June 2002 posts
Edits in Season Two DVDs? -- Earl Allison, 02:19:01 06/26/02 Wed
I was perusing the alt.buffy newsgroup, as I generally do, and came across an interesting thread about edits in the Season Two DVDs, most specifically, the episode "Lie To Me."
Here's the excerpts most relevant:
(from Don Sample)
Cuts from the DVD version of _Lie to Me_:
- When Ford first shows up in the lounge Buffy's "This is great! Well, I mean, it's hard, sudden move, all your friends, delicate time, very emotional, but let's talk about me! This is great!" line.
- Buffy's "You drink--non blood drinks." line to Angel in the Bronze
- Willow's "Is that so bad? I mean, the dark can get pretty dark. Sometimes you need a story." line in the Sunset club.
- Ford saying "You are Spike, right? William the Bloody?" to Spike.
- Ford's "Oh Christ!" when he hears about the visit from Angel and the others.
- Spike telling Dru "It's going to be all right, baby." while Buffy is holding a stake to her heart.
Then, from Mathew:
Additional note - I compated the DVD, the first run on FX and the first run on WB of Lie To Me. The ONLY place these lines were said was on the WB, They were cut from the first run on FX too! Even though I thought they played full eps n
FX the first time around.
Does anyone know why this was done? For what it's worth, I was only able to check the Australian Season Two set, and it too is missing at least one of these lines. However, since the US DVDs seem to be exact ports of the UK and Australian ones, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Does anyone know why this would happen? I can't say how cheated I feel right now -- I DID deep-six my old tapes, and now I'm pretty pissed off. Why would there be edits in the episodes, when the DVDs are generally considered complete?
Thoughts?
Take it and run.
[> Re: Edits in Season Two DVDs? -- JM, 05:00:46 06/26/02 Wed
I honestly can't remember back to when I saw the eps on the WB, way too long ago. However I would be interested in hearing this out. One thing though, I would be really, really surprised if "Oh, Christ," were in the original broadcast. I have never heard a religious epithet on broadcast, network television and would be very surprised if the network that had difficulty with "slut" and "virgin" would have permitted it. I could be wrong though. Anyone?
[> [> Xander said that epithet recently... -- Belladonna, 06:52:20 06/26/02 Wed
I don't know about the Lie to Me debate (I started watching Buffy on Fx), but I do know that "Christ" has been said very recently. In Villains, when Willow finally lets Xander and Buffy know about Tara's death, Xander says, "Christ, Will. Why didn't you tell us?" I was pretty surprised and impressed that they could say that, and even checked the closed captions and shooting script to make sure I wasn't hearing it wrong. Granted, 6th season and 2nd season are very different, so it would be more surprising to hear it in Lie To Me, but it has been said on Buffy.
[> [> [> And speaking of epithets.... -- LadyStarlight, 13:08:03 06/26/02 Wed
Didn't Maggie Walsh's TAs call her 'the evil bitch-monster of death'?
AFAIK, 'bitch' is also an epithet. Unless you're at a dog show, of course. ;)
[> [> [> [> Re: And speaking of epithets.... -- JM, 14:01:42 06/26/02 Wed
From what I remember, NYPD Blue's first season was the same time (about ten years ago) that a sudden shift in allowable "bad" language occured on network television. (I'm not sure if that show was a result or a catalyst.) For the first time a certain number of medium bad words were being allowed, after a certain hour, and only so many per time slot. (If I have any of my facts right.) The root of bitca was one, as well as the American of "arse." (I'm going for cute, funny here, not cute precious. Just clarifying.) Before that change, everyone had to make do with d*mn and h*ll.
Certain words still aren't allowed (though I heard ER pushed the envelope by using one in their season finale this year). I had always gotten the impression that religious epithets were among the not permitted because it's a particularly sensitive social and political subject. But perhaps that's just my misremembering. I remember a fair number of d*mns in my TV watching career, but no G**d**ns. So more examples would be educational. I'm always interest in the particulars of rules and censorship limitations. It has a kind of cultural anthropological fascination.
[> Re: Edits in Season Two DVDs? -- Mutable, 13:39:59 06/26/02 Wed
IIRC, it was a royalties issue over the song that played in the background of that scene. Do a google search in atbtvs. There was a more detailed discussion there about a year/year and half back.
Show vs. Tell...has anyone read this? (Spoilers up to grave) -- Doriander, 05:14:25 06/26/02 Wed
Methinks it was Joss himself that got his fish order changed. I'm glad I'm not slow. This somewhat vindicates those of us who supposedly read it wrong.
excerpt:
So, now it turns out Spike was actually asking for a soul from the beginning of that whole subplot?
They're switching it up again. I thought I knew what was going on until Joss said what he said. It's a case of what is the most interesting thing and he's kept his options open at the end of the scene. I was instructed to play it as if I wanted to get the chip out and was surprised and mad about the soul. But, as a storyteller, he leaves himself the option of going exactly the opposite direction without having to compromise integrity at all. The way that he constructed it, and I think he did it because of that, he left his options open.
full interview here
Personally I wish the writers did not come out and declare Spike's actual intent. Somehow the claim that they knew Spike's intent all along seems a bit fishy.
[> Fishy for those go fish -- Cleanthes, 06:30:57 06/26/02 Wed
Personally I wish the writers did not come out and declare Spike's actual intent. Somehow the claim that they knew Spike's intent all along seems a bit fishy.
Did they not intend all along to do the most interesting thing they could imagine? Would a determinist-founded, baroque clockwork plotting be the most interesting? I think so, but only if one admires the baroque from afar. Yet, people insist on fishing in the water clock! So, to preserve integrity, the Platonic noble lie must be employed.
[> [> Re: Fishy for those go fish -- Doriander, 07:58:32 06/26/02 Wed
Whoa! You slash me with your words! ;)
Okay, I'll come out and say I'm out of my league here. I'm from an art and design background, so perhaps the only thing I sort of get is your reference to baroque. We barely touched on philosophy (maybe we did only I didn't realize it), in fact, deliberately opted it out of my lib arts courses. Odd considering this is the only board I frequent lately. I want to understand, seeing as it is my personal statement you responded to. Help me out, please?
[> [> [> Re: Fishy for those go fish -- Cleanthes, 08:53:50 06/26/02 Wed
First, I hate it when I screw up in my subject heads. I meant to call this "Fishy for those who go fish". As it stands, it's even more of a reference to the child's card game than I intended. So, I didn't mean to slash you with any of this aspect! Sorry for the goof-up.
I think you understood what I meant, really, because you picked up on my use of baroque, which is the key word I used.
I mean that the writers for BtVS use an intentionally baroque style in order to preserve their ability to surprise. Well, and it's pretty much standard with horror fiction, of course.
Meanwhile, the game that fans play when asking questions of the writers is to penetrate the baroque and find some solid "truth" to the fiction. This is fishing for the fishy, to switch metaphors, or perhaps as I suggested, we're talking about fishing in a baroque water clock.
(example:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/shl/Eyes/machines/fig6_files/image001.jpg)
So, I guess I merely state the obvious that fishy things are always discovered when one looks for them. (it's better than actual fishing, then, because I seldom catch anything when I do that)
I agree with you that the writers really shouldn't tell us what they "really" intended. It spoils the irony and the baroque, and, hey, I don't believe the writers when they tell us this stuff; but other people believe that what the writers say in interviews is somehow more dispositive than what the writers tell us when we see the results of their writing on the show. Phooie. What's told is less, not more dispositive than what's shown. Which is true even more so considering that the purpose of the fishing for the fishy on the part of the interviewers and fans was finding the fishy, while on the part of the show-writers, the purpose of supply "fish" is to tick off the fewest number of fans while preserving coyness. Getting at the truth is lost, isn't it?
The Platonic noble lie, as I understand it, is one that's told when a question is raised that shouldn't really be answered. Then, the philosopher king will rightly lie. Perhaps I'm putting the ME writers on too high a pedastal? Naah... ;-)
[> [> [> [> Thanks Cleanthes. Appreciate it. : ) -- Doriander, 10:19:04 06/26/02 Wed
Perhaps I'm putting the ME writers on too high a pedastal? Naah... ;-)
Hee.
