June 2002 posts
Good news... -- Rob, 05:49:47 06/25/02 Tue
It looks like my grandma is going to pull through, and make a nice recovery. She's not completely out of the woods yet, but the doctors are very optimistic...so I'm trying to be, too. She's improved immensely from only just two days ago, when they thought she was at death's door. So thanks everybody for all the support and love and all that good stuff! Now maybe I can enjoy being in Southern Fl. a little! lol
I'll update, of course, if the situation changes. But things are lookin' good! :oD
Rob
[> Glad to hear the good news..... -- Rufus, 05:51:48 06/25/02 Tue
Now maybe you can relax and enjoy the rest of your stay....:):)
[> Re: Good news... -- MaeveRigan, 05:58:56 06/25/02 Tue
Glad to hear it, Rob. I know what it's like to have aging relatives in ill-health. And a little R&R is always welcome, especially after a stressful time!
We miss you.
[> [> I'm so glad -- LadyStarlight, 06:19:10 06/25/02 Tue
I hope she continues to recover. Best wishes to all.
[> Glad to hear this!!! :) :) :) -- Rowan, 06:27:17 06/25/02 Tue
[> Great news - I'm glad to hear it ;-) -- shadowkat, 06:48:20 06/25/02 Tue
[> Gosh! You miss a couple of days off the board... -- Marie, 07:22:01 06/25/02 Tue
...and you miss all the news! I didn't know she was ill, but I'm very glad to hear she's getting better!
Cyber flowers are on their way! (The chocs are for you!)
Marie
[> Great news, Rob! -- ponygirl, 07:40:24 06/25/02 Tue
[> [> Thanks so much, everybody. :o) :o) And Marie, the cyber-chocolates are delicious! -- Rob, 09:08:16 06/25/02 Tue
[> Hope things stay good! Enjoy sunny Florida, Rob! -- Exegy, 09:22:32 06/25/02 Tue
[> Yea! Hope everything continues to improve -- Liq, 09:28:10 06/25/02 Tue
[> Good to hear it, Rob... -- cjl, 10:09:17 06/25/02 Tue
[> Great to hear! :) -- Whisper2AScream, 10:21:05 06/25/02 Tue
Though what's with everybody's grandmothers in hospitals lately? I have another friend who's grandmother has been for possible cancer treatment.
Plus, one of my grandmothers broke her hip a couple of weeks back and is now in the middle of physical therapy after getting a plate surgically implanted to repair the damage. She was under observation for a while due to low blood pressure, and shallow breathing, but she's fine now. Getting adjusted to using a walker for a while, but things are looking up.
[> glad to hear it, rob! hope she'll be fine -- anom, 10:25:30 06/25/02 Tue
[> Delighted to hear it Rob - the Existential Scoobies wish her well -- Dedalus, 13:53:47 06/25/02 Tue
[> That's wonderful! :-) -- OnM, 16:40:40 06/25/02 Tue
[> Thanks to everybody else who responded...and more great news... -- Rob, 21:03:37 06/25/02 Tue
She went through a small surgery today to get rid of an infection that she got at the incision of hip surgery she had a few months ago (see Whisper2AScream, EVERYBODY's Grandma is breaking their hips! lol).
She came out of the surgery a few hours ago...The surgery went amazingly well, and took only 20 minutes. Her vital signs are all very strong...so strong in fact that she didn't have to spend any time in ICU and was taken immediately to recovery!
So she is all better now...except for the broken hip, but at least she isn't dying any more. :o)
Now I can enjoy the rest of my vacation, although I probably won't be back at the board on a regular schedule until I get back home on Monday. As it is, I have to sneak time in the early afternoon and late night, just to catch up with the stuff at the Board. It's been a stressful few days, but everything's all peachy now. And I want to thank everybody who sent me warm wishes, and everybody on the entire board, because reading the posts made me feel a whole lot better and take my mind off the recent troubles.
Love all you guys! :o)
Rob
[> [> That's wonderful news, Rob. ;o) -- Wisewoman, 09:14:38 06/26/02 Wed
This board is one of the best sources of healing energy I've ever come across!
I was so glad to hear the good news about your grandmother's recovery. It must help her to know that the members of her family are there with her, including you!
Take care,
dubdub
[> Sending warm wishes for her speedy and full recovery!! -- redcat, 21:57:26 06/25/02 Tue
Wonderful ASH interview for EW (no spoilers) -- Rob, 06:17:34 06/25/02 Tue
Ripper van Winkle
Buffy's boss dishes on the series' future. Anthony Stewart Head tells EW.com about Giles' dark side and explains why you shouldn't put your feet up on the sofa by Liane Bonin
"Buffy the Vampire Slayer" star Anthony Stewart Head has plenty to celebrate this summer. First, his fuddy-duddy character Giles proved that Buffy isn't the only butt kicker worth watching on the show's recent finale; and this month a DVD boxed set of "Buffy"'s second season hits stores.
EW.com talked to Head, 47, about why Europeans get the best ''Buffy'' goodies, what he's been up to since returning to his native England, and why he isn't worried that the end might be near for his beloved vampire-bashing show.
Last year you asked ''Buffy'' creator Joss Whedon to limit Giles' screen time so you could return to England to be with your family. What else have you been up to?
I did a series in England called "Manchild." BBC America will be showing episodes in August. It's a very funny show about four men in their late 40s who have all the toys: the fast cars, the bikes, the young model women, all that stuff. But the show reveals that everything has its price. My character finds he has some problems with his libido.
So you've had some love scenes? Giles would be shocked!
Yes! As soon as I came back to England I did another love scene in a show here called "Spooks," so I seem to be doing a lot of them for the first time in my life, which is very odd. Even in the Taster's Choice commercials [a popular series of ads that ran in the 1980s], we never got our kit off. All we did was kiss, and even then there was debate over whether I should have my feet up on the sofa, because that means you've made out, apparently.
Originally you were scheduled to star in a British "Buffy" spin-off called "Ripper," but Joss Whedon's new Fox series, "Firefly," seems to have gotten in the way. What's "Ripper"'s status now?
"Firefly" hasn't bumped it; it's just displaced it slightly. "Ripper" is still on the map, and the BBC still wants to do it. Fox [the studio that produces "Buffy"] is still interested, so it's ultimately about when Joss has some time. But I'm doing another season of "Manchild" until mid-October, so I won't be available at least until then.
Why ''Ripper''? Sounds like a pretty tough name for Giles.
It's his nickname from when he was younger, and basically it implies a darker side. There's a side to Giles that kicks butt when he has to and that loses himself in the darkness. He's not all paternal.
Will we be able to see ''Ripper'' in the United States?
UPN has expressed an interest in it, but they would want 22 episodes. And Joss said no, because he wants to do what we do in England, which is produce about six episodes a year. How that would work for American television I don't know. You could bill them as TV movies, I guess, but that much hasn't really been resolved yet.
The season finale of ''Buffy'' hinted at what Giles has been up to in England. Will this be carried over onto the series?
We'll see. Joss is constantly thinking about where Giles is going. It's not just ''Tony's left the country and his character's stopped.'' From the moment he brought me back in episode 3 or 4, Giles was telling Buffy he had a flat in Bath and a whole life going on. Joss has created a real existence for him separate from Buffy. And I hope we see into that.
A lot of critics have complained that ''Buffy'' wasn't up to par last season. Do you agree?
As a whole, the season was more introspective, with the characters wondering, ''What do we do now that suddenly we're responsible for ourselves?'' I know some people complained about the three human bad guys, but if it had just been another evil demon, it wouldn't have had the same effect. It was much more subversive this way, and made so much sense for the story arc. So yes, I've read some of the reviews, but it's crap, to be honest.
Will we see much of you on ''Buffy'' next year?
I'm keeping my dance card as open as I can so when Joss calls for me I'm ready. But obviously there are limitations to that, and things are happening here. But we have some plans for next season, and we'll see where they lead.
The DVD boxed set for ''Buffy'''s second season was just released in the U.S., but in Europe season 4 is available on DVD, and season 6 is available on VHS. What gives?
Well, it's the first time we've ever been ahead of America on this kind of stuff. But the English and the American versions differ. Americans have much more additional material on their DVDs, because here everything that goes on the DVD has to be rated, and the rating board charges by the minute. So the English lot tend to be much thinner in that respect.
There are rumors that a ''Buffy the Vampire Slayer'' movie may happen. Any details?
Just the other day I read that Sarah [Michelle Gellar] said she'd never make a ''Buffy'' movie, but that's the English press. Who knows? I think we'd all like to make it. But I think if it's ever made, it will be a while after the last episode of ''Buffy.'' It's not something that can be made while the show is current. Then, if it's two years down the road from when the series ends, it becomes about whether anybody's still interested enough for there to be a ''Buffy'' movie, plus where Sarah Michelle's movie career is, where Alyson Hannigan's movie career is, where we all are. But most of us would like to make it just for Joss. I personally would like to see the ''Buffy the Vampire Slayer'' movie he always wanted to make, that he directs.
How are things different now that ''Buffy'' is on UPN?
People have been saying it's more risqué than it used to be, and that may be because UPN doesn't have a specific age demographic. I can just imagine the smile on Joss' face at the stuff he's managed to get through the censors. The only other real difference is that more money is available, and the show can do more in terms of production value. When you read the scripts now, you say, Hello, we never could have done that two years ago, because the special effects would have been too expensive.
There's buzz that next season could be ''Buffy'''s last. How do you feel about that?
It's all subject to contract, and it's all subject to where Joss' head is. Personally, I think it would be a good thing if the show finishes on a high. If you pursue something until it's beaten to a pulp, there is no possibility, no future, because it's done its thing and everyone's tired of it. I think Joss is on the same wavelength. I would hope the network and the studio would allow him to do what he feels is right. And if that is that the next season is the last, then so be it. Besides, you know the show will be around in repeats forever.
__________________________________________________________
I got the article from http://www.ew.com/ew/report/0,6115,264153~3~0~buffysbossdisheson,00.html
I thought ASH gave a great interview, although the questions weren't the best. And why no mention of his CD? Anyway, I thought it was especially great to hear him sort of possibly un-nix the "Buffy" movie, and hear him sound-off on Season 6 critics (sorry Season 6 critics here lol!).
Rob
[> Re: Wonderful ASH interview for EW (no spoilers) -- ZachsMind, 10:24:07 06/25/02 Tue
I like ASH's words about the possibility of this being the last season. I share his sentiments. It's best if Buffy leaves on a high note. However it would also be interesting to see the story carry on in some way, either with some Buffy characters migrating to Angel, or Ripper, or going off on their own.
Personally I'd love to see a Joss Whedon produced tv series that featured Xander, Anya, Jonathan, and a VW Van that doubles as a temporal anomaly. Call it "WheelMan." Sort of a Doctor Who meets Sliders kinda scifi comedy. The show would start in Sunnydale in the pilot, but the van would go where it thinks Xander unconsciously wants to go at the moment, and Xander doesn't know where he wants to go. There's still an infinite number of possible stories with these characters, but Sunnydale's been pretty much tapped out storywise. They need to explore new territory.
I just think with them returning to Sunnydale High after blowing it up two or three years ago, and this general attitude of getting "back to basics" maybe the series has come full circle and they should wrap "Buffy" up this season and move on.
Robot Metaphors: Perfect Solider Parts I & II (spoilers to grave) -- shadowkat, 09:56:01 06/25/02 Tue
Robot Metaphors Part III: The Perfect Solider
(Continuation of Robot Essays & Posts. Thanks go to everyone who replied to my previous post. A special thanks to Masq who braved the wrath of the voy demon to save it, thank you! This portion was far harder than I thought…we'll see if it makes sense. Refer to quotes and posts by Age, Exegy, Off-kilter and ponygirl, also Rahael gave me the idea to discuss Daryl.)
Spoilers to Grave!
Last August, my boss gave an impromptu instruction session on management techniques. The crux of his little lesson was the perfect manager had the same responses and abilities as a robot. Perfect. We seem to be obsessed with the word perfect. I remember reading an interview with SMG about the musical and how she didn't want to do another one without lots of practice because she is a perfectionist. She isn't happy unless it's perfect. The perfect performance. The perfect weight. The perfect image. The perfect world - a world of plasticine images and smooth lines.
This is a popular theme in science-fiction. Robots, the perfect automatons would control society in a better manner than humans, because those nasty chaotic emotions wouldn't get in the way. The Terminator was about the robots killing off the humans, because they felt the humans were a disease on the planet. Matrix followed a similar idea. Then there's the Japanese Anime and Magna novels where people are combined with robotic parts to make them more durable, able to withstand anything. The Japanese magna and anime sci-fi concentrate heavily on avoiding apocalypse, the results of nuclear war, and the negative results of technology. The anime film Ghost in the Shell falls into this category.
Several years ago while I was wandering around Wales persuading innocent villagers to tell me folk stories, I shared a ride with two military guys - serving time in Italy. I believe they were army but can't remember. Anyway we got to talking and they told me that in the military - you aren't supposed to think, except to the extent that you can understand and obey orders. The perfect solider they told me was a robot, someone who would back you up without question. You needed people who would climb a hill and race into a firestorm, possibly getting killed in the process. If the soliders questioned their commanders, we'd have mass chaos. In boot camp, he told me, we're taught to obey, our ego is stripped away, until there is just a grub, a solider, obeying orders in its place. The perfect robot. Or at least that's the intent. But suffice it to say, life doesn't work that way. We're human, we feel and it's awfully difficult to ignore emotions when it comes to things like killing other human beings or getting killed yourself.
So wouldn't it be wonderful if we could create the perfect solider? A robot to fight for us? And why stop there? How about the perfect cop? The perfect fireman? The perfect student? The perfect worker? The perfect teacher? The perfect actor? I remember in grade school, we theorized that in the year 2001 - our teachers would be robots or computers. And just a few years ago, with all the advancements in animations and digitization, it was theorized that soon we would no longer need human actors. Robots could do everything. And they'd be better at it than us, because after all they didn't have our problems, they didn't possess what Freud would have called the id. No need for comfort, food, shelter, love, sex or joy. Automatons. Perfect.
1. Adam, Daryl, and Frankenstein
In Btvs, Professor Walsh through the use of Skinner-like conditioning techniques, medical science and technology attempted to create the perfect group of super-soliders. She started small with Riley and the Initiative soliders, then built her way up through chipping demons like Spike, and finally the creation of Adam. Professor Walsh's motivation is simple; she just wants to make the world a better place and to be God. She even calls Adam and Riley her sons. Her creations. She's a bit like Dr. Frankenstein in the Mary Shelley novel of the same name.
In Frankenstein - the protagonist, Dr. Frankenstein believes you can create life from death. He believes by doing so, we have conquered death. Shelley wrote the novel shortly after she miscarried her first child. Tormented by dreams of giving birth to a monster or having her dead child brought back to life, Shelley wondered what would happen if we tried to circumvent nature and create life from death. The results were chaotic. The resulting Monster destroyed everything Frankenstein valued. This reminds me of Professor Walsh, who like Dr. Frankenstein strives to show the scientific world that she can harness the chaotic forces of nature to create a super-solider that will obey her orders. The perfect solider. Instead she creates the perfect monster: Adam, who like Frankenstein's Monster, kills her, destroys her reputation, and her soul.
This is not the first time Btvs has explored the Frankenstein theme. In Some Assembly Required, (Season 2, Btvs) a high school science nerd resurrects his dead brother, Daryl, from the grave by piecing together dead body parts. Like Frankenstein's Monster, Daryl wants a mate. Both Frankenstein and Daryl are lonely creations, outcastes. They remind me a little of Spike in Season 4, after Harmony has left him and he's forced to fend for himself. All three are outcasts due to the interference of science. Spike had a role before; he was Mr. Big Bad Vampire and part of demon society, a dark warrior. Now, with the chip, he's a neutered vampire that no one takes seriously, except the demons he pummels for fun. Daryl also had a role - he was the football hero. Then he died. And now he's been brought back to life and is alone. A monster. His brother did it supposedly out of love, playing god. Similar to Dr. Frankenstein who attempts to resurrect his dead wife after the monster kills her. Walsh to her credit, or discredit, had far less personal motivations. (This could also be paralleled with Willow who decides to bring back Buffy and later Tara. Willow is as arrogant as Prof. Walsh and Daryl's brother, believing she can play god with natural rules.) But back to Daryl, who wants a mate. And not just any mate - he wants a mate just like him with Cordelia's head. So his brother attempts to construct one, just as Dr. Frankenstein constructs one. But has a change of heart when he has to kill someone to complete the task. Frustrated, Daryl takes over and tries to do it himself. Fortunately Buffy stops him before he can kill Cordy. In Some Assembly Required - the creator once again has to deal with the chaotic desires of his creation. The boy's best intentions - to bring his beloved brother back to life only result in corrupting his brother's memory and everything his dead brother touches. His attempt to create something better, to cheat death, only causes more death and destruction. Just as Professor Walsh's attempt to cheat death and harness the forces of chaos only results in more chaos and death. Nature refuses to be controlled.
Like Daryl and Frankenstein are pieced together from corpses, Adam is revealed to be pieced together from numerous demons and humans and technology. A hodgepodge of medical and technical science. To the extent that the human part of Adam no longer has an identity, no longer exists, he becomes something new, just as Daryl and Frankenstein have. All three creations challenge their creators' vision, intent on following their own paths. 'We are not just tools to be used at your whim,' they seem to declare, going in the opposite direction from their creators' vision. Instead of being their creator's perfect child, a reaffirmation of life, they become monsters or reaffirmations of death and destruction.
2. Riley, Spike and Robocop
Riley, Walsh's second son, is the reverse of Adam, the good "perfect" son. Of course Riley isn't a monster, he's a man who has been feed drugs and conditioned over time to follow Prof. Walsh and the dictates of the organization that recruited him. Riley is already the perfect solider, created not by biology or technology but by behavorist conditioning. Riley is the result of "psychology". Super-strong. Smart. Follows orders without question. Sees the world in the black and white shades that the military and Prof. Walsh painted for him. He like the "Adam" in the Eden Story, avoids partaking of the tree of good and evil. He prefers the nice comfortable orderly world he inhabits. He does not want to follow his own initiative, he'd rather follow the government's or if you like the PTB's dictates, it's easier.
Riley reminds me a little of RoboCop, ( played by Peter Weller). In this film, a good cop (Murphy) who played by the rules, followed the system, and gave his life up for his partner in a bust gone bad, is co-opted by a huge corporation and turned into Robocop, a technological wonder of steel, computer chips, and human tissue. At first, Murphy has no problems with this, believing it is for the good of the public, then slowly discovers the corporation's nefarious ends and also what he has had to give up to become the perfect solider. He can no longer see his wife and child. He is in a word dead to them. He no longer requires human comforts: food, shelter, comfort, sex and love. I re-watched a section of Robo-cop II recently, in this section - Murphy's wife is suing the corporation and police force for what they did to her husband, who they insist is dead, but he still is visiting her as Robocop. The corporation pulls Robocop in and in a lengthy interrogation session conditions him to believe that he is not human, that he has no feelings, that he has no wife. That his primary purpose is to serve the law and nothing else. He must be the perfect solider. Outside life mustn't interfere with that in any way. Who he is and what he does is no longer dictated by him but by the organization he serves.
Riley tries to be the perfect solider, even gives his superiors the benefit of the doubt when Walsh attempts to kill Buffy. He doesn't trust Buffy's account of this event, even after he sees evidence of Walsh's culpability with his own eyes. (Goodbye Iowa) Riley is so conditioned by Walsh, that he can't quite believe she would betray him not until the evidence is made painfully real. In fact after Adam kills Walsh, he believes Buffy may been responsible for the Professor's death. His friend, Forrest, certainly believes it. It isn't until Adam appears on the scene and tells Riley that Walsh drugged him repeatedly over time and had big plans for them both that Riley begins to break with the establishment. Poor Riley, corn-fed farm boy joins the military, does well, gets promoted, only to have some crazy Professor use him as a psychology experiment.
Psychology experiments. The man is turned into a machine not through medical science but through psychological conditioning, through the breaking down of his defenses. The Manchurian Candidate is a classic example of psychological conditioning. The film starring Lawrence Harvey and Frank Sinatra is about a man who is conditioned to kill government leaders with post-hypnotic suggestion and drugs. His mother learns of his conditioning and uses it to manipulate her way into politics. In the end it backfires on her just as Professor Walsh's behavioral conditioning backfires. Riley doesn't do what Prof Walsh wants any more than Lawrence Harvey does what his mother wants. The difference, in Btvs, the good doctor uses drugs and behavioral modification chips instead of hypnotic suggestion. As Spike states at the beginning of Primeval, when he discovers that he, Adam, and Riley have chips, "Oh, I see, it's chips all around."
