate ourselves?
"A big part of it had been Spike's influence -- he kept telling her she was wrong. She was dirt. He pushed her to the point where she had this breakdown, then he goaded her into starting the fight. "
This is absolutely hilarious. HE told HER that she is dirt? What a joke. He honestly thought that she had come back as some kind of demon and tried to get her to accept it. He never once told her that she was dirt. In fact, he called himself dirt and has repeatedly said that she is above him. He said that she was "better than this" at the doublemeat palace. I could go on and on. He did goad her a little before the fight; he was trying to get her to focus all her anger and hurt on him, thinking that it would keep her from turning herself in. These are the actions of a martyr, even if you don't support his cause. I get the impression for your post that you are bending over backwards to excuse Buffy from any kind of wrong doing. The entire season has been devoted to showing that Buffy does have a dark side. Accept it or go crazy, since I don't think these issues are going to go away completely in season 7.
[> [> [> [> excellent post, traveler! I'm couldn't have said it better -- can I be Anne?, 16:30:55 06/14/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> Re: Interesting arguments. -- Malandanza, 19:46:26 06/14/02 Fri
"So if someone loses control, they aren't responsible for their actions?"
It's not about responsibility -- of course Buffy is responsible for her own actions. But is it evil? I didn't praise Buffy's actions in Dead Things, but neither do I consider them to be unmitigated evil. But in our society someone who kills another person in the heat of passion gets a lesser sentence than does someone who plans the murder weeks in advance -- state of mind is a mitigating circumstance. A person committing a violent act in the heat of the moment is not necessarily an evil person -- it's a terrible mistake, one that they would not have committed if they had stopped and thought things through, and one that they regret as soon as it's over.
Recently, I came across a poem by Derek Walcott ( Blues) which, I think, illustrates the problem I have with condemning Buffy's actions as evil. In this autobiographical poem, Walcott relates having been savagely beaten by a group of young men who attacked for no other reason than to beat him. It was fun for them -- they were waiting for a victim, and Walcott happened along. That is one extreme.
At the other end of the spectrum, we have Jackie Chan. In many of his movies, he's an ordinary guy (who happens to be the world's greatest martial artist but has sworn off fighting) who is bullied and tormented until he is forced to strike back. And he savagely beats his tormentors.
Having said that, I see nothing heroic in Buffy's beating of Spike (no matter how much he deserved it). She did not explore other options -- she could have walked away and come back in the day, she could have yelled for help (she was standing outside a police station, after all). At the same time, this was not an evil act. She was not prowling for victims to beat, like Walcott's young thugs. She did not derive pleasure from the battle. Spike could have stepped out of her way at any time instead of antagonizing her and trying to take her decisions away from her. No evil motivations were involved on her part. That makes the scene rather gray for me.
"He honestly thought that she had come back as some kind of demon and tried to get her to accept it... The entire season has been devoted to showing that Buffy does have a dark side. Accept it or go crazy, since I don't think these issues are going to go away completely in season 7."
I found it mildly amusing that Spike has been trying to persuade Buffy to embrace the darkness all season -- and then gets his fill of Dark Buffy in that alley. Rather poetic.
But, seriously, I am fully convinced that Buffy has a dark side -- LeeAnn has mentioned torturing vampires with crucifixes (way back in season two -- but I guess we keep track of all of Buffy's sins no matter how much she's changed). But there are other moments -- like the start of season 5 when she was actively hunting vampires, then snuggling into bed next to Riley. Also, a scene from Family that has always stayed with me was when Buffy casually snapped the neck of a defeated and helpless demon, then turned to chat with Tara's family. She kills so easily when she's in slayer mode. It is because of her dark side that I think Spike was playing (rather foolishly, as usual) a very dangerous game. The last thing Buffy needs to do is embrace her dark side -- she needs to fight to retain her humanity. To keep the First Slayer, destruction incarnate, from becoming her personality.
As for the comparisons with Faith, I think your problem is with Sophist, not me:
Sophist:Six of the characters (Jenny, Tara, Cordy, Riley, Dawn, and Anya) cannot plausibly be said to have done anything evil at any time when they were part of the SG. This category could include Faith, since she had left the good side before she did the real harm.
My point was that if this behavior (beating a vampire in her pre-evil days) was excusable for Faith, why not for Buffy?
[> [> [> [> [> I understand what you're saying... (spoilers) -- Traveler, 03:46:16 06/15/02 Sat
"It's not about responsibility -- of course Buffy is responsible for her own actions. But is it evil? I didn't praise Buffy's actions in Dead Things, but neither do I consider them to be unmitigated evil."
Almost every evil has been "mitigated" in some way. Even Willow's murder of Warren was in a sense a crime of passion. Yes, time passed between Tara death and Warren's murder, but Willow was still arguably "out of control" with grief, so the same argument can be made for her that you make with Buffy. The only real difference is which excuses you accept as valid and which you don't. Since "evil" is not a legal definition, I choose to see an action as remaining evil even if the person perpetrating the action is very upset. I may sympathize with the person, but I still consider the action itself evil. Also, I never said that Buffy is an evil person; I simply condemn her actions in that scene.
"No evil motivations were involved on her part."
I'm not so sure of this part. I think she was channeling a lot of her own self hate/loathing into Spike, which is certainly not a pure motivation. Whether you consider it "evil" or not is simply a matter of degree.
"The last thing Buffy needs to do is embrace her dark side"
I don't think that Buffy should "embrace" her dark side, but she should accept it as a part of herself. If she refuses to believes it exists, how can she possibly fight it?
"My point was that if this behavior (beating a vampire in her pre-evil days) was excusable for Faith, why not for Buffy?"
Sophist didn't excuse Faith's behavior. He simply said that most of her "evil" actions occured after she left the scooby gang. Besides which, there are many differences between the two situations. One of these differences is that the vamp was trying to kill Faith. We are distrubed by the ferocity and anger that Faith displayed when she beat the vampire, not by the fact that she was attacking it. Spike on the other hand, was definitely not trying to kill Buffy. In fact, he was going out of his way not to hurt her. Yes, he threw her to the ground, but when she started throwing punches, he never even hit her back.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I understand what you're saying... (spoilers) -- Malandanza, 07:01:28 06/15/02 Sat
"Almost every evil has been "mitigated" in some way. Even Willow's murder of Warren was in a sense a crime of passion. Yes, time passed between Tara death and Warren's murder, but Willow was still arguably "out of control" with grief, so the same argument can be made for her that you make with Buffy. The only real difference is which excuses you accept as valid and which you don't. Since "evil" is not a legal definition, I choose to see an action as remaining evil even if the person perpetrating the action is very upset. I may sympathize with the person, but I still consider the action itself evil."
I do think there is a significant difference between what Willow did and what Buffy did (aside from the fact that Buffy didn't Spike and Willow did kill Warren). Going back to the murder analogy -- consider a person who walks in on his wife having an affair, grabs a gun and shoots her. Is he responsible? Yes. Is he evil? I would say no. And I think the law agrees -- he gets 10-20 years in prison. A significant punishment. Now compare that with a man who discovers that his wife has been cheating on him than goes out and buys some skinning knives, tracks her down, abducts her, takes her out into the desert and strips the skin from her body before killing her. This is not a crime of passion -- this is a death penalty case (or life without the possibility of parole). Our society recognizes the distinction. Passion mitigates the punishment in the first case, but, because of the passage of time, does not do so in the second. The same is true for Buffy and Willow -- there are no circumstances that can mitigate what Willow did -- the murder and torture is the most unambiguously evil act we have ever seen a Scooby perform. Willow trying to destroy the world, on the other hand, can be mitigated by extreme emotion -- very little time passed between her shock in the magic shop and the raising of the Satanic temple. To compare Buffy beating Spike to Willow torturing Warren in an effort to make poor Spike look like an innocent victim brutally beaten by wicked Buffy is ridiculous.
Additionally, Buffy did not begin the fight -- Spike did, by forcibly restraining her and goading her into attacking. This is not a clear cut case of evil -- it is in the twilight. Probably just over the edge on the dark side, but not unambiguous, unmitigated evil. (as per Sophist's original intent: "I first have to define what I mean by "evil". All of the characters have flaws, they make mistakes. I don't mean to include here the kind of mistakes we all might make in our lives, even if they might be serious. For example, W/X cheating on O/C was not "evil" even if was a serious mistake. Faith killing the professor, however, was evil. I believe this will be clearer in practice than it is in theory; day and night are tolerably distinct even if we can't define the precise boundary between them.")
"I don't think that Buffy should "embrace" her dark side, but she should accept it as a part of herself. If she refuses to believes it exists, how can she possibly fight it?"
I think is aware of her dark side -- it's why she asked Giles to stay in Season Five, and it's why Spike's taunts about her having come back wrong or being a demon had so much influence over her. Her dark side frightens her and she does her best to keep it locked away. She is always fighting against it (and considering how much darkness is in the girl, that's a good thing).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ok, but that wasn't my point (spoilers) -- Traveler, 00:44:56 06/17/02 Mon
"I do think there is a significant difference between what Willow did and what Buffy did "
I agree. I do believe that what Buffy did was less evil. However, that doesn't make it "morally ambiguous." It may be evil with a lowercase "e," but it is still evil.
"Going back to the murder analogy -- consider a person who walks in on his wife having an affair, grabs a gun and shoots her. Is he responsible? Yes. Is he evil? I would say no. And I think the law agrees -- he gets 10-20 years in prison. "
Once again, the law does not determine the "evilness" of an action, let alone a person. Rather, it tries to apply some kind of penalty to a person found to be committing a "wrong" action. "Wrong" can range from serial murder to speeding. Our judicial system is not a church, nor any other kind of moral authority, so we shouldn't treat it as such. Also, let me repeat myself again. I NEVER SAID THAT BUFFY IS EVIL.
"Our society recognizes the distinction. Passion mitigates the punishment in the first case"
A lesser punishment shows that the person is to some degree excused for their actions, but not that the actions themselves are any less evil. For example, I can argue that killing a human is always evil. However, that doesn't mean that I believe someone should be punished for defending themselves from an attacker, even if they had to kill him. What they did was evil, but it was a necessary evil. In the same way, I believe that what Buffy did to Spike was evil, and not even a necessary one, but I don't think she needs to go to jail for it.
"Willow trying to destroy the world, on the other hand, can be mitigated by extreme emotion"
I don't buy the "I was upset excuse" as a morally sound policy in our legal system either. The only difference between first and second degree murder is time. In both cases, the murderer makes the decision to murder, and to me that is the most important thing. Really, morally speaking, what makes an impulsive murderer better than a strategic murderer?
"All of the characters have flaws, they make mistakes."
Maladanza, she didn't just hit Spike. She hit him when he obviously wasn't fighting back. After she knocked him down, she hit him some more, even though he still wasn't fighting back. She then continued to beat on him until he was a bloody pulp, all the while telling him he was an "evil thing." Have you ever done anything like this? Do you know anybody who has? This is not a normal, everyday kind of mistake. This was a brutal and vicious action with no justification. Yes, Spike started the fight, but she continued to escalate the violence even as he backed off. She knew he wasn't really trying to hurt her. All she had to do was knock him down and keep going, and she knew that too. Yet, she didn't stop. We can compare this to rape. If a woman flirts with a man and kisses him, we wouldn't blame him for thinking that she is sexually interested in him. However, does that give him a right to rape her if she says no? She started it, remember? She caused feelings of passion in him that lead him to respond. Is this an example of moral gray? Should we excuse this man because of his feelings? Why then, should we excuse Buffy's actions, simply because of the feelings that Spike caused in her? On the other hand, I don't excuse Spike's attempted rape of Buffy either. I feel some sympathy for him, because of the pain that caused him to do it, but it doesn't make his actions any less evil.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ok, but that wasn't my point (spoilers) -- Finn Mac Cool, 06:07:44 06/17/02 Mon
I think whether or not beating up Spike is "evil" depends on whether or not vampires have any rights. Are they killed because of the danger to humans they pose, or because of the simple fact that they ARE vampires? If it is the latter, Buffy's beating of Spike was not an evil act. If vampires do have rights, than Buffy's beating of Spike was not right. So it all hinges on the fact if we really care what happens to a vampire, even a chipped one.