[> Re: Show vs. Tell...has anyone read this? (Spoilers up to grave) -- shadowkat, 08:22:47 06/26/02 Wed
Going to swing around Cleanthes comment, b/c my philosophy
courses were 15 years ago, and I can't remember my Plato.
LOL!
You are right it does vindicate us, or at least me. I initially laughed at the end of Grave, b/c I bought
what the actor says he was instructed to convey.
Here's what I think Joss was going for and what I think
JM was trying to convey in the interview:
Spike was furious and blaming her for the situation, so
his demon, the part in control or rather out of control,
thought it was getting the chip removed. To be the BB
again. To be restored to his former monstrous self, since hey, he'll never be a man, he'll never be good enough for her. So how about being the monster again and killing her, reverting back? Remind you of a teenager yelling and giving a tantrum? Yep. And the theme is growing up. And gee, they paralleled him colorwise with Willow...hmmm.
Unconsciously, Spike wants the soul. This is shown when his memories are stripped away in Tabula Rasa or when he tries to talk to her in Smashed. But he won't admit it to himself.
So here's the problem, how do you get an actor to portray that? If you tell the actor that the character wants a soul but doesn't know it and is going for the chip instead, the
actor gets confused and makes it way too complicated.
So, if I was the director - I'd tell the actor that he's furious with Buffy and wants to become BB again and to play that - b/c let's face it that's what the demon would do.
The unconscious desire - the part that loves Buffy won't show. You have to beat it out of him. Hence the reason for the trials. If Spike consciously was going for a soul - they couldn't give it to him and also they'd have to do the trials much differently. And it would kill their whole
them - about not always getting what we want in life and how life throws curves and we get what we need or deep down really desire and just don't know it? (Anthony Burgess
covers this a bit in his book A Clockwork Orange - final
21st chapter - it's also thematically portrayed in the
Wolverine story in X-men.)
To get Marsters to portray this in the way they wanted, they tricked him and the audience. Killed two birds -
one the spoiler stalkers who became convinced he was
going after removal of the chip and two portraying the complexities in the character.
Brilliantly done in my opinion and very interesting.
Nothing fishy about it.
or in other words:
Yes Spike all along wanted a soul, Spike just didn't know
it's what he wanted.
[> [> Re: Show vs. Tell...has anyone read this? (Spoilers up to grave) -- aliera, 09:39:07 06/26/02 Wed
And a good explanation for the debates on if he wanted a soul or not..."And I discovered that working in TV, you can wholesale eradicate that problem ( anticipation of emotions) from your performance by not asking what's going to happen next week.
I am as ignorant as my character and I therefore can fight for my character wholly and then be completely up a tree as Spike can be and not even concern myself with what's going to happen..."
James has said from the beginning he doesn't *want* to know. Part of his style of acting...but, also why in spite of the writer's statements peoples have debated the point...I can understand also his anger at the turnabout...in this situation it partially backfired. He always gives a good interview.
[> [> Re: Show vs. Tell...has anyone read this? (Spoilers up to grave) -- Doriander, 10:31:26 06/26/02 Wed
To get Marsters to portray this in the way they wanted, they tricked him and the audience. Killed two birds -
one the spoiler stalkers who became convinced he was
going after removal of the chip and two portraying the complexities in the character.
Yes Spike all along wanted a soul, Spike just didn't know
it's what he wanted.
Well if you put it that way. Still there's that nagging JE interview where she states Spike looked into himself and saw the demon, resolved to change himself and be someone Buffy deserves. Grrr!
Anyway. Lesson learned. I should just simply ignore what writers say from here on in, which is what Joss advised us in the first place.
[> [> [> Re: -- aliera, 11:10:01 06/26/02 Wed
It cracked me up that she said something to the effect of he looked into his innermost soul and realized...even they were having trouble explaining it...personally the whole soul issue has gotten pretty confused...he was conflicted, so he was definitely developing something prior the resouling!
[> [> [> Re: Show vs. Tell...has anyone read this? (Spoilers up to grave) -- Cleanthes, 11:25:57 06/26/02 Wed
Anyway. Lesson learned. I should just simply ignore what writers say from here on in, which is what Joss advised us in the first place.
Would it be better if the notion of the Platonic lie were more widely accepted? That is, if nearly everyone knew that the writers were playing a game with us when they gave interviews? After all, we willingly suspend disbelief when we watch the show because we accept that such suspension is part of the game that goes into watching a fictional presentation.
I mentioned above that interviewers and fans are, in my view, playing a "gotcha" game to a very great extent when questioning the writers. I would, for my own part, prefer that the writers never answer "gotcha" questions, but, since that could only work in some Utopian world, practically, I'd love it if the writers were just upfront about their lies, half-truths and retcons.
[> [> Once again you amaze with your analytical abilities!;-) -- shygirl, 15:06:51 06/26/02 Wed
[> [> Re: Show vs. Tell...has anyone read this? (Spoilers up to grave) -- Rufus, 16:07:11 06/26/02 Wed
Nothing fishy about it. or in other words:
Yes Spike all along wanted a soul, Spike just didn't know
it's what he wanted.
Hmmmmm if that is not what he wanted why go to a demon that happens to specialize in restoration spells? I find with Spike that he is all show then he does the exact thing I figured he was out for. He did a similar thing in Crush when it appeared he had arranged to incapacitate Buffy to do the torture thing to turn on his ex. But then he turns around and zaps the ex....so what did he want? He wanted what he wanted from that dream in OOMM, he wanted Buffy. He may have made a lot of noise and gone through a bit of trouble to set up the scene to attempt to make her admit to liking him......but even with Dru there he still wanted Buffy.....no wonder Dru laughed so much....even she knows that Spike is rather predictable.
Now, to the soul.....this year, the year of growing up.....but what happens when you grow up? With Spike growing up was taking a chance...losing his Big Bad persona that had gotten him so much recognition, made him feel all manly like...but it was a big stumbling block to Buffy, who doesn't find a fellow with a long hit list a good candidate for the long haul guy. Spike had spent all those years doing the worst imaginable things to get attention, get noticed, even if it was for the wrong thing. Add in the fact that he was in a new society where being a killer is a good thing, a nutty girfriend with a doll fixation, and the result is William the Bloody. Then he got the chip....the chip that allowed some of the humanity he soundly rejected, to peek through....he started appreciating things that we take as normal....food (well, blood and Wheetabix, but a start)flowering onions, chicken wings.....television, can a guy that likes Passions be all evil?..;)...talking to people, even if they were rejecting of him. I found that he was even looking at some vampires in a new light when in All the Way, he called the one young vampire an idiot. Spike has gone through a progression of events that lead him to a cave, a cave where he finally faced the thing he thought made him weak, his soul. Spike may have grumbled all the way to Africa, but I don't think for a moment that he was going for anything but a soul. Once he was able to feel revulsion for his actions in Seeing Red, he was a goner, he could never go back to what he once was, and he knew that. In Seeing Red he had Buffy in a position that he could have killed her, instead he was desperate to make her love him...the demon inside, that lack of moral compass, allowing him to go that much further (similar to the situation in "The Pack" and Xanders demon possession). Spike knew that he couldn't be a man, and I don't think he fancied being a monster any more....so grumbling and griping all the way he made it to Africa. At first he went on about giving Buffy what she deserved, but if he wanted to get even he could have finished her off in Seeing Red (she was so surprised by the attack for a moment he had the upper hand), so it wasn't killing he wanted. By the end of the trials, when the demon told him he passed, it was in his voice the final time he mentioned "giving Buffy what she deserves" that I detected resignation, and a lack of anger....he was there for a soul....he just didn't want to admit it to anyone including himself. In that final moment before his wish was granted, Spike grew up...he knew that to get a soul there would be consequences and he was ready to accept that. Add to that...the fact that he may never get the girl, he may get something else, and I think that's what Giles was so hopeful for in season four when he asked Spike if the chip may have opened a way for Spike to serve a higher purpose.