Riley isn't only conditioned by drugs; he also has a chip in his chest controlling his behavior. If he gets out of line, it will immobilize him. Professor Walsh thought of all the variables. Riley is the mad professor's unwilling lab experiment. The tragedy? Riley volunteered, he willingly subjected himself to the good Professor's tutelage but he did not subject himself to her lab experiments. She did that without his knowledge. So it's not his fault right? It's not his fault that he becomes her lab experiment, that he gets co-opted by the military, that he almost becomes something he hates. He's not culpable for the things the Initiative does.
In one of Age's posts (I think it was in reply to Exegy's Burial of Buffy), Age stated the theme of Season 4 was all about taking the "Initiative" in our lives, choosing our own course instead of having someone else choose it for us. Does Riley? In one episode, Riley tells Buffy he's not very good at gray, he prefers the black and white organized world of the military where people told him what to do. Buffy counters that while it is difficult to chart your own course it is worth it and he has options. He can either go back to the military or he can use what he's learned and find a way of fighting demons on his own. She had to make a similar decision when she broke with the Watcher's Council.
Unlike Robocop's Officer Murphy, Riley has choices. He is human, not a robot, not held back by technology. He can and does remove his behavior modification chip in Primeval and for part of Season 5, actually does attempt to chart a course away from the military. When his toxins are removed in Out of My Mind, he is no longer the super solider. No outside force has an influence over him. He is his own man. He can chart his own course. Officer Murphy in Robocop remains encased in his robotic armor, his choices dictated by those who created him. His attempts to break free are emotionally and morally scarring. He remains an outcast from his own kind, sort of similar to Spike. Spike tries on numerous occasions to remove his chip but he can't. It is permanently encased in his skull; forced removal could render him a vegetable.
In Season 4, Spike and Riley are closely paralleled. Both get chipped. Professor Walsh attempts to control both of them. Both become her unwilling lab experiments. She wants to turn both of them into a type of super-solider. (Well maybe just one, the other might be more of a dissection, but you get the point.) Both escape this fate. And both momentarily join Adam in his cause. Adam bribes Spike with the possibility his chip's removal while he uses Riley's chip to coerce him into participating.
This on-going parallel between Riley and Spike reminds me a lot of a Psych 101 course I took and hated in college. The course consisted of teaching a small, rather cute rat to run through a maze. To get the rat to run through this maze, we had to condition its' responses. The whole class was about how we can condition certain behavioral responses. In the case of the rat, if it ran in the right direction - it got cheese, if it ran in the wrong direction it received a small shock. Spike is given a chip that reinforces negative conditioning, it is technically speaking an electronic leash. What it does is change the course of Spike's existence. The chip makes it impossible for him to hurt a living creature. He can hurt demons as he discovers in Doomed, apparently the government doesn't consider demons living. He can also pick flowers or stomp on grass. But he can't hurt humans, dogs, kitty cats, rats, etc as far as we know. Riley receives positive reinforcement from his conditioning. He does the right thing, takes his vitamins - he gets super-strong and is promoted. Goes off his meds, breaks with the government - he becomes weak and kittenish.
Poor Spike. After the installation of the chip, he attempts to bite Willow and slay Buffy. Instead Buffy ends up saving him from the government. He does eventually adapt to his situation, becoming an informant for the SG. Occasionally fighting demons for them on the side. But in doing so, he has become an outcaste to his own kind. In the same episode that Riley leaves the Initiative, Spike is thrown out of Willy's demon bar. Both are forced to leave the worlds they knew, that they were comfortable in, and seek a new path.
Of the two, Riley eventually reverts back to the old one. For a while he follows Buffy's path as the demon hunter, until his super-strength is removed and she begins to shut him out of that portion of her life. Notice he's not charting his own path here, he's just following Buffy's, he has in effect switched from the Initiative's path to Buffy's "slayer" path. Unfortunately, Buffy isn't cooperating - as early as Buffy vs. Dracula, she leaves him out of her demon hunting duties. And in the beginning of Out of My Mind, Buffy is upset with both Spike and Riley for helping her. And Riley still has his strength at this point.
Instead of charting his own course, Riley has merely jumped from being the "perfect" solider in the government's initiative, to being the "perfect" boyfriend. And to his credit, he is the "perfect studly boyfriend" - at least in the beginning. Always provides that shoulder to cry on - whether she wants one or not. Always there to help with the demon slaying - whether she wants him to or not. Always supportive. All he wants from her is to feel needed. To have her lean on him. To be her project as she is his. Riley doesn't know any other way to treat her. As Graham puts it, "Oh so you're the Mission's true love? You used to have a mission Riley." For Riley, life has no meaning unless someone else sets the rules, boundaries, and of course, the mission. He likes following orders, being the "perfect robot".
Spike on the other hand, does not. He is after all a demon. And a particularly odd one at that. Adapts to the situation as it arises. And charts his own haphazard course. In Off-kilter's post, 10,000 methods of Spike, she paints the picture of a demon who doesn't give up. If plan A doesn't work, he'll try plan B to get what he wants. It's actually sort of inspiring to watch. And very different from Riley - who tries to set his own course, falls on his ass, and reverts back to the safety of the army, with its clear rules and boundaries. (*Quick disclaimer - I am not saying "our" military creates automatons or is an easy path in "our" world, we're talking about "Jossverse" metaphors here. Fantasy world guys not real world. I have the utmost respect for the real men and women who choose to serve our countries.)
Unlike Riley who goes with the flow, tries to be the "good" son, Spike fights it. He reminds me of A Clockwork Orange's Alex - making the most of the conditioning in his brain. Conditioning does have an effect on him - he reacts to the positive and negative stimulus of those around him like Pavlov's Dog (the dog who learns not to push the lever if it shocks him). If I can't hit humans, I'll hit demons - he thinks. Not because it helps humans, but because it gets rid of the violent energy coursing inside him, suffocating him. Spike doesn't want to be the perfect robot, he doesn't want to be held by someone else's strings. He desires to be in charge of his own destiny. His self-loathing erupts when he finds himself at the mercy of someone else's. Riley on the other hand prefers to be safe within the confines of the organization, the organization's solider or puppet. His self-loathing erupted when he was alone, purposeless. (See OOMM - Into the Woods, Season 5).
TBC on next line. ;-) shadowkat (assuming this posts, stupid
server.)
[> Perfect Solider Parts 3& 4 : Kendra, Sam, Buffbot, Warrenbot(spoilers to grave) -- shadowkat, 09:59:37 06/25/02 Tue
3. Kendra, Sam, The Buffy-bot and Ghost in the Shell
Speaking of puppets on strings, I recently rewatched the anime film, Ghost in A Shell. The film is about a cyborg girl (Major) who is defined completely by her job as the perfect operative for a secret organization. The "ghost" in the shell - refers to the computer generated soul inside the artificial body. Or real soul generated by the human brain harvested and placed in the body. The Major isn't sure which. At one point in the film she asks: "What if I'm not real? What if what I feel, who I am is all just based on how I'm treated by those around me?" She aches to exist outside other's constructs of reality. This reminds me of ponygirl's comment under my previous Robot Metaphor post, which asks - am I treating those around me as real or just as constructs of the reality I've imposed on them? Is who they are based on me?
Is who we are and what we do based solely on others' expectations of us? Their emotional programming? Are we, like the Major in Ghost in The Shell - tools for others bidding?
In Btvs - Kendra is the "perfect" slayer. She even has the slayer handbook. Follows it rigidly. When she was a child, her parents willingly gave her over to her Watcher. She never saw them again. Nor did she date boys or develop friendships. You aren't supposed to - she tells Buffy. Emotion weakens you. Emotional ties compromise you. You must work alone with only your watcher as your guide. This is similar to the First Slayer in Buffy's dream in Restless - we are alone and the slay is the only thing that is important.
Kendra's speech, her habits, even her reactions to people are almost robot like. She feels anger and embarrassment, but pushes these emotions aside, as not important. Vampires should be killed, regardless of souls. Emotion weakens you. Life is dictated by the books she's studied. It's telling that Giles mentions in What's My Line Part II, that even though he had a handbook, he knew it wouldn't work for Buffy. Buffy refuses to be the council's puppet. She refuses to turn off her emotions or follow the dictates of some handbook. Or be destiny's fool. Buffy refuses to be just "the slayer". While Kendra believes that being just "the slayer" is her destiny. A destiny which results in Kendra' death, and as Kendra would probably put it - as it's supposed to. Slayer dies. New one born. Happens all the time. And usually before 21. What does Spike tell Buffy in Fool For Love? "Your friends, mother, little sis, tie you to this world…without them you would have died long ago." He may be right, Kendra is easily taken out by Drusilla in Becoming Part I.
The Major in Ghost in The Shell, like Buffy, does not want to be just a puppet, she seeks to know herself and seeks to know the world outside of the network she is a part of. Just as Buffy seeks to know more than just slaying and the network she's a part of. Both eventually break with that network or organization, both suffer a type of death by doing so. The Major merges with another computer program or ghost and in doing so is freed upon the net, grows up, becomes more than just a "ghost" in the shell or as she puts it "an individual based on computerized memory." The other ghost or "puppet master program" that she merges with, tells her that "all things must change in a dynamic environment, to remain as you are limits you." Buffy seems to see this as well, by making the choice to jump from the tower of her adolescence, she is free to literally emerge renewed from the earth's womb as an adult. She makes the choice to jump. Not her watcher or the council who no doubt would have ordered her to kill her sister instead. Buffy jumps to find her own destiny, just as the Major jumps into another program to find her's. By dying both are resurrected to a new life. They don't necessarily choose this new life, the Major finds herself in the robotic body of a child and Buffy has to break out of her coffin. But both choose to continue to struggle forward, better for the experience.
Left behind after Buffy's jump, the Buffybot, remains unchanged. Continuing to fight Buffy's fight as Willow programs her to. Continuing to repeat phrases from her old sex programs to Spike. Even those programs aren't completely wiped out. She states inappropriate but charming quips that are reminiscent of Kendra. She treats Dawn as the nice little sister, unchanging in her attitude towards her. And admires Spike's washboard abs and brain as she did before she changed owners. The "perfect" little robot. Except for one teensy problem - like Kendra, she is easily killed. She can't adapt to new situations or live outside the box. If she gets injured, she goes to her programmer, when her programmer or mother abandons her, she is destroyed so that her ex-lover is left rumbling through the wreckage, mourning her loss while her surrogate sister gently tries to close her eyes. The Buffbot's death is as painful as Kendra's because neither reach their full potential, yet it is just as inevitable. Without the ability to grow beyond the boundaries of a reality constructed by others - we are doomed to be squashed by the changes and turmoil the world unleashes on us. In the Buffbot's case, it's the pirate demons who tear her apart like a little boy ripping the arms and legs off his sister's Barbie doll. They treat her as the toy she so accurately plays. In Kendra's case, it's Drusilla, Drusilla with all her lovely dolls, that kills Kendra, seeing Kendra as just another wind-up doll she can knock aside.
It is ironic that a Watcher created Kendra and Willow - a would be Watcher re-programmed and gave new birth to the Buffbot. Both the Watchers and Willow desire to control their world. They do so by finding and training slayers or in Willow's case programming a robot and bringing Buffy back from the dead. Like Professor Walsh, they mean no harm. They want to make the world a safer better place. But as Giles tells Prof. Walsh in A New Man, the Council in Helpless, and later Willow in Flooded, such control comes with an incredibly high price. Nature cannot be controlled. It must be respected.
Which brings us to Sam, the missionary turned solider. Sam is an interesting character. Like Riley she has been raised by organizations that adore rules and order. She is first the "perfect" missionary, then the "perfect" solider, and finally the "perfect" wife. Missionaries historically go into uncivilized areas to exert order. They believe, somewhat arrogantly, that they are civilizing the people, they are providing them with a set of rules to live by and thus bettering their lives. History does not always look kindly on the results. Novels such as The Poisonwood Bible, At Play in the Fields of The Lord, and Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness all discuss the chaos created by well-meaning missionaries, who arrogantly believe they can tame what they deem to be the wilderness. The women innocently view themselves as saviors, unaware of the destruction they wrought on the people they wish to civilize. This is Sam in As You Were.
In AYW, Sam hero-worships Buffy, comparing her to Santa Clause, which Anya told us was actually a child eating boogy man in THE BODY. Buffy is similarly compared to the boogy man by Forrest in Season 4. A mystical unexplainable force, outside the boundaries of reality defined by Sam and Riley's organizations. When Buffy and Sam discuss Riley's break with Buffy, Sam tells Buffy, there are no bad guys here. It was good you let Riley go. It took him a year to get over you. (Implying that Buffy was outside his reality, his league?) Better to be with no guy than the wrong one. These sound like platitudes, designed to make Buffy feel better, but result in the opposite. But Buffy can't help but love Sam. Sam is perfect. Kind. Comforting. She tells Willow that Willow has succeeded in doing something few can accomplish, give up dark magics. Charming Willow to exchange emails with Sam, a woman she swore she'd hate on Buffy's behalf. Xander receives advice on how to take pictures at his wedding, seeing Sam and Riley as the Perfect Marriage, which he, Xander, can only hope to live up to. But, as Exegy points out on numerous well written posts regarding AS YOU WERE (and Exegy - forgive me if I misquote you- don't have any copies in front of me, so going by memory here), these messages from Sam and Riley are comforting yet also slightly robotic and clichè. The Scoobies see Sam and Riley as the ideal, but if you look closely, you'll see the helicopter they leave in does not go up but across. Sam and Riley do not go to heaven. And their words are just platitudes similar to April's comforting clichés. "Darkness before the dawn…lemons make lemonade…the wheel turns, your up your down, your still a wonderful woman…" Do these words really matter when the meaning is hollow behind them? Riley knows nothing about Buffy's life. He doesn't even know she died to save the universe.
Riley and Sam get their mission, their strokes, their sense of reality not from themselves but from the organization they are with. As Buffy states - "do you get dental with that?" Apparently so. They also have gadgets, guns that misfire, and safe houses. It seems to be the perfect life - but is it? Is it just an illusion? Made of plasticine and kelvar and cool gadgets? The perfect world seems perfect from the outside, but if we dive inside it, we'll discover all too quickly how hollow it truly is.
4. Warren, Willow : the Warrenbot & Buffybot
No Robot Metaphor analysis would be complete without discussing the Warrenbot and the two people associated with it. Warren and Willow - very similar, two characters who hide themselves behind electronics and magic. They remind me of the Wizard of OZ, no not the title, the little man behind the curtain, the little man who put on such a big show for Dorothy and her friends, nearly scaring them to death. Don't pay attention to the man hiding behind the curtain the scary creation on the screen tells them. They do and reality changes. Like the little man, Willow and Warren are afraid to be seen as they are. They'd prefer to show something else to the world instead. Both are guilty of the same fatal flaw, they want to hide.
From the second episode of Season 1, Harvest, we see Willow hacking into a computer to get information on the city's sewer system. Willow is constantly hiding behind a computer. In I Robot You Jane - Willow is spending more time with her computer than her friends, preferring the company of the emails that drift across it. Later in Season 6, after Willow gives up magic, we see her once again hiding behind the computer - pulling out useful information on the geeks. Warren likewise hides behind a computer. Behind gadgets. He always has. It's safer than real people. Gadgets he can control. It's fitting that he uses a gun to kill Buffy, it's another man-made gadget. A gadget that Riley and his soliders use and Buffy states is never useful. Apparently it's more useful than she realized.
When Warren wants to escape from Willow's fury - he builds yet another gadget. Just as Willow reprograms the Buffbot to protect the inhabitants of Sunnydale from the demons. Neither gadget works. They are both limited. Willow easily destroys the Warrenbot and furious by his attempts to evade her, sets out with even more purpose to kill and torture him. I wonder if he would have been better off if she'd found him on the bus? The Buffbot leads the demons directly to Willow, breaking up her spell and almost getting her killed. Neither gadget worked as intended. Both were declared lost.
Warren and Willow are not content with interpreting their own reality, they want to interpret everyone else's as well. They want to control their world. They want to impose their will on it. Make it like it is in their heads. Just as Dr. Frankenstein, Professor Walsh and the corporations behind Robo-cop and the Ghost in the Shell wanted to control theirs. But what world are we living in when everything is mechanized and plastic and perfect? The world of Riley and Sam? Or the world of Professor Walsh? Do we really want someone else to dictate what we should feel? How we should do our job? What to aspire to? Do we want to become robots? Is it really so wonderful being perfect? Do we really want a perfect, mechanized world?
Thanks for reading…finally ran out of ideas on this one…LOL!
Thoughts? Feedback? Getting bored of me yet? Yep - feedback whore, I admit it.
: - ) shadowkat
[> [> Wow... -- ZachsMind, 11:41:31 06/25/02 Tue
Brilliant dissection of BtVS from the robot metaphor perspective. In essence all the characters of Buffy are trying to control their environment to their own ends using what resources they have available. Just as a military man behind enemy lines uses the limited resources of emergency rations and supplies that he carried in his pack coupled with whatever he finds in his environment to develop camoflage, shelter, hunt and eat food, etc., so too do we all take what's available on hand in our day to day lives to attempt to subvert reality to our own ends. Whether it's Willow's dark magicks or Professor Walsh's knowledge of psychology and humanoid anatomy, each character is guilty of twisting the rules of nature to their own ends. BtVS does an honorable effort in cautionary tales to warn of the inherent risks of this behavior as well as the unrelenting need of the human psyche to persue it.
Your exploration of Riley is particularly impressive. Rarely have I noticed fans try to understand his place in Buffy's universe so strongly and objectively. Most just gloss over him, opting either to like him or not based on his actions and reactions, when upon closer inspection his character is a most dualistic and tragic one. It's difficult to determine where the 'real' Riley begins and his conditioning ends. I noticed in the episodes prior to "Initiative" that Riley's interest in Buffy was shallow at best. She was "Willow's Friend" to Riley's perspective, and barely showed on his radar. At the start of "Initiative" Riley's friends take note of Buffy as a sex object, but Riley dismisses her as "peculiar" and seems to not be intrigued by her beyond that. Then there's a conversation where Buffy confronts Walsh about her impersonal approach to student/teacher relationships, and after Buffy leaves Walsh turns to Riley and pointedly says to him, "I like her." From that moment on he suddenly starts noticing Buffy in a new light. So we get a glimpse at just how subtle yet effective Walsh's conditioning of Riley is. In a later episode when Riley & Buffy are in bed sleeping together, we see Walsh voyeuristically observing their nocturnal activities via survelliance cameras, and it's disturbingly revealed just how under the microscope Riley is to her. How much of a lab rat he has been. Even after her death, Walsh's influence upon Riley is hauntingly effective.
You compare Riley to Robocop, but I see him more like Marvel comic's Captain America. A soldier who has been remarkably conditioned and 'labratted' by the American military into a killing machine and does dutifully follow the orders of his 'mother' as best as he can while still hoping to retain a sense of individuality. Riley becomes a darker more realistic variant of a Captain America, who eventually comes to some sense of balance. We see in "As You Were" that he still serves the military that he holds dear, but he does so on his own terms and still manages to attempt a framework of a family life and a sense of self, despite everything that has happened to him.
Overall your essay is very detailed and remarkable, but a bit fragmented. There's a lot of material to cover because the 'robot metaphor' is a powerful motif that does make several appearances throughout the overall plot arc of the series. Each example you point out from Riley to Kendra could be made into a separate essay all its own. Excellent work.
[> [> [> Re: Wow... -- shadowkat, 13:04:41 06/25/02 Tue
Yup - got ambitious again, realized halfway through that I was trying to condense a forty page essay into ten pages.
Oh well. Glad you enjoyed it though. ;-)
And you're compliment means a lot - your broken yellow crayon post on Willow was quite good.
On Riley, I do see a Captain American reference, both stalwart and true, characters who see the world in blacks and whites. Except I think Cap' has risen above this, he
appreciates the X-Men and mutants and doesn't see them as just animals to be killed. Riley - well we don't get that much of him, and the writing of AYW was not great, but my feeling was he hadn't changed that much. He still seemed to see demons in one big category - evil - kill. That said, the episode felt ambiguous to me - I wasn't sure if Riley was meant to be a character who was full-fledged and completely together now or still the conditioned Initiative robot boy...who had run off to the safety of the army. You can argue it both ways. (Actually that was what is both intriguing and frustrating about this past Season, you can literally argue every character both ways: postive and negative or in between. Makes for some emotional debates on the boards.)