(For those who bring up Faith beating on a vamp, the real problem there was that she was focusing on it when a bunch of other vampires were trying to kill Buffy. Brutality wasn't the issue.)
[> [> [> [> [> The distinction between FH&T and DT -- Sophist, 15:27:12 06/16/02 Sun
My response to your original post explained why I'm inclined to include DT in my list. I guess I should explain also why I would not include Faith's beating of the vamp in FH&T.
The distinction is that Faith beat (a) a vamp (b) who was trying to kill her. In DT, Spike is a vamp but is chipped. He did not try to kill Buffy. Combined with what I said in my other post, one goes on the list, the other does not.
[> [> [> No minion-torturey goodness for Giles -- FriarTed, 07:35:17 06/14/02 Fri
he didn't torture the minion- only threatened to (implicity) once they tied it up. But they didn't even tie it up as it
immediately began jabbering once that was threatened.
[> [> [> [> Re: No minion-torturey goodness for Giles -- Vickie, 23:12:15 06/14/02 Fri
But there's a distinct crunching sound when the camera moves to Willow and Anya at the counter. The implication is that Giles crunched something of the Minion, maybe a finger, and that "threat" convinced him to start talking.
[> [> [> Re: The Infamous Beating -- Sophist, 09:43:35 06/14/02 Fri
There are 2 reasons why I'd add the DT scene to the list. One is that the very similar scene in FH&T caused Buffy to label Faith as "psycho". The other is that while Spike was, in my view, wrong in his reasons for trying to prevent Buffy from turning herself in (though right in the substantive sense), the force she used was excessive. And, of course, we can't ignore the facts that Spike is chipped and can't harm other humans, and that Buffy, rightly or wrongly, has been sleeping with him.
I didn't include the Giles/minion scene because it wasn't clear what Giles did.
[> Consider . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:02:09 06/13/02 Thu
When you're talking about good and evil, remember that there isn't one set definition of morality.
On the Spike beating from Dead Things:
Does an unrepentent murderer deserve violent treatment? That is still being hotly debated between pro and anti death penalty people. Therefore, don't be so quick to add it.
On Willow's "my will be done" spell:
Is magically altering the world around you, even if it worked right, okay? Some say yes, some say no.
Also, here's something to consider:
Buffy killed Angel to save the world. This is a case of the ends justify the means. A lot of people seem to dislike this Machievelli thing, but think Buffy was making the right choice in Becoming.
Plus, all of this hinges on the principle that hurting people is evil (I agree that it is, but not everyone will).
The thing that people forget in all these chats of good and evil is that there is always debate about what evil is and what good is.
[> [> Re: Consider . . . -- shadowkat, 05:16:34 06/14/02 Fri
"On the Spike beating from Dead Things:
Does an unrepentent murderer deserve violent treatment? That is still being hotly debated between pro and anti death penalty people. Therefore, don't be so quick to add it."
One who is currently trying to do good and help her, he just fought and killed three monsters with her, don't forget.
Also this hits on police brutality not the death penality.
She didn't kill him, nor was she trying to kill him. Be careful that you do not confuse the two. No one in this country condones police brutality. In fact the unnecessary beating of a murder suspect is grounds for release on a technacality. (See the recent police cases in NYC.) Remember Buffy got on Faith in Faith, Hope, Tricks for beating the vamp instead of just staking him. Beating up a murderer, a theif, anyone is not justified - unless it is self-defense - otherwise it takes you down to their level.
And if you are in a position of power and they aren't as Buffy clearly was in this case - than yes, it is wrong.
[> [> [> Re: Consider . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:16:40 06/14/02 Fri
Yes, but police brutality is against SUSPECTS for crimes. While Spike hasn't had a trial, he has freely admitted to being a murderer.
While Spike has done some good, and can't hurt anyone, he has never really gotten any punishment for his past actions. My point with the death penalty thing was:
If we're still arguing over whether murderers should be killed are not, then beating up a murderer is even more ambigiuous. For instance, if somebody beat up Osama Bin Laden, would you hold it against them?
Also, while Buffy is in a position of power, so is Spike. The chip hasn't worked on her since she got ressurected. This means Spike could have fought back, and he has the vampiric strength to do so.
I don't think beating up Spike was the right thing to do, but I don't think it was wrong, either.
[> [> [> [> You raise fence sitting to an art form. -- Traveler, 03:57:37 06/15/02 Sat
"If we're still arguing over whether murderers should be killed are not, then beating up a murderer is even more ambigiuous."
Not really. It is a part of our constitution that even the most base criminal cannot be subjected to "cruel or unusual" punishments. Most people would put beatings into that category.
"Also, while Buffy is in a position of power, so is Spike."
First of all, Buffy is stronger than Spike. Secondly, Spike was in love with Buffy and she was not in love with him. That also gave her power over him, which she has used many times. This love is what caused him to take her abuse without fighting back.
"I don't think beating up Spike was the right thing to do, but I don't think it was wrong, either."
So how would you describe it?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: You raise fence sitting to an art form. -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:59:46 06/15/02 Sat
Ah, but there are cruel punishments. What do you call locking someone up in prison without hope of ever being free again? That is cruel, but it is a fitting punishment for a multiple murderer. Spike cannot be sent to prison, though, because he is not techincally a person, and can't be judged by laws. After all the things he's done, don't you conceed he deserves what he had coming to him? Less than a year ago he was an accomplice to a murder and kidnapped Buffy (in Crush). I am a big Spike fan, but I don't deny the fact that he deserves that beating and many more.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Don't we all deserve a beating? -- Traveler, 01:03:30 06/17/02 Mon
If you added together all the bad things that you have knowingly and unknowingly done in your life, what would the fitting punishment be? Should your wife/girlfriend leave you? Maybe you should lose your job or a friend? And who should met out this punishment to you? Your father maybe? Yes, that is exactly what you deserve. Your father will convince your girlfriend to leave you. "But, wait!" You say. "All I've done is get a few speeding tickets!" Well yes, but that's why you only get ONE punishment. We'll just add all of your sins together and give them to you as one lump sum, just what you deserve, no more. What, you would rather just pay the traffic tickets? No, sorry, I get to decide what your punishment must be, because I have The Moral Highground. So what if your punishment has absolutely no connection with your transgressions? So what, if you want to do the right thing now? It is well past time that you get what you deserve.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Don't we all deserve a beating? -- Finn Mac Cool, 06:15:59 06/17/02 Mon
A tad bitter, are we?
Let me put it this way, if the punishment for over a century of murder comes down to a beating, than the penalty for a few traffic tickets probably isn't even noticable. Plus, remember when Faith decided to redeem herself? She went to jail to accept the punishment for what she had done. Spike, while he has done good, has shown no remorse for his past or a desire to accept any retribution. Plus, Buffy does have the right to inflict that punishment because she is the Slayer and Spike is a vampire. She's as close as the world of demons and vampires comes to having law. She has to be the one to inflict punishment, because nobody else can or will.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Don't we all deserve a beating? -- shadowkat, 11:21:25 06/17/02 Mon
Okay...first, a big distinction regarding Spike which you are ignoring. He has NO soul. Faith, Warren, and most human mass murders have souls which means they have a moral compass telling them they shouldn't do this and why.
So comparing Spike to an ensouled human mass murderer doesn't work for me.
Now regarding beating up people. It is a crime to beat up someone who is not fighting back regardless of their past crimes. Unless you are fighting them in self-defense. You remind me of A Clockwork Orange - an allegorical movie that you might consider renting some day - in that movie they do exactly what you condone to someone who was an unrepetenent murderer and rapist who gets conditioned and violence makes him sick. His former victims capture him and torture him in his new state. At the end of the movie the former victims come out as bad if not worse than the murderer.
I'm not a practicing christian, but someone very wise once said it takes more courage not to beat up or take vengeance against the one who hurt you, to turn the other cheek. It's in the new testament.
Legally if you beat up someone in prison, you would be convicted. If you do it on the street, you could be arrested. Vigilantism is a crime in this country.
In Btvs - re-watch PAngs and Something Blue, Giles says we don't hurt harmless creatures. Go back to Faith Hope Tricks, where Buffy blasts Faith for beating a vamp senseless. Buffy was horrified by what she did to Spike in that alley. We were supposed to be as well. That's why they had his face become human again and not stay a vampire's.
Btw - the argument you pose is exactly the same argument that terrorists use to condone their acts. "We were bombed by the evil Americans - they deserve to be beaten to death." What is it Whedon states in the answers to the SAT questions that Giles presents to buffy? Violence breeds violence? Think about that...life really isn't as black and white as you'd like it to be. As much as you'd like to beat the living crap out of the villain, it often comes back at you when you do. It takes a stronger, wiser, and far better person, to not do it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Don't we all deserve a beating? -- alcibiades, 12:21:24 06/17/02 Mon
Besides even if one were to concede the argument that Spike needs to get beat up at least once to pay for his past crimes -- that was not by any measure what was going on in that scene.
Buffy was not the transcendent force of justice going forth to render a verdict that was deserved. She was a depressed girl trying desperately to remove herself from life in any way she could and laying waste to whatever barriers stood in her way so that she could bury everything about herself, her potential, her goodness, her stake against evil.
Buffy was the force of Id personified in that scene though her Id snuck on the trappings of the super-ego so she could more easily fool herself. But she fooled neither Spike nor Dawn.
She was beating Spike up because he stood between herself and her greatest desire -- to lose herself back into powerlessness, lack of responsibility and spiritual and emotional exhaustion.
It is practically the same temptation Buffy was dealing with in NA -- the need to kill everyone near her so she could retreat into the powerlessness and void of the asylum. In DT, she tries to kill Spike, in NA, she tries to kill everyone else who is keeping her from the asylum.
Besides, whenever Buffy has tried to play God and give payback to the ones around her, most notably Faith the one who Buffy felt deserved it, Buffy's plans go noticeably awry. That is not her purpose in life. That is the purpose of TPTB.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Don't we all deserve a beating? -- Eliza, 12:48:39 06/17/02 Mon
Finn Mac Cool:
Plus, Buffy does have the right to inflict that punishment because she is the Slayer and Spike is a vampire. She's as
close as the world of demons and vampires comes to having law. She has to be the one to inflict punishment, because nobody else can or will.
But that is what makes it worse.
The Samurai were the warrior caste in Japan; it was their job to mete out justice. One day an esaped murderer was tracked down and cornered by one of these warriors. As the Samurai was about to carry out the sentence (death), the murderer spat in his face. The Samurai turned and walked away -- his anger had turned the sentence into revenge for the insult rather than an act of justice.
(If anyones has a reference for this tale please tell me. I've looked though half my library and can't find the story.)