[> [> [> Wow -- shygirl, 17:13:12 06/26/02 Wed
"I think that's what Giles was so hopeful for in season four when he asked Spike if the chip may have opened a way for Spike to serve a higher purpose."
Being new to Buffyverse I've not seen all of the episodes and I keep missing that one.... yes, forshadowing does seem to be a theme for JW. Excellent. Gee I certainly enjoy reading such fascinating analysis... I'm lazy you see. It comes with old age...lol I like letting you guys do the work!
[> [> [> Nice post Rufus! -- ponygirl, 08:36:38 06/27/02 Thu
[> [> [> Re: Show vs. Tell...has anyone read this? (Spoilers up to grave) -- aliera, 17:45:19 06/27/02 Thu
Rufus, I don't disagree with your post; it was very good. But I don't think we know that he/she does specialize in restoration spells. I would very much like to know who that demon was.
[> [> [> [> Great post Rufus - but agree..want to know too. -- shadowkat, 18:57:44 06/27/02 Thu
But I don't trust ME to tell us. Look at how many loose plot threads they've left hanging...
Really want to know who or what that demon was. Until I do
or they explain what happened...I'm going to stay neutral on this one, I think.
Oh - they must be planning something interesting, Fox forced AngelX to stop posting spoilers on her board and site over at B C & S. Interesting.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: OT -- aliera, 19:15:14 06/27/02 Thu
Makes sense of one of Sara' comments recently, though. Suspect the publicity this spring caused it. I was worried back arounf the time of the Deknight interview about this very kind of thing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OT -- shadowkat, 05:42:09 06/28/02 Fri
Yep it does...I'm surprised they waited as long as they did.
(Six years??) Maybe it had something to do with how huge the spoilers were that she posted?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Great post Rufus - but agree..want to know too. -- Rufus, 01:37:06 06/28/02 Fri
Well as for the Cross and Stake.....they may be able to force her to take down the banners, but I don't think they can force her to take the spoilers down.....or they would have to put Wanda out of business as well....;)
AngelX will still have her message boards and most of her site intact.....there are ways to get the spoilers out to the masses......the way we get spoilers may change...but Spoiler Trollops remain the same....dedicated...;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Great post Rufus - but agree..want to know too. -- shadowkat, 06:08:13 06/28/02 Fri
"Well as for the Cross and Stake.....they may be able to force her to take down the banners, but I don't think they can force her to take the spoilers down.....or they would have to put Wanda out of business as well....;)"
Interesting. According to the thread, they did.
I can explain this actually: the reason this happened to AngelX and not Wanda or Herc is AngelX was way too obvious about her spoiler posts. She posted full pages of dialogue on her site. All of Hells Bells. BBovenguy posted the entire
scene as scripted between Xander and Willow on the hilltop almost three weeks before it was televised.
She also posted word by word what happened in portions of SR - almost a month prior to it being televised. Posting scripts, dialogue, and actual written scenes before they are televised or out there is copyright infringement and I'm surprised they didn't take her down before now.
Referring to spoilers like Wanda, Herc or Spoilerslayer
does isn't. If she just said so and so is the BB, they couldn't do anything. Or just said Xander saves Willow - nope can't do anything. Notice how subtle and ambiguious
Wanda and Herc are at times? Wanda: "He makes an order and it rhymes with a Korean Town." or " The fourth one is the charm". AngelX - "so and so will die and this how and here is everything I know." That's why. As long as you don't reproduce anything copyrighted by Fox in a way that infringes on their commerical enterprise, then it's unlikely they'll sue. Ah...copyright on the net, a funky subject. You should see the arguments regarding it on
one of my list serves. ;-)
[> [> [> [> Re: Show vs. Tell...has anyone read this? (Spoilers up to grave) -- Rufus, 23:23:12 06/27/02 Thu
I went by what the Demon said to Spike in "Villians"
From the Closed Caption of "Villians"
Voice: YOU SEEK ME, VAMPIRE?
Spike: YOU DO THE FINGER PAINTINGS? NICE WORK.
Voice: ANSWER ME.
Spike: YEAH. I SEEK YOU.
Voice: SOMETHING ABOUT A WOMAN. THE SLAYER.
Spike: BITCH THINKS SHE'S BETTER THAN ME. EVER SINCE I GOT
THIS BLEEDING CHIP IN MY HEAD,THINGS AIN'T BEEN RIGHT.
EVERYTHING'S GONE TO HELL.
Voice: AND YOU WANT TO RETURN TO YOUR FORMER SELF.
Spike: YEAH.
Voice: HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Spike: WHAT?
Voice: LOOK WHAT SHE'S REDUCED YOU TO.IT'S THIS BLOODY CHIP--YOU WERE A LEGENDARY DARK WARRIOR,AND YOU LET YOURSELF
BE CASTRATED,AND YOU HAVE THE AUDACITY TO CRAWL IN HERE
AND DEMAND RESTORATION.
Spike: I'M STILL A WARRIOR.
Voice: YOU'RE A PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR A DEMON.
Spike: YEAH? I'LL SHOW YOU PATHETIC. GIMME YOUR BEST SHOT.
Voice: YOU'D NEVER ENDURE THE TRIALS REQUIRED TO GRANT YOUR REQUEST.
Spike: DO YOUR WORST. BUT WHEN I WIN, I WANT WHAT I CAME
HERE FOR. BITCH IS GONNA SEE A CHANGE.
First off, the Demon mentions "restoration" and since there wasn't much refinished furniture or paintings around that cave (I know, I know it was dark in there) I made a guess based upon what I had seen over the season. Since Buffy made it clear that she couldn't love, or trust someone without a soul (she trusted Spike but only so far)...it made sense that the big trip wasn't for just a hole drilling, chip removal deal...though maybe that demon had the right equipment for the job....;)
Second, Spike says Buffy aka Bitch will see a change.....and Buffy has seen all Spike has to offer in the Soul-free model.....so the only change that made sense would be that of the return of the soul and/or humanity of Spike....now that would be a change......plus in Tablua Rasa, Buffy did mention how lame another vampire with a soul would be (too much temptation for Joss to pass up, a twist on an already told story). But of course the soul story is one told all the time, so how can there be only one for the story to be valid? We saw only glimpses of Angel's reaction to the restoration of the soul, with Spike we are going to get a story that is told starting from the point of restoration. The trials in the cave are easy compared to a vampire with a new perspective living in the world.....he may wish for the simplicity of a cave yet again.
[> [> [> [> [> OK I can Agree with that -- shadowkat, 05:54:32 06/28/02 Fri
"But of course the soul story is one told all the time, so how can there be only one for the story to be valid? We saw only glimpses of Angel's reaction to the restoration of the soul, with Spike we are going to get a story that is told starting from the point of restoration. The trials in the cave are easy compared to The trials in the cave are easy compared to a vampire with a new perspective living in the world.....he may wish for the simplicity of a cave yet again."
Well put. My gut says you're absolutely right on this one.
And to be honest...I think the acting actually works towards
it. The ambiguity makes the whole story more interesting.
So, getting off the fence, and choosing to accept your version of how they decided to tell it.
I'm actually looking forward to it - with Angel all we see are flashbacks, with Spike, we get to see it from the beginning, present tense. Also a big difference between the two - which also intriques me is Spike choose that soul, knowing full well what it entailed by being with Angelus and Angel. He also, unlike Angel, had it returned to him in a painful and apparently permanent way. There's no going back...plus, unlike Angel, Spike did it out of love for someone who made it clear she couldn't love him back. HE couldn't get that without the soul - how much do you want to bet he understands why now? Makes an intriguing storyline, albeit painful one, depending on your perspective. Hope they have enough time to explore it
next season...if it is indeed their last.