But I've felt that they've always written Riley oddly. As if they don't really know what to do with him...part of that problem occurred when Lindsey Crouse who plays Walsh left the show much earlier than they'd expected. They had planned a whole "Oedipal"/"Hamletish"
story arc with Prof Walsh manipulating Riley and Buffy and
jealously and that was the reason behind Walsh watching them on the monitors. (This was according to an interview with MN). Fortunately or Unfortunately depending on your preference, they couldn't do it and had to dump the whole thing. I sort of wish they had...it would have fleshed Riley and Walsh out a bit more. (I loved Walsh, she was one of my favorite villains, much better than Adam). Of the characters I've always felt Riley was the most underdeveloped. When he started getting interesting? They wrote him out. Oh well.
[> [> [> [> Writing characters in and out... -- ZachsMind, 14:01:05 06/25/02 Tue
It is a bit of a conundrum. When reviewing the overall plot arc of the series, there are times when it's difficult to determine why Whedon & the writers do what they do, but much of it probably has to do with juggling the times of availability for the actors. Seth Green reportedly displeased Whedon. Opting to put his interests in film over his work on Buffy. So Whedon wrote the werewolf out of the storyline. Would have been interesting to see what Whedon's original plans were for the werewolf, but it just wasn't in the cards. It's difficult to tell if Whedon chose to write Joyce out of the story or if Kristine Sutherland got tired of being written in occasionally with dialogue that made her more of a paper cut out for a mom than the real thing, and left to find a project which offered her more of a challenge. Giles' disappearance in Buffy's life last season was done in large part due to ASH's desires to spend more time in England with his family, and the eventual plans to have a BBC series based on Ripper is again to keep ASH on the other side of the Atlantic.
Oddly, in many cases this helps to make the Buffy stories more interesting, but must be no end of frustration for Whedon & the other writers. And most recently the rumors that with SMG's contract coming up at the end of season seven brings about their greatest potential juggling dillemma. They may have to work around her exit without too much collateral damage.
[> [> [> [> [> Joyce -- Off-kilter, 05:59:56 06/26/02 Wed
Read an interview of Kristine Sutherland where she states that she was discussing stepping away from BtVS and her plan to be out of country most of season 5 when Joss emphatically tells her that he HAS to have her for at least one episode, "I need you to die; it's REALLY important!"
[> [> Re: Perfect Solider Parts 3& 4 : Kendra, Sam, Buffbot, Warrenbot(spoilers to grave) -- leslie, 11:55:01 06/25/02 Tue
Two things strike me: the first, which I think I've mentioned before, is that it is interesting that Riley's chip is in his heart and Spike's chip is in his head. Someone recently suggested that Riley's relationship with Buffy was actually "planted" by Dr. Walsh's comment that she liked Buffy (previously he was more interested in--or at least aware of--Willow). Without Dr. Walsh around, their relationship eventually goes haywire, *because* Riley cannot reconcile his intellectual perception of how the world is supposed to work with his emotions for Buffy. Spike, in contrast, is forced by his chip to rethink his conception of the world and his place in it, but his heart is still free, if somewhat wonky in its affections. Not sure exactly where this goes....
Switching to Willow, however, I do have some ideas where this goes, although it doesn't seem to be where ME thinks it goes.... You point out Willow's movement from technology (computers) to magic and back again (after the whole magic-as-drug plot). We've focussed a lot on both of these as compensatory measures for her feelings of inadequacy. However, let's think about this in terms of the contrast between the Scoobies and the Initiative. That whole season basically boiled down to a moral of mystical/ magical/ traditional/ female/ organic defenses against evil = good/ effective; scientific/ technological/ governmental/ military/ modern/ male defenses against evil = bad/ monsterous. (Yet, in a nice yin/yang comparison, the "female" brigade is advised by a male--Giles--and the "male" brigade is advised by a female--Dr. Walsh.) Willow's use of magic therefore puts her on the side of "organic" (i.e., good, useful, effective) defenses against evil, whereas the use of computers--even if she considers this the slow, hard way--is on the side of technology and modernism--mental perspectives that are time and again shown to completely miss the point and the mode of functioning of the supernatural world. Computers are useful for acquiring information about the now, but you need Giles's library of BOOKS in order to get the real information that is needed to fight demons.
So this is what worries me about the whole damned magic-as-addiction metaphor--it puts Willow back in the thrall of technology, while BtVS has consistently backed the organic as the functional way to operate in the supernatural world. It's going to take some sharp writing to get around this.
[> [> [> Ooh! Primeval compare/contrast Buffy vs Adam -- ZachsMind, 12:43:17 06/25/02 Tue
I hadn't looked at it that way, but Leslie's comments about Riley and Spike made me realize something. The chip is in Spike's head and was in Riley's heart. If we were to take the 'blueprint' of the Scoobies' enjoining spell and try to apply it to Adam's plans, we see where he failed. In the enjoining spell that combined Giles, Xander & Willow with Buffy's psyche to combat and defeat Adam, Giles was the mind, Xander was the heart, Willow was the spirit and Buffy was the "Manus" or "Hand" and effectively represented the body.
Riley was Adam's heart, and Riley's heart just wasn't in it despite Adam's attempts to control his body. The flesh was conditioned but Riley's heart & spirit were "weak" to Adam's desires and strong to resist. So Adam had no real heart for his equivalent of the enjoining spell: the final phase of the 314 Project.
Spike was effectively the equivalent of Giles: the mind. Spike's plan was to use the Yoko Factor to split up the Scoobies, and the plan backfired when Spike had to attempt to influence Buffy into talking to Willow long enough to get the plans to the Initiative. When Spike talked to Buffy, he inadvertently slipped that he was truly the one to blame for the Scoobies' recent argument. Buffy used this to bring her gang back together. So Adam's "mind" in his metaphorical enjoining spell was also faulty. Adam's metaphorical "spirit" equivalent was Professor Walsh. Though he killed her, the remnants of her plans were still alive and Adam thought that was all he needed. That he could pick up where she left off. However, her spirit was gone, so there too Adam was left empty.
Adam was the body, the "Manus" confronting Buffy, and if it was just his body opposite Buffy's body he would have prevailed. He thought that was all he really needed. That he could finish Walsh's plans himself. However, he was to egocentric, believing he could take on all the world by himself. When he and Buffy were battling and Buffy became the uberSlayer, all he could say was, "this is interesting" and it was like the little red light in his brain started blinking and he started going haywire, because it did not compute. How could this little girl defeat him?
Spiritus (Spirit) Willow - Walsh
Animus (Heart) Xander - Riley
Sophus (Mind) Giles - Spike
Manus (Hands) Buffy - Adam
When you look at it this way, how could she lose?
[> [> [> [> Re: Ooh! Primeval compare/contrast Buffy vs Adam -- leslie, 13:54:23 06/25/02 Tue
"Spiritus (Spirit) Willow - Walsh
Animus (Heart) Xander - Riley
Sophus (Mind) Giles - Spike
Manus (Hands) Buffy - Adam"
Nice how this also echoes the suggestion of Spike as Giles's "son" and Xander's hero-worship of Riley; on a smaller level, I may just be making an assumption, but isn't Willow's mother a psychologist? Like Walsh? And of course, the opposition of hero Buffy and villain Adam. However, Buffy defeats the villain when she and her friends unite in a mystical whole--greater than the sum of its parts--whereas Adam can only remain a fragmented compilation of bits and pieces stitched together. Buffy can reach in and simply take out one crucial part; Adam cannot penetrate the barrier than surrounds her *at a discernable difference from her body boundaries*, extending her physical presence into an impenetrable whole.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Ooh! Primeval compare/contrast Buffy vs Adam -- shadowkat, 19:08:56 06/25/02 Tue
"on a smaller level, I may just be making an assumption, but isn't Willow's mother a psychologist? Like Walsh?"
Yep, you're correct. We learn her mother is a psychologist
in Gingerbread.
Great connections, thought the same - Spike/Giles being the brain continues the writers parallel of the two characters.
Just as X/R is very appropriate. Makes As You Were and
all the marriage conversation between Xander and Riley
and Xander and Riley regarding Riley even more interesting.
Anya: If you like Riley so much Xander, why don't you marry him?
And of course Spike's comment to Giles in his Restless
Dream: "you need to make a decision Rupes, use your frontal lobe".
Yet another essay topic in the making.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ooh! yes! -- aliera, singing...here we go again..., 19:58:32 06/25/02 Tue
Just teasing 'kat...thank goodness for all the essays and the posts...preserving semblance of sanity during reruns!
[> [> [> The Writers' Solution to Willow (Spoilers) -- Exegy, 15:29:18 06/25/02 Tue
I think that our Willow will try to deny the powers that she's tapped. She'll want to return to that "innocent" techno-nerd ... but she will be unable. She'll have to accept the magicks as a part of her, the good and the bad ... just as she has to accept the good and the bad about herself in general. She needs to find a balance between these dark and light aspects. I'm reminded of the imagery of Dopplegangland, where Willow seeks balance but loses control of her focus, upset by external events. This is what has happened in the sixth season. She loses control because she's never had control in the first place. She's never achieved balance. And this is why you get the polar extremes of Sweet!Willow and Evil!Willow. She's either one or the other, because she hasn't incorporated the various aspects of herself into a whole person. She exists fragmented, cut off from herself by herself.
It's easy for Willow to embrace the darkness within. She taps into hidden powers, and the liberation is immense. And destructive. There's real ugliness inside, ugliness that when amplified becomes truly monstrous. So Willow confronts and assimilates the image of herself that she saw in Dopplegangland. But she hasn't reconciled herself to these dark powers ... they are energies that she wields, not a part of her. "Willow doesn't live here anymore." To split herself off from her actions is to miss the truth of all that buried resentment and self-loathing. These are things which must be brought to the surface in order for Willow to become a realized individual. She cannot exist in a fragmented state any longer ... for that way leads to self-annihilation.
Willow embraces her evil self in Dopplegangland, but then she turns that self away. That's not her. She doesn't have the potential to be that. Not sweet, innocent Willow. So Willow denies herself ... but a part of her recognizes the self in VampWillow. This is what she could be, but for the grace of not being vamped. So the dark Willow lives on in another reality, far far away from the real girl. And she dies. So everything's safe. But this is not the case. Dopplegangland shows us an inner potentiality that still exists for Willow, and the more she buries it, the more she risks total negation of self.
Now that her darkness has been realized, she must accept herself for what she is and for what she is capable of. She can't just throw this unpleasantness away, to pretend that this could never happen again. She can't pretend to be completely innocent ever again. That is not her. It never was her ... just a fragment of herself that she showed to the world. The ugliness was always underneath, growing because no one ever attended to it. Everyone, not just Giles, was blind. Willow most of all. She could never see herself; she could only measure herself by others. She became a non-entity, an invisible girl who screamed to be let out. One who bursts out in the final episodes of this year.
Willow needs to gather the damaged pieces and put herself together. For once, she needs to come together, the light and the dark. She can't just neglect the unwanted aspects, because they are not going to go away if she only refuses to see them. Everyone has seen the ugliness now; everyone knows.
Willow's fear has come true. She's been exposed. That costume she's worn for all these years has been stripped away. The real girl, the one whose name she's never known, has come forth to rage. And now that the others know ... there shall be punishment.
Except maybe the punishment she's always feared will not materialize. I don't think the Scoobies are going to easily forgive Willow, or pretend like her horrible transformation never happened ... but I don't think they'll condemn her. I think they will try to help her heal herself. And I think that Giles will be of especial importance. As a mentor to all the Scoobs, he's somewhat responsible for their welfare. But he's been blind to Willow's problems, believing her outward facade. He hasn't seen the inner resentment. He hasn't wanted to see it. Yet in the end he must. He returns to Sunnydale, and he returns with his glasses removed, blind no longer.
Now the ugliness must be dealt with, fully confronted and incorporated into the larger person. It'll be a difficult process, and one that can never really end. Every time Willow envokes magick, she'll be reminded of her transgressions ... and she'll be reminded of the need to use her power responsibly. It's not the magick itself that is bad ... it's how one uses or abuses the magick. Power can be a wonderful thing, if it's handled wisely. And only a whole person can handle it wisely.
I think that Giles and the Devon Coven will help Willow to find her balance. They will help her bring herself together, enable her to find a control of her magick (herself) where there was none. This is what I believe will happen in England ... and must continue to happen for as long as Willow lives. Trying to find balance, with magick symbolizing the inner forces that must be reconciled ...
and cannot be denied.
Glad to add my $.02 to the great subthread featuring leslie and ZachsMind! Wonderful posts, you guys!
[> [> [> [> What Giles Could See / Backing Willow's Play... -- ZachsMind, 17:05:31 06/25/02 Tue
Great approach to Willow! I do reluctantly disagree with one point but I enjoyed the read.
I personally believe that of all the Scoobies, Giles was almost the least blind to Willow's dark path, second only to Tara. Back in the episode "Restless" the personification of Tara in Willow's mind said, "they will find out you know. About you." That wasn't a reference to her homosexuality because everyone already knew. It wasn't a reference to how WiccaWillow is really CrayonBreakyWillow in disguise, because as Buffy illustrated later in the same dream, everyone already knew. The personification of Tara in Willow's dream already knew Willow's potential. That she had the potential to call upon gods & goddesses and invoke powers that would threaten to topple everything. The poem that Willow was painting on Tara's back in that scene echoes this. It's a greek poem written by Sappho called "Deathless Aphrodite on your lavish throne" and is a subtle obscure reference to the inevitable direction of the relationship between Tara & Willow.
Yes. I believe Joss Whedon knew he was eventually going to kill off Tara two years before he did. In Willow's dream, even she and Tara knew it, but hid it from themselves in the form of a greek poem. Tara's never been blind to the potential demon in Willow. How ironic that in "Family" Tara feared Willow would discover the potential demon in Tara, only to discover there was never any demon there.
Giles has known about the potential darkness in Willow much longer however, but not quite as deeply as Tara. He cautioned and warned Willow about her frivolous exploration of dark magic since as far back as the third season of the series. From "Faith Hope and Trick" Giles said, "These forces are not something that one plays around with, Willow. What have you been conjuring?"
The problem with Giles is not in his sight, but in his ability to react to what he sees. He is a father figure of sorts. On at least two occasions I can recall he's even been referred to (or referred to himself) as the patriarch of the gang. In the fourth season Thanksgiving episode Buffy called him the patriarch of the group which was her excuse for having Thanksgiving dinner at his place. In the fifth season episode where Buffy moved out of the college dorm to be with her mother more, Giles referred to himself as the patriarch to excuse himself from working too hard moving her stuff. He saw himself more in a supervisory role, pointing and scowling here and there. Though he was joking, in a sense this is his place with the Scoobies overall.
He may be their father figure, but he has no actual power beyond pointing and scowling. He admonished Willow in an early sixth season episode for her blatant disregard to the laws of nature when bringing Buffy back from the dead. However, Willow's response to his displeasure was to threaten him, in a way that gave us a glimpse of the dark Willow she was to become. On many occasions even Xander has reacted to Giles' words harshly. "You're not the boss of me," and "You're not my watcher" are phrases which have passed his lips on occasion. Perhaps the real reason Giles wants to leave is because the Scoobies appreciate his intellect and wisdom, but have effectively made him a powerless father figure, like a queen mother who can voice displeasure but can't actually do anything about it. Giles is for all intents and purposes impotent, as unable to affect punishment as Spike is unable to inflict pain. In the fourth season episode "A New Man" Professor Walsh stuck a tender nerve when she questioned Giles' effectiveness as the patriarch:
Walsh: ...[Buffy's] bright. All she's really been lacking is encouragement in the academic sect.
Giles: Oh, uh, I think it's best if-if we let a young person find their own strengths. If you lead a child by the hand then they'll never find their own footing.
Walsh: And if it's true about hiking, ergo, it must be true about life.
Giles: That's not, uh... I'm just saying Buffy is, uh, well she's not the typical student. Once you get to know her, she's a very unique girl. I hope you're not going to push her.
Walsh: I think I do know her. And I have found her to be a unique woman.
Giles: "Woman." Of course. How wrong of me to choose my own words.
Walsh: She's very self-reliant, very independent--
Giles: Exactly!
Walsh: --which is not always a good thing. I think it can be unhealthy to take on adult roles too early. What I suspect I'm seeing is a reaction to the absence of a
male role model.
Giles: Absence?
Walsh: Buffy clearly lacks a strong father figure.
Giles is struck dumb by this, and we later learn that this conversation causes Giles to decide he just simply hates Professor Walsh, but he was unable to dismiss her intuitive assessment of Buffy's relationship with him. In fact this scene can be viewed as the initial seed in Giles' brain, that causes him to begin the weening process, effectively removing him from their lives as that parental figure. He doesn't believe he's done Buffy or the others justice.
But he saw Willow's potential for evil long before anyone else did or could. He simply could do nothing to prevent it. Upon his return in the six season finale when he explains to Buffy in exposition how he's been written back into the story, he pointed out what the coven in Devonshire told him, and when he learned there was a powerful force in Sunnydale filled with vengeance and grief, he hoped it wouldn't be Willow but hers was the first face that came to mind. Then he learned of Tara's death and knew it could be no one but Willow. He's feared this day, but knew it was coming and did not shirk from it. Rather he arrived immediately with the coven's powers within him, so he could finally exact the punishment that perhaps he should have done long before now.
What Giles should have done years before was take Willow under his wing. He did this to some extent but rather than focus on teaching her how to use the proper magic in the proper way, he opted instead to caution her impotently with words, and attempt to hide certain books from Willow in his office. Books that she eventually found access to anyway, simply without his blessing. He attempted some surruptitious manipulation but had no ability to influence her directly. First, because his true responsibility was to his Slayer and not the cattle that followed her around. Secondly, because he knew his influence would not be welcomed by Willow, who wanted to go her own way. This goes back to Giles' belief that "If you lead a child by the hand then they'll never find their own footing." Perhaps Professor Walsh was right after all. What works in hiking doesn't work in life. Sometimes a father figure needs to lead those under his care by the hand, or pull the yoke so to speak. Had Giles been able to be more strict and forceful with Willow, she may never have turned dark. Again though, Giles was powerless to do more than he had done. He's not her real father.
He should be though. In fact he could be. He's so much like Willow it's frightening. Compare the story of young Ripper to what Willow's going through now. We have learned that Giles' past is a vague reflection of the road Willow walks. Giles used to be like her. Studious but rebellious. A foolish young person who toyed with dark magic because it was cool and alluring, but accidently releasing a demon (Eyeghon) upon himself and friends, which led to the loss of a friend's life. Willow's path is very similar. Though Warren killed Tara, her loss led Willow on a rampage of dark magic. Willow's also been courted by Anya's ex-demon employer. Willow has practically turned herself into a demon. So she and Giles have much more in common than it appears to be on the surface.
We've been led to believe that ASH & AH are to be shooting second unit footage in England this summer, which means the first episode or two of season seven may involve Giles & Willow working together in some way in England, probably to attempt to release the final remnants of evil magic from her. How is unknown, but my prediction is that it will be a difficult procedure but will lead Willow to become relatively what she was before. Just that she'll have this dark blemish in her past that will taint her and affect her future, but hopefully she will have matured and grown from it.
Or perhaps the opposite will happen. We know that some time in Giles' past he stopped being the rebellious Ripper and became more like the studious but stiff man we see, with occasional glimpses of this dangerous Ripper personality. Perhaps Willow will become a more dark and rebellious young adult, with only occasional glimpses of the playful and distracted youth that we've known since season one. It depends much on both the writers and AH herself - how will she portray Willow now that she's felt the demon within? Will she embrace it like young Ripper, or try to hide it like the elder Giles?
Some characters will have difficulty forgiving Willow. Dawn & Anya particularly. Others will welcome her with open arms because though she said and did mean things (which many fans believe she should suffer greatly for) she's still their Willow, and they'd love her no matter what. Whatever she decides, they hope to back her play. I recall this exchange between Buffy, Oz & Willow in the fourth season episode "Fear Itself."
Willow: I've got the basics down - levitation, charms, glamours. I just feel like I've plateaued wicca-wise.
Buffy: What's the next level?
Willow: Transmutation, conjuring, bringing forth something from nothing. Gets pretty close to the primal forces. A little scary.
Buffy: Well, no one's pushing. You know, if it's too much don't do it.
Willow: Don't do it? What kind of encouragement is *that*?
Buffy: This is an 'encouragement' talk? I thought it was 'share my pain'.
Willow: I don't know. Then again, what is college for if not experimenting? You know, maybe I can handle it. I'll know when I've reached my limit.
Oz comes up to them: Wine coolers?
Buffy: Magic.
Oz: Ooh, you didn't encourage her, did you?
Willow: Where is supportive boyfriend guy?
Oz: He's picking up your dry cleaning, but he told me to tell you that he's afraid you're gonna get hurt.