Buffy didn't turn and walk away. That fight was personal not punishment. She could have killed Spike if he was so evil -- it was within her purview to do that, although I applaud her compassionate stance (for many selfish reasons) -- but instead she beat him and insulted him. This was not the act of the Slayer meting out justice, this was Buffy angry and in the presence of a convient punching bag. It is the same reason why Faith's joy in pummeling the vamps before killing them was so disturbing. She was not acting out of duty but out of an agenda of her own.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Don't we all deserve a beating? -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:14:20 06/17/02 Mon
Here's the thing, though:
I don't think Buffy would have done that to a human being. While she wasn't acting out of justice, she has enough self control not to wail on an innocent. However, Spike is no innocent, so she felt free to beat him up. If he hadn't been a vampire, she would have contained her anger.
And, for all people who bring up Faith beating up a vampire in "Faith, Hope, and Trick", the problem wasn't that Faith was being brutal to a vampire; it was that she was doing that while Buffy was nearly killed by a bunch of vamps. The act of beating a vampire up wasn't considered wrong, it was failing to help someone in danger.
[> [> The world around Willow -- auroramama, 20:45:55 06/14/02 Fri
>>On Willow's "my will be done" spell:
Is magically altering the world around you, even if it worked right, okay? Some say yes, some say no.>>
Ah, but she never meant to alter the world around her. She meant to alter herself, to root out the pain Oz's decision was causing her. She didn't intend to change Oz, or undo his decision, or punish him, or her friends. To me, she was acting more ethically than she has in the past (trying to magic away Xander's feelings without his consent; setting up, though not carrying out, a revenge spell on Oz.)
Mind you, attempting to change her emotions via a general "my will be done" spell was horribly reckless. I think Willow became too used to being powerless and a victim through ten years of school (and perhaps her parents' benign neglect.) If no one listens to what you say, and you don't even have the power to stop people from hurting you as a casual pick-me-up, you end up feeling free to say and do whatever the hell you want -- after all, you're powerless and ignored.
Even when a little power comes your way, you don't have the practice in using it wisely that others have had. You haven't yet had the experience of hurting someone; you haven't learned in your gut that you can. You haven't had to take responsibility for your actions because no one seemed to notice them. Perhaps most people need to make mistakes with power before they can rise above it.
I certainly identify with Willow's recklessness. She didn't really think her early spells would work. She didn't really see herself as the person with power, even when she bragged about it. And she didn't believe that when she finally obtained power, she was capable of being just as destructive as her abusers had been.
She had been invisible to the world, and she still thought like an invisible girl. Being invisible makes people act as if they aren't really part of the world. It can be hard to unlearn.
auroramama
[> [> [> The Invisible Girl -- Exegy, 13:12:12 06/15/02 Sat
And isn't it interesting that Willow wears the number 11 on her shirt in Bargaining--the numerical placement of OMOS in the BtVS chronicles. In OMOS, we have another invisible girl, Marcie Ross. She's neglected until she literally fades away. Then, driven insane, she rebels against those who have ignored her. Those who have discounted her presence.
I think Willow's rebellion reflects back on that earlier episode quite well. Although Willow wields great power now, she still thinks of herself as a loser. The real Willow is nothing, worthless without another's love filling her. The Black Magick visage is a hollow front, a cover for the invisible girl inside (cf. Restless). The girl who now seeks complete annihilation.
Willow is really just projecting all her self-destructive tendencies upon the world at large. The world seems to reflect her inner pain (think Edvard Munch's The Scream). She has to make the pain go poof! Hence the massive abuse of power. We see that in her heart, Willow feels powerless. A worthless nothing.
She's always thought little of herself. She's never had a solid center (why she doesn't sing in OMWF). There's nothing to sing about with her. She only has her position in the Scooby gang and the love of her significant other. These are external sources of validation, to fit with the costume Willow wears. There is no internal validation for the invisible girl inside.
The girl whose spirit is slowly being sucked dry ... because she has never been given expression.
[> Re: When good guys go wrong. ME's portrayal of good characters and bad deeds. Spoilers through S6. -- Just George, 23:11:26 06/13/02 Thu
My wife Donji had an interesting theory on Buffy's knifing of Faith. Since Faith attacked Angel with a slow acting poison, Buffy's attack in Faith's apartment could be seen as an extension of the combat started when Faith originally attacked Angel.
A thought experiment. Assume Faith attacked Angel face to face and wounds him. Faith is about to deliver the killing blow. Buffy is far enough away that her only way to stop Faith's attack is to throw her knife at Faith. Buffy's knife attack would wound and possibly kill Faith. In this case, Buffy would be obviously acting in defense of Angel. Few would see Buffy's knife attack as an "evil" act.
The actual circumstances of the two attacks (Faith's arrow and Buffy's later knife attack) were separated in time. However, given the slow acting poison Faith used and the fact that Faith's blood was the only antidote, effectively made these acts into one long combat situation. Given this interpretation, Buffy was acting in defense of Angel, and did not commit an "evil" act in knifing Faith.
[> [> Time. -- Sophist, 09:52:00 06/14/02 Fri
The key distinction here is the passage of time. At least in the legal system, what separates self-defense or defense of others (excusable homicide) from simple revenge killing (not excusable) is the passage of time. Once time has passed, the immediate threat has also (not the poison, the direct threat from Faith). I think it works better to see Buffy as acting in the role of a police officer trying to apprehend the felon than as the victim seeking revenge.
[> Re: Riley a hero?? -- Cydney, 08:00:52 06/14/02 Fri
>Riley remains MN's hero
If that is Marti's take, well, all I can say is yuk.
I have never seen Riley as a hero. His is a black-and-white, follow orders without question, loves to kill things, soldier. Nice guy, but not very deep. Buffy should have said to Riley in AYW (along with telling Riley 'I forgot about your Janes Bond toys' and telling Spike ' I forgot you are evil and amoral') that she had forgotten how Riley viewed all demons as bad no matter what -- something ME has been pointing out is NOT true (in Buffyverse).
Riley a hero? No way. Not in my book. In AYW, Buffy *should* have realized that Riley wasn't the right guy for her--ever. The clarity of 20/20 hindsight.
[> [> Re: Riley a hero?? -- Sophist, 09:57:16 06/14/02 Fri
It has been said (don't know if it's true) that MN modeled Riley after her husband and remains shocked that viewers don't like him and consider him wrong for Buffy.
I agree with your view of Riley. If the sarcasm in my sentence didn't come across, I'll have to work on that.
[> [> Nice guy? -- vh, 14:43:00 06/14/02 Fri
If you consider arrogance "nice" perhaps.
[> [> Re: Riley a hero?? -- Eric, 15:38:05 06/16/02 Sun
Riley is a hero. Yeah, he tends to see things as black and white - but so does Buffy. He was a soldier, so he's required to follow orders. Even then he instinctively understood that wasn't a particularly good habit. But he only acted the brain washed automaton when controlled by Adam's chip. And he dropped his loyalties to the Initiative - his entire military career - to support Buffy with surprisingly little pissing and moaning (even Spike can't do that). He does lack the Buffy and gang perspective on demon fighting that not all demons are really evil. But even the Scoob learning curve on that subject took 3 seasons to develop. I have NEVER seen any evidence that Riley enjoys killing. He doesn't have Spike's hell for leather thirst for battle or derive even Buffy's satisfaction from it.
[> Defining evil. Xander doesn't qualify. Riley does. -- LeeAnn, 12:20:10 06/14/02 Fri
Who you describe as evil depends on how you define evil. I define evil as deliberately inflicting pain and suffering on a organism capable of feeling pain and suffering.
By my definition Xander and Dawn are "not evil." They never deliberately caused suffering. Xander did not mean to make Anya suffer when he didn't marry her. He was trying to avoid causing her to suffer if he turned out to be like his father. When Xander called Sweet he had no idea that the spell would result in anyone being harmed so any harm that resulted was not deliberate. When he punched Spike in the cemetery, that was bad, but I wouldn't put it in the evil category. It was the first time I remember Xander trying to hurt Spike knowing that Spike couldn't defend himself and anyway Spike was getting in his face and promising to fight through the pain. When Xander tried to kill Spike outside the Magic Box, that would have qualified as evil if he had succeeded. Thank TBTB that he didn't. His nastiness toward Spike is generally just nastiness. Not much worse than Spike's snark toward him. So, to me, Xander is "not evil."
Anya is "not evil" but Anyanka was. Are Anya/Anyanka the same person or not? Anyanka was a demon. Anya is human. Does that mean she gets a free pass? Apparently ME thinks so.
Giles has done evil. When he tortured and beat Ethan Rayne for information, I would call that evil even though I might also call it necessary. When Giles killed Ben I found that morally permissible because he did not mean to cause suffering but only to protect those that Glory would make suffer in the future. If it is not evil for Buffy to kill newly risen vampires it was not evil for Giles to kill Ben.
Willow has been bad. Her forgetting spells were bad but were not supposed to hurt anyone. You might want to convict her of negligent evil but not of deliberate evil, at least not until Tara died. After that Willow became evil and deliberately tried to cause suffering.
Spike. Well, Spike is Spike. There is so much we don't know about his vampire life. Did he deliberately cause suffering as he fed or did he try to avoid it in his kills? He wasn't an Angelus but he wasn't an angel either. He wasn't Drusilla but he allowed Dru to indulge her interest in torture and, in that, Spike falls out of the man-eating tiger category and into my definition of evil.
Riley. To me Riley is the most evil human character we have been shown on BtVS. That is because as a leftie and an animal lover I only differentiate a little between animals and humans. If someone captures an animal, restrains it, and tortures it, I consider that nearly as evil as doing the same thing to a human.
Evil, let us count the ways:
- The Initiative. Riley works for the Initiative and has no problems with them running their Dachau for demons, capturing and torturing sentient creatures, starving them, vivisecting them, cutting them up alive, and murdering them. Riley was a good Nazi. It never occurred to him, or Buffy, that what he was doing was wrong. Buffy only objected when one of her friends, Oz, was captured and about to become an experimental subject. The fact that some of the captives were vampires excuses nothing. Torture is ALWAYS wrong. Or so I believe. Catch a man-eating Tiger. Is it okay to torture it just because you can? Wonder how many Clems went through the Initiative experience.
- Sandy. He deliberately allows Sandy to feed from him then kills her. You don't encourage someone to do something then kill them for it. Riley was a deeply evil man.
- Torturing Spike. In Into the Woods Riley comes to Spike's crypt and shoves a sharp piece of plastic into his heart. He twists it and inflicts the maximum pain he can. He knows that Spike can't fight back, that he's totally helpless. For him that's probably part of the thrill. When Spike tells him he's not the "long-haul guy" he grabs Spike's wound and gouges and twists. Riley is the perfect Nazi/CIA torturer. Healthy, normal, intelligent, clean-cut evil. It's okay for Riley to torture because he's one of the good guys, right?
- Punching Spike when he's helpless. In As You Were Riley punches and insults Spike, knowing he is helpless. That's the fun.
- Offering to kill Spike. In As You Were Riley offers to kill Spike in cold blood. He's been told to assassinate "The Doctor". He doesn't really care if Spike is innocent or guilty, he's willing. He just wants Buffy's permission but doesn't get it.
Is Buffy evil? I will leave out her treatment of Spike, leave out all the times she was vicious to him after he was chipped, punched him for fun or out of frustration, beat him in the alley, sexually assaulted him when she came into his crypt in Gone, punched him when he returned her panties to her in Wrecked, and generally treated him like crap. I leave it out because Spike has clearly forgiven her for all of it, because he was her enabler and because they have such a mutually dysfunctional relationship.
I will also leave out the question of whether slaying vampires is ever evil. Buffy is doing what she has been taught to do and, being about as deep as a puddle, never seems to have questioned whether it is moral to kill a whole group of sentient creatures. As Spike was turned and then taught so Buffy was turned, but at an even younger age. She has been led and trained by Watchers and she has accepted their definitions of right and wrong without much question just as Spike accepted most of what Angelus, Darla and Drusilla taught him, at least until he was chipped and fell in love with the Slayer.