[> [> [> Excellent post, Rufus. -- Ixchel, 20:18:17 06/27/02 Thu
[> While you're at that site... -- Darby, 10:39:59 06/26/02 Wed
...Go and read the interviews with ASH and SMG (links at the bottom of the JM page). ASH is particularly interesting in advice that he's gotten from Joss (is it any wonder that without him there day-to-day that the show is shakier?) and more thematic detail about the Giles spinoff than I've seen anywhere else. The SMG stuff is mostly Scooby-related, but she says some stuff about the internet that many people here will feel good about.
And personally, I don't think you're doing your job as a writer if the actors don't know what their characters are supposed to want, unless the characters aren't supposed to know, and I didn't get that from JM. He seemed a bit ticked to find out he'd been playing it "wrong."
[> [> Re: While you're at that site... -- Arethusa, 11:16:42 06/26/02 Wed
Interesting stuff about "Ripper." It looks like they might finally get into Giles's angst, his lonliness, and such issues as his killing of Ben, and past mistakes. I found more on "Ripper" at: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~pardos/RipperNews.html
[> AAARRRG!!@^&%#$&%^ -- yuri, throwing her hands up in frustration, 12:27:08 06/26/02 Wed
This whole thing just pisses me off. I mean really, what the hell? I want to just go by Joss's advice and ignore anything the writers tell us, but this is totally different than saying Tara won't die or anything else they've said. This is disputing something that already happened, assumptions that were already made. And it really makes a difference , too. (For me, at least - not so much for the plot next year as for my overall view of pre-souled Spike.)
Bad news regarding OMWF's chances of getting an Emmy... -- Rob, 08:44:17 06/26/02 Wed
I got the article from http://www.tvguide.com/newsgossip/insider/
Curses! Emmy Bites Buffy Again!
Wednesday, June 26, 2002
Buffy the Vampire Slayer has always waged an uphill battle for Emmy recognition. But now, not only does the UPN sleeper have to convince members of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences that it's more than a freak show about vampires and demons and ghouls (oh my!), it apparently must also remind the Academy that it even exists! When ATAS sent out nomination ballots earlier this month, there was a glaring omission in the list of potential contenders in the drama writing category: Buffy's sublime musical episode, "Once More with Feeling," penned - punch lines, lyrics and all - by series creator Joss Whedon. What the hellmouth is going on here?
Human error was apparently to blame, but an ATAS spokesperson insists the problem has since been resolved. "We sent out a notification to the voters, which allowed them to cast their vote [for 'Once More with Feeling'] almost immediately," the rep tells TV Guide Online. "It was basically a supplement to the ballot. The situation was rectified ASAP and there were no repercussions from it."
Yeah, right. Those close to the situation say the snafu will likely cost Whedon whatever chance he had of getting noticed by voters. (The glitch will not impact Buffy in other categories, such as best drama series, nor will it hinder lead actress hopeful Sarah Michelle Gellar.) "Anybody who's going to get the ballot [will] make their initial picks and send it in," suggests a source at Fox, Buffy's production company. "There's always going to be a percentage of people who are not going to take the time to do what the postcard says, which is, 'Whoops, there was a mistake. Please consider ["Once More with Feeling"], and if you want to vote for it, we'll change your ballot.'"
Worse, even Buffy's code-cracking Scooby gang would have a tough time deciphering the addendum that the Academy mailed out, says goldderby.com award-show guru Tom O'Neil. "It entailed such an extraordinary effort that it was unlikely the voters would do it even if they loved the episode. So, it definitely curses its chances." - Michael Ausiello with Charlie Mason
Rob
[> "Accidentally", yeah, right... -- Direwolf, 09:00:13 06/26/02 Wed
The "human error" was probably some clerk who felt a "teenage freak show" like Buffy had no place among "distinguished and real" shows.
Discrimination much, anyone?
[> NOOOO!!! This gives the Emmy institution just the excuse ... -- Exegy, 09:23:52 06/26/02 Wed
... it needs to snub BtVS once again. I mean, leaving out OMWF is a glaring omission. Oh, it was "human error"! Grrrr.
Face it, the best chance BtVS has ever had to actually win an Emmy was just flushed down the toilet. No mainstream respect.
Gah, flood of bitterness here.
[> [> Well, let us console ourselves in our thriving counter-culture-ness. Mainstream my yass. -- yuri, 12:34:26 06/26/02 Wed
[> [> [> Solidarity in Buffy appreciation!! -- Exegy, 14:21:06 06/26/02 Wed
Going for the Soul, Why did Spike go to Africa, from an interview with JM -- Dochawk, 10:07:47 06/26/02 Wed
This is from an interview with JM. You can find the original here:
http://actionadventure.about.com/library/weekly/2002/aa062402.htm?
But guess what? It turns out, we were only supposed to think that the soul was a mistake. Buffy creator Joss Whedon revealed in a panel discussion at the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences that we were only supposed to think he wanted his chip removed. Even Marsters was surprised to hear that Spike wanted a soul all along. As he discussed his anticipations for next season's Buffy, it appeared he
only found out about Whedon's switcheroo that night.
So, now it turns out Spike was actually asking for a soul from the beginning of that whole subplot?
*They're switching it up again. I thought I knew what was going on until Joss said what he said. It's a case of what is the most interesting thing and he's kept his options open at the end of the scene. I was instructed to play it as if I wanted to get the chip out and was surprised and mad about the soul. But, as a storyteller, he leaves himself the option of going exactly the opposite direction without having to compromise integrity at all. The way that he
constructed it, and I think he did it because of that, he left his options open.*
Will Spike be a vampire with a soul or a human?
*Oh, a vampire with a soul. His flesh is still dead. His blood is still cold. But he has to deal with the ramifications of 1000 murders.*
Well, I won't ask you something as lame as how will it be different from Angel?
*Yeah. It will be. That's the one thing you can guarantee and I don't know how it's going to be different from Angel, but it will be.*
How will Spike deal with his attempted rape of Buffy in the next season?
*Dealing with that is what sent him out to the desert. Obviously, he didn't deal very well with it. Obviously he blamed her for it and was so angry that he wanted to go do something even more horrible. As often happens, and that's the point that's often made on the show, that evil comes about often when people feel very guilty about
something that they've done but can't face it. It drives them to further acts of evil. You saw it with Faith and I don't know where it's going to lead with Spike. Seriously, I don't know what's going."
So essentially, Joss changed the meaning of Spike's journey to Africa, AFTER the fact. makes me feel better about how I interpeted it.
to happen.*
[> Re: Going for the Soul, Why did Spike go to Africa, from an interview with JM -- verdantheart, 10:47:09 06/26/02 Wed
Thanks for the link!
Changing the import of several important scenes after having the actor play it the other way leaves them with a lot of back-filling to do -- especially when you're talking about confusing the circumstances surrounding an event that brings about what we can anticipate to be a tremendous change in a character. I still think that they could have handled the writing (particularly the misdirection) better.
[> Re: Going for the Soul, Why did Spike go to Africa, from an interview with JM -- Dead Soul, 12:43:46 06/26/02 Wed
Me too, Dochawk. I thought he'd been tricked into getting the soul until the writers started doing the retcon and I would still think so if I hadn't read the various interviews.
So I really don't think the ending, by itself, was as open to interpretation as they're telling us. But I'm of the school of thought that once the product (art) is out there, how to interpret it is up to each individual who encounters it. What I mean is, they can tell us how to interpret it, but if they have to do that because they feel people are "misinterpreting" it, aren't they just drawing attention to the fact that they've failed?
So, damn it, until the show itself convinces me otherwise, I'm going imagine a very pissed off souled vampire who should have been more careful what he wished for.
(I'm also free to interpret the scene as an Iclandic/ Kabuki/black-and-white-minstrel-show rendition of "A Chorus Line." What's ME gonna do? Send me to the thought police for a thorough brain-washing? My brain is dry clean only.)