Willow: Okay, Brutus. (Oz just looks at her) Brutus - Caesar? Betrayal - trusted friend? (Makes stabbing motions with her banana) Back stabby?
Oz: Oh, I'm with you on the reference, but - I won't lie about the fact that I worry? I know what it's like to have power you can't control. I mean, every time I start to wolf out, I touch something deep dark. It's not fun. But just know that what ever you decide, I back your play.
Buffy: See? Concerned boy, sweet boy.
Willow: I kinda like him - worrying anyway.
That's unconditional love. Be concerned, but regardless of the decision a true friend will love you no matter what. Even if and especially after you learn you've screwed up. Oz's sentiments are echoed in Xander's "yellow crayon" speech. If the world's going to end, at the hands of his best friend, and there's nothing he can do about it, where else does Xander want to be at the end of the world but standing next to his best friend? Where's he stood so many times before when they faced the end of the world together? To Xander, it made perfect sense. He loves Willow on levels his brain can't fathom. Not in a sexual or romantic kinda way, at least not anymore, but in a way that mere words can't properly express, but actions do. They're not gonna forgive Willow because she deserves it. She doesn't. They're gonna forgive Willow because she's Willow. Some fans won't appreciate that. I will. In fact I'm looking forward to it. =)
[besides Warren & Rack were both jerks and deserve what they got. *smirk*]
[> [> [> [> [> Wow, impressive reply! Glad I provoked it. And a fine distinction ... -- Exegy, 08:24:25 06/26/02 Wed
Isn't there a difference between knowing someone's potential for evil and actually seeing this potential actualized? This is what I mean by Giles' blindness. He knows about Willow's latent darkness, but he never actually sees it manifesting. Not in sweet, innocent Willow. He willfully blinds himself to the possibility he knows exists. Hey, it happens. My parents refused to see the signs of anorexia until they were so painfully obvious that everyone knew. Sometimes it's the ones who are closest to you who cannot "see" you at all.
Giles' closeness to Willow actually makes it more difficult to treat her situation. He cannot view it objectively and rationally. So in Flooded, he remarks that of all the Scoobies, he trusts her most to respect magick. Now, any objective viewer can see that this trust is unfounded, but Giles is just too tangled in the affairs of his charges ... he simply cannot separate himself from them far enough to see them. He cannot bring his experience or "frontal lobe" (the seat of rational judgment) into play.
I'm reminded of Giles' segment in Restless. He looks upon the First Slayer in Buffy, and he knows her. But he cannot sort through the twisted wires of his brain. How could the First Slayer be in Buffy? He only realizes the answer when he follows his convoluted thoughts into the deep recesses of his mind ... and he finds the watch, the symbol of his station. Watchers have controlled their Slayers for so long ... this is how the relationship's always been. But the First Slayer ... she never had a Watcher. She was something else, something raw and primal. Giles may try to govern her with his intellect, but that is not the answer. You can't reason with the primal source of the Slayer; you can't reason with a Willow gone off the deep end. But you can at least see them for what they truly are ... where you've kept the awareness in the back of your mind, hoping you'll never need to see.
I think that Tara's also been somewhat blinded to Willow, even though she knows and fears the possibility of her lover abusing magick. The implication is that Tara has had prior experience with magick abuse, perhaps with her mother. She knows the signs ... but she doesn't want to see them. She loves Willow so much, and her love blinds her to what should be obvious. This is what the spell of OMWF signifies. It's more than just Willow taking advantage of Tara; it's also Tara, however briefly, allowing herself to be used. Because she's blinded herself to the possibility of Willow going this route. Yes, Will may abuse magick, but she'd never abuse Tara.
When the spell breaks, Tara sees what she should have seen all along ... and what Willow still cannot see about herself. "Oh Willow, don't you see / there'll be nothing left of me." This is what Tara has gotten into ... what she only truly realizes with the benefit of hindsight. She gives her lover one more chance, and when Willow still can't see, she leaves, knowing that this is the only way she can save herself and perhaps the relationship. She separates herself, gaining that needed distance to view the situation somewhat objectively. She gains a lot more confidence and maturity as a result. But she cannot be completely cut off from Willow; the "spell" of their love remains, binding them. So Tara relents and returns, undoubtedly sooner than she should have ... and the dress of OMWF marks their reunion. Trust needs to be rebuilt ... after much kissing. Emotion governs reason. This approach still ignores the main issues, with only the symptoms of magick "addiction" being addressed.
Giles and Tara may know, but do they really see? I don't think so ... otherwise they would never have let the situation get out of control in the first place. It's more than just not being able to do anything ... it's not truly recognizing the need to do anything, until it is nearly too late. Because you haven't really seen the invisible girl screaming until she makes herself painfully evident. You can't see until she manifests. It's as simple as that ... and why Willow had to go off the deep end if her root problems were ever to be really addressed.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Wow, impressive reply! Glad I provoked it. And a fine distinction ... -- leslie, 09:26:52 06/26/02 Wed
I haven't had enough caffeine yet to tell whether I am adding something or merely restating what has already been said, in different words....
The parallels between Giles/Ripper and Good/EvilWillow are clear. However, I don't know how much we, the audience, really understand about how Giles felt about being Ripper--he certainly regrets the results of his actions now, he sees that part of his past as necessarily rebellious and I think understands that his past experiences may be part of what makes him the right Watcher for Buffy, an equally idiosyncratic Slayer. But he at least *claims* that his youthful dabbling in magic was innocent, that he and his friends didn't realize the danger of what they were doing until it was too late and someone was dead, and that all they were in it for was the "high."
What Giles seems blind to is that Willow may actually like experiencing the dark power, knowing its darkness. He keeps telling her that what she is doing is dangerous and she doesn't know what she's getting into; she keeps insisting that she does know what she's getting into and she can handle it. I think we have to actually take her at her word there. She does know--she is not innocently playing with power she doesn't understand, she's seeking to control a power within herself that she may not consciously acknowledge but that she secretly knows she really, really wants. I think that this is where Giles goes astray in his interpretation of Willow's actions--he thinks that if she knew that she could (in)advertantly end the world, she would stop at once, but in fact, she is the kind of person who, in despair, does indeed want deliberately to end the world, and even when not in despair gains a feeling of security in knowing that she has that kind of power.
My question is, does Giles not see this in Willow because it is *not* in himself--i.e., he sees her as completely like he was as a youth, but is wrong--or does he miss it because it is a part of himself that he *still* cannot accept--i.e., he *was* dabbling in magic for power, was scared off it by the Eyeghon incident, and now cannot bring himself to admit that he was radically culpable in those deaths; that he is, in fact, much closer to Ethan--and Evil Willow--than he can bring himself to acknowledge?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think Giles' mistakes came from how he sees Willow... -- cjl, 09:49:54 06/26/02 Wed
In Doppelgangland, when the gang thought Willow had been turned, there was general agreement among Buffy, Willow, and Xander that Willow was "the best of us." Giles saw Willow's courage, her determination, her spirit, and he couldn't believe there was something like Ripper underneath the facade. He knew what he was at 16--the dark rage, the hatred of his own destiny as a Watcher--and when he looked at Willow, he just knew she wasn't the same type of person. She was an innocent child, an infant playing with grown up weapons, an amateur--and once she was consciously aware of the danger, she'd wise up.
Of course, he was wrong.
I don't think Giles has any illusions about his Ripper days. He's integrated the dark aspects of his youth into his adult personality, and he can be utterly ruthless when the occasion calls for it (killing Ben and torturing Glory's minion). But he doesn't especially like to be reminded of them, either. He was nothing short of brutal when dealing with Ethan in "Halloween," and when Eyghon resurfaced in Sunnydale, Giles completely fell apart emotionally. Part of him knows how far he fell down the rabbit hole, and he gets vertigo whenever somebody forces him to look down...
[> [> The Robot and External Locus of Control -- Exegy, 12:13:54 06/25/02 Tue
First, thank you for the fantastic follow-up, 'kat. I love the comparison of Spike and Riley, comments on the Initiative, and allusion to The Wizard of Oz. And you provide a nice, tight summary of my posts on AYW. I'll just expand a little bit on the robot metaphor and how it relates to the issue of control.
It seems to me that the robot operates according to an external locus of control. This means that the automaton is governed from without rather than from within. Its instructions have been imposed upon it. So David has no choice in loving his mother; he has been directed to do so for as long as he exists. Similarly, Riley has a hard time breaking from Professor Walsh, his mother. The psychological conditioning and drug-programming she has fed him ... these methods have stripped him of his personal initiative, leaving only The Initiative to provide him with directives. Riley's not a person here ... he's a perfect soldier, a cog in the greater machine.
But he becomes an anarchist. He breaks from the image of the mother and her outside governance; he follows his internalized love of Buffy, that which has kept him intact while his former ideals were painfully stripped away. So he replaces one set of ideals with another of his own accord, and he briefly triumphs. He emerges from external control; he removes the chip that has obscured his own heart, the chip that has been dominating him for so long. His love shines forth in this apparently impossible act, proving that internal drive is more powerful than any outer directives.
Just as Buffy proves that the source of her power is so much greater than any nuclear center. She runs on primal energy, forces that come from within. This is something utterly incomprehensible to Adam. After all, his power source is right here, visible and tangible. Something that was given to him from without, the "heart" that links him to the family Walsh has created. This "heart" can be seized and destroyed, for true initiative comes from within ... and cannot be pulled out.
Unless you turn away from it, as Riley does. For he is still trapped by his former holding pattern. He can never quite escape the robotic conditioning he has been subjected to ... because he doesn't really want to escape. He still wants to be that "perfect" man ... he's just moved from the mother to the lover. But Buffy cannot be satisfied by this limited ideal; Riley's solid and dependable, the normal boyfriend she feels she should want ... but doesn't. Because he's still so much of the robot, placing the control outside of himself. He hasn't really come into her world; he can't accept the possibility of disorder, for then the external chaos should dominate him internally. He needs that perfect world, that orderly (and limited) existence that can provide comfort. He tries to make it for himself. Riley's pursuit of the vamp in FFL is all about his attempt to grasp a control that is not there for him. He's trying to be the "perfect" man for Buffy, so that he can feel needed ... but he's not giving her what she needs. He doesn't know how. And so he leaves, seeking that fulfillment he can't find with Buffy in the Initiative. He returns to the world where he was needed. He becomes just another cog yet again, a part of the machine more than a human. And he finds the lover he wants, the "perfect" missionary who shares his limited ideals. He progresses from Walsh to Buffy ... and then he regresses to Stepford Sam. He's now got that Mission he's always desired, that sense of purpose he needs ... provided for him from without. What a dependable framework. No need for painful autonomy.
Buffy sees this as an ideal throughout much of season six. She places herself in the role of the robot. She buries her emotions and just drifts, as blank as any empty machinery. She's not really running herself; she's letting outside forces determine her course. It's the external locus of control all over again. Buffy doesn't feel in control of herself, and so she's weakened and made incapable by being unable to tap her true power. She has no initiative, and she doesn't even have the dependable framework that Riley has. She's stuck in the trap her mind has set for her, and she doesn't fully emerge until the end of the season.
She accepts the pain and the joy, and so she opens herself to the world. She casts off her self-made limitations, and she shows herself.
Okay, I'm done for now. Thanks for reading!
[> [> Self-Mechanization in the Buffyverse: Surrendering Your Freedom of Choice -- cjl, 12:14:34 06/25/02 Tue
Another great essay, 'kat.
Let's face it, Joss had it nailed down in The Gift: "The hardest thing in this world is to live in it." Even the richest man, sheltered from the usual harshness of life of the "lower" classes, must eventually make painful decisions about his fate. (The history of the Rockerfellers and the Kennedys are filled with the agony of the privileged.) No wonder people--and not just in the Buffyverse--are tempted to surrender their freedom of choice for peace of mind. Life is so much more comfortable when you turn control of your life to someone else.
Riley and Sam have seen the complex world around them, know about the grey areas on both sides of the human/demon conflict and have happily chosen to lay their heads on the four-square cots of the U.S. Military. Riley was betrayed in heartless fashion by Prof. Walsh and her associates, but he couldn't handle the implications of that betrayal, and he reflexively reverted to his training. Follow the chain of command, eliminate the target, and fly out to the next mission. (Sam is much the same way, although I don't quite agree in your generalization of missionaries. I've known a few in my time, and they're well aware of the uncertain foundation of the missionary enterprise, and try to avoid the traps of teaching Western "cultural superiority.")
I can't lump Kendra in with Riley and Sam, because she was far too young to realize what she was surrendering to the Watchers. Trained from childhood, fitted with blinders by her adult tutors, she never had the opportunity to question the moral absolutism of her Slayerhood. If she'd somehow gotten past Drusilla, would the influence of the Scoobies and the presence of Angel in Season 3 have dissuaded her from the Watcher party line? Or would she have succeeded where Faith failed, and teamed up with Xander to eliminate Angel once and for all? (Ooh. Fanfic alert.)
As for the Buffybot, I've always seen her as an inside joke for Joss and ME. It's Buffy, complete with quips and playful sexuality, but without the angst and the party-pooping moral code. She's personable and friendly, she helps take care of Dawn, she kicks vampire butt and trains with Giles, all with that big, beautiful SoCal smile on her face. (Aw. SMG has such a beautiful smile. Why don't we see it more often?) But when Giles wants to discuss the relationship between training and the soul, Anya pointedly reminds him that he's talking to a mechanical being. The real Buffy may be a contrary pain-in-the-butt sometimes, but it's that very quality that allows her to explore new ideas, new ways of thinking.
[On the other hand, maybe Giles gave up on the Buffbot a little too easily. If the Aprilbot could question her programming, why not another of Warren's creations? Sometimes all a person--or robot needs is a little encouragement.]
This thread is chillingly relevant to our times--but it's probably always relevant. How much of our freedom of choice do we want to give up to our institutions? It is a frightening world out there, but are we any safer when we bury our heads in the sand? Sometimes, it just means you can't see when the next big hit is comin'....
[> [> [> Re: Self-Mechanization in the Buffyverse: Surrendering Your Freedom of Choice -- Sulis, 12:48:16 06/25/02 Tue
Loving this thread, great food for thought from everyone!
Was Sam a missionary? I haven't rewatched AYW but I thought she was in the Peace Corps. If I'm right, then Exegy's comments about missionaries become even more relevant. After all the Peace Corps is a government institution that, while it does help people, also has the implicit goal of teaching the superiority of Western Culture.
[> [> Lovely, shadowkat...as ever! -- aliera, 15:33:26 06/25/02 Tue
[> [> Indeed. Wow. Wonderful Post. -- Jane's Addiction, 21:50:26 06/25/02 Tue
Were I not too brain fried from multiple meetings to form a coherent thought (Does "Fire bad. Tree pretty." count?), I would love to respond to this.
Far too much brilliance on this darned board;)
[> [> Check. One mindless automaton coming up. -- Off-kilter -the perfect Sailor, 05:46:33 06/26/02 Wed
Who gets seasick if whitecaps appear! 'kat, wonderful post, and not just because you mentioned me! ;-)
Can't think coherently right now, so I'll sleep on it and try again later.
[> [> Doing the robot dance! -- ponygirl, 07:04:29 06/26/02 Wed
Really who needs new episodes to discuss when there are great essays such as these? And of course many thanks for the quotage 'kat! Definitely a big happy to brighten my workday. I really enjoyed your look at robot metaphors on the show especially the final couple paragraphs. I never considered what would have happened if Willow had found Warren on the bus instead of the 'bot. She was obviously quite determined to kill him, but she brought along Buffy and Xander. As witnesses? Or because at that point she actually wanted to be talked down?
And your final paragraph leads into an even larger theme on BtVS, that of order vs. chaos! Wishing you many more essays shadowkat!
[> Great essay and a question -- Kerri, 11:41:16 06/25/02 Tue
Excellent post again, shadowkat. Could you do me a favor and post the address of your site, I'd like to go and read some of your other essays. Thanks a lot.
[> [> See the Links at the top of the board or... -- shadowkat, 12:40:21 06/25/02 Tue
MAsq has a link to my site in Meet The Posters section
of Links. You get there by hitting Links at top of board.
my page is I think: www.geocities.com/shadowkatbtvs
Robot Metaphors Part I and II is in the archives
right now and won't be on my site for a little while.
I hope to send it to my website designer sometime
this week.
Thanks for the support! ; -)
[> Thanks guys - will respond later...leaving work now! -- shadowkat, 13:10:18 06/25/02 Tue
Great posts from leslie, ZachsMind, cjl, Sulis, Exegy...
keep the thread alive and I'll respond when I read and get
home or tomorrow at latest!
Very happy with responses so far...doing snoopy dance.
(yep got ambitious - tried to condense a 40 page essay
into ten pages, LOL!)
[> Robots: What do we really want? -- LeeAnn, 14:03:55 06/25/02 Tue
What do we really want?
If we could create a creature, robot or organic, what would we make?
I don't think it would be a Frankenstein's monster, not on purpose anyway. The monster wasn't supposed to be a robot. He was more in the nature of an experiment that went wrong. Adam was supposed to be a robot, a robot in the sense that Maggie Walsh expected to control him, not the other way around, but like Frankenstein's monster, he too was an experiment. A work in progress.
The Aprilbot was designed to be a pretend person. She was made to love Warren. To be his perfect girlfriend. To resist the approaches of other men, even violently. To never cry because Warren felt crying was emotional blackmail. To love, admire and obey him. To have sex with him.
The Buffybot was much the same and made for the same reason, to be the perfect surrogate girlfriend but, given her ersatz Slayer nature, she was useful in fighting Glory, vampires and demons. But even before Glory broke her the first time, the Buffybot was already beginning to bore and embarrass Spike. She wasn't Buffy and he seemed to be finding it harder and harder to pretend that she was. The bot was predictable and Buffy wasn't.
I haven't see AI but from the descriptions it seems that David was really designed to be an emotional crutch for Monica. Like April and the Buffybot, he was made to love. That was his primary function.
What are real robots really for? At this point they are divided into two groups. Tools and toys. By far the larger groups is tools. Millions of robots work in manufacturing, most of them repeating the same actions over and over and over. Robotic toys are a much smaller group. Toys that interact with people are hard to design so, for the present, their behavior and interactions are pretty simple and quickly boring.
When we are able to design robots to our specifications what will we want? First let's look at robots in fiction. Robby the Robot. The perfect slave. Obedient, cheerful, strong, efficient. Then we have David of AI and his unconditional love. I think that once we can have exactly what we want, we will want a combination of those two traits. I think that because we already have designed a creature that fulfills those specifications, the four-legged fuzzies that sleep at our feet. Unlike other domesticated animals that we have had less time to shape, dogs have been with us for 40,000 years. Maybe much longer. During that time we have modified them to fit our desires and needs. We have done that by the simple expedient of killing or discarding individuals that did not suit us and by allowing those that did to breed. What have we wrought? Dogs have been used as guards, hunting companions, defenders, pack animals, draft animals, toys, friends, baby sitters, surrogate children and even food. They are our slaves. Willing slaves who often give us unconditional love no matter how we treat them. That is how they have been designed. They have no choice about it. They love us whether they will or no. That is our strongest chain on them. That is what we will want in a multipurpose robot because that is what we have engineered into dogs. And, perhaps not coincidentally, that is what Spike offers Buffy. He is Buffy's willing slave who gives her unconditional love whether he will or no. His nature or his chip? Or both. Maybe Maggie Welch designed better than we know. Maybe Maggie engineered him so he would become the perfect robot but he escaped before the transformation was complete.
Spike has been Buffy's defender, guard, hunting companion, babysitter, toy, and friend. He loves her unconditionally. He is willing to die to protect her life or even just to protect her from pain. She beats him and still he comes back. He has been her dog. And, in many ways, a perfect boyfriend. Except for the evil part I think that if Buffy were to design her perfect BF it would pretty much be Spike. Someone who would help her with the slaying but still defer to her, someone who would care for and protect Dawn, someone who would give her great sex, make no demands (or none that can't be ignored) and give her unconditional love. But once she had that from Spike, did Buffy, like Warren, start to get bored? Was it really the evil thing that drove Buffy away from Spike or the fact that his adoration was getting boring. He'd stopped challenging her and was reduced to being the kicked dog who always returns/the sexbot who can always get it up. Maybe it was only the fact that Spike still had some of the evil in him that kept him from becoming as boring as April and the Buffybot. April was the perfect Girlfriend for Warren. He could treat her the way Buffy treated Spike and she still loved him. Just as Spike, with the chip in his head and his doglike devotion, still loved Buffy.
[> [> Re: Robots: What do we really want? -- leslie, 14:39:09 06/25/02 Tue
I know, I know, I know--Spike is somehow supposed to be doglike. I just don't see it. I have always seen him as feline, and I just can't break the habit. (Do dogs try to lure you "into the dark"? I think not. Do cats? Do you have to even ask???)