What I am left with is Buffy torturing a vampire by putting her cross in its mouth while screams and smoke issue forth, committing arson in Into the Woods, which caused property loss and might well have caused loss of life, especially of firefighters, and killing the pitiful and non-threatening vamp-ho. Each of those actions were meant to cause suffering and thus make her evil. At least as I define it.
[> [> Hmmm... -- redcat, 14:23:38 06/14/02 Fri
Under your definition, every character that we have seen prepare, purchase, eat or approve of the eating of a Double-Meat hamburger is evil: "I define evil as deliberately inflicting pain and suffering on a organism capable of feeling pain and suffering."
However, even as someone who is not only also a "leftie and an animal lover," but who has been a complete vegetarian for 25 years (uh, OK, 24 years, 4 months and 15 days), and has trouble watching DMP for reasons that have *nothing* to do with the plot-holes, I have to say that I can't agree with your basic premise. People cause pain to sentient beings all the time. Hopefully, we learn to do it not cruelly and to do a great deal less of it as we grow; some try to live their lives by principles that they feel are likely to cause the least amount of pain to other sentient beings, although even the Jains admit that a "perfect" life in that regard is nearly impossible. But those who continue to make other kinds of choices, choices that cause pain and suffering, are not automatically "evil" even if their actions are deliberate (eating a hamburger) and even if they understand that their actions will have the consequence of causing a sentient being to suffer (Buffy watching the DMP training video). The DMP burgers are themselves an intricate, and I think quite interesting, reflexive metaphor for thinking through very fixed perspectives on good and evil. They are actually mainly not-meat, but are also not really vegetarian. As someone pointed out recently (I'm so sorry, but I've forgotton who said this), the DMP burgers actually include the "worst" part (in terms of human health by consumption)of a slaughtered animal, his or her body fat, and their vegetable-based nature is literally "larded" with fraud. The DMP corporate executives may well be evil, but I don't think all carnivorous characters should be judged by your standard and found so wanting.
[> [> [> Fully expect.. -- LeeAnn, 15:19:32 06/14/02 Fri
I was a vegetarian for 18 months once and for 6 months another time. Both times ended with me becoming ill. On the other hand I fully expect to go to hell, if there is one, for eating meat.
But back to Buffy. I don't consider Spike much worse for eating people than I consider myself for eating meat. At least in theory. But Riley was worse. He was complicit in the systematic torture, not just of animals, but of sentient creatures. For me that is beyond what even the Master did. And this from someone who worked in research when I got out of school and saw some of the things done to animals in the name of...well it really always came down to money. Grant money. Affluent doctors making more money. Never did any of the research I saw have any positive affect on anyone's health care.
I can't understand anyone justifying experimenting on creatures that and talk and listen and understand. Not animals.
[> [> [> [> Re: Fully expect.. -- rc, 22:11:50 06/14/02 Fri
Even if I believed in a traditional heaven, I certainly wouldn't expect to go there simply because
I *don't* eat animals, nor would I expect a just god to send a being he had created with a
carnivorous digestive system to his hell simply for doing what comes naturally - eating as a
carnivore. I find your expectations in this regard quite odd, but hey, each to her own,
especially when it comes to beliefs and religion.
As for your damning of Riley, I, too, find many of his actions and beliefs, and specifically the
ones you mention, reprehensible. I think I was supposed to, given the way ME portrayed the
character. But as the episodes went on, like many of the other characters who are deeply
flawed or have lessons to learn, I saw Riley develop to the point where I could say that I
understood something of his psychology, of his inner fear and insecurities, of his search for his
own truth and self-knowledge. I never came to actually LIKE the chap, but I sympathized with
him and have (slowly, I admit) begun to understand his place, especially since AYW, in the
metaphoric structure of the show. But in all that time, even when he was initially willing to help
conduct experiments on Oz, and before that when he helped capture other sentient demons
for the Initiative knowing full well what would happen to them, I didn't see him as "evil." For
me, the closest he came to this state was when he staked Sandy, but I still hesitate to use the
big "E" word for that act, preferring to concentrate on the angst and inner ambiguities that
fueled the look on his face when she looked at him just before turning into dust...
Anyway, perhaps my difference in perspective arises because the great majority of people
whom I have loved in this world have made different choices than I have, especially about
something so important to me -- directing one's actions toward ending the suffering of sentient
beings rather than causing it. My own commitment to conscious practice in this regard led me
to completely revise my childhood-learned patterns of consumption, but it does not make me
(or anyone who consciously refrains from violence in this way) a hero, or saved, or even a
particularly "good" person. It just makes me a human who has made a particular set of choices
based on what I think is right for me. And it doesn't make meat-eaters, or those who raise
animals for slaughter, like my brother the pig farmer, "evil," either. I wish he did something else
for a living, and he thinks I'm a little wacky, and we love each other without conditions through
it all. When he comes to my house and wants to eat meat, he's polite enough to bring it
already cooked, use a paper plate and take the garbage out afterwards. When I go to his
house, he always makes sure he has some tofu on hand and I'm polite enough not to
comment on the smell of his cooking.
I guess I'm just finding your logic hard to swallow (pun not originally intended). Although I
deeply agree with you that torture and senseless experimentation on sentient creatures as a
method of *creating* pain is an evil act. But I guess I balk at the notion of branding all
scientists whose research involves animals as also evil, even if those animals experience pain.
Especially since I think that most scientists, especially in the medical fields, truly believe they
are, in fact, working to alleviate suffering, not cause it. Their priorities are different than yours
and mine, perhaps, as is their assessment of their relationships to other sentient (but generally
not-language-using) creatures, but their intentions and their understanding of what they are
doing place them in the same category into which you are willing to place Giles' killing of Ben.
You said, "When Giles killed Ben I found that morally permissible because he did not mean to
cause suffering but only to protect those that Glory would make suffer in the future."
I understand your concern with the vivisectionist attitude of the Initiative and Riley, but I still
find your argument about the definition of evil less convincing than Sophist's original post.
Finally, I think the thing that makes me shake my head here is the way ME itself suggests to
the viewer a set of correlations that are linked to your concerns, but (of course) contain much
more grey. Spike makes a comment in the Initiative cell (when the other vamp tells him about
the drugged blood, experiments, etc.) in which he says something like [paraphrasing here]
"Who are these people, a cosmetics company?" I read that comment as ME suggesting that
there are ethical concerns here, and that we need to look at the Initiative carefully, I don't
think they answer, or expect us to answer, those questions about research and science (much
less hamburgers), in ways that cast almost the entire set of characters into THIS particular
morally ambiguous territory.
.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Fully expect.. -- LeeAnn, 01:50:23 06/15/02 Sat
Even if I believed in a traditional heaven, I certainly wouldn't expect to go there simply because I *don't* eat animals, nor would I expect a just god to send a being he had created with a carnivorous digestive system to his hell simply for doing what comes naturally - eating as a carnivore. I find your expectations in this regard quite odd, but hey, each to her own, especially when it comes to beliefs and religion.
I generally find religion quite odd, including my own. I was at war with it and God for many years because, like Joss, God seems to have set up a universe that maximizes pain. Bad God. I'm trying to believe in a more benevolent God now. Against all evidence to the contrary.
I don't expect not eating meat would be enough to guarentee anyone heaven. I expect eating meat will get me hell (or worse, reborn as a food animal) not so much because I eat meat as because I know its wrong to eat meat and still do.
And it doesn't make meat-eaters, or those who raise animals for slaughter, like my brother the pig farmer, "evil," either.
Would a Jainist call it evil? Would a Buddhist? Would a Hindu? And it's not the death. Everything dies. It's the suffering. I try to minimize the suffering I cause in the world even if I can't elminate it. I won't eat companion animals, baby animals, animals raised cruely, killed cruelly, killed kosher, or cooked alive.
Especially since I think that most scientists, especially in the medical fields, truly believe they are, in fact, working to alleviate suffering, not cause it.
I can tell you never worked with any of them. A more greedy, cold-hearted bunch of bastards never walked the earth. Work with them a while and you'll understand why it was so easy to recruit doctors to the Nazi cause. (What's the difference between God and a doctor? God doesn't think he's a doctor.) I'm hoping as more and more women have become doctors that this has changed but I don't know if it has.
I understand your concern with the vivisectionist attitude of the Initiative and Riley, but I still
find your argument about the definition of evil less convincing than Sophist's original post.
I mean only to point out the subjective nature of "evil." Sophist's intelligent and well thought out post shows he views evil differently than I do. I cannot bear the deliberate infliction of pain on anything. I always consider it evil and unjustified. Indeed, there are many (frequently ignored) laws against such experiments. It amazes me what is legal and even required, such as the most horrific animal testing of cosmetics and cleaners (Buy pain free products).
As good and evil in the Buffyverse are black and white so is my own view of evil. Only my dividing line doesn't stop at inflicting harm on humans, my line continues over into the animal kingdom as well.
[> [> [> [> [> [> drawing lines between night and day -- redcat, 10:58:33 06/15/02 Sat
"As good and evil in the Buffyverse are black and white so is my own view of evil. Only my
dividing line doesn't stop at inflicting harm on humans, my line continues over into the animal
kingdom as well."
Ah, and herein lies our basic difference. I don't see good and evil in the Buffyverse as being
so clearly delineated, nor do I expect them to be in my own RL. I think Joss & ME work very
hard to depict a universe of grey undertones and shadowed overtones. Rarely in the
Jossverse do I see things so starkly divided as your definition of good and evil suggests.
Sophist employed the metaphor of day/night (not the colors of black/white) to ground his
definition of good/evil. It's a great choice, because unlike black and white, day and night fade
into each other, separated by the liminal space-time of dusk and dawn. As animals, we are
biologically attuned to the difference between light and dark. As humans, we recognize and
even celebrate the liminal space between them. Day/night, linked to its corollary light/dark,
works particularly well as a metaphor for good/evil precisely because our human vision
requires the interplay between them in order for us to be able to see. Pure light blinds; pure
darkness does also. Only in the shadowed, outlined, shaded interplay between light and dark
can our eyes distinguish the shape of things. Dusk is always the hardest time to see "true."
As light fades and darkness creeps, we lose sight of the shape of things we once knew. They
seem to change before our eyes, morphing as they bleed into the darkness. Then, as we
begin to adjust our sight, we see what we could not before, the planets and stars that swept
invisibly across the sky above us at noon.
Defining good and evil in the Buffyverse, it seems to me, functions along similar lines. While
there are clear instances of truly "evil" characters, our main sympathies, our main concerns,
are for those "good" characters who do bad things under the painful influences of their own
fears, doubts, insecurities, their greed or lack of understanding, their selfishness or fiercely-
defended inner barriers, or even, as in Riley's case, under the guidance of traditional
socialization. As Sophist argues, some of these characters, even some of the best of them,
occasionally do "evil" things. The question he raises is, how do we understand a hero who
commits such evil? If the Jossverse had no patches of grey, his question would be immaterial.
We would be expected simply to condemn them, punish them, cast them out and move on.
It's clear that's not what ME either wants or expects most of us to do and while Joss may have
created a universe which, like that of your God, seems to maximize pain, it is also one in which
humans have the opportunity to grow, to come to an understanding of their own and
each others' complexities, and to choose where on the spectrum of good and evil they will
each take their stand. Personally, that journey, so similar to my own, interests me far more
than blanket condemnations of a character because he was initially presented to us as
someone who did not question a particular approach toward sentient but non-human beings,
an approach that resonates against both your and my political/spiritual stance on animal
suffering.