Parenthetically, peevishly and (it could be interpreted) pettily,
Dead (and I didn't mention ch**kb*nes once!)Soul
[> [> Re: Going for the Soul, Why did Spike go to Africa, from an interview with JM -- Cleanthes, 13:00:13 06/26/02 Wed
Spike could already hurt Buffy. Why would it matter to him one way or the other if he had his chip out? It doesn't make sense to me that he would go all the way to Africa to get the chip out. Heck, the chip is a technological thing and removing it seems a matter of technology. He has to have at least subconsciously realized that going to a mystical mojo dude in Africa was going to result in a mystical outcome. He neither wanted a soul or the chip out, as I saw the episode -- he wanted what Buffy needed. Isn't that what he SAID he wanted?
[> [> [> Re: Going for the Soul, Why did Spike go to Africa, from an interview with JM -- MaeveRigan, 13:30:44 06/26/02 Wed
Spike's final request, whatever he may have been going for to being with, was worded: "So, give me what I want. Make me what I was... so Buffy can get what she deserves." ("Grave" shooting script, http://www.StudiesInWords.de/shooting/grave2.html)
Obviously, this can be interpreted various ways. Does Spike think Buffy deserves a vampire with a soul (something like William), or does he think she deserves old Big Bad Spike who can kill her, or at least give it a serious try again?
Apparently Joss wanted JM to perform it as ambiguously as possible, so the audience would interpret it as variously as possible. Still, I don't think there are an INFINITE number of interpretations, given the context.
[> [> [> [> Re: Going for the Soul, Why did Spike go to Africa, from an interview with JM -- Malandanza, 19:03:31 06/26/02 Wed
I guess I can see a sort of logic in this scenario. Spike wanted revenge but buried in his subconscious are the fragments of William and William might very well want his soul back to stop the wickedness that is Spike. The demon could easily have been aware of these conflicting desires and chosen to honor the request that would make Spike suffer the most (I don't buy the argument the demon is good 'cause he's green -- green may mean good if you're an environmentalist, but it hasn't always been so). The rage had been pretty much beaten out of Spike by the end of his trials, so William might even have been closer to the surface than usual. And I think it's pretty clear that Spike (or whatever creature takes his place) will now be suffering great pangs of remorse -- if Angelus and Darla suffer from guilty consciences when their souls are restored, how much more likely is that Spike will as well?
As for the comments that souled creatures do evil, so why would a soul necessarily make a difference, consider these remarks from the interview:
"As often happens, and that's the point that's often made on the show, that evil comes about often when people feel very guilty about something that they've done but can't face it. It drives them to further acts of evil. You saw it with Faith and I don't know where it's going to lead with Spike."
The souled people (like Warren, Willow and Faith) didn't just suddenly turn evil -- they went about it gradually. Small steps reconciled with their consciences or buried in denial. Faith was best example of what JM was talking about -- her wild crime spree in L.A. was an attempt to silence her conscience, while the evil she did with the Mayor was sheer bravado -- trying to convince herself that she was evil.
This is very different from suddenly confronting the fact that you're a serial killer. That is what Angel and Darla had to face, and that is what broke them as it will certainly break Spike. There is even a little of that in Willow's break down at the end of the finale -- she suddenly confronted all the evil that she'd been repressing.
But Spike's motivations for going to Africa are no longer important. He has a soul now -- and he's a different person. The Redemption debate is over because we know that creatures with souls can be redeemed. I expect to see him back in Sunnydale at the end of the first episode -- showing up on Buffy's doorstep looking every bit as pathetic as he did in Pangs.
[> [> [> [> [> Very good post Mal. agree. -- shadowkat, 06:54:08 06/27/02 Thu
"I guess I can see a sort of logic in this scenario. Spike wanted revenge but buried in his subconscious are the fragments of William and William might very well want his soul back to stop the wickedness that is Spike. The demon could easily have been aware of these conflicting desires and chosen to honor the request that would make Spike suffer the most (I don't buy the argument the demon is good 'cause he's green -- green may mean good if you're an environmentalist, but it hasn't always been so). The rage had been pretty much beaten out of Spike by the end of his trials, so William might even have been closer to the surface than usual. And I think it's pretty clear that Spike (or whatever creature takes his place) will now be suffering great pangs of remorse -- if Angelus and Darla suffer from guilty consciences when their souls are restored, how much more likely is that Spike will as well?"
Agree. This is what I've been thinking for some time. I think the demon did what would make Spike suffer the most.
Just removing the chip and letting him be Mr. BB again
would have been easy, comfortable and painless. No suffering. A soul? And William who couldn't stand violence
from what we're told in FFL, discovering he's been a vicious vampire - could be more crushing than it was
for either Darla or Angel.
"But Spike's motivations for going to Africa are no longer important. He has a soul now -- and he's a different person. The Redemption debate is over because we know that creatures with souls can be redeemed. I expect to see him back in Sunnydale at the end of the first episode -- showing up on Buffy's doorstep looking every bit as pathetic as he did in Pangs."
Agree here as well. The vampire without a soul being redeemed debate is moot now. He has a soul.
Only thing I disagree with is I thing it's going to be Giles doorstep not Buffy's. As it was Giles doorstep in Pangs. Why? Well could you face Buffy again if you did what
Spike did? I couldn't. Giles - he has a 50/50 chance of getting staked at least. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> Then again... -- Forsaken, 14:55:16 06/27/02 Thu
Knowing the way Joss loves his angst and surprises, who else half exects the Lurker to stop the glowy lights at the start of the season starter and go "Lighten up, I was just kidding. Here, go kill something."
[> [> [> he wanted what Buffy "deserved" -- Dochawk, 13:31:15 06/26/02 Wed
From Psyche's shooting script:
SPIKE (cont'd) So, give me what I want. Make me what I was... so Buffy can get what she deserves.
VOICE
Very well.
A GNARLY DEMON HAND reaches out to Spike's bare chest
VOICE (cont'd)
Your soul is returned to you.
As the hand touches him, Spike throws his head back and SCREAMS in agony.
I think its a very important distinction between wants and deserves. of course its meant to be sly, to have a different meaning between what Spike wants and what the demon gives him.
And yes, he is able to hurt Buffy physically, but there is so much more pain he can inflict on her if he has the chip out and can go after Dawn for example.
[> [> [> [> Re: he wanted what Buffy "deserved" -- Cleanthes, 17:29:21 06/26/02 Wed
Thanks -- "deserve" makes more sense than my sloppy memory's word, "need".
I'm thinking that the nearly infinite maleability of the meaning of "soul", in contrast to the rather limited meaning of the word "chip" suggests that Spike acted very recklessly in his dealing with the African demon. I guess I lean toward the interpretation that Spike kinda thought he wanted to hurt Buffy by threatening Dawn and returning to Big Bad status, but that isn't what he really wanted, much like his song in `OMWF`.
[> "For you see, Mr. Decker, it was I who ate the mushrooms!" -- Earl Allison, 12:56:33 06/26/02 Wed
Confused? You should be. I can't recall the exact article, and I wish I could have, but IMHO, this perfectly demonstrates the difference between a clever twist, and an unseen one, but NOT clever.
Sure, if the replicant at the end of "Blade Runner" had used my quote above -- everyone would be surprised -- but what would it accomplish? The soul angle is now, to me, forced, and still smacks of poor writing and setup -- and I expected better of ME ...
Sure, it's Joss' playground, and I respect that -- but this smacks of really obvious retconning, even moreso than Dawn -- if such a thing were possible.
If the ACTOR is playing the scene a certain way, and I as the viewer am suddenly being told that he meant something else AFTER THE FACT-- well, like the thread of "Show don't tell" below is mentioning through some posters -- it seems wrong.
You can't surprise all of the viewers all of the time, and you can't appease all of the viewers, but (again, IMHO only) a few more like this, and you can d*mn well piss off all the viewers!
Sure, leave the scenes open for interpretation, but IMHO they've painted themselves into a corner that's going to require better writing than I've seen from ME in S6 to explain adequately -- there are scenes and gestures and mannerisms that do NOT point to a desire for souling, even a subconscious one. Yes, I know some saw it that way -- but I didn't, and personally, knowing what I "know" now (because Lord knows, tomorrow we may get something totally different or contrary) I feel rather vindicated. It WAS (IMHO) poor writing.