But whether we find Spike feline or canine, I don't think that Buffy's problem with him is that she finds him boring, but that she finds him emotionally uncomfortable. Simply by existing, he forces her to face emotions and issues that she really wishes would just go away. If she were bored, she wouldn't sound so hysterical when she denies feeling anything for him, she wouldn't break down at confessing her sexual relationship with him to Tara, she just would shut him off, politely. Like whatsisname, Xander's coworker, in Older and Far Away.
[> [> [> Re: Robots: What do we really want? -- LeeAnn, 14:50:00 06/25/02 Tue
she just would shut him off, politely.
She did cut him down politely once she broke up with him. In As You Were and Normal Again and Seeing Red.
But I see your point.
I was trying to make the point that what we will probably want in a robot, a willing slave with unconditional love, is what Buffy was getting with Spike. But we also get that with dogs.
[> [> [> [> Underdog -- Arethusa, 20:23:30 06/25/02 Tue
Speed of lightning/ roar of thunder/fighting all who/rob or plunder/ Underdog! (Sorry-couldn't resist.)
Season 6 Buffy was a depressed Buffy, a sad and joyless Buffy, an incomplete Buffy. Normally, Buffy never wanted dog-like devotion. Did she treat Angel, Parker, or Riley like a "willing slave with unconditional love"? Did she ever demand obedience or unconditional love from anyone? Both Buffy and Spike behaved badly. Both were at fault. When Spike sang to Buffy "You know, you got a willing slave," she rolled her eyes and walked away. When Buffy let herself realize that she was abusing Spike's unconditional love, she broke up with him. Spike is dead. Let him Rest in Peace.
(ducking and covering now)
[> [> [> Have to agree with Leslie here -- shadowkat, 05:41:19 06/26/02 Wed
While I was doing the Robot Metaphors, particularly
the Buffbot/Aprilbot comparison in Parts I & II see
archives, it was tempting to mention Buffy using Spike
as a robot. And in a way she does - he's not real to her.
He's that bad boy, frigging handsome, sex machine that turns us on. And part of the reason why? He's so dangerous
and when you feel numb and are by nature a bit of an adrenaline junkie - that's a real turn on. A robot wouldn't have been. That said she does at times treat him as the
"willing slave" but part of that is due to Spike himself.
Their relationship is so complex that you can literally
and successfully argue it from three perspectives: Buffy
bad, Spike bad, both bad. The most valid is probably both.
I also don't see him so much as a dog - but as a cat,
feline. Cat's think you're the pet, that they are in control, except well you can decide whether or not to let them out. They are cunning and manipulative. Dogs...well
they seem a bit different in that respect. ;-)
[> Re: Robot Metaphors: Perfect Solider Parts I & II (spoilers to grave) -- Drizzt, 20:51:40 06/25/02 Tue
I loved your post:) I will read part 3 & 4, but first...
"Proffesor Walshes motivation is simple; she just wants to make the world a better place, and become God"
?!
LOL;)
Buffy-related fandom article on Pop Politics -- dream of the consortium, 10:32:11 06/25/02 Tue
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/2002-06-24-fandom.shtml
Don't know how to paste a link, but that's the address.
[> For the cutnpaste challenged. A public service -- ZachsMind, 10:53:03 06/25/02 Tue
Here's a clickable version of the same link. Just to be helpful. =)
I enjoy fanfiction to a point, when the intent is to remain sincere to the source material, but each fan has their own limits and levels of appreciation. The legalities are basically a matter of control. Lucasfilm is an ideal example. They want to encourage fandom, so long as fandom remains consumer oriented. There is also more leeway with Lucasfilm than most other corporations for the creative side, but ultimately the creators want to retain functional control of their own work. This is understandable, but also restrictive. There may simply be no straight answer. Good article overall.
[> [> boo consumerism. And on a lighter note... -- yuri, 01:25:09 06/26/02 Wed
That buffy present exchange sounded extremely fun. I'll supply the burned copies of OMWF!! (I even made pretty little covers for my friends out of screen captures. We all have our weaknesses... pish tosh, what am I calling weakness?!@?! The only thing I really haven't been able to get in to is fanfic- though I totally respect it - and buffy novels. But oh well.)
[> Now I pity the people... -- LeeAnn, 14:22:12 06/25/02 Tue
Now I pity the people who just watch a show and that's it.
I pity the people who just discuss a show with one or two friends.
I pity the people who don't come online and read about it further.
I pity the people who don't start writing about it.
I pity the people who don't start reading fan fiction. Or even writing fan fiction.
I pity the people who aren't BtVS fans.
They are missing the fun.
[> Article with all clickable links inside.......I like the practice..;) -- Rufus, 14:42:14 06/25/02 Tue
www.poppolitics.com
Consumers and Creators
A pop cult fan ponders where she crossed the line
by Alana Kumbier
Recently I've been wondering: When exactly did I become a fangurl?
Was it at the Multiple Alternative Realities Convention last month, when my friends and I found ourselves whispering answers to Buffy/Angel Jeopardy questions during a game session, or later that evening, when I was dressed up as Darth!Willow, dancing with a group of vampires for the evening, to a set dj'd by Dr. Demento?
Or was it last fall, when I obsessed about what to wear to see filmmaker Jim Jarmusch speak at our local contemporary arts center? Or last summer, when my drag king friends and I danced onstage at a club in New Orleans, lip-synching and busting boyband-style moves during a homoerotic performance of 'NSync's "Bye Bye Bye"?
I don't know when it happened exactly, just that it did, and now I've found myself, at 26, involved in more fandoms than I care to count.
In a recent New York Times article about potential copyright violation by Star Wars fans who digitally revise George Lucas' films, Jim Ward, Lucasfilm's vice president for marketing, offered his company's take on fandom: "We've been very clear all along on where we draw the line," he said. "We love our fans. We want them to have fun. But if in fact somebody is using our characters to create a story unto itself, that's not in the spirit of what we think fandom is about. Fandom is about celebrating the story the way it is."
Ward was referring to fan edits of Star Wars circulating online, and about which of these the company deems appropriate and which violate Lucasfilm's copyright. The sort of fan behavior Ward supports is the fandom of appreciation and consumption. It's a fandom that's pleasurable for many, one that's accessible if you can afford a movie ticket or CD or a cable hookup.
While this definition makes sense for Lucasfilm -- or for just about any large corporate production unit interested in selling its film, featured celebrity, band or television show and then protecting its interest by controlling use and distribution of the product -- it's a limiting interpretation for most of the popcult-obsessed fans I know.
The definition of fandom is a tricky one. If you regularly watch a particular TV show each week, does that make you a fan? Or is it more than that (taping the show, discussing it with others, re-viewing it, quoting dialogue, taking screencap photos to post on your Web site, which will then be the basis for others' bad fan art?) Is it standing in line for a ridiculous length of time to see a film's opening, or working with digital technology to create a version of the same film other fans may enjoy more?
It's my belief that fandom exists along a broad spectrum -- including, but not limited to, fans whose idea of participation is sitting back and enjoying a show's broadcast, to those who read spoilers and speculate a series' plots in online forums weeks in advance, or to those who put their creative energies to work writing fan fiction. These writings, which are based on a show/band/movie/etc. and introduce alternate storylines and/or character relations, are then posted online (or, if you're old-school, distributed via fanzines).
While I don't want to create a hierarchy of fan behavior by suggesting that it's better to be one sort of fan than another, I do believe that those on the further-out end of the fan spectrum are the most interesting, because while they're actively consuming popcult product, they're also creating it. Instead of solely behaving in the appropriate, good-Lucasfilm-fan-way (consuming, collecting, appreciating), these fans are putting their consumption to work, making their preferred cultural product meaningful in different contexts and mediums.
If being a bad, obsessive fan means learning how to use various technologies in new ways for your own ends, such as digitally editing videos and manipulating images in Photoshop, creating and maintaining fan Web sites, building virtual communities around shared interests, or exerting creative agency in any number of other ways, then there are millions of "bad fans," operating online and off -- and they're all the more informed and engaged because of it.
The cast of Buffy the Vampire Slayer/UPN
At present, I'm somewhere in the middle of the fandom-spectrum, operating as a purely appreciative consumer in some cases, and demonstrating a more rabid obsession in others. There are TV shows I sit and watch each week like a normal person (watching Bachelorettes in Alaska counts as research for a cultural critic!) … but then there's also Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Three years ago, I started watching the show, alone in my apartment, and didn't tell friends about my viewing. I was a cultural studies grad student curious about the representation of the show's young lesbian couple, Willow and Tara. I didn't realize I was a BTVS addict until the next fall, when I found myself living in New Orleans without cable TV, begging a Tulane University faculty member who I'd heard was doing scholarly work on the show to lend me her tapes of the episodes I'd missed during the first few weeks of the new season.
Then came the cable subscription I couldn't really afford on my salary. And then, a few months later, I was at Tower Records, scooping out the BTVS official fan magazine and the BTVS lunchboxes and memorabilia. Shortly thereafter, I got together with a college friend whose devotion to BTVS fandom inspired and amazed me: She was co-writing and co-presenting her scholarly work about BTVS's biggest online fan forum, The Bronze (here's the original forum, started during the WB days, and the new UPN forum). She was writing her own fanfic. She was a co-editor at a hip, snarky, girlie pop culture site. She and her cohort introduced me to the world of spoilers and online discussion about the show. And she made me understand that what had seemed like crazy-obsessive fan behavior was really OK, because while it is obsessive, it's also intellectually and socially engaging, and a whole lot of fun.
I still have moments of shame. When I found myself searching online for Spike/Giles "slash," fanfic in which characters are re-written in a romantic or sexual way, usually in same-sex pairs (see cultural critic Constance Penley's book Nasa/Trek for some of the best slash theorizing around), or when I do things like derail my household's Thanksgiving plans so that we can tape the episodes of an FX BTVS marathon, I've had to pause and ask myself at what point fandom becomes extreme. But there have also been moments of pride.
I love that this past Christmas all of my roommates exchanged gifts that were BTVS-related. Some of them we bought (the boardgame, the Sunnydale High Yearbook, several volumes of Buffy-inspired comics), but others we made (bedazzled t-shirts with "Slayerette" and "Spike" ironed and glittered across their fronts, CDs of this season's musical episode, games we've devised to play around our burgeoning vampire obsession). Fandom became a way to express our collective participation and to acknowledge each other's relationship to the show and its characters.
In our house, BTVS is the only show we all watch together; it's the only weekly event guaranteed to bring us all together on the couch to watch, critique, squeal and moan, and then later take what we've seen and interpret it, write about it, co-opt it and appropriate it for our own use. And this is the part of fandom that I think is the most valuable, the part that Ward misses in his definition: In this particular mode, it's more fun to admit our obsession and put it to some creative use than it is to watch passively from our spot on the couch.
Alana Kumbier, television editor for PopPolitics, is a writer who lives in Columbus, Ohio. Her previous articles can be found here.
Related Sites
Visit Slayage: the International Online Journal of Buffy Studies, for critical and scholarly articles.
Star Wars fan films can be found here; read Howard Wen's Salon article on the Star Wars copyright battle.
Read Emily Nussbaum's "Confessions of a Spoiler Whore" in Slate.
Looking to meet other fans? Head to Fan Forum.
From PopPolitics, other articles related to Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Sympathy for the Willow, continued; for Shadowkat especially; spoilers, S5-6 -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 17:55:59 06/25/02 Tue
I'm not sure we're as far apart as you think.
I was attempting, with indifferent success, to note that perhaps Willow's greatest obstacle to her recovery is Willow. The same emotional, internal problems that created Dark Willow will continue to impede her self-forgiveness.
Someone who suffers such extreme self-esteem issues as Willow may choose self-destruction as a route to a.) atone for her sins and b.) ensure that she can never so sin again. I was NOT saying that such self-destruction is the right path, but that an emotionally-damaged Willow may see it as such.
Let's take an analogy. If you had buried within you some form of trigger to annihilate the planet, and you had already come THIS CLOSE to touching it off, how would you react? Presume the following: there was no way to neutralize it save for your own death. There are people on this planet that you love. You know, rationally, that you have a history of emotional instability, and just MIGHT at a weak moment use that trigger. Presume further that you have already a background of self-disgust, even loathing.
What would be the logical response?
I'm NOT advocating suicide as a solution to anyone's problems. I'm just trying to explain why Willow might see otherwise.
To survive under such circumstances, she will need MASSIVE ongoing support from her friends. Shadowkat made a good point -- Willow has often served them loyally. Each might very well forgive Willow's efforts to destroy them, especially if they're mature enough to remember their own past sins in that direction. But they may be less willing to forgive Willow's efforts to wipe out third parties that they love.
Buffy was willing to risk the whole world to save Dawn -- even NOT trusting any of the Scooby Gang save Scooby Auxiliary Spike to do so. Here Willow, in Two to Go, is willing to wipe out Dawn as an afterthought. Can Buffy so readily forgive that?
I'm not saying that the problems are insurmountable. I'm not saying that Willow should die. I'm saying that the ME writers will need to address these problems carefully to provide a plausible solution.
As I noted at the beginning, Willow's survival is a work in progress.
[> Oooh Very good pt.s. But i think she already ...(spoilers) -- shadowkat, 19:03:39 06/25/02 Tue
Very good points in this post Fred and a much better worded one than the previous post. Sorry, been guilty of knee-jerk reactions. I swear sometimes I think I look at these characters like a mother hen.
You make a very good point about suicide and why:
"Let's take an analogy. If you had buried within you some form of trigger to annihilate the planet, and you had already come THIS CLOSE to touching it off, how would you react? Presume the following: there was no way to neutralize it save for your own death. There are people on this planet that you love. You know, rationally, that you have a history of emotional instability, and just MIGHT at a weak moment use that trigger. Presume further that you have already a background of self-disgust, even loathing. "
Yes - agree. Willow has been hiding herself her whole life
and even though everyone else likes her, she doesn't. And
it was very clear to me from Villains to Grave, she intended to take out the Trioka and then kill herself.
Buffy: "Willow, if you do this, there is no guarantee you can come back-"
Willow: "I don't plan on coming back."
Willow knew from Sam's statement in AYW that if she went full blown on dark magics, they'd consume her. Her decision to do it was not just one of vengeance but also suicide.
"I'm NOT advocating suicide as a solution to anyone's problems. I'm just trying to explain why Willow might see otherwise."
Willow already did. She wants to die. Only problem is her method is taking everyone else with her. It's an interesting allegory on the kamikaze pilots or suicide bombers - I hate myself and the world and let's all go out in a blaze of glory.
"To survive under such circumstances, she will need MASSIVE ongoing support from her friends. Shadowkat made a good point -- Willow has often served them loyally. Each might very well forgive Willow's efforts to destroy them, especially if they're mature enough to remember their own past sins in that direction. But they may be less willing to forgive Willow's efforts to wipe out third parties that they love."
Very true. It's easy for Buffy to forgive Willow's treatment of her - but not Dawn. And Xander, well he has the easiest task, he didn't see how Willow tried to kill Anya, Buffy, Giles and Dawn. Xander's the sort who only believes what he sees. So he may be the most forgiving.
But you are right - it won't be easy. And I must admit,
it's the struggle I've had with fan fic regarding Season 7, no one seems to know how to deal with Willow. Rowan has come the closest. So this makes me wonder how ME will handle it. It certainly makes me anticipate next Season more than any Season of Buffy in the past. They have not one but six characters they have to bring back from rock
bottom. How will they do it?
"I'm not saying that the problems are insurmountable. I'm not saying that Willow should die. I'm saying that the ME writers will need to address these problems carefully to provide a plausible solution.
As I noted at the beginning, Willow's survival is a work in progress."
You are right, we agree. My apologies for misreading you're intent in your old post. Thank you for taking the time to
set the record straight. (shadowkat humbly bowing her
head in remorse.)
[> [> Redemption is possible, (spoilers) -- cjc36, 01:45:05 06/26/02 Wed
Once the events conclude in Grave, the grief over the loss of Tara can be dealt with by the Scoobies in general. I get the following from the final act of Grave: The Scoobies end on a high note, and it seems Buffy is never 'angry' at Willow, just trying to stop her from doing something 'apocalyptically stupid.' They believe Willow is/was out of her mind with grief. Now, how much will that currency go in rebuilding possibly damaged bridges, I don't know, but I think she's got one heck of a get outta jail free card. So the Scoobies aren't the problem, I think they've already forgiven her and will blame grief-powered dark magick. The issue, as stated above, is Willow's forgiveness of herself. This is where AB will have to come in, I think, either in a form of dream image-Tara or ghost.
Also, in the S7 opening, Willow may have to/already be going through some very brutal trials. Devon Coven? ME made Angel spend '200 years' in hell before he was allowed to come back, and showed us how the time streams differ in "Anne." And Angel didn't commit the crimes of the demon Angelus. So with that track record, I'm thinking it's not going to be a great summer for Willow.
Hey, Spike and Willow: Grief over past deeds? Discuss between yourselves.
It is hard to imagine a one-stroke event that could bring Willow back to ordinary Willow. My take, if I was to do one, would be, after said Devon cleansing, she'd help Rack's other victims in Sunnydale through the course of S7.
Also, a new external threat will help get her mind off of herself.
But redemption is possible.
[> [> [> Re: Redemption is possible, (spoilers) -- shygirl, 06:27:59 06/26/02 Wed
"I don't know, but I think she's got one heck of a get outta jail free card. So the Scoobies aren't the problem, I think they've already forgiven her and will blame grief-powered dark magick."
If you say "it wasn't you, it was your grief it was dark magick" do you really do that person a favor, do you really forgive and accept all aspects of them or are you trying to externalize the evil within them and pretend it isn't really there as a part of their potential? If you take this path, it seems to me there is a danger that the individual in question, Willow, will see that they don't really accept all of her and feel even worse about herself.
I know that I am a good person. It is a choice I've made in life. However, when I was young I wanted to hurt someone physically... I wanted them to die. I wanted to be the one to make that happen. It was a shock to discover myself capable of such darkness. I was ashamed... but it is part of my potential, a part I acknowledge and know is there, but I make a different choice. I think Willow needs to arrive here...and she isn't going to feel good about herself until she does. Denying that part of her will only delay. Allowing hidden anger and allowing it to turn into resentment would be the worst thing that could happen to Willow.
[> [> [> [> Re: Redemption is possible, (spoilers) -- cjc36, 07:18:00 06/26/02 Wed
In real life, over-forgiveness would be a problem. It would merely enable the perpetrator an excuse. I guess I'm thinking in terms of dramatic story construction and character motivation. BtVS, to me, has a strand of DNA from serialized drama (comics, soaps). To me, in that world of fiction, a 'group' can forgive, taking their condemnation off the table, and thus allow the character's own internal struggle with what they've done come to the forefront. This self loathing must be here, or it wouldn't work. I think it could work for Willow, but the question is, what would be enough internal condemnation and still fall short of Willow killing herself over the guilt?
Say they figure out the balance of self-loathing but no suicide, and make it so we get a 'return to the beginning,' as Joss has mentioned. We'd have a pretty normal Willow by Christmas. But will us fans buy a quicker than jail term fix? I don't know. I like Willow and hope so. Most fans did seem to buy Angel's return, but then again, Angel and Angelus are different personalities and viewpoints. Dark Willow was still Willow, grief or not. And, despite my liking of Willow, she murdered the killer of her lover. Understandable, but still a crime.
If fast route to redemption is in, then whatever happens must be brutal (for Willow) and quick. She must suffer for what she's done. And knowing Joss, I think she will. If the Scoobies find out about said punishment/suffering, then the possibility of their forgiveness is even greater.
[> [> [> [> [> Amends -- Cleanthes, 09:51:16 06/26/02 Wed
Willow can't stay up and wait for daylight, hoping it burns her to a crisp but then she's unexpectedly saved by a sudden snowstorm? Shucks, I guess they already did that in a similar case. :-)
Still, she might do a bit of investigating of the First Evil. I don't think ME exhausted the story potential of that. In Angel's case, the First Evil manifested as Jenny Calendar. Perhaps in Willow's case, it will manifest as Tara?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Redemption is possible, (spoilers) -- shygirl, 12:51:47 06/26/02 Wed
yeah, I see your point... the story construction will have to leave out a lot to move the plot forward... I shudder to think what brutal and quick could entail... but even it they do something like that there could be echos within Willow all season that might satisfy the fans... I like her too and hope they handle the story with thought and compassion while answering the justise issue.