Finally, while my experience of medical researchers clearly is not as extensive as yours, I have
met a number of deeply dedicated individuals, with whom I have debated the issues of animal
experimentation with as much fervor as you bring to your wholesale condemnation of their
profession. I may dislike what they do, but I respect the intentions of at least those
researchers whom I've personally met. And for the record, I don't draw the lines around my
political and spiritual work in non-violence at the suffering of sentient beings. As an eclectic
pagan, and as someone who simultaneously holds both objective and subjective views of the
workings of the universe (thanks again, matching mole!), I also believe that those entities
western science calls "non-living," like mountains and streams and oceans and rocks and
volcanoes and the planet itself, are as much my concern as the animals and plants who live on
them. We have, as humans, such a narrow and species-centric notion of sentience. I spent
many years active in the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific movement in an attempt to
stop the US miliary from storing 6,000 more nuclear weapons atop what I consider to be a
sacred place, the Hawaiian volcano of Mauna Kea. We were not ultimately successful in that
effort, and the Pacific remains neither nuclear free nor independent of nuclear colonialism.
Those battles still rage and I am still engaged in them, although not as closely as I once was.
But even desecrated, the mountain remains alive for me, as does the whole of the planet -
every rock, every drop of water, every beam of sunlight. Placing nuclear weapons at its peak
still seems to me a case of true evil, but I recognize that those military folks who believe that
only by doing this can they protect the ones they love do not feel that they are evil -- and
neither do I. I believe with all my heart that they are deeply wrong; they are misguided and
ignorant and short-sighted, but are they themselves evil? This is the predicament of the "good
German," or even the good parent who feeds her children the flesh of murdered animals in the
belief that she is keeping those she loves healthy. Her belief makes no difference to the
slaughtered sentient being she makes her children consume, but it makes a difference to me
and in my reactions to her. I might chose to debate the issue with her (wait, probably not, as I
gave up proselytizing about vegetarianism a LONG time ago), but I won't condemn her, or
medical researchers, or Riley, out of hand. Like Riley did, I would hope that someday, given
the right circumstances, good friends and a lot of luck, she might begin to question her choices
on her own and make the types of changes that sentient humans are capable of.
And yes, I DO hear those little alfalfa sprouts screaming as I munch them, but luckily for me,
I'm getting a bit deaf as I get older, so mealtime becomes much more pleasant with each
passing year....
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nice post, especially your night/day comments -- Exegy, 13:30:16 06/15/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Beautiful essay. -- LeeAnn, 15:11:09 06/15/02 Sat
I'm too judgmental, I know. Fortunately or unfortunately that extends even to myself.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great post!! -- Rahael, 15:12:29 06/15/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks, all, and especially to Sophist for getting us started. -- redcat, 15:22:21 06/15/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great job, 'cat. -- Sophist, 09:32:56 06/16/02 Sun
And doesn't it give one more nuance to the name "Dawn"?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Let's steer clear... -- auroramama, 12:03:09 06/15/02 Sat
...of casting aspersions on whole professions and religions, shall we? I expect there are more than a few people on this board who have worked with medical researchers (many of whom are not doctors in any case) and would dispute your assessment of their intentions.
As for kosher slaughtering, you may believe it's inhumane, but I've never heard it disputed that the *intention* is humane: to kill the animal quickly and with as little pain as possible. If there's now some rumor going around to the contrary, that makes me very nervous. Is there new data to show that throat-cutting is more painful than standard slaughter, or is the nature of kosher slaughtering misunderstood? How could it be grouped with cooking an animal alive, for heavens' sake?
auroramama
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Kosher Slaughter. -- LeeAnn, 15:48:20 06/15/02 Sat
Ordinarily the cattle would be killed humanely with an electric bolt, but for months the abattoir had been on a special kosher order for America. By rabbinical law the animals had to have their throats slit and then be hung upside down to bleed to death. The tubes twisted so the animals were turned on their backs. As they reached the end, chains were wrapped around their hind legs. A crane shot the cattle into the air one by one and snapped their back legs. Then a fork was inserted into each beast's nose as one of two Jewish butchers blessed the long knife in his hand, said a short prayer and slit the throat of the animal which was then pulled higher into the air, the blood pouring in sheets from its neck and its front legs kicking wildly. We would sometimes watch in horrified fascination from a window above the killing box as the creatures were hauled along the bleeding trough in their final throes. Once a thrashing cow hurled itself against the window where we stood, shattering the glass and spattering us with gore. You could not watch for long.
"Is That It?" by Bob Geldof (Live Aid) who described his days working in a slaughterhouse.
After I read that passage I stopped eating Kosher meat.
"Animals being ritually slaughtered in the United States are shackeld around a rear leg, hoisted into the air, and then hang, fully conscious, upside down on the conveyer belt for between two and five minutes-and occasionally much longer if something goes wrong on the killing line before the slaughterer makes his cut. "
"The animal upside down with ruptured joints and often a broken leg, twists frantically in pain and terror, so that it must be gripped by the neck or have a clamp inserted in its nostrils to enable the slaughterer to kill the animal with a single stroke, as religious law prescribes."
When Kosher isn't Kosher
She told me that the first time she visited a kosher slaughter house, she heard screaming cattle from a half kilometer away and wondered what was different in this place. What she saw was shocking. I quote from her book, Thinking in Pictures, and Other Reports Prom My Life With Autism: "I will never forget having nightmares after visiting the now defunct Spencer Foods plant in Spencer, Iowa fifteen years ago. Employees wearing football helmets attached a nose tong to the nose of a writhing beast suspended by a chain wrapped around one back leg. Each terrified animal was forced with an electric prod to run into a small stall which had a slick floor on a forty-five degree angle. This caused the animal to slip and fall so that workers could attach the chain to its rear leg [in order to raise it into the air]. As I watched this nightmare, I thought, 'This should not be happening in a civilized society.' In my diary I wrote, 'If hell exists, I am in it.' I vowed that I would replace the plant from hell with a kinder and gentler system." And she has been doing that for years now. You may wonder why the Rabbayin listen to a gentile, autistic woman.
Kosher Slaugher
So no Kosher meat for me. I've been told even legal to slaughter cows like that in Europe anymore.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Kosher Slaughter. -- auroramama, 16:39:56 06/15/02 Sat
This is information that was new to me. The image of shechitah that my Hebrew-school lessons gave me was the old-fashioned version, where the animal is standing up. According to the link you give, the problem with kosher slaughter as it is practiced currently is the inversion of the animal prior to and during its killing. This panics the animal and causes it to struggle painfully.
I see from your link that Temple Grandin's advice was taken seriously by at least some rabbis and has been acted on. Presumably you would be willing to eat the flesh of animals who had been kosher-slaughtered in the way she advises.
You don't make it clear in your excerpts that Ms. Grandin believes the *intentions* of most religious Jews working in the field of slaughter to be humane. According to your link, she does. Furthermore, when you say that this manner of slaughter may have been banned in European countries, the context of the article suggests that it's inverted slaughter, not upright Kosher slaughter, that's been banned. If inverted slaughter continues, relying on the stun bolt to protect the animal from excessive pain and distress, I'm not sure that's morally preferable. I had heard more than once that some animals recover from the stunning and are conscious during further processing.
I'm going to hie over to some related sites and see whether I can find kosher meat that has been slaughtered upright, as Temple Grandin prescribes. Since I've been relying for many years (since childhood) on eating kosher meat as a way to minimize cruelty to animals, your information was disconcerting but very useful. Thank you.
Do you understand why I might be concerned when someone seems to suggest that Jews, in particular, cherish the practice of cruelty to animals? I would have been less apprehensive if you had called out inverted slaughter as one of your criteria, and then mentioned that the standard implementation of Kosher slaughter in at least some countries involved inversion without benefit of stun bolt (something every Jew who practices kashrut should be apprised of.)
The term "kosher" means "fit for use", and I've been taught all my life that cruelty to a food animal renders its flesh unfit for use by feeling persons. Thanks for calling my attention to this gap between theory and practice.
auroramama
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Kosher Slaughter. -- LeeAnn, 18:12:05 06/15/02 Sat
Presumably you would be willing to eat the flesh of animals who had been kosher-slaughtered in the way she advises.
Yes but how do I know if a kosher animal has been slaughtered as Temple Grandin recommends or held suspended by broken legs, its last moments a horror of pain and fear? I don't think the package tells me.
I don't think intentions matter much if they are contradicted by reality. Surely the kosher butchers who do the slaughtering can SEE that the animals are suffering terribly but continue to follow the letter of the law instead of its intent.
The term "kosher" means "fit for use", and I've been taught all my life that cruelty to a food animal renders its flesh unfit for use by feeling persons. Thanks for calling my attention to this gap between theory and practice.
That is great because it is only by putting pressure on the producers of meat products from inhumanely slaughtered animals can these practices be changed. I know I was horrified when I first read about them in Bob Geldof's book. My only response was to stop eating kosher meat no matter how much I liked it. But those in the Jewish community could have much more influence on these pratices than a gentile.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The term "kosher" means "fit for use" -- Eliza, 10:11:42 06/16/02 Sun
Blood is not kosher. In order for meat to be kosher, all of the blood must be removed. That is why the animals have their throats cut while still alive so that the action of the heart can aid in removing all of the blood. This method of killing has nothing to do with consern for the animal, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be carried out in a humane manner (i.e.stunning the animal, or killing it while it is standing and then hanging it).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The term "kosher" means "fit for use" -- O'Cailleagh, 20:06:15 06/16/02 Sun
As I understand it (correct me if I am wrong), 'kosher' is a form of animal sacrifice, designed to bless the spirit of the animal, thereby showing respect to the animal (sacrifice meaning 'to make holy'). The problem occurs when the animals are mass produced. Eating the flesh of animals is generally 'wrong' in this day and age regardless of the technique used to murder them. Intensive farming methods alone are good enough reason to cite cruelty to animals, and unless you are eating free-range organically fed animal flesh, or even better meat that you have hunted yourself, then you are guilty of supporting this practise. Kosher or not.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The term "kosher" means "fit for use" -- Eliza, 08:05:41 06/17/02 Mon
Food is kosher if it has been prepared in accordance with Jewish food laws. (These cover more than just the killing of animals. *Much* more.) To eat kosher is for the benefit of the people, not the food. It is a commitment to living by God's laws.
What you describe is more of an animist tradition -- thanking the animal for giving its life so that you may live. Freeing its soul through as quick a death as possible.
I think this would be in direct conflict with Jewish tradition. The only being to be thanked for their food would be God. That is what the ritual aspect of kosher butchering is for (I believe). If the animal had been blessed, had been marked for sacrifice, then it could not be eaten. A sacrifice is something of value that is given to a deity. The animal would then have been placed on an alter, to rot or to be burned.
I'm not going to touch the morality of eating meat argument. This was just to clarify that "kosher" and "humane" are not synonyms, although they *can* both describe the same thing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "kosher" means "fit for use" -- alcibiades, 09:46:52 06/17/02 Mon
Correct up to this point.
Eliza wrote: "If the animal had been blessed, had been marked for sacrifice, then it could not be eaten. A sacrifice is something of value that is given to a deity. "
Of course nowadays, twenty first century and all, we don't do animal sacrifices. Gave it up after the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70 CE. We pray instead. Although some of the prayers remember the sacrifices of yore. Most notably the Musaf prayer, repeated every Sabbath. And a great deal of the Liturgy of Yom Kippur dramatically re-enacts the Temple Ritual for the Yom Kippur sacrifice. (That is pretty important in Jewish mythologization since it is meant to correspond to the atonement and repentence Jews did after Moses smashed the first set of tablets coming down from Mt Sinai.)