And the most telling item is "It's a case of what is the most interesting thing and he's kept his options open."
So much for planning arcs out so far in advance -- maybe in the past, but not this time, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not irate (although I probably sound it), but I am disappointed, and annoyed at the poor bait-and-switch this is more and more sounding like.
Take it and run.
[> [> The Soul -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:13:09 06/26/02 Wed
Actually, after I saw it, I felt certain that Spike went to Africa to get a soul (well, after I got over my outrage that he was going to go good). The possibility of an accident never occurred to me. After all, you can see why Spike would want to get a soul under the concept of giving Buffy what she deserved. If you remember from Villains, the demon could apparently read Spike's mind. Knowing that, how could anyone think it was a slipup? The demon clearly knew what Spike had come there for because of the telepathy. I don't know how the accidental soul idea came up.
[> [> [> Why the slip-up theory -- dream of the consortium, 13:51:32 06/26/02 Wed
Well, the "accident" was what many of us assumed because Spike's behavior in Sunnydale seemed so at odds with him going to get a soul. He seemed very angry, called her bitch, etc. From the interview, it sounds like James Marsters thought he was playing the script for anger, as if Spike were going to get his chip out. (Not because he could then hurt Buffy, because of course he already can, or probably even because he could then hurt others, but because he blames the chip for the strange feelings of guilt he has never experienced before, because he thinks that getting the chip out will resolve his identity for once and for all). When he is then rewarded with a soul, it makes sense to assume that the acting was on target, and Spike had believed he was going to get his chip removed, but the mind-reading demon saw through to his deeper desires, and gave him what he really wanted, not what he thought he wanted.*
You can certainly see why Spike would choose a soul, and the dialogue is ambiguous enough. It's the acting that jars, and the interview with JM gives the answer to that. He was misdirected, and I think that was a very bad decision.
*Of course, the problem with the chip removal scenario is that a cave demon hardly seems the person to go to for a government equipment recall. Unless you make some sort of vague argument that the demon would give him the power to overcome the pain of the chip or something to that effect, only the "wanting a soul all along" explanation works. Then we are just left with bad acting - which was actually in this case bad direction.
[> [> [> [> much better than I said it -- Dochawk, 14:07:07 06/26/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> Wow...good pts -- shadowkat, 19:00:38 06/26/02 Wed
"You can certainly see why Spike would choose a soul, and the dialogue is ambiguous enough. It's the acting that jars, and the interview with JM gives the answer to that. He was misdirected, and I think that was a very bad decision.
*Of course, the problem with the chip removal scenario is that a cave demon hardly seems the person to go to for a government equipment recall. Unless you make some sort of vague argument that the demon would give him the power to overcome the pain of the chip or something to that effect, only the "wanting a soul all along" explanation works. Then we are just left with bad acting - which was actually in this case bad direction."
Good points. I feel very sorry for this actor. Think about it: the following things are thrust at him at the last minute -
1. attempted rape scene (which he's turned down movie roles in the past b/c of)
2. being misdirected to act angry as if he's getting a chip not a soul, then having all the writers come out and tell the audience and critics that his character knew he was getting a soul all along, so that his acting looks bad?
Ugh. I'd be pissed. That's cutting to the bone. I think they did some of the same things to the other actors...especially poor NB. Makes me rethink some of those last couple of episodes. We may have had bad directing not bad acting ...hmmm. Maybe we're over-analyzing this?
On the other hand - I still think it could have been played that unconsciously he wanted one. And the acting did seem a little ambiguous to me...he seemed as angry at himself as her? Oh well...he was so good the rest of the season that I can forgive 20 minutes of misdirection.
[> [> [> [> Re: Why the slip-up theory -- Purple Tulip, 10:49:55 06/27/02 Thu
I really thought that when Clem and Spike were talking in the crypt, after the bathroom scene, that what Clem said completely forshadowed what Spike was about to do. Clem said something to the effect that he had a cousin who had gone see "some kooky shaaman in Africa," to get re-souled or brought back to life in some sort, and that it turned out to be a big mess. When he said that, that's immediately what I thought of- that Spike was going to try this too, and the fact that the other guy's attempt turned out to be a mess, makes me wonder what it's going to be like for Spike when he comes back.
[> [> [> Re: The Soul -- Amber, 00:40:24 06/27/02 Thu
I've been rewatching a lot of Season 5&6 lately and I feel like the writers have actually been preparing us for Spike with a soul for a long time. Go back and count how many times Buffy has told Spike "I can never love you, you don't have a soul" or some similar line that ends with her pointing out his soullessness (Is that a word??) I haven't officially counted, but I'll bet we've heard it at least six times or more, and the first time is about mid-way through Season 5. Unless you want to count Becoming Pt. 2 where she says they can't work together because he's evil, but that's slightly different...
Just as we saw the Buffy/Spike pairing before they actually became a couple (Something Blue, Intervention, etc) we've heard the characters lament the fact that Spike needs a soul, or rather Buffy needs Spike to have a soul.
I can buy that Spike went to Africa to get the soul, and I don't think the clues are in his speech with the African demon. I think they're earlier, when he's in the crypt with Clem and he's says something like "I'm not a monster...and I can't be a man." The emotion in his voice when he says this seems to make it clear that he understands Buffy needs a man, ie. someone with a soul and he wants to be that person. He doesn't want to be a monster anymore, he wants to be "a man".
Also at the end of Grave when Spike has that angry scream as the soul is restored, I'm guessing that's cause it hurts to have your soul restored. Look at Angel, every time he gets his soul restored or loses it he screams in pain too.
[> [> [> [> Angel didn't scream when his soul was restored in Becoming. -- Sophist, 09:58:14 06/27/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> Interesting Angel never screamed, he just looked dazed -- shadowkat, 12:06:23 06/27/02 Thu
Hmmmm why was that? He didn't scream the first time or the second. Actually he seemed to be in more pain when he lost it?
Is this a consistency problem? A writing problem? Intentional? Misdirection? Bad acting? Was Angel supposed
to act this way? Does it mean anything regarding Spike?
Did Angel not scream...because it wasn't really Liam's soul but someone else's or because it was curse?
Did Spike scream because the demon did more than restore a soul and ME isn't telling us...
Or am I once again overanalyzing this show? And should go back to work, now!
[> [> [> [> [> [> Their souls were restored in different ways -- Masq, 13:04:39 06/27/02 Thu
One by a gypsy curse, the other by a demon whose powers and motives are basically mysterious to us.
[> [> Re: "For you see, Mr. Decker, it was I who ate the mushrooms!" -- dream of the consortium, 13:34:15 06/26/02 Wed
I'm with you on this, as I've said before. It's irritating, though I am not particularly angry about it. They should have given James Marsters a little more credit -he could have played it more ambiguously if he knew Spike was supposed to want a soul, but still have some anger about having to get one. Of course, more ambiguity probably would have ensured that more viewers would known exactly what was happening. That apparently bothers the writers, though I am not sure why. The surprise (which wasn't much of one - I assumed all along he would get a soul, though I assumed from his acting that it was not his conscious goal) certainly wasn't worth the contortions of logic necessary to create it.
I have a question though - how was Dawn retcon? I mean, obviously the whole plot was, but wasn't it more of a joke about retcon than an actual example of it? I actually thought that was handled quite brilliantly.
[> [> [> Dawn retcon -- Earl Allison, 14:53:02 06/26/02 Wed
You are correct, Dawn was retcon personified, and done well. My point is, Dawn is an OBVIOUS retcon -- she rewrote the entire show's continuity in ways we still don't really know about.
In fact, this might well play into Season Seven if some potential rumors and extrapolations of same are true.
Sure, Dawn wasn't technically a retcon since we know there was a spell involved, but for all intents and purposes, she WAS a retcon -- she rewrote continuity by her very presence. It was cleverly done, and I agree with you, I enjoyed it.