[> [> [> Re: Redemption is possible, (spoilers) -- Malandanza, 15:32:25 06/26/02 Wed
"The Scoobies end on a high note, and it seems Buffy is never 'angry' at Willow, just trying to stop her from doing something 'apocalyptically stupid.' They believe Willow is/was out of her mind with grief. Now, how much will that currency go in rebuilding possibly damaged bridges, I don't know, but I think she's got one heck of a get outta jail free card. So the Scoobies aren't the problem, I think they've already forgiven her and will blame grief-powered dark magick."
I agree that Xander and Buffy won't blame Willow -- they have already forgiven her. But, fortunately, they aren't the only ones deciding whether or not Willow is responsible for the torture, murder and mayhem rampage she went on -- Giles gets to decide too. And maybe that coven in England. Giles has demonstrated an ability to set aside his personal feelings and behave objectively, in Ripper mode. Ben got the death penalty to keep Glory from committing any future acts of vengeance -- Willow will likely get off easier since there is no compelling reason to believe that she will repeat her crimes, but I don't think Giles is going to let her get away with baking cookies for repentance this time.
As for blaming the dark magicks... I don't think we've seen any evidence that dark magic is inherently corrupting. Willow made the decision to kill Warren before she went to the Magic Box (that's why she went there -- to get a power boost so she could make her vengeance reality) -- Anya already knew the details of the accident when Willow walked in the door -- this was Willow, not the magic. She tortures and murders Warren before sucking Rack dry, so his brand of magic didn't influence her actions. She healed Buffy after the visit to the Magic Box, so was still capable of doing good even with all that power raging through her. Buffy and Xander may look for a convenient excuse in magic, but Giles won't -- he's been through the dark magic phase and emerged with his soul intact. The lesson seems to be that while magic is addictive, it does not corrupt in itself.
And I think Buffy and Xander will be perfectly willing to sit on the sidelines and let Giles do whatever he thinks is best.
[> [> [> [> "She wasn't herself" -- Off-kilter, 23:44:49 06/26/02 Wed
That quote from ME (think it was DeKnight) is a complete cop-out. Mal, you're right, right, right!
The whole idea of Willow going bad only works in a deeply visceral level if she KNOWS what she is doing and chooses to do it anyway. Yes, it would be horrifying to watch a loved one lose control of themselves to a power that cannot be denied. But it ups the horror exponentially when we realize that a loved one has not just allowed the power to control them, but that they consciously seized it and forced it into themselves.
No cookies. Except for me.
[> [> [> [> Re: Redemption is possible, (spoilers) -- cjc36, 01:31:44 06/27/02 Thu
Yeah, the Dark Magicks aren't the reason, just the method. Willow is a falliable human who doesn't really need access to near god-like power at hand.
The Devon coven, PTBs, whatever device ME decides to use, needs to take magick away from Willow completely, deny her the use of this weapon in the future, AND make her realize she's got a bit of fascist-vengeance thing inside her so she doesn't use her considerable human intellect and 'puter skills to do other, hackerish, badness.
[> [> Re: Oooh Very good pt.s. But i think she already ...(spoilers) -- shygirl, 06:19:18 06/26/02 Wed
I think you both bring up very good points about Willow. How do you save someone who is determined to destroy themselves... As this season has been one where EVERYONE hit bottom...I believe that season 7 will be all about climbing out of the pit and becoming whole.... it won't always be pretty, and we won't all like the results, but coming to terms with our personal demons and monsters and the evil that dwells in all of us is part of growing up and becoming mature. Sometimes it's easy to forget how young these characters are and how much they still have to learn about life and themselves. We seem to hold them to a very high standard... and perhaps that's part of what needs to be modified. No one is perfect, no one is totally good, no one is a hero all of the time, no one has all the right answers... and it is only when we begin to understand this in our skin, that we are able to let go and meet life unafraid.... and make no mistake, the scoobies are very much afraid, afraid of themselves, afraid of feeling, afraid of looking foolish, afraid of rejection, afraid of life.... I dearly hope that after showing the dark side of personal growth and development, Joss will now show how even the most reprehensible of us can overcome our past. Of course that doesn't mean universal forgiveness for all. Some people cannot forgive... some people believe sincerely that forgiveness should not always be given. It's a point of view...and that's what makes the world go round!
[> [> [> Forgiveness and Redemption - reply to ShyGirl and S'Kat -- Rahael, 11:00:20 06/26/02 Wed
I've just had a really long and exhausting day at work, so forgive (!) any infelicity of expression. I feel compelled to stay in the office a bit longer to write this post.
A warning - I speak without sparing feelings below because I want to claim some small measure of respect for the position of 'not forgiving'. It's hard because forgiveness appears to be so much motherhood and apple pie, that to disagree seems bizarre.
Firstly, thank you Shygirl, for rephrasing the viewpoint on forgiveness, following on from the conversation in Off-Kilter's thread.
"Some people cannot forgive... some people believe sincerely that forgiveness should not always be given. It's a point of view...and that's what makes the world go round!"
I feel compelled to reply because you said something below about 'touching raw nerves' and 'opening lines of communication'. Also because I have seen many references to 'forgiveness' on the board of late and I ask myself, what do we mean when we say 'forgiveness'? So here's me getting on my soapbox and speaking my mind.
I am very aware of my 'personal issues' - they are not something hidden from my conciousness or from the board. I will admit this upfront. I harbour in me a deep, (self) righteous anger. I do not try to resolve it. I let it burn in my heart. It burns cleanly, untainted by personal hatred, or the desire for vengeance. Even when I was quite young, I was outraged when I saw young boys carrying guns, cyanide capsules strung around their necks, being sent out to die by men whose hearts had been hardened by evil. Either to die in the battlefied, or to become human bombs. I still burn with anger when I think of how the women in my community became prey to men with guns, both army soldiers and terrorist. If they were 'dishonoured' by this rape, they sometimes felt compelled to kill themselves - in many cases, they were thrown out by their families.
I am not afraid to use the word evil to describe these situations or actions. I use the word evil when I try to comprehend why my government sent planes to kill me, or why the terrorist group which claimed to represent my community put my family on its hitlists. We are still there. I think of 'evil' when I remember how 8 army soldiers raped mutilated and murdered a girl who went to my school. I don't forgive them. But I felt an immense pity for eight traumatised young men, shoved into a bloody civil war among a community who loathed them.
I shake with anger for people whose human dignity was stripped away by torture and guns and ruthless power. For the casual jackboots that tramped across my community. This anger, deep, unforgiving, (but full of pity and compassion nonetheless) is my memorial for people who have been forgotten entirely. I am never going to forget.
You see, my inability to forgive comes from a sense of compassion. Of tolerance. Of the idea that I must love my neighbour as myself. When I see a world where such values are lost, I cannot come to terms with it. I cannot accept it. I cannot forgive the desecration of the idea of human dignity, and the sanctity of life.
Now I never meant to discuss this issue here. I had resolved to stop with the Too Much Information type post. But your posts 'touched a raw nerve' because I don't particularly like feeling as if I'm being condescended to. I want to put an emphasis on the word 'feeling' because I'm sure you didn't intend it as such.
Shadowkat -
Thank you for a really great post below on the same thread where you clarified the distinction of rooting for Spike in a narrative and story telling sense. I totally get that. I can get how the 'redemption' story, how Spike's story can be fascinating for the vast majority of viewers. For some people it works artistically - for others the middle eps of Season 6, the Spuffy eps were a bit of a mess. And having troubling issues like rape or torture or murder framed by art makes a huge difference. Samson's massacre in 'Samson Agonistes' is a pertinent example for me personally. It works artistically. And Shadowkat, putting it on this level takes it *truly* into the realm of personal taste. And there, we can have a dispassionate discussion which does not need to encompass value judgements about other people.
So thank you again for making this valuable point. There are many people who believe in the value of forgiveness who don't really like Spuffy all that much. And it is unfair to tarnish them with that brush. Just because you want Spike kept evil and unredeemed does not mean you are a hard hearted person. It might mean you like Spike evil, unbroody and a great character.
We like to make Buffy relevant to our lives. We like to generalise from what must work in the narrative to what must work in life. But I want to say that sometimes there's a disjuncture. Not for everyone obviously. And on this issue I appear to be in a minority of one. For I cannot say 'I must forgive' without a great deal of thought. I can say 'I must love' 'I must be tolerant' and 'I must not judge' very easily indeed.
I have never felt the need to punish anyone. I am content to live and let live. (And the process of legal justice should be impartial. It should not consider the subjective feelings of the victim or the victim's family, imho). But I will not forgive what has happened. And I don't regard it as the second prize on the road to emotional maturity.
I wanted to demonstrate that having a 'black and white' view of the world, having a unforgiving heart is not necessarily crude and without complexity.
I don't give a flying hoot if posters say that Buffy and Spike must forgive each other, or if Willow must learn to forgive herself because we are discussing characters and narratives with an inbuilt logic of their own. But take that discussion on to the broader moral plane of our behaviour, as human beings and I must insistently put the other case. Not because I have a chip on my shoulder, or because I always take things personally, but because, funnily enough, I believe in complex views of the world, rather than black and white generalisations.
[> [> [> [> Re: Forgiveness and Redemption - reply to ShyGirl and S'Kat -- Arethusa, 12:23:09 06/26/02 Wed
A minority of two, Rahael. As I said before on that long thread on forgiveness, I won't forgive certain wrongs done to me because to do so would lessen my self-respect. I've been told I should forgive, not "dwell on it," get on with my life. Well, screw them. I hate injustice. I hate the deliberate destruction of a soul just to satisfy someone's sick needs. And I think that only people who have never personally seen and felt and suffered from a great evil could see forgiveness as obligatory for my mental health, and punishment as optional. I try to treat everyone's opinions with respect and, truly, loathe confrontation. But what looks simplistic can actually be very complex. To simultaneouly feel pity and disgust, understanding and rightous anger, is very difficult and complicated. It is distinguishing between the crime and the criminal, without forgetting about the victim or society's need for justice and order. Sometimes there is no "right" answer-just the least of many evils.
How I wish I could express myself better. When I see something like the Catholic priest scandals, I don't understand how anyone could debate forgiveness and punishment. That debate is moot. It has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. Throw the sick **** in jail. If he gets out, then the Church can worry about and discuss between themselves forgiving, redemption and salvation. That's their business. Protecting children is mine.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Forgiveness and Redemption - reply to ShyGirl and S'Kat -- shadowkat, 12:52:23 06/26/02 Wed
Dang it...you people are distracting me from work and if
I get in trouble from net nazis, I'm naming names! (just
kidding)
Hey - never said it's easy to forgive or absolutely necessary. Not the most forgiving person here! I hate my
boss. I hate the people who destroyed my reality
this past september and I really hate people who hurt
others. But holding rage inside myself, I've discovered will and can destroy me. It eats me up inside. So I've struggled to forgive my boss and I've struggled to forgive..others and I luckily have not been raped or seen the things Rah has. I honestly don't know how I would react if I did. Knowing myself as well as I do, I honestly don't think I would reacte as well or maturely as you did Rah. I'm not sure I have the strength or the maturity you have exhibited at such a young age. To be honest, when I read your posts, I feel intimidated and awed. You are an extremely courageous person and I hope that I have in no way indicated I thought otherwise. And you and aliera are correct there are some things that each of us on a deeply personal level can not forgive. IT takes all our energy to keep ourselves from sinking to the level of those who perpetuated them on us. I do not know if I could ever forgive a sexual assualt on my person and I certainly doubt I could forgive someone who killed a family member. And I
doubt I could forgive myself for ever doing any of these wrongs.
My inability to deal with horrible crimes unemotionally is the reason I left criminal defense work. My instructors complained about me being way too emotional. But seeing someone in pain is something I can't bear. When I felt myself becoming desentized to this, which does happen in criminal defense work, not caring, numb, I fled.
As my close friends and family could tell you, I tend to wear my heart on my sleeve and am maybe a tad too emotional for my own good. I just try to separate it from
Btvs. But that said - I know others don't. I know the mere
fact that we spend as much time as we do discussing this tv
show, means it has entered all of our lives on a deeply emotional level. For various reasons.
Gawd I hope this made sense...it's so hard to convey what you feel in a quick time-harried post.
[> [> [> [> [> [> And re-reading it...not sure it did. -- shadowkat, 13:12:56 06/26/02 Wed
Read what shygirl said below...she says it far better
than i did.
But you did answer the questions that
I posed in my post further below, which I'd forgotten and
needed to reprint off and read again - Are some things
unforgivable? Can we forgive everything? Should we?
And how do we define evil in our lives? And how do we keep from doing it ourselves? I don't know the answers - if I did I wouldn't keep asking the questions - which to some may seem pretty basic. But you did definitely provide some
answers that continue to make me think. I printed your post
off to read more in depth at home.
Thank you for posting the above - it meant a lot.
I do admire your courage.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And re-reading it...not sure it did. -- shygirl, 15:25:04 06/26/02 Wed
It did for me, but I understand the difficulty in expressing what we see. It's hard no matter what lens you are looking at it from. I agree with your suggestion that we have become very emotionally embedded in this program. I find it easy to see why. I also agree that some things are hard to forgive, but I deeply believe that anger and rage held within damages the person holding it. I too don't know the answers to the questions you state, but I think BtVS is attempting to offer some possible answers.... not necessairly the "right" ones because I don't believe in one right answer to anything. I'm a great believer in chaos theory first developed by weathermen to attempt to explain weather patterns... they hoped to come up with an all encompassing answer that provided simple answers to all weather ... didn't happen... they discovered it is far more complicated than they realized. and that realization spread to other areas of thought, art, and science. BtVs is personal and I think we react to it personally and I think that's good. Anything that allows us ... encourages us to discuss these issues is an important thing. Anything that helps us understand another's world view is a good thing for all of us. I can't hate... I can feel sorrow, I can feel a lack of respect, I can be depressed, I can be angry, and I certainly fear for all... but, I was lucky where Rah was not. I cannot feel what Rah feels, but I can hurt for her/him? When Rah presents a point of view that says forgiveness may not be possible I have to listen and review it through the lens of my experience which has been relatively happy in comparison. Since I have lived in the light and am a creature of the light (though I recognize the darkness within me) I want to pull all of these characters into the light. But in order to have a realistic point of view about that possibility, I have to accept that it may not be possible. I have to respect the opposing point of view. Most of the evil in the world has at it's roots a deep disrespect and loathing of anything different. It's touched us all. I want to see Willow and Spike triumph over the dark as a gesture of defiance against eveil. It's my way of shaking my fist at the devil and saying "see, you won't win"
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Beautiful post and thank you -- shadowkat, 16:37:40 06/26/02 Wed
Thank you for your comments...been a particularly bad period
right now for me. So it is good to hear a voice of hope in the wilderness.
I agree with you. I have been working hard this year to purge myself of hate, because it is a destructive force. Rage eats us up inside. And I believe we all have darkness inside us. I have my own and have certainly come face to face with it this year - maybe that's why Season 6 Btvs
of all the shows on Tv or in the movies or in books hit me on such a deep personal and emotional level. I could understand what every character felt on a gut level and I also, from watching Btvs and Angel for many years, trusted the writers to eventually bring hope. In a way I got that hope in the Prayer of St. Francis at the end of the show.
And yes I guess I'm a little too invested emotionally in Willow and Spike's redeemption for my own good. ;-)
I have enjoyed your posts and replies shygirl. And today this one...made me feel a little better. A little less alone. It's hard to explain or express what we feel in words. As Heinlein put it in A Stranger in A Strange Land, you either grog it or not (you either absorb and intuitively feel the meaning or not). I feel that you at least felt mine as I think I felt yours...and that is something. Even if or especially if it comes from an artistic expression like a tv show or book that we both watch in our own homes miles apart from each other.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> chills up my spine -- shygirl, 17:20:50 06/26/02 Wed
When I was 21 I read Stranger in a Strange Land, I thought it was Asminov not Heinlein, but no matter.... 20 years later I read it again and was astounded how much I had incorporated into my own personal value system.... what we are exposed to when we are young has a lasting effect on our personality, character, spirit, and mind.... Wonderful to find you Shadow.....
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And re-reading it...not sure it did. -- cjc36, 09:42:47 06/27/02 Thu
QUOTE FROM SHYGIRL:
"I want to pull all of these characters into the light. But in order to have a realistic point of view about that possibility, I have to accept that it may not be possible. I have to respect the opposing point of view. Most of the evil in the world has at it's roots a deep disrespect and loathing of anything different. It's touched us all. I want to see Willow and Spike triumph over the dark as a gesture of defiance against eveil. It's my way of shaking my fist at the devil and saying "see, you won't win"
What a wonderful sentiment, and well put SHYGIRL. The real tragedy in evil happens when someone feels a sentiment close to the first line of your quote-- but not the rest, the realization of their own fallibility, and with that realization the proper self-limitations. "I WANT TO PULL ALL OF THESE CHARACTERS INTO THE LIGHT."
I think Willow's path started from a true desire to help. It sadly mutated into Willow taking her own will over all others. Power wins. That's fascism. Willow is much like a bad cop who started out a fresh, young rookie wanting to 'make a difference,' and slowly tiring of all the limitations and injustices. Even worse with Willow, she used magick to open curtains and make party favors. She got the message after nearly killing Dawn in the traffic accident, but her recovery wasn't really in the right place in her own heart--she never did realize mucking w/Tara's mind was bad, she just 'did it wrong'. And when you think about it, that little to line to Tara was just as scary as her chilling words to Giles in Flooded. Magick was merely a means to power, not the problem itself.
Hope I made some sense.
See, I'm really conflicted with Willow. My favorite character, and AH can play her at any stage or personality. It's amazing what she can do with the character. I like shy, funny Willow the best. And I'd take her over all the Buffys and Cordelias any day. But I also realize my favorite character needs some amends making. She did really bad things and needs help. Real, "My name is Willow and I'm a closet bad person," help.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Forgiveness and Redemption - reply to ShyGirl and S'Kat -- Cleanthes, 12:52:28 06/26/02 Wed
Shouldn't forgiveness be honestly desired by the sinner and the bad behavior OVER? In the case of the Catholic priest scandals - aren't the forgiveable priests already making penance as monks? The unforgiveable ones are getting themselves tranferred from parish to parish. They cannot be forgiven because they continue to misbehave.
ObBuffy: Faith can be forgiven once she lets herself go to jail.
John Newton, murderer and slave-dealer, can be forgiven once he becomes an abolitionist and composer of `Amazing Grace`.
Pol Pot cannot be forgiven before his death because his last testament brags about his crimes. After his death, the forgiveness is more about the living than him, his fate; if any, is up to the mediation with infinity.
This means nothing as far as *me*, though. I would hold myself in a state of readiness to forgive, when the deed that needs forgiving is complete. While the error continues willfully, then how can anyone forgive? The cases that Rahael and you, Arethusa, relate are cases of continuing fault, aren't they?
I suppose I'm dodging the question of protecting the children, but maybe not. Any priest desirous of forgiveness will WANT to put themselves in a position where hurting children cannot again occur, won't they?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Forgiveness and Redemption - reply to ShyGirl and S'Kat -- Arethusa, 14:54:30 06/26/02 Wed
Once more into the breach, dear friends...
The only thing I wanted to point out (and failed, of course!) is that redemption, forgiveness, punishment and justice are just games we play to help us deal with the fundamental nature of humans. We can't accept that evil is intrinsic to human nature, so we make up a complicated cosmology and social structure to domesticate evil. Someone once wrote of the banality of evil, but that's just wishful thinking. Evil is as cold as dry ice, as ugly as sin, as inexorable as time. And actions are evil not just in and of themselves, but because of the ripples they send out that never seem to end. "The good that men do is oft interred with their bones, but the evil that men do lives on after them," Shakespeare wrote. (Prob. a misquote, but you get my gist.)
Evil just *is.* All we can do is try to clean up the mess afterwards, and go on the best we can. The deed is done. Nothing anyone does afterwards can change that fact, or make up for what was taken from someone. It is never, ever "over." That's why it's evil, instead of merely bad or wrong. Let society deal with evil as best as it can, but don't fool yourself that it makes any difference to the victims. Even if it's forgiveness and redemption all around, the bald results of the evil deed remain. That's why some of us are so cautious regarding Spike. No matter what the state of his soul is, his victims are just as dead.
Enough said.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you so much Arethusa. -- Rahael, 15:22:49 06/26/02 Wed
I just posted my reply to you, and then I read this, and I've never met anyone who seems to understand as much as you do.