But when we still did sacrifice animals, there were several different kinds of sacrifices. Some of them could not be eaten, because the bodies of the animals were burned whole (after they were killed). The majority of them could be eaten after the sacrifice. The most famous of which is the Paschal lamb sacrifice every Passover. And then there were some that could only be eaten by members of the priestly class.
In any case, the point of all this sacrifice and the prayers which recall it is to make the individual realize his connection to God with every shred of his being. In sin offerings, the animal physically replaces the human being who is atoning for his sins and rededicating his being to living by God's laws. The animal's death symbolically replaces that of the human. (Before you all go squick, back when this started in early biblical Judaism, human sacrifice was still being practiced in the neighborhood.) The fact that the animal was actually dying was what rendered the moment spiritually heightened for the individual -- because he could feel that a life was being given to God in place of his sins.
Or sometimes the sacrifice is on behalf of the sins of the nation. As in the Yom Kippur sacrifice.
Orthodox and "high" conservative Jews, btw, have to say a prayer every time they begin to eat or drink.
alcibiades, really not sure how we got here starting from Sophist's original message.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Neither am I -- Sophist, laughing with alcibiades, 10:37:54 06/17/02 Mon
Gah, thread buried!!! I just want to acknowledge all the great posts ... (Continuation) -- Exegy, 16:43:34 06/13/02 Thu
Thanks to shadowkat, Age, leslie, cjl, aliera, ponygirl, redcat, Sophist, anom, alcibiades, Doriander, auroramama, Dochawk, Kerri, and everyone else for a wonderful thread! I had fun writing my posts, and I'm glad they merited such rocking responses. I'm a little tapped out now (as well as short on time), so just a few additional comments:
First, I think cjl wanted to know about a SF story that "took place in an indefinite future, at the end of one of those great cycles of civilization. The remnants of this latest version of Ancient Rome or Imperial Britain resided in a gleaming city, while all around there were these bands of anarchist bandits, tearing away the decaying pieces and cannibalizing them for their own use." I can't be sure of the *exact* story referenced (you know, different brains), but the description sounds very similar to Walter Miller's A Canticle for Liebowitz. This novel deals with a new dark age of man, a future where the Church maintains the last remnants of civilization in an apocalyptic wasteland (caused by nuclear war). Monks studiously transcribe shopping lists upon illuminated manuscripts; the printed word, indicative of all man's lost knowledge, is treated as the most precious commodity in a time of stultifying ignorance. Clerics sacrifice their lives in order to keep the relics of an engineer ("Saint" Liebowitz) intact. Gradually this preservation of knowledge translates into a stranglehold on power, with the Church becoming another incarnation of the Holy Roman Empire (and planting the seeds for a new apocalypse, as all those schematics of war were preserved as "most holy"). Once again, I'm not certain that this is the story you've referenced (the "new dark age of man" is an extremely popular SF theme), but it's a possibility.
Second, I agree with you on AYW, ponygirl. This episode leaves me shaking my head every time I think of it (I've only seen it the once). Seriously, I actually get a little offended. But I think that this reaction is part of the thrust of the episode ... that the viewer shouldn't like how diminished the Scoobies are, how they've fallen in their own lives. The viewer should be disgusted with Buffy for her treatment of Spike ... she's killing herself, and she's killing him. And so on. There's really a lot to like about the episode, a lot of interesting nuances, a lot of good symbolism. One just needs to get over the gut reaction. AYW reminds me a lot of DmP: it's supposed to run against the traditional Buffy ep, it's supposed to take us into a mundane world, an unpleasant and depressing place. The characters are lost, floundering without direction, trapped in the dreary details of life. There's nothing heroic about where they are at in their lives, and the episodes reflect that. Not pleasant to watch, I admit. But sort of captivating, nonetheless. And poignant when taken in the context of the series as a whole.
Buffy and her friends are on a journey, and sometimes they fall off the path. They wander unaware into the dark of the woods, and then they can't see the light that leads out. They're blinded by fear and false hopes (the light of the helicopter in AYW, the doctor's light in NA). Directionless, they stay in the dark, waiting for someone to take them out (Giles, Tara, Riley, Sam). They feel like they've lost control of their own lives; they believe the worst, and the worst starts to come true. This is where the Scoobs are in their lives when Riley and Sam enter. Of course the two soldiers seem to have everything going right; they're directed, on a mission (Sam the missionary herself). The Scoobs treat these "models of success" with awe, but they've placed their faith in a false hope. Riley and Sam aren't two gods ascending into heaven (the literalization of the "Riley ex machina" scenario). They haven't arighted the Scoobs' situation, corrected them on their course. They've merely provided facile observations, something any outside party could provide (Riley's comments to Buffy, Sam's praise of Willow). They're not entangled with the Scoobies' problems; they don't know what's really going on. They don't offer any actual assistance.
Because in the end no one else can get the Scoobs out of the woods. Only they can find the direction in their lives. Until they realize this, until they stop casting about for false hopes (or easy fixes), they're mired. And it's a terrible condition to see described. It SHOULD be.
Thanks for reading! I'll try to check in tomorrow (if anyone replies). Keep the thread going!!
[> thanks for the thanks! And this has been a wonderful thread -- ponygirl, 19:18:33 06/13/02 Thu
Another great post Exegy! I'm actually looking forward to seeing AYW again, to see if I can appreciate it better in the context of the whole season. You certainly have summed it up quite beautifully. Interesting that you mention Sam's missionary past, that had really made me pause when the episode first aired. Please, please don't let me offend anyone, I know there are many missionaries doing important and selfless work, but historically missionaries have been often been associated with the worst kind of imperialism. Going into another place without really understanding it and imposing their beliefs and values on others. Hmm, kind of like Riley and Sam.
And Canticle For Leibowitz! I haven't thought of that book in ages. Not one of my favourites, but I took it for a great university course on dystopias/utopias in science fiction. On an OT note everyone should run out and read Ursula LeGuin's story Those Who Walk Away From Omelas, such a great story and a great look at a supposed utopia.
[> [> The Missionary--reminds me of Kurtz's painting in Heart of Darkness ... (Further comparison) -- Exegy, 22:10:04 06/13/02 Thu
A woman bears the light of civilization to a dark, ignorant populace ... but she is blindfolded. Ignorant herself, despite her "pure" intentions. She thinks that the wilderness can be bounded, altered to fit her will. But dark undercurrents cannot be obliterated or suppressed; they have a way of twisting the one who would seek to control them (as Kurtz and Willow are twisted and dehumanized). The darkness will fill those who are hollow, those who seek external rather than internal validation. Those who do not recognize this danger are blind.
But some ignorance is good, blissful even. Sometimes the lie of civilization is all one has. This is the lesson of Kurtz's Intended. She's the pure one, secure in the "safety" provided by society. She doesn't see the darkness that surrounds her, engulfing her except for the light of her forehead--the beacon of her belief in civilization's good. The beacon of her belief in Kurtz, the emissary of light. Marlowe can't tell this innocent the truth--that Kurtz has died in darkness, a shell filled with the horror his soul has become. That the ideal of enlightenment has been thoroughly corrupted.
Sometimes the lie is the only thing that keeps one going, secure in the knowledge of one's safety in a world that is actually dark. So one can rest in the comfort of London's lights, but beyond the borders of the city is the impenetrable night, the black that threatens everyone's soul. The primal energy that reminds us of what we were and could still become.
Every night that Buffy goes out into the dark, she slays the lie. She faces her personal demons, the creatures her fate (her life) requires her to vanquish. This is her sacred duty. She can never go back to being the normal girl, the one who can rest secure in bliss. That time of innocence has passed. She recognizes Giles for the liar he is when he tells her (paraphrase) that life is easy, that the good guys are always stalwart and true, that the bad guys are easily distinguished by their black, pointy hats. That's not life. That's an illusion. A pleasant illusion that obscures the reality of one's inner demons. The reality of the darkness that threatens to destroy us, even if we don't know it.
[> "A Canticle for Leibowitz"! That's...uh...not it. -- cjl, 08:16:37 06/14/02 Fri
The story I was referring to wasn't a full length novel. (Not to insult Miller's novel--it's a great one, a modern SF classic.)
What struck me about the story (as much as I can remember of it) was that it reflected everything shadowkat was talking about when she referred to chaos as a necessary force in our lives. The anarchists in the story were rapacious, arrogant, and destructive--but we also got the feeling that the people in the Golden City had long ago given up contact with the rest of the world, and had fallen into stasis and stagnation. Their inevitable fall (we don't see it in the story, but we know it's coming) would, of course, be tragic, but it seemed to be the inevitable outcome of the cycle of civilizations.
This type of story has been a staple of science fiction since the beginning of the genre. The most famous example has to be the Foundation series by Asimov, and I have no doubt the folks on this board could think of a million others. I think it has a lot of resonance with readers because it not only reflects the course of civilizations, it reflects the course of individuals, as well. We all go through periods of chaos in our lives, where the very core of our being seems to be destroyed by the course of events, and we have to build ourselves back up again anew, hopefully stronger than before.
[I don't know. Was it a Fritz Leiber story? Sounds like one of his. *Sigh*]
Great stuff, Exegy. On with the thread!
[> [> Yeah, a long shot ... but I tried. (On with Buffy ... ) -- Exegy *rained in today*, 10:43:51 06/14/02 Fri
It could be a Fritz Leiber story, but I'm not sure. I just mentioned one of the many SF narratives that approximates your description. These stories carry such resonance for us ... it's as you say, they not only reflect the course of civilizations, they reflect the course of individuals as well.
We all go through periods of chaos in our lives, where the very core of our being seems to be destroyed by events, and we have to build ourselves back up again anew, hopefully stronger than before.
I really like the way you put that; I see the very same principle at work in BtVS. This season the Scoobs have all "walked through the fire." They've all suffered some amount of self-destruction. But there's hope in the end. The final apocalypse threatens but is averted; the Scoobs emerge intact from the chaos that's reigned since the biker demons of Bargaining came to town (the chaos that's always present under the sunniest exterior). And now they have the chance to build themselves back up again, stronger from surviving the shockwaves, stronger from having delved into their darkness.
BtVS is all about the journey to one's full realization as a human being--the total exploration of one's darkness and light. Finding strength in weakness (the image of screw-up Xander holding a weeping Willow in his arms, Spike's quest for a soul in direct reaction to the most horrible act he could ever commit). Overcoming the dualism. Always working toward that goal of complete being--perhaps never achieving such a state, but finding fulfillment in the attempt. All about the journey.
[> [> Was it possibly Flatlands? -- shadowkat, 11:18:13 06/14/02 Fri
Friend of mine mentioned a short work that was written by a novelist to explain something to his mathematics students.
In it the world is two dimensional with only order.
It was called Flat Lands and she thinks possibly by
H.G Wells.
[> [> [> "Flatland," by Edwin Abbott Abbott (1884) -- cjl, 11:43:00 06/14/02 Fri
One of the great science fiction texts of all time, both a commentary on the Victorian-era education system in Britain and an ideal text for conveying the basics of multi-dimensional geometry.
For everyone on the board, I would recommend "The Annotated Flatland," a brilliant piece of historical research by Ian Stewart, who has added hundreds of notations to Abbott's original text, detailing Abbott's personal history and how "Flatland" fits into the context of late 19th century society and how it influenced 20th century physics. Or, to quote from amazon.com:
"[Flatland,] the product of an agreeably dotty cleric named Edwin Abbott Abbott and first published in 1884, Flatland distills all that the Victorian era knew of higher mathematics--and then some--into a witty, complex novel of ideas.