Unlike this newest revelation from Joss -- which I find neither clever nor well written.
Take it and run.
[> [> Worse direction from the top than we've ever seen! I blame Marti!! Hire Shadowkat as Exec!! -- Rochefort, 10:44:23 06/27/02 Thu
[> [> [> LMAO! Doubt I'd be as good as Marti but ... -- shadowkat, 11:57:06 06/27/02 Thu
appreciate the compliment. Would love a job at Btvs
or ME. Of course the only problem with working on something you love, is you begin to stop loving it...;-)
Am available...two weeks notice and I'm there. ME? Anyone?
oh well...worth a try! LOL!
Seriously...very hard to direct a tv show. Hire me as writer! Much safer. ;-)
[> [> [> Actually, they should hire 'Kat and Rob as Spin doctors -- Doriander, 12:45:58 06/27/02 Thu
I ask, how many times did you come out of viewing a less than stellar ep, check the board and click on their posts, come out of it with your initial opinions altered? How many times have their posts induced you to rewatch eps, see them in a different light, come out of it with more faith in ME than perhaps they deserve? Shadowkat and Rob, ooh, I must add Exegy to this list, your insights are what made some of this season's lamest plotholes (JMHO of course), or as Joss recently put it "plot twist", palatable. I give you credit for making me like this season.
Doriander (will kiss a** if it will keep these proficient posters on churning out inspiring posts)
[> [> [> [> A new wonder proudct: SHMISPACK -- cjl, 13:12:01 06/27/02 Thu
That's....
SHadowkat's
Magic
Interpretive
SPACKle. (tm)
Are you the executive producer of a brilliant, edgy, fantasy/sci-fi series with a complex mythology? Find it impossible to keep up internal consistency and still have time to effectively balance the budget, build the sets, and deal with egotistical actors? Do you have plot holes in your series large enough to house a family of four?
Now, with SHMISPACK, you can kiss all your worries goodbye. Simply trowel as much SHMISPACK as you need into the plot hole, let dry, and even the most unsightly aberration will end up looking like pure genius. Best of all, SHMISPACK comes at virtually no cost to you or your Hollywood production budget, since it's manufactured in New York for pennies a day.
Get SHMISPACK today! Your writers will thank you for it....
____________________________________________________________
Spin doctor would be fine, Doriander, but I'd prefer it if S'kat and Rob were in L.A. as story editors. Joss and Co. would finish breaking a story for Season 7, and they'd all turn to look at their new consultants. Rob and 'kat would slowly shake their heads, and ME would collectively sigh and go, "All right, guys. What is it NOW?"
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks, I needed that :-D -- Kimberly, 13:31:48 06/27/02 Thu
This made me smile and silent-laugh (supposed to be working, you know) on a day I have a migraine. Quite an accomplishment!
[> [> [> [> [> Re: A new wonder proudct: SHMISPACK -- Doriander, 13:42:20 06/27/02 Thu
But I'm selfish, I want them shielded from disillusion, can't have them corrupted by Hollywood (says Doriander fresh off of viewing Mulholland Drive), or get sucked into ME's oft times bloated self worth. Wait...on second thought, aren't spin doctors by nature corrupt? Story editors it is. ;)
delusional Doriander
[> [> [> [> [> [> LMAO!!! Rob did you read this?? Thanks all! -- shadowkat, 18:52:19 06/27/02 Thu
Thanks for that really needed to laugh! Boy did I. And here I was wondering if you all were getting bored of my long
posts. ;-)
Also thanks for the compliment. I try...to show the best side of my favorite show. But would I stay honest if they paid me?
Hmmmm. Well I'm fairly honest in my job now...uh, make that too honest, my boss wants me to act more like a used car salesman (sigh).
Would love to be a story editor! Joss? marti? anyone?
ME? I'm available? I can pack in a week? Oh Come on...!
Anybody out there...(sigh)
Why pay SHMISPACK when you can get it for free...
[> [> [> [> Muchas gracias, Doriander!! -- Exegy, 21:35:51 06/27/02 Thu
Hey, if I'm included with Rob and shadowkat, then I consider myself inducted among the elite! Thank you ... and I agree. This board is *the* best place to come if you want to gain a greater appreciation of BtVS. Seriously, I've never seen such an amount of high-quality posts on a television show. The people here are great. This is an amazing and very addicting community, and I thank everyone who has made it so.
I'm glad if my presence has provided any enrichment!!
Exegy
PS. I am available if ME wants to hire a consultant, spin doctor, or story editor. Okay, I don't have my college degree yet, but my professors can all vouch for my efforts!
[> Always nice to know we didn't imagine something! ;-) -- shygirl, 13:07:53 06/26/02 Wed
[> An everyone laughed at me -- Off-kilter, 20:45:34 06/26/02 Wed
when I said that JW reads my thoughts and then changes his tune about what it's all supposed to mean. Remember when I told you all that I felt like a lab experiment? He's trying to see how much he can twist my perception of reality before I snap and am left catatonic in a corner like Buffy in the Asylumverse.
I'd say he's on track for accomplishing his goal 'bout mid-season 7.
Weak Vampires -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:03:36 06/26/02 Wed
Is it just me, or have other people noticed the vampires on Buffy getting progressively weaker?
I mean, have they completely forgotten the fact that vampires are supposed to have above-human strength?
I just saw All The Way for the first time last night, and I noticed how easily the vampires were dealt with. I mean, Giles staked several of them without even being knocked unconscious. If they showed him getting into a fight with several humans, he'd be beaten to a pulp, most likely, but with vampires he dusts them with ease.
Ever since Season 3, when vampires stopped being the Big Bad, they have steadily become easier to kill. By Season Six, when vampires do show up, they are really just petty annonyances for the Scoobies to kill until something important comes up.
The episode that first made me realize this problem was the Season 5 episode where Riley left. When Buffy dusted eight vamp whores in eight seconds, I knew that BtVS had just given up on making vampires pose a challenge.
Hopefully, next season, we'll meet some stronger, tougher vamps. Please, Joss, I'm begging you!
[> Re: Weak Vampires -- JM, 14:20:51 06/26/02 Wed
Actually Giles might very well hold his own against several human assailants. I can only remember off the top of my head one human that he lost a fight with one-on-one, the zoo keeper in "The Pack." Who, nearly, had the element of surprise and was armed.
In other encounters with the non-supernatural, he has done quite nicely. Looking back at least as far as the "Reptile Boy" we've seen he can throw a pretty punch. In Band Candy, although under the influence, he'd handily takes down an armed cop. He picked up some tough street moves in his wild youth and some elegant ones as a Watcher (remember the fencing season three?). Now he's spent a 147 days actively patrolling. He's bound to be a lot better at staking vamps than he was six years ago. That, or dead. And remember these are young ones, in both vamp and human years. Vampire teens have not been noticably the brightest ones we've met over the years. Plus he may have more moves, but they're still stronger. Didn't Giles dust two and then proceed to get tossed over the hood of a car by a female vamp?
Some vamps still gave them trouble. That one in "Bargaining" was pretty hard to put down. The biggest change, besides the experience level of the Scoobies, is Buffy's increasing strength. Season two Spike and Buffy were a pretty near match, now she's at least one level stronger. Bad for vamps, good for Sunnydale.
[> Re: Weak Vampires -- Caesar Augustus, 03:56:23 06/27/02 Thu
I agree.
If one looks back at the awesome Season 2, I think it would be cool to actually have a Vamp big bad for Season 7. It would seem a bit weird for them never to have been mentioned earlier though. Maybe Dracula could put in a more serious appearance. OK, maybe not - but vampires have really been put under the mat the last few seasons (particularly, consider "The Gift" where fighting a vamp seemed completely out of place)
[> Re: Weak Vampires -- Purple Tulip, 10:41:38 06/27/02 Thu
I've noticed this too, I guess, but never really thought too much about it. I guess the reason that Giles could kill vamps so easily is b/c that's what he's been doing for years. He wouldn't win in a street fight b/c that's not what he does- although, if you take his past as Ripper into consideration, and how tough he used to be ("Band Candy"), then he could possibly be seen as posing a threat to the living as well as the undead. I don't know, but that is an interesting point that you brought up and one I'll have to think about some more.