And I think we both said exactly the same thing in our different ways. Your way was more dispassionate. And very comforting to me. Thank you for giving my inchoate emotions words. For making me feel like a normal human being.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You are very welcome. -- Arethusa, 17:05:47 06/26/02 Wed
I'm getting used to not being normal-it's actually quite liberating. I feel free to do and say what I want, since I know I'll never fit in, anyway. I can't wait until I am old enough to be eccentric.(:oD)
[> [> [> [> [> Punished for life -- Rahael, 15:14:59 06/26/02 Wed
(I had a fair idea that you would agree with me re this topic, but I didn't want to presume. Nor drag you into a confrontation - I'm a pretty pugnacious person!)
Punished for life - That's what it means, doesn't it? That is the saddest thing of all, that when you are so deeply marked, the person who pays and will keep on paying will not be the perpetrator. The victim will always be broken.
And sometimes when people urge forgiveness upon me (and I do not mean anyone here) it is a code word. It is a code word for 'forget' 'stop discomfiting me''I cannot hear this'.
Actually, I don't have any answers. As you say there doesn't seem to be one good shining choice. I remember Buffy's bewilderment in 'The Gift' - are these the choices I have to make?
The points you make about the need for civil society and justice are so very important. I can say that I do not require legal redress, because that seems like a nice fantasy with the situation as it is. When you start thinking that, you know you have a truly f****ed up society. There is a great hope for peace in my community at the moment. But what will that peace do? It will put the place I grew up in, the land and the community I so dearly love into the despotic hands of the men who ordered the death of my mother. Her crime was to record the terrible abuses committed against the helpless, the innocent, hell, even the crimes committed by one terrorrist group against another. She was not willing to forget either. I cannot forget listening to her dying. Cannot rid my mind of the despairing knowledge that I could not tell her how much I loved her before she left forever. And my mind is bewildered, still cannot understand what happened. That her assassin waited for her for two hours, felled her with one bullet, but pumped four more into her head at close range just to make sure. She was only 35.
Tell me, those of you who are wiser, more mature, more emotionally stable, how to comprehend this. Tell me what forgiveness means in this context. I am not being sarcastic. I just feel unable to see the world that you do. I am not full of hate. I am just incomprehending, dumbstruck, torn. And fucking furious. What choices have I got left? Even were that person to feel sorry, nothing will take that image away from me. To know she died alone on a dusty roadside, and I was never there for her.
Forgiveness.....it's just an empty word to me. Maybe one day I will be privileged enough to understand.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Punished for life -- shygirl, 17:27:10 06/26/02 Wed
oh luv, I wish I were wise enough to give you an answer that could bring you peace... but I can't. I believe each of us has a purpose when we come into this world. And some of us have to be the ones to deal directly with the dark and evil side of man. It seems you are one. Perhaps you were not put on this earth to bring peace but the sword. It's a hard path and I don't envy it. But you must not let the anger cloud whatever it is that you were put here to do. You said your anger was righteous... use that energy to force a difference if you have to. You have power within unless you let the rage destroy you and then they win. Don't let them. I don't know what you should or can do, but I'm sure with your intelligence and passion you can be a voice.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Punished for life -- shadowkat, 17:48:26 06/26/02 Wed
"Tell me, those of you who are wiser, more mature, more emotionally stable, how to comprehend this. Tell me what forgiveness means in this context. I am not being sarcastic. I just feel unable to see the world that you do. I am not full of hate. I am just incomprehending, dumbstruck, torn. And fucking furious. What choices have I got left? Even were that person to feel sorry, nothing will take that image away from me. To know she died alone on a dusty roadside, and I was never there for her.
Forgiveness.....it's just an empty word to me. Maybe one day I will be privileged enough to understand."
I don't think any of us can, Rah. Can we comprehend why someone rises a gun and fires it point blank at another? Can Willow
comprehend why Tara got shot? Why Warren shot Buffy? Her scene in Villains rivets me. "A tiny little bullet, so tiny," she says almost reverently when she removes it from Buffy's chest. And I surely cannot comprehend why someone would take a woman so young, so good at heart, and so kind from you in such a horribly violent way. A way that brings tears to my eyes as I write this. It breaks my heart.
How can we forgive that which we don't understand?
Where does forgiveness come from? Our hearts, our souls? How do I stop feeling pain? How do I deal with the rage, the anger...how do we deal with people who use commercial airlines as bombs? How do I deal with people who hurt people I love and care about?
And how do these people justify their actions?
Aerustha is right, the evil we do lasts past the act. It breeds more evil. It feeds on itself. It's like a cancer that once we're infected slowly infects our cells, eating us alive from the inside. In our myths, stories, the tales of the new testament, we see good people, heros, attempt to stop the cycle to root out the cancer. Forgiveness is supposed to be one way of ending it. You can't hurt me - because I refuse to fight you. I refuse to give
in. I will not do what you have done. If you slap me, I'll turn the other cheek. If you seek to defame me and destroy my career, I will stand firm and not do the same to you.
I will rise above your acts. Or as Buffy tells Xander and Dawn - I will not kill Warren, that would be wrong. Gee...easier said then done.
And what if - what if - they raise a gun in your face? What if they rape you? What if they bomb your country? Do we still remain quiet, do nothing? That's what we tried to do during the Holocaust - the Americans, before PEarl Harbor, stayed quiet, the Germans it did not affect outright did nothing and over thousands (don't know the exact number) died. No, there comes a time in which we can't turn the other cheek, we must fight back. But what if you don't know the enemy? what if fighting back means bombing a small poor desolate country back to the stone age? Have we become the enemy now?
Evil is an insidious thing that lives inside us all. And it scares me. This year it scared me to my core. (No, I have not been through what you have..but I have experienced my own pains, disappointments and loss. And if it's not too presumptious of me to put them down here...I will if I may?) Because this year I realized no matter how safe I thought I was - evil could still find me. After sept 11, when I walked home in a dusty cloud and saw the end of my beloved skyline, saw the posters of the missing, and the faces of the dead firemen that serviced my neighborhood, I found myself looking in the mirror at a stranger's eyes. My own darkness roared inside me. My own despair. And it took all I had to quench it. I felt alone and I yelled inside at God - Why? Why do we do this? Why? What makes people like
this? Are we doomed as a race? Do we deserve to even be here on this planet, which we rape with our power tools, and bombs? And was this about religion? Is there a God that would condone these acts? I couldn't understand.
So I started flipping channels, nothing. Searched books- nothing. Went to movies - nothing. Then I saw Bargaining and a young girl sat morosely on top of a tower and asked her sister: "Is this hell?" My god, I thought...this is it.
This is what I'm feeling. Then I saw Flooded. And OMWF
and Buffy was singing a song that run over and over in my head. I remember downloading it from the internet and listening to it ad nauseum at work with tears running down my face. It was what I felt.
What drew me to Btvs this year were the questions you posed. Questions that echo my own. After September 11, I fell into a depression, I was numb. It wasn't just Sept 11, several things had happened before then at work which had discombobulated me. In August I'd discovered the career I worked so hard to build at my company was a shambles. The boss I had trusted and actually liked hated me and wanted to destroy me. So together these events caused me to feel as if my world had swung sharply from the right to the left. And I was consumed with rage. Then a sense of emptiness. Life had become an exercise in going through the motions. And as I watched Buffy struggle her way through her life in Sunnydale, I struggled internly through mine.
Still asking these questions. But the show wasn't enough for me, I needed interaction and all those dang months of repeats...so I decided to start posting. To start analyzing the show in depth. Maybe, I thought, if I can figure out Buffy and the issues I've seen in this show, I can figure out what is inside my heart? The therapist I'd been seeing had helped but not enough...I wanted something more. Validation for being alive? Maybe. Knowing there was a point? Possibly.
Knowing that there were people out there struggling like me? That I wasn't crazy, wasn't alone for feeling this way.
And maybe most of all to answer those questions you pose, Rah in your post above.
What I discovered? No one can give us the answers, we have to find them inside ourselves and if we listen...they will come to us. Maybe as a prayer, like the prayer of St. Francis. Or in the wash of tears while we sit at the bottom of a grave on tombstones, trying to smash our grief with swords. Or perhaps on a hilltop shooting rage at our best friend in an attempt to destroy the world that hurts us, to end the pain, instead finding ourselves being reminded that sometimes things just happen and it's okay to hurt, okay to scream, just please don't end the world in the process. Or maybe we'll discover the answer in facing down that friend who is raging at the world and wants to take us down with it. Or we'll discover it in a cave with an ugly demon forcing us to face all our sins at once with one blinding claw to the heart, reminding us that we do have a soul and we are all part of the universe.
The only thing I know Rah is that the hardest thing is living in this world and it is up to me whether I want to interpret the world I live in as a hell or a heaven or something in between. I can't save it. I learned that long ago...when my friend, a wonderful man who had pledged himself to helping others to saving the world died of leukemia, when I received the alumni mailing telling me of his death - I realized the best we can do is to save ourselves. To live as best we can, without giving into the rage or evil that lives inside us. Every day we make a choice. Whether to do good or evil. Sometimes it's as simple as smiling at someone on the street or giving a pregnant woman your seat on the train, or as complex as not screaming at the person who rear-ended your car. It's the mundane day to day evils...that we can to some extent control.
I don't think you need to forgive those bastards who killed your mother. Any more than I hope to forgive those bastards that killed those people on sept 11. What I think we can do is show them that they did NOT destroy us. They did not taint us with their evil. It does not live inside us like a cancer they implanted. By honoring your mother's memory and loving others as she did. By honoring the firefighters who lost their lives by being tolerant of others and not hurting anyone. As my Granny once told me, all we can do is live each day at a time and be happy to see the next sunrise and think to ourselves, I made one person smile
today. At least this is what I tell myself on days like today when I'm feeling low and want to crawl into a hole.
I hope that helps...and now I really will shut up.
best - shadowkat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> "For I must love because I live/and life in me is what you give" -- Rahael, 03:28:37 06/27/02 Thu
These are all the answers that I have. That it's okay to feel angry. Human beings are allowed to acknowledge negative emotions. They are not going to go away because you paper over the craps. I find that anger is hard for people to accept in a woman. It's not a very feminine thing to feel. Women are allowed to be jealous, they are allowed to be catty, to be 'bitchy'. But aggression and anger are considered illegitimate. Women are supposed to be soft, nurturing, forgiving. We see what that dichotomy in Dark Willow. Either she's a little girl asking her lover for a bed time story about kittens, or she's all vengeance and fury and the bringer of death. Well, if she wasn't the type to suppress every bad emotion she ever felt (so scared even to be the kind of person who would have broken a crayon) she wouldn't end up being controlled by it.
It's interesting that we have so many discussions on the board about 'repressing emotions'. Buffy is 'repressed'. She's self righteous and uptight and can't acknowledge the darkness, i.e Spike apparently. But we can see that society finds it uncomfortable to deal with negative emotions. For example, we don't like to talk about death. Or grieving or loss. These are things that are meant to be covered up, buried, burnt. It's a private affair. It's where we will all end up, but in many ways it's the greatest taboo. We've talked about the Frankenstein myth - but I find that the latest version is Buffy herself. That uncomfortable silence when she joins them in the garden in 'Afterlife' - how true it is. They brought her back without any idea of how she might fit back into the real world again.
I'm sorry, I haven't reached an emotional plane where I can contemplate the loss of so much and not feel angry. My university doesn't have automatic graduation ceremonies - you have to book your place. 2 years down the line, and I still haven't. What's the point, when the most important person won't be there? It wasn't the loss of one hour, or a day or a year. It is a loss that will last all my life. And I can say, "Yes, I feel angry. I get emotional and sad and angry". And yet, it doesn't eat away at me. It's a normal, healthy human emotion. Tara got angry at what Willow did to her - did that anger eat away at her? Only if she had never told Willow. Only if she'd sat there, being meek and good.
I found my answer on that dusty roadside. Because my anger arises out of love. It is not separate. I loved her so much, and she was taken away from me, and all I am left with is that love and anger and loss. It keeps me upright, keeps me living. Not even in the darkest days did I ever contemplate trying to leave life, because my anger and my love could not do that to the people who loved me and whom I loved. To know love, to feel it, to feel so much for other people, how can you not fear for them? I never fear what pain life has yet to show me, apart from the pain of the people I love. I want to protect them, and sometimes life leaves you impotent. So again, there are tinges of fear and anger there. I feel angry at the values of so much of the world, but it doesn't mean I hate the world. I'm no misanthrope. There is so much to love about life, but to really really love it, you've got to be aware of all the sadness, pain and suffering. The lowest, deepest notes add that depth and grandeur.
I keep repeating that I don't want anything to do with vengeance or fury or hatred. I keep repeating it but apparently I'm being unclear. How can one inflict pain on other people? To look into another human beings eyes and feel powerful because you can inflict pain and humiliation and fear - I can't comprehend that either. We are taught that negative emotions are bad, bad all the way through. That's why it's difficult to understand why you can be angry and not want to hate. Why you can rage, and rage against injustice and how this rage keeps your compassion and humanity alive. To see a person who has been hurt by other people and hurt by life and not get angry on their behalf, well, I cannot do that. This is why people think that Buffy's 'darkness', her aggression and anger and passion are dangerous. But they are so intimately linked to the idea of love being her gift! I really don't get why you can't feel the full range of human emotion and still be a good person! It means you don't judge people who feel angry and sad. It means you don't look down on them and make assumptions about what kind of human beings they are. It means that you can see people entirely driven by cruelty and hatred and dogmatic, rigid belief and acknowledge their humanity. But still call them to account. Still say that there are boundaries, and responsibilities. Feel pity for them, but feel even more pitying for the people they hurt.
I have met many angry, passionate and wounded people in my life. And they are far kinder, and compassionate and non-judgemental than the people who say to me, oh, these are illegitimate emotions you should not be feeling. I recount some things about my life and some people recoil in horror. But it's my life, it's me. And I had to find a way to live with the ugliness, and the death and all the negativity. And I live, all my emotional guns blazing, still asking for restitution, still getting angry because my beliefs are too important to become cynical and blasé.
I suppose I could be making myself a better person by saying 'I forgive' to the world for what's happened. I think this is what Etrangere means when she says it is okay to be selfish. Yes, I am selfishly denying the man who assaulted me and the man who killed my mother acceptance of what they have done. Tough. Let them understand one tenth of the crapness they have put other human beings through. Therein will lie their salvation. Not pretty huh? Unfortunately in real life, these dilemmas do not come sporting sharp cheekbones.
I find that I'm 'good enough'. It's an important feeling in the world of self improvement and plastic surgery, the world of the normal and the abnormal. I feel empathy for Buffy and Spike. But that doesn't mean I'm going to going to suspend my critical faculties, or throw away my desire for justice and responsibility. But I'm really not going to bother saying much more about this because I don't particularly like being treated like a big old meanie for being Spike-sceptical. There's no point banging that old drum because Etrangere is pretty alone in wanting a 'worthy adversary'.
"Then seek not, sweet, the "If" and "Why"
I love you now until I die.
For I must love because I live
And life in me is what you give."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Is it denying what happene that to forgive ? -- Etrangere, 04:43:17 06/27/02 Thu
I'm certainly no wiser than you, and I have never live anything that I could compare to your pain, Rahael, but I don't really understand what you mean when you say that you can't forgive those who killed your mother and causes so much more suffering in your countrie while you also say you don't want anything with punishing, with causing pain to others...
What else is forgiving ? You asked this question, and no one really answered, what does it really mean ?
You point out that you're too angry at what happened to accept what they did, but I think that no one should accept such things to happen. How could we, how could you ? How could anyone ask it from you ? This is not what forgiveness is !
What I think it is ? You said it when you said : "It means you don't judge people who feel angry and sad. It means you don't look down on them and make assumptions about what kind of human beings they are. It means that you can see people entirely driven by cruelty and hatred and dogmatic, rigid belief and acknowledge their humanity. But still call them to account. Still say that there are boundaries, and responsibilities. Feel pity for them, but feel even more pitying for the people they hurt."
If forgiveness was accepting that such acts happen, then it wouldn't be a good thing. It would only help that more pain and violence happen. I think forgiveness is about the people, about aknowledging that people are people, whatever they do, and that there's no difference of nature between the worse of them and the most enlightened.
I think that in anger you are way more compassionate and wiser than I've ever been, or ever could be. When I'm angry, really angry, I know that I don't care anymore for people, I don't care anymore if I cause them pain with yelling or fighting because that's when I'm too caugh in my own pain to pay attention to theirs. That's why I hate being in such a state, even though sometimes I need it to sustain me. Obviously you're not like me, and that's great. Anyway no one's the same, no one follow the same road, and who could claim to say what should someone feel about such and such ? That's such a arrogant thing to do !
Finally we live in a world, a society, that has a hard time witnessing people in pain. Often, it's not okay to show suffering, depression (just look at the way people blamed Buffy for the state she was in ! It would be funny if it wasn't so sad to see how it's not okay to not be happy and cheery and not show your pain and disturb everyone) Well I certainly hope you'll never feel restricted by this. Ofcourse what people think is important, but they have no right to tell you what you should feel. Yes, that's what I mean it's okay to be selfish. Don't ever feel guilty for being in pain or in anger or happy when other's are sad or any other kind of feeling. But you know that.
I hope I didn't sound patronising... I don't want to. :)
I think you asked a good question when you asked what exactly is behind the idea of forgiveness. I certainly do not think it's denying what happened, denying the pain that was caused. Don't we say, to forgive not to forget ?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Is it denying what happene that to forgive ? -- Rahael, 05:49:32 06/27/02 Thu
Not patronizing at all!
This is the dictionary definition of what forgiveness is (Collins Paperback 1997)
Forgive: 1) to stop feeling anger and resentment towards (a person) or at (an action that has caused upset or harm) 2) to pardon (a mistake) 3) to free from (a debt).
I cannot find it within me to do any of those things toward the situations I have cited.
And I find my voice, my ability to articulate my feelings in anger/passion. Sometimes it connects me to my innermost self.
I also wanted to say that adding in sadness, and anger and regret and joy, all of those add a deep autumnal tone to your world view. And it feels like you catch a glimpse of something greater than yourself and your experiences. For one brief moment, to hear the music of the spheres.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Truly beautifully said -- shadowkat, 07:25:24 06/27/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You made it much clearer for me with this reply -- shygirl, 05:56:42 06/27/02 Thu
In your other posts I was overwhelmed by your pain. In this one, I see the wisdom that has come from it. You're right it doesn't make sense that we only accept part of what it is to be human as good. We are all many things and I think there is something said about a need for spice to make things worthwhile. Anger is healthy, I was just afraid from what you were saying that it was turning to far inward and potentially destroying your spirit. You've overcome much, your mother would be so proud..may I be presumptious to say don't disappoint her now by not graduating... from what you say it must have cost her something to educate a girl child, I'd hate to see that loving gift lost. You have an awful lot to contribute, please do...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "For I must love because I live/and life in me is what you give" -- shadowkat, 06:37:01 06/27/02 Thu
Very confused by this response to my message. I agree with everything you state above by the way, but from the tone, I got the feeling that it was posted as an angry response to what I wrote? Beginning to wish I hadn't posted at all..if only to be misunderstood. I wasn't talking about what you should do - I can't speak for you anymore than you can speak for me. My losses do affect me deeply even if they are not as trageic as yours. Everyone has their own pain.
And I do not equate anger with hate. By no means. It can go there of course. Mine did briefly. I can't speak for you.
I have no problem with debate or arguments. And I do respect your feelings. I also understand why you have
problems with certain characters. All I was doing was sharing my own impressions and how it helped me this year.
I did not mean to tell you that this is what you should do.
I am sorry if that's what you read.
I feel that all I'm doing is pushing your buttons ...shygirl and Ete express themselves so much better here. I think.
But what I posted above wasn't so much about you as it was about me and how I felt this year, something I had wanted to share. Now I wish I hadn't.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> This was just about me too -- Rahael, 06:49:45 06/27/02 Thu
I was working through my thoughts. And again, more of a response to Shygirl, about anger eating me up, and the idea of 'the way of the sword', which I didn't really understand how she might have got to.
I'm sorry that I denied your pain. I thought that by picking up on your thoughts about September 11, and about the importance of love,(however obliquely) you would have seen that I was agreeing with you.
You of all people know - that when you sit and write about something as important as this, sometimes you have something ready formed within you which just gets written.
I too regret expressing all of this. This forum isn't really the place. I just have a quick temper, and do not like assumptions being made about my morality or my emotional unhealthiness simply because I take a certain stance on a debate....hence big flurry of emotional posts.
Did my post really sound that angry? I mean, I try reserve my anger for more substantial things.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes..this is what happens... -- shadowkat, 07:18:14 06/27/02 Thu
when I get emotional and don't think. Yep. Sorry misunderstood you again.
I really need to think things through more before posting.
And I should be working!!!
"I'm sorry that I denied your pain. I thought that by picking up on your thoughts about September 11, and about the importance of love,(however obliquely) you would have seen that I was agreeing with you.