Ian Stewart, the author of the equally witty sequel, Flatterland [and former mathematics columnist for Scientific American magazine]--which adds to Abbott's store of science the key discoveries made since--does a superb job of explaining the original book's enigmas, allusions, ironies, implausibilities, and what Douglas Hofstadter would call "metamagical themas." Among other things, Stewart comments on Abbott's comments on such things as the nature/nurture controversy, the fourth dimension and beyond, the role of multidimensional spaces in economic systems, infinite series and perfect squares, celestial mechanics, and other matters close to the hearts of cosmologists and science buffs alike.
Stewart's notes make an entertaining and learned addition to an already classic bit of writing--one that has never been out of print since its first publication. For both devoted Abbott fans and newcomers to his work, this is the edition to have."
'kat, thanks for bringing this wonderful novel to the attention of the board.
But that's not it either.
*g*
Robert vs. Joey, pt. 2 and a question to the board that I would like responses to. -- VampRiley, 18:18:43 06/13/02 Thu
Last night, I went to the chat room. After months and months, I finally get time to go. A lot of people were there -- me, dedalus, d'Herblay, juliaabra, ruf, mal, Humanitas, anom and others. d'H asked when when I first became a god. I asked why and was told it was because of curious. d'H has enjoyed my trip down to insanity. And that got me thinking: Does anyone else agree? Does anyone else think I'm going nuts, 'cause I'm not entirely sure anymore if I keep losing marbles or not. It's pretty much impossible for me to tell these days. I can say I'm not, but that could just be me being delusional, though I do think I may have lost a few recently. And if you do, could to say when you began to think it and what it was about, if you can remember? Thanks.
Oh, by the way, for those who were in the chat when this other topic came up, a god would disguise himself as someone named VampRiley so that he could walk amongst others and be treated like everyone else. Gods are people, too. I mean, look who Glory's minions acted around her. She may have tolerated it, but I wouldn't be able to stand it. Yes men are so annoying. It's impossible completely trust them. It took them forever to say anything around her. Always kissing ass. It's disgusting.
Also, I know you were just curious. It really didn't bother me being asked.
If you wan to read part 1, look in achive #2, at the thread caled Buffy DVD Season Two. It's near the bottom of the thread. That where the thread is when I'm typing this up. Now, as for Robert and Joey, lets take a look at where they are now.
When we last left our dueling conceptual forces, Robert had just blown up Joey's WWII fighter. He landed safely to the ground, but Robert was gunning for him with a general's jeep in the soft grass on the right side of a runway. Joey didn't want to become fertilizer. Who would? He desperately searched for a means of support. Robert continued to gain ground on the cherub. He was almost directly on top of him when Joey turned left back to the runway. Robert was surprised as he continued on straight. He turned the wheel to the left and skidded across the grass and came to a dead stop. He glared at the back of the youngin' running away. He floored the pedal and dirt flew up from behind the wheels and he was off.
Joey had reached the pavement. His running made soft sounds as his sneakers propelled him forward. Robert was almost to the edge of the grass when a giant tree shot up out of the ground. He crashed head first into it. Joey went around the corner of one of the hangars and stopped. He leaned against the wall as he tried to catch his breathe, his hands just above his knees. His upper body was moving back and forth. He looked like he was gonna faint from exhaustion. But he let a small smile cross his lips. At the tree, Robert slowly regained consciousness. He groaned in pain as he slowly moved. He coughed painfully and spit up some blood. As he slowly moved out of the jeep, he fell face down into the grass. As he got up, he tried to breathe, but his chest hurt when he did. He got to his feet and staggered after the kid.
Joey had caught most of his breathe. He frantically looked around him and saw a bunch of vehicles at what looked like a car rental area. There were cars, buses and other vehicles of various sizes and shapes. He ran up to one of the buses. It was one of those little, yellow school buses that retarded kids ride. Its front door was open. He ran up the stairs and lifts, like those found on shoes you see advertised on one of those Acme catalogs in the cartoons, appeared on top of the break and gas pedals. Joey climbed up into the chair. But the steering wheel was too far away. Robert came around the corner and saw Joey get in the bus. The area for the driver of the bus shifted to accommodate Joey's smaller size. He turned the keys and the engine roared.
He looked to his right and saw Robert starting to get a foot on the bottom step. He reached for that door handle thing that closes the doors and Robert got his foot caught in it. Joey pressed the gas and he started moving. Robert was hopping on his foot and banged on the door. Joey stuck his tongue out. Robert reached to the back of his waist band and pulled out a Glock 9 millimeter and shot at the top glass on the left door, aiming for Joey. He missed and hit the back of the seat. Joey grabbed the door handle again and opened it. Robert fell out and rolled several times.
Joey hit the brakes and turned right. Robert got up and looked at Joey just sitting there. He was revving the engine. Robert looked around him and saw the building for the car rental behind him. Then he looked back at Joey. From inside, he smiled and continued to rev the engine. Robert turn and tried to run as fast as he could. Joey sat there for a couple of seconds, reveling in what he thought was going to happen. Then he took off. Joey was nearing Robert, but he jumped left and Joey swerved right and ran into the back, left side of a buick, smashing up the front, left side of the bus. The crash only slowed him down. He kept on driving, swerved right some more and stopped completely. Inside, Joey looked shocked as he took in everything that just happened. Robert got off the ground and ran inside. He put his gun on the table. Panting, he took off his ripped jacket and pulled his tie off. He sat down on a chair behind the counter and put his left arm on the counter. He laid his head on his arm exhausted.
Joey looked through the shattered glass of the door and saw Robert through the glass of the building and glared at him. Robert looked up and saw a set of keys lying on the counter off to his right. He had a look of knowing what the keys were for as he picked them up. This was right before he heard a sound getting louder. He looked to his left and saw the small bus barreling straight for him. It crashed through the doors. Robert got up and moved backwards, ending up on the back counter as the bus smashed through the counter he just had his head on. The bus continued through the other side, smashing those doors as well. When he came out the other side, Joey turned the wheel hard to the left and stopped. Robert ran through the other side and jumped onto a yellow, black and grey 1999 Ducati 900 SS motorcycle. He put his gun back into the back of his waist band. He put the keys in the ignition and started the engine. As he drove away, Joey chased after him.
***********************************************************************
They made it into the city. The streets were deserted. Joey was tailing Robert. Robert turned left. When Joey turned left, his bus did one of those things where the back keeps turning when you try to take a turn at high speeds. Robert reached behind and pulled his gun back out. He turn behind him and shot at the right front tire of the bus with a bullet. Inside the bus, Joey noticed the tired was gone and took his right hand off the steering wheel. He held it palm side up and his palm glowed white. He held his hand straight out in front of him and aimed at Robert. A lime green-colored energy shot from his hand and shattered the glass in front of him. Robert looked behind him and fired at the engine. As he did, Joey fired again through the broken windshield and the energy hit Robert's rear tire. A dark red energy now flew from the nozzle instead of a bullet and the engine exploded. The bus slowed, but the ducanti flew off the ground and did several flips forward before it landed on the ground. As it spun, Robert let go and he landed on his back on the street. He bounced a couple times and stopped.
********************************************************************
It had finally turn night time.
Inside the bus, Joey awoke and coughed three times. He looked up into the rearview mirror and saw several glass and metal fragments lodged inside his face. He reached up to his face with his small hands and started pulling them out. On the street, Robert laid there. He cough up some blood and groaned. He painfully turned over and got up. In the bus, Joey pulled the last of he foreign objects from him and looked in the mirror. He watched as the injuries he got close up within a few seconds. He undid his seat belt and climbed out of the chair. Robert staggered to his feet as the large hole that used to be the back of his brain and skull quickly closed.
He saw Joey emerge from the wreckage. He straightened up. Joey threw a green energy ball at the adult. Robert dropped to the ground, letting it fly over him and pointed his gun at Joey with both hands. It continued until it hit a parked car down the street and it blew up. Robert fired and Joey ran to his right. The red energy hit what was left of the bus, which also blew up. Joey and Robert continued exchanging fire as Joey chased after Robert.
He ran into an empty construction area, which was on a steep hill, and disappeared. The building wasn't finished. It just had most of it's structural framework done. Just outside, Joey stopped and slowly made his way in. He crept into an open area and heard a noise. He looked up and saw a half a dozen beams fall on him. Off to the side, Robert sat at the controls of one of the machines with a smile on his face. The metal beams started to move as Joey got up. He steadied himself as he glared at Robert. Robert kept smiling. Joey shot another green energy blast way above Robert. He heard a snap and jumped out of the machine just as a wrecking ball crashed down on where he was. It rolled off and headed for Robert. Joey smiled. Robert got up and ran to the right, letting it roll right towards Joey. Joey's smile left and he stumbled as he tried to get free from the beams. The wrecking ball was picking up speed. It would surely bounce over the edge and smash the child. And it did jump the edge. He finally got himself free as the ball came down to where he was and kept on rolling. It smashed through the wooden wall and the wire fence set up around the construction area and continued across the slopped street and smashed into a building.
Joey ran to the lift and Robert ran after him. Joey hit a button and it lifted him up. Robert tried to jump and he caught the edge with his hands. When he pulled himself
up, he saw Joey stomp on his right hand. He let go of the edge and swung slightly. Then, Joey stomped on the other hand and Robert fell twenty feet to the ground. He landed on the dirt with a thud. Joey sat down on the edge as he continued his journey up. Robert got up and headed for the stairs. Joey saw him and got up. He hit another button and the lift stopped. He stepped onto one of the beams and looked below him. He saw no one. He turned around and saw Robert standing with one of those things that drives those rivet things into the beams. He pointed it at Joey and he ran between the older looking man's legs. Robert got a shot off, but missed. When Joey went between his legs, that put him off balance. He let go of the machine. The cord ran over top of the beam he was on and stopped. The device swayed slightly back and forth under the beam. He fell over the edge held onto the edge of the beam he was standing on. Joey ran off onto other beams.
Robert pulled himself up and stayed on his hands and knees as he looked for the device he had. He saw it swinging and grabbed the cord. Joey continued running to other beams, but he kept going higher. Robert pulled the device back up and looked at where he had last seen the kid. Joey kept getting higher and then stopped. He was breathing heavily and he heard a noise and looked behind him. Robert had gotten onto the lift and was riding it up. When he had a clear shot, he fired. Joey tried to duck, but his right hand got one of the rivets in it. The others landed into the beam behind him or flew behind the beams. Joey ran off getting higher. Robert had stopped the lift, but hit a button and it continued on its way up. Joey stopped and pulled the rivet out of his hand, the hole closing up fast. He heard the motor of the lift and took off. Robert stood there calmly as he was brought closer to the heavens. The device was casually sitting on his right shoulder. A relaxed expression was on his face. Joey made it to the top of the partly constructed building and looked over the top of the city. It was a wonderful sight. The buildings were empty, but many of the lights were on. He stood there for several seconds feeling the wind push his hair around. A tiny smile crossed his lips as he stretched his arms out to his side, like Jesus did on the cross, only Joey was standing. He heard a whistle and turned, letting his arms fall to his sides. Robert was standing there with his left
side closer to Joey. His right hand was on the trigger while his left hand was aiming the device at the kid. Joey's eyes grew in shock. Robert smiled and pulled the trigger.
To be continued...
[> Re: Robert vs. Joey, pt. 2 and a question to the board that I would like responses to. -- dubdub, 18:34:25 06/13/02 Thu
Hi VR
Well, I think you were still okay when you offered support to Ronia by typing with your nose.
You're the second one of our board members to feel they're turning into a god (or a demi-god?). Could it be something to do with the level of intellectual discussion here?