You of all people know - that when you sit and write about something as important as this, sometimes you have something ready formed within you which just gets written."
You're absolutely right...I did misunderstand. And shouldn't have, and should know better and once again overreacted. (My bad.) I also know how posts can fall accidently under the wrong person...(done that myself)
I guess this issue may be a little too personal and close to both our hearts to adress here. But if not here, than where? I think it helps to share pain...
One of my faults is taking things a little too personally at times, when that's not how they are meant. The thing is I truly empathisize with what you are feeling. (Not that I've lost anyone in this way.) As I tried to express to my mother last night, it's one thing to see these things on the news or in a fictional novel but to know they are real to see them in person or through someone you have somehow connected with - that is different. That is visceral. And yes it changes you. And you are absolutely right - to
feel anger is a good thing. Because it can motivate us to change what is wrong about our world.
In school it motivated me to protest things I disagreed with. Now it motivates me to try and make people think with words. You appear to be using words as well. And I'm so glad you are - because you are making people think.
Now...if I can only practice what I preach and think myself before emotionally responding to something...;-)
sorry...(hangs head in remorse)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes..this is what happens... -- Rahael, 07:30:10 06/27/02 Thu
Don't worry about it, nothing to be sorry about. I could see why you thought what you did. I've done it myself.
I wanted to reply to both you and Shygirl, and I didn't want to just sidestep your post and just reply to her - plus, it was more of a statement of belief which tackled many points brought up in both your posts, with a sprinkling of Buffy thoughts.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> you are both lovely human beings... -- shygirl, 08:26:36 06/27/02 Thu
I think the exchange should never be regreted. Your sharing has enriched both of you and those of us who listened... you are both more real to me now than you were before when you were just disembodied opinions. I have a human context in which to place you and the ideas you share. Thank you!
[> [> [> [> Re: Forgiveness and Redemption - reply to ShyGirl and S'Kat -- shygirl, 12:59:49 06/26/02 Wed
But sharing ideas within a context helps all of us review our own attitudes and reactions. I deeply appreciate and respect what you have shared and understand how your life experience, so different from mine, has produced a totally different but no less valid world view. I would probably feel and believe the same thing if I had lived your life. It's only by becoming aware of these things that we have any hope of really understanding evil and making different choices. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for sharing this. It allows me to respect you and your point of view at a deeper and more appropriate level. I don't want to say you have changed my world view because that would be false and insulting to you... but you have given me food for thought and that is a gift.
[> [> [> [> Re: Forgiveness and Redemption - reply to ShyGirl and S'Kat -- Ronia, 13:21:40 06/27/02 Thu
Hopefully not cashing in too late, but in all of these responses I have not seen anyone mention something that I consider very important about forgiveness. When you forgive someone, you give them what they need, not what you need. It is to show them mercy, because they need it and not because they deserve it. It is a costly gift. To forgive someone while they are yet your enemy is to ask perhaps more of a person than they can give...but it is my belief that it was done for me, and I am instructed to do likewise for others. It is sacrificial love. It does not excuse the wretched, vile, and unspeakably evil acts that humans are capable of doing. It does not declare them O.K. or even remotely acceptable, and it also does not remove justice from the equation. These things are difficult to tie into a television show. We like spike evil because he is amusing, and his journey is engaging...but would I want him in my living room? Not a chance. Not because I fear a chip malfunction, but because, it is only the chip that restrains him from doing what he wants to do...and what he wants to do is be evil. Is change possible? Sure. Is redemption for Willow? Of course. The trick will be to define the redemption. At what point is she redeemed? Is she safe up until that point? Should she be brought to justice for the crimes that she has committed, regardless of what she has lost? Should the people she tried to kill forgive her, just because she needs them to? Let's not forget, that Ben was killed to avoid his potential for evil. It was declared justified. What will justify Willow? Does removing her ability to perform magic remove her potential for evil? Is it true that where there is a will, there is a way? These are dangerous questions to ask, because this is a TV show, we are supposed to be along for the ride. If all of the characters were held really and truely accountable for their actions, most would be in jail already. The drama that we enjoy, calls for extremes that would not be pleasant in real life. The people who live these extremes every day would surely not appreciate us watching through a window, judging motives and predicting outcomes...where am I going with this? Good question. I'll stop now. It is food for thought though isn't it? That in buffyverse, the rules do not apply, but some rules apply, so what are they?
[> [> Sympathy for & apologies to Shadowkat -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 10:56:27 06/26/02 Wed
You were right the first time -- my explanation of points was most sloppy. Feel never any discomfort at correcting ol' Fred -- he knows his own ability to err and appreciates it if others point out to him his misdeeds.
It is only through the kindly correction received from the others on the board and in real life that he improves.
Fred's character is also a work in progress.
[> [> [> thank you -- shadowkat, 18:34:20 06/26/02 Wed
Thank you Fred.
We are all works in progress...I've certainly screwed up myself several times on this board and others...and am
most pleased when I am forgiven. ;-) As are you...although
I don't think you erred too greatly, you started off two very interesting dicussions on two separate threads.
But I really appreciate the sentiment all the same.
[> Seneca suggested this to Nero -- Cleanthes, 21:33:53 06/25/02 Tue
Nero didn't take up on the suggestion of suicide right away. Instead, he graciously had Seneca do a bit of suicide first, just to demonstrate the principle...
I don't know about Willow, but I wouldn't say that the world was made worse by Nero's suicide.
SMG on Howard Stern snippets - No spoilers (Part I) -- JBone, 21:43:20 06/25/02 Tue
I hope I'm not getting anyone in trouble posting this here. SMG's original interview lasted between 40 and 50 minutes. E! TV cuts it down to about 20-some minutes to fit it into a half hour time slot. Oh, and I'm only trying to include the Buffy stuff, but the conversation is a free flowing stream of consciousness and pops right back to Buffy out of nowhere. This is probably around ten minutes of talk.
First the players:
SMG: you know who this is
HS: Howard Stern, a fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, is perhaps the best celebrity interviewer out there.
RQ: Robin Quivers, the heart of HS show. She'll ask the tough question when HS gets off track (as he often does).
AL: Artie Lange, the newest addition to the HS show, the everyman from Jersey. A better than average comic that has found a home on the HS show.
FN: Fred Norris, his main contribution in this interview are his audio drops, but he does some excellent voices, just not enough.
GD: Gary Dell'Abate, the HS producer who knows too much about everyone in the "business"
SJ: Stuttering John, just another Stern flunky who has to g-g-g-g-gets to say something.
HS: We were talking about that actually, whether or not you're were famous enough to get points.
SMG: No, not yet.
HS: Here's something, here's something, here's something...(stuttering)
SMG: I gotta get Howard to pitch my next movie... So hopefully, hopefully I'll do better.
HS: Well here, well here's the thing though, BtVS show is so popular with teens...
RQ: Yes
HS: That they can get those kids to go see Scooby Doo with Sarah in it that I think she's got some clout. But here's a weird thing that I realize about you.
RQ: What?
HS: You're a part of an organization that is for boycotting, ah, filming in Australia. Because they use cheap labor.
SMG: Oh, the runaway production?
HS: Yeah. But then, Scooby Doo was filmed in Australia.
SMG: Yeah, they got me to sign that the day I got home.
SMG: So technically, it was all okay.
HS: Right, so you're against filming in Australia, but you filmed Scooby Doo in Australia.
SMG: I'm against filming in Canada.
HS: Oh really.
SMG: It's more about Canada.
HS: Why is that by the way?
SMG: Because I'd rather just be home.
HS: Oh that's the reason?
SMG: I'd rather just be home. It's laziness. No, because it takes production away from, from all the crew members that work so hard. And a lot of people are losing their insurance.
HS: So you're not at the point in your career like Julia Roberts could say "I don't want to film in
Canada, you do this production here in the United States."
SMG: Then they say "Fine, we'll go do it without you."
RQ: Hah, Hah
........................................
HS: Just how much longer do you think you can do Buffy? I would stick with that thing, you're good at it, it's successful...
RQ: I don't want it to go away.
HS: I don't either. Are you thinking of leaving that?
SMG: Not yet, I mean, you know, we sorta take it, the joke is we take it year by year; you know the beginning of the year, "yeah, let's do another season!" If you ask me like middle of the year, it's like "I can never do another day."
RQ: laughs
SMG: And then by the end of the year, we're like, "okay, let's do another year."
HS: Why is that? Is it because you, ah, get sick of the same character?
SMG: No, it's just like grueling work. It's like 17, 18 hour days, you know, 5 days a week.
HS: No social life?
SMG: I don't have a social life.
HS: Freddie Prinze Jr is a social life.
SMG: Thank god for him, I wouldn't have no social life otherwise.
HS: How old were you when you started on Buffy?
SMG: Ah, I was 17.
HS: And you were no virgin at 17, I mean you had your share of men.
AL: She's Hollywood.
HS: Yeah.
....................................
[> Re: SMG on Howard Stern snippets - No spoilers (Part II) -- JBone, 21:45:32 06/25/02 Tue
..........................................
RQ: Now did you ever, ever, ever, date David?
HS: David who?
SMG: Boreanaz?
HS: Oh, Angel.
SMG: No, I didn't actually, I was really good friends with his stunt double. And so we use to go bowling all the time. And that's how all that all started, but I never dated Boreanaz either.
HS: Never had sex with Boreanaz?
SMG: Never had sex with Boreanaz.
HS: No sex with Jerry O'Connell?
SMG: Nope.
HS: Never kissed him?
SMG: Nope
RQ: No?!
SMG: We were good friends!
HS: Were all your boyfriends, uh, not famous before, uh, Freddie?
SMG: Yeah, pretty much.
Commercial Break
HS: You wearing panties right now?
SMG: Yes I am.
HS: Sometimes it's hard for me to think of you sexually.
SJ: She's Hot.
HS: Yeah
RQ: What?
HS: Cause you know, you're like a young girl to me.
RQ: You're like Buffy
HS: You're like Buffy. You do look much younger than 25.
SMG: Thank you.
......................................
HS: So you ah, you don't have a little apartment here anymore?
SMG: I don't anymore. I had a great rent controlled apartment. $1200 a month.
RQ: And they found you.
SMG: They found me.
HS: How many bedrooms?
SMG: Two bedrooms with a converted den.
HS: Oh my God.
SMG: Two bathrooms, wait, AND a garage spot.
HS: Where was this?
SMG: 77th and First.
HS: Wow.
AL: You're kidding.
SMG: I was trying to keep it up, and I moved to California, trying to keep them both up. The board sort of figured out what I was doing, and I really couldn't afford both anymore. And I think it was a like a month later, I got Buffy.
HS: Yeah. And now you're making some big bucks on Buffy right?
SMG: I'm doing okay.
HS: Why you saying that? Why...
SMG: I'm not making any "Friends" dough.
HS: What are you getting an episode?
HS: I'm surprised you're not though. You're carrying the show, I mean, you're the reason.
SMG: Could you call, actually, could you call and tell them that?
HS: No, I mean...
SMG: No, I'm not joking.
HS: You don't get a half a million an episode?
RQ: You're not making good money?
HS: No?
SMG: Oh, I make good money. I make good money, but I could make more.
HS: You make two hundred a episode? At least.
HS: You don't?
AL: I read in the paper Howard.
HS: You gotta be kidding me.
RQ: Are you into the six figures per episode?
HS: And are you blonde all over? Go ahead, answer Robin's question first.
SMG: Everybody knows that I'm not a blonde. Come on.
HS: I don't know anything.
SMG: All My Children. I'm a brunette.
HS: You shave completely?
SMG: Wax.
HS: Everything?
RQ: That Brazilian thing huh?
HS: Your bald? Oy vay, (sp?) You must look like a little baby when you're, when you're in bed?
AL: Discratseal!
RQ: But do you make six figures a episode?
AL: She makes 80g's a episode. I read that.
RQ: Is that right?
HS: No kidding.
SMG: I'm not answering that.
HS: I thought you were much higher paid than that.
SMG: I'm telling ya, call my bosses, I'm not kidding.
HS: 80 grand a episode.
SMG: I'm not saying I make 80, I'm not saying what I make, but I mean... compared to what I thought I would...
HS: Artie, are you shocked? You know about this.
AL: I read, uh, Yeah, that's shocking. That's a hit show. It's been on forever. She should...
SJ: According to our research, she make between 100 and 110 thousand per episode.
HS: So how does that work out a year, how many episode you shoot, 20?
SMG: 22
HS: 22 times 100, that's like 90 millions dollars!
RQ: She's making 90 million a year.
SMG: I'm the Olson twins.
HS: What's that, two and a half million?
SJ: Yeah, about two and a half.
HS: You know, I'm kind of shocked actually, when, while two and a half million is great...
RQ: That's good money, but...
HS: But in the world of tv to have a hit?
RQ: How often do you have a hit show?
HS: What'd you sign, a ten year pact?
SMG: When I signed in blood, I should have known something was wrong.
HS: That show's not, if you're not in there, that show's not in place.
SMG: Call them, I'm not kidding Howard
HS: Well, I don't think its my job, I think your agent is suppose to do that.
RQ: Who is your agent?
HS: You know what I would do, I would move into the Friends apartment.
RQ: There you go.
SMG: I'm ready. I'll move in.
RQ: That comes with a million bucks.
SMG: Phoebe, Monica, move over, I'm ready.
SJ: Who do you think is worth more, her or Fred?
RQ: Freddie.
HS: No.
AL: Fred Norris?
HS: Freddie Prinze, Freddie Prinze Jr you think is worth more than her?
RQ: Yes.
AL: No way.
SJ: I think his comic book collection is worth more than her.
HS: No
SMG: His comic book collection is worth more than a lot, yeah.
HS: Freddie isn't all that motivated. The guy will take like one movie a year.
RQ: He works all the time, he's got his fathers money.
HS: Oh, I forgot about that.
AL: How long has that Buffy been on?
SMG: Seven years.
HS: What do you think your fiancé is worth? Did you ever think about it?
SMG: He's priceless.
HS: No, come on, what do you think he's worth financially? You think he's worth more than you? You ever had that discussion?
SMG: I think he's priceless.
HS: Don't kid around with me here, this is serious, I'm trying to help you here.
SMG: This is serious helping me.
HS: So do you think he's worth more than you?
SMG: I don't know.
SJ: Is he worth forty million?
AL: In Puerto Rico he is. In Puerto Rico he's like the Sultan of Brunei.
HS: But you got between four and six million for Scooby Doo it was reported. That's a nice hunk of change.
SMG: I did not make that much for Scooby Doo. Are you crazy?
HS: It's in the newspaper.
SMG: Go read Entertainment-I did not make-I will tell you right now, I did not make close that much for Scooby Doo.
HS: Really?
AL: Howard, I guarantee you she gets back end points on that Buffy.
SJ: Yeah.
SMG: I promise you, on Buffy, I do not.
HS: I'm thinking on Buffy she doesn't, they got her over the barrel, they signed her when she was off a soap opera.
AL: Well you renegotiate.
RQ: All right, do you make a lot of money off the endorsement deal?
SMG: Oh, for Maybelline?
RQ: Yes.
SMG: I do nicely for Maybelline.
........................................
Commercial Break
[> [> Re: SMG on Howard Stern snippets - No spoilers (Part III) -- JBone, 21:58:45 06/25/02 Tue
Commercial Break
.......................................
HS: Do you spend most of your day, when you're shooting Buffy, do you spend most of your day memorizing dialog?
SMG: Most of it.
HS: You do right?
SMG: Most of it...
RQ: Then also the moves, everything's choreographed, you gotta remember all that, right?
SMG: Yeah, that, that, that sometimes confuses me, you'll see me in the middle of a fight scene and just totally forget, and all of a sudden I just get hit, and I'm like 'oh right, I was suppose to duck there.'
HS: Do you know how to do karate for real?
SMG: Taekwondo is what I studied.
HS: Really?
SMG: Um Hmm.
HS: You got your black belt?
SMG: I'm a brown belt. Richard Chun, 86th Street. East side. Above the old Crazy Eddies.
HS: You ever fight another person, like, legitimately.
SMG: Just in film and television.
HS: You ever use it in your real life?
SMG: No.
HS: What?
GD: You know, I was looking through the notes. Sarah had to take a special three week course to learn how to fight less good than Buffy for Scooby.
HS: Really?
SMG: I had to do all the wire work, yeah. Hong Kong wire team.
HS: Cause your too good at it.
SMG: Well, I also didn't know the wires. There's also the whole language barrier thing, that's rough when people don't speak English and you're trying to learn moves. That's kind of rough.
HS: You look cute as hell, I can't concentrate on what you're saying.
SMG: Sorry.
Commercial Break
HS: I want to thank Sarah Michelle GelLAR. A lot of people don't know your name is GelLAR. Ah, Scooby Doo is the movie in theaters everywhere, she's about to be married to Freddie Prinze, Jr.
RQ: They'll be a big hollywood couple.
HS: Will you change your name to Prinze?
RQ: GelLAR Prinze.
SMG: GelLAR Prinze.
HS: Will you be GelLAR Prinze?
SMG: I might make up a whole new name. No, I mean for working purposes I'm gonna keep my name, because, I think it's silly to confuse people when you all of a sudden change your name, but in our personal life, yeah.
HS: Right.
AL: (hispanic accent) Sarah Michelle Prinze, Si.
SMG: Si.
HS: Or Sarah Michelle GelLAR Jr.
RQ: Now, how many kids are we gonna have? Have we talked about that?
SMG: If it was up to Freddie, it would be a bushel. It would be like a litter.
HS: Now don't ruin your body that way baby.
SMG: No, it'd be a couple, two or three.
RQ: Yeah?
SMG: Two or three.
AL: Oh, that's nice.
HS: What, you got a big house together? How many bedrooms?
SMG: Umm, I'm not sure, three or four.
HS: What is it about, 2 million that house? What'd you spend on it?
SMG: I don't know.
AL: 2 million
HS: Got a pool?
SMG: Yes. Got a jacuzzi too, an outdoor jacuzzi.
HS: When I get to LA, you outta invite me over, and let me look things over.
SMG: OK.
HS: See what's doin.
Some of the things about Buffy that was on the radio interview, that didn't make tv was Howards high opinion of the series this year, excepting a couple episodes the middle of this year, and the musical. SMG expressed no interest in ever doing another musical. They also talked about Michelle Trachtenberg some. But I'll spare you the details. And that's all I can remember at this point.
[> [> [> damn, there was something else -- JBone, 22:24:28 06/25/02 Tue
There was a thing when Howard and Sarah were saying goodbye to each other that there was a funny joke with Alyson that I somehow didn't get in. Uhhh, I'm not working on this anymore tonight, so I'll just let it go unless others want it. And a funny bit about hollywood types adopting black babies. Is that wrong? (Hint: It's a joke.)
[> [> [> [> Re: damn, there was something else -- JM, 05:11:16 06/26/02 Wed
Thanks for providing this. It was very interesting. HS can be a difficult interview to maintain diplomacy around, but it looks like she mostly avoided missteps.
Random observations on Season 2 -- Raven_NightDragon, 22:08:08 06/25/02 Tue
I have been watching the season 2 dvd set a lot lately, as I don't have cable and there isn't much on. So, I have noticed a few things I felt compelled to comment on.
Charisma seemed to have a bad cold during "When She Was Bad" Which explained why Cordelia sounds like she had cotton stuffed up her nose.
After watching the season all the way through, it seems that the crew started to use better film stock as time went on. The first few episodes are really grainy, especially in scenes with little light. By around Halloween or so, the grain was less noticeable.
After watching Bad Eggs, something odd stuck me. Near the end, Buffy and Xander are in the library, reading up on the bezor. It seems to be some time after Buffy's mom was supposed to picker her up, 5pm. Probably at least 6pm, maybe later. While Buffy and Xander are talking, they hear Jonathon yelling for help as he is attacked by the offspring. The question is, what was Jonathon doing there that late if he wasn't already being controlled by the bezor? My guess is IITS, and bonus points to those of you know what that means.
I have way too much time on my hands.
[> IITS (It's In The Script) -- Earl Allison, 03:03:22 06/26/02 Wed
Been using it for awhile -- picked it up off some of the bad movie review websites, like Jabootu, Stomp Tokyo, Badmovies.org, etc.
Take it and run.
[> [> Re: IITS (It's In The Script) -- Cleanthes, 09:13:23 06/26/02 Wed
It's in the script is a good enough reason, isn't it? After all, Jonathan probably stayed late at the school as often as an average high-school student. I remember once in a while staying quite late. Maybe the chess club meeting just broke up. There's always an occasional reason, but it would violate the rules of TV drama to waste time making up a reason that didn't pertain to the plot or the theme.
Current board
| More June 2002