Nah, that's not it...
;o)
[> [> Who's the other one? -- VR, 18:41:55 06/13/02 Thu
[> [> [> Re: Who's the other one? -- dubdub, 20:21:34 06/13/02 Thu
I seem to remember Drizzt (aka FanMan) was pursuing the demi-god title.
[> VR: a case study -- d'Herblay, 20:43:35 06/13/02 Thu
Ok, first of all, the phrase is "delightfully insane." Secondly, I am not a licensed therapist. I am former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop. I think the first I noticed that you had gone a little off-kilter was when you talked about your pencil dream. Of course, I wasn't the first to offer the diagnosis of insanity:I think my brain is fried from too much studying for finals. I have my last one in less than...11 hours. I keep having this dream where this man-sized, cartoonish-looking pencil has a mouth full of long sharp teeth trying to bite me. No arms, no legs. He's just hoping on the sharpened end and when it gets flat, he lunges at me and tackles me to the ground. I roll over onto my back and he says: "Where's you number two pencil, boy?!" Then he goes for my throat and just as he's about to bite, he stops and looks at my face with a surprised look and says: "Damn" rather quietly and turns to saw dust and I wake up. Anyone else have this dream? Or have I just gone insane?
Nor the first to admit a certain amount of enjoyment in the process:I just got back home from my last final and I'm still feelin' kinda woozie (sp?). It's sort of like that feeling from riding the Tilt-A-Whirl at the amusement park. I kinda like it. :P
Since then, it's been a hell of a ride. I'm not sure when you were deified, but you certainly deserve it! I've always liked the way you've linked to the shooting scripts with utter indifference to those pesky TWIZlers. Rah was very appreciative of your post "Screw forgiveness!!!!!!" Somewhere deep in Boke's ave atque vale, you offered a precis of your life which was slightly off-kilter and extremely entertaining.
As far as I am concerned, if you are wrong in the head, I don't want you to be right. And as long as you don't try to move pennies with your mind, you meet this board's minimum standard of sanity. There's nothing crazy about having fun.
[> [> TWIZlers [snicker] -- VR, 21:46:34 06/13/02 Thu
Okay, former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop, as for deification, I've enjoyed joking about it, but I'm not really sure I'm the best man suited for the job. There has to be someone better qualified than me for the position of deity. We could give it to Boke! (He said ducking under the tomatoes and other vegetables, the chairs, the tables, the machine gun fire)
"Rah was very appreciative of your post 'Screw forgiveness!!!!!!' "
I didn't have clue 1 about this. I had no idea she felt like that. If she posted that feeling, I missed it.
"Nor the first to admit a certain amount of enjoyment in the process"
I only knew of you liking my descent. People have posted they have liked me and how I am, but I didn't know about their enjoyment of my journy to the white padded room, bed and breakfast, bar and grille motel. There have been others? Who?
Now, you say "delightfully insane". I have had just about as many marbles as anyone else, but I do feel that I may have lost a few recently. That would explain my attitude of recent years. Case in point. I will giggle, laugh, snicker at most things others would find to be not a humorous event. I had it growing up and the events I sometimes laugh at have gotten worse and worse. I'll be the only one in the room who's laughing. They'll concentrate on the main things going on in something and I'll focus on something else that's small and out of the way and just keep laughing. Or if something really horrible is happening, like someone dying in a movie, I'll focus how the person looks (since I've seen people die in movies thousands of times. It's like when two people are kissing. You've seen people kiss before and you look away and focus on something else until it's over) and I'll laugh if it looks funny. I get strange looks and people get pissed at me, thinking I'm an insensitive lout (sp?) when I'm so quite the opposite. Or sometimes, everybody else will see something as serious, and it really is serious and there's nothing funny about it, and I'll look at it and can't stop laughing. It isn't supposed to be funny and I just can't contain myself, like a drama with no comedy whatsoever. A character does something and I burst out all over. I'll even, and I have no idea why I'm typing this (maybe because it's a quarter to 1 where I am), if I find something really funny and I'm sitting down, I will literally get up and start jumping up and down while slightly bent over and then sit back down. Luckily, I have never, ever done this in front of anybody. Don't ask me to exlain it. It's a phenomena that I can't come up with a rational explaination for. And I'm the one doing it. So, this might be a degenerative thing and I should probably go see someone about it.
VR
[> [> [> Re: TWIZlers [snicker] -- d'Herblay, 22:01:27 06/13/02 Thu
It sounds as though you are under stress -- understandable for someone at your stage in life. It sounds as though you want help and would be responsive to help. Help rarely hurts, so go for it. None of this really adds up to "insane," a word I was just throwing around. Loopy or straight-edged, you are a valued contributor here. In any case, I wish you the best, and hope you feel better soon.
Of course, I may not be the best person to talk! Author names . . . Grrrrrr . . .
An Interesting new direction for Willow ... -- Mike J, 19:32:00 06/13/02 Thu
I was watching "After Life" the other day, and a comment Willow made about her not being "that good of a replacement" for Giles hit something off in my head [as always]. Alyson Hannigan has replaced ASH in the opening credits, and sort of acted [during parts of the season] as a mentor, and main researcher. I thought it may be interesting, if Willow drops out of witchcraft altogether, that she might perhaps become a Watcher? She's got a lot of information in regard to demons in her head already, and would most likely make a great candidate. What do you all think?
Mike J.
[> Re: An Interesting new direction for Willow ... -- DonnieBaseball23, 19:50:27 06/13/02 Thu
Interesting idea ... Will would be qualified in many ways (research skills, hands-on-experience, Buffy's trust--still will have it, I think). My only concern would be that Giles often had to do a spell or something "magical"; with Willow being "addicted", will she ever ne able to deal with the stiff again, in any way? I do think that she will take on something of this role, as well as computer/tech girl and Buffy's gal-pal/confidant.
[> Re: An Interesting new direction for Willow ...OR BUFFY -- tam, 20:03:30 06/13/02 Thu
how about buffy as a watcher? why is she here?
[> Re: An Interesting new direction for Willow ... -- Robert, 22:03:04 06/13/02 Thu
>> "... that she might perhaps become a Watcher?"
Yes, I'm sure that Willow would make an excellent watcher, but I'm not sure why she would want to become one. It seems to me that the watchers council is increasingly becoming irrelevant.
[> [> Willow can help create a new & improved.... -- FriarTed, 07:46:13 06/14/02 Fri
...Watcher's Council. As for Buffy, I get the impression that Slayer is a lifetime job & Buffy may well be the longest lived one in history. Maybe if she survives to 30,
she gets to be Slayer emeritus, but I see her dying at the end of S7.
A Spike Q (End S6 Spoiler) and a New Buffy RPG -- DonnieBaseball23, 19:45:23 06/13/02 Thu
Long-time BtVS fan who's just discovered this site--love it! Here's my question seeking comments ... Spike want's Buffy to "get what she deserves"; i.e. a lover (him) with a soul. This supposition has been confirmed, I think, by various ME staffers (Jane E.). But, isn't a vampire w/ a soul just what Buffy didn't deserve in S3? She needed someone to "take her into the light", to give her children, etc. Furthermore, will Spike, with his soul, realize this as Angel did and bow out despite his feelings (we'll say love, although I have serious reservations on this still)? This is most likely old ground, but to read all the intelligent posts here I'm curious what people think. Besides, watching the S2 DVDs have me wanting to talk Buffy ...
And now, my solicitation ...
A new Buffy RPG (Yahoogroups) looking for members. Action is set after conclusion of Season 6. Looking for talented writers who will post often (at least every other day) and bring ideas about plot, theme, big bad(s) etc--looking for creative partners for a good ole fun time.
All characters are available, as we're only just starting. I want to keep it to Sunnydale and exclude "Angel" characters at present. If there's sufficient demand and good reason, I may revisit this. Please come into this not only as reactive players, but as creative partners! I want story ideas, plot twists, villains--we'll play your ideas out. We'll take it from soon after S6. As for the loose ends that were left, well, that's the fun, isn't it? E-mail me if interested (theopenboat@hotmail.com).
[> Re: A Spike Q (End S6 Spoiler) and a New Buffy RPG -- clg0107, 08:09:05 06/14/02 Fri
But, isn't a vampire w/ a soul just what Buffy didn't deserve in S3? She needed someone to "take her into the light", to give her children, etc. Furthermore, will Spike, with his soul, realize this as Angel did and bow out despite his feelings.
Well, according to whom did Buffy not deserve a vamp w/a soul? According to Angel (who, incidentally, had to come up with a reason to leave Sunnydale in order to have a spinoff), not to Buffy. Leaving the obvious need to invent an excuse for Angel's departure out of the equation, there's also the fact that Angel and Buffy together in Sunnydale would have been perpetually in limbo -- unable to move on from their feelings, and equally unable to fulfill them (the curse caveat...).
That situation isn't present in Spike's case. And I for one do not see Buffy living to a ripe old age, retiring to a house with a white picket fence, and nursing her growing passel of youn'uns.
She's a Slayer, which means her time is much more limited than for everyone else. It also means that, of necessity, she exists equally in the dark and in the light. It cannot be otherwise for her. Spike has been right insofar as he's urged her to face and accept the dark elements that are part of her and her calling. Yeah, for his purposes, he downplayed the light side. But the dark is there. And if Spike's word for it isn't enough, there's Dracula and the First Slayer's comments on the matter as well. The writers are telling us through these vehicles that it's not so neat and tidy as Angel suggested at the end of Season 3.
So, I don't see Angel's exit as, in any way, a model for Buffy and Spike's new relationship (whatever it will be and/or become) now that he has a soul, too.
~clg0107
[> [> Re: A Spike Q (End S6 Spoiler) and a New Buffy RPG -- Purple Tulip, 08:38:12 06/14/02 Fri
I agree completely with you clg0107, plus I really think that even though Spike now has a soul, his situation will be completely different than that of Angel. For one, he still has the chip, and who knows how that will interact with his new soul. Also, there is no curse, as you mentioned, and that was the main thing keeping Buffy and Angel apart. Buffy and Spike do not have this barrier. And the ways in which Angel and Spike go about getting their souls is also important. I think the fact that Spike actually wanted to get a soul, and Angel had no interest in one, is also an important factor in how exactly this new soul will change Spike. His intentions seemed to be pure and good in getting one. Does anyone think that all of these factors could possible make him something other than just another vampire with a soul? Hmmmmm....
[> [> [> Re: A Spike Q (End S6 Spoiler) and a New Buffy RPG -- alcibiades, 15:38:14 06/14/02 Fri
There is also the fact that Angel has a greater ego than Spike. For Angel in I will Remember you, helping Buffy as a human with her mission was not enough. He wanted to be more powerful than he could be as a human fighting with Buffy, essentially he wanted his own mission (er, show). There are some parallels here, IMO, between Angel and Riley in Season 5, for whom Buffy's mission also was not enough.
Spike doesn't have that problem. His very words to Lurky are, "give Buffy what she deserves." Helping Buffy is good enough for him even when it keeps him in the subsidiary role for their life together.
[> Re: A Spike Q (End S6 Spoiler) and a New Buffy RPG -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:04:36 06/14/02 Fri
Well, there is the issue of how in hell Spike is going to convince anyone that he even HAS a soul. I mean, you can't just look at a person and say, "Hey, he has a soul." Buffy and the Slayerettes will probably think it's just an act to get into Buffy's pants.
My guess is, they'll find some reason to get rid of the chip, and that will test Spike's new soul.
Also, Spike is a very different person from Angel. He'll probably handle the guilt very differently.
Current board
| More June 2002