Oh! You know, it kind of seems like the ferociousness of vampires started to decrease when Spike became softer in season five, so that could have some sort of symbolic reference.
[> [> Re: Weak Vampires -- MonkeyPants, 12:25:07 06/27/02 Thu
Well, the way I see it, a newborn vampire is pretty much all hunger and no intelligence for the first couple of weeks or even months of its existence. However, we have seen exceptions to this - both Angelus and Spike seemed fine following their rebirths. Like so much in the Buffyverse, I think it depends on the actual vampire - weak humans translate to weak vampires. The vamps in 'All the Way' were teenagers and therefore immature before they were turned. It is likely then that they wouldn't have the experience of fighting or even of how to deal with a Slayer or a highly trained Watcher.
Additionally, the vamps we've seen this season have been nowhere near the calibre seen in previous years, e.g. The Master, Angelus, Kakistos - we really haven't seen an uber-vamp since Season Three.
[> [> [> Re: Weak Vampires -- SugarTherapy, 12:54:14 06/27/02 Thu
It's been implied that they're pretty much pure animal hunger until their first feed. Then, they even out and get some brain power. Angelus and Spike were guided from the beginning. They had sires to teach them how things worked. Granted, Angelus was pretty much a badass even without Darla's help, but there were other reasons for that.
Anyway, you don't often see sires caring about their new childe anymore, unless said sire is older (ex: Dru with Darla) and believes in following tradition. Vamps as a society have really separated and gone down hill in the past century, if you ask me....
Sugar
[> [> [> Uber Vamps -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:40:01 06/27/02 Thu
Actually, Sunday from the beginning of Season 4 was pretty strong and fight capable (and was the only threatening vampire of that season). From Season 5 there was Dracula (not that good in battle, but he had all the gypsy tricks) and one of Harmony's minions held his own for a little bit.
I concede that the Gang is getting better trained at fighting vampires, but there is a limit to how much training can do. After all, part of becoming a vampire is that you get extra strength (of varying amounts). Assuming this, a highly trained but lacking super-strength human shouldn't be able to kill two vampires in a matter of seconds. If the difference really is in the Scooby Gang rather than the vampires, then I wonder what would happen if they got into a bar fight.
[> [> [> Maybe it's the Sire too... -- Wizardman, 17:10:15 06/27/02 Thu
The relative age of a vampire as proportional to its strength. We've seen this before with the 'uber-vamps' Angelus, the Master, and Kakistos. Maybe older vampires produce stronger children. It's in human genetics- for example, two tall people are far more likely to produce a tall child than two average sized people are. We've seen evidence that could support this- the Master was around for centuries when he made Darla, Darla was at least a century when she turned Angel, etc. w/ Dru and Spike, and even Vamp-Willow and Vamp-Xander. The last active uber-vamp in Sunnydale was Drusilla in S5, and there's no evidence that she turned anyone. Maybe all the vamps sired by an uber-vamp have been dusted or elected to leave town to avoid facing the Slayer.
Another explanation for the weakening of the vampires on the show comes from the Scooby Gang themselves. They are getting better, after all.
Or possibly it has to do with the Slayer. Maybe our Chosen Protectors never stop getting stronger, and no one knows because most Slayers don't last long enough to notice the gradual gain in strength.
Or maybe it's a combo of all three... just a thought.
[> Re: Weak Vampires -- SugarTherapy, 12:48:10 06/27/02 Thu
I think part of the reason it looks easier for the Scoobs to take out vamps is because it *is* easier for them now. Not because the vamps are getting weaker, but because the Scooby gang is getting stronger. They've had plenty of practice at vampires, so they have a better idea of what to expect and how to deal with them.
Sugar
[> [> Re: Weak Vampires -- MonkeyPants, 13:52:50 06/27/02 Thu
Or possibly, the major vamps just don't want to risk taking on the Slayer in Sunnydale - the Hellions at the start of Season Six only came to the town after learning that Buffy was actually dead - implying that some demons avoid Sunnydale.
There are rumours though that with next season's 'Back to the Beginning' theme, we could see some major vampiric action, or even a return of the Master.
[> Re: Weak Vampires -- ZachsMind, 15:28:28 06/27/02 Thu
I've seen it differently. The difficulty of fighting vampires is the same, but the experience and ability of our Scoobies has increased. In season one these guys hadn't gone up against a hellgod, so naturally it'd be easier for them to fight vampires in season six.
I missed a puzzle piece in OMWF (sp for that ep) -- CJ, 11:53:52 06/26/02 Wed
Did Xander ever give a reason for summoning the dancing/singing demon? Was he trying to get someone to reveal some true feelings? It seems very odd that he would just summon a demon for fun and then not admit it during the whole episode: "I've got a theory ... it could be witches, some evil witches, which is ridiculous ..." etc.
[> Re: I missed a puzzle piece in OMWF (sp for that ep) -- grifter, 12:21:33 06/26/02 Wed
He didn´t even know that Willow put Tara "under her spell" literally, if that´s what you mean.
[> [> On second read... -- grifter, 12:23:17 06/26/02 Wed
...that´s probably not what you meant. Just ignore me...
[> [> [> He Wanted to Make Sure Things Would Work Out.... -- AngelVSAngelus, 12:58:37 06/26/02 Wed
between he and Anya, and didn't anticipate any harm a "dancing demon" could possibly do by making her express what he feared were secretly harbored reservations about their impending marriage.
Hope that clears things up for ya :)
[> [> [> [> Re: He Wanted to Make Sure Things Would Work Out.... -- CJ, 13:09:41 06/26/02 Wed
Thanks very much. So he deliberately misled everyone through the episode by not revealing that he had called the demon?
[> [> [> [> [> It's a little out of character (still spoilers) -- Vickie, 13:38:04 06/26/02 Wed
IMHO, it's a little out of character for Xander, but that's exactly what he did. *If* we can take the episode's events at face value.
Another possibility is that Dawn actually did summon Sweet, and Xander was covering for her so she wouldn't go to hell. But I think we might have had a scene between them (Dawn/Xander that is) by now if that were the case.
I did wonder if Giles had done it (in the interest of getting Buffy's true feelings out in the open, as he did in the beginnings of S3 re: Angel), but I can't accept him doing something so unresponsible, allowing people to burn to death, and leaving Buffy to clean up his mess. So, no Giles.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It's a little out of character (still spoilers) -- AngelVSAngelus, 13:51:06 06/26/02 Wed
I agree, that it was a little out of character. I'm probably filling the writer's voids to satisfy myself, but I just chalked it up to a desperate mistake made in the insecure fear that things wouldn't work out with the marriage.
Like love, fear can make us do the wacky too.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Perhaps not so much -- ravenhair, 14:16:28 06/26/02 Wed
He did resort to magic in BBB in hopes of getting back together with Cordelia.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> and confessed! (still spoilers) -- Vickie, 14:33:20 06/26/02 Wed
In BBB, it took Xander about a minute to realize his magic gone bad had consequences, that he needed help coping with those consequences, and to confess to Giles. "I'm twice the fool it takes to do something like this."
So, even though he might have summoned Sweet, I really really doubt he'd have run around for most of the episode pretending he didn't know why "The singing and dancing, and the burning and dying." He's not dumb; he had to at least suspect why it was happening, especially after the X/A song. He berates Giles for a target--Xander is not usually actively duplicitous.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not to get back together with her -- Sophist, 16:23:17 06/26/02 Wed
Actually, he blackmailed Amy into doing the spell so he could get revenge on Cordy (quote from Psyche):
Amy: Well, then I don't get it. If you don't wanna be with her forever, then what's the point?
Xander: The point is I want her to want me. Desperately. So I can break up with *her* and subject her to the same hell she's been puttin' *me* through.
Amy: (turns and steps away) Oh, I don't know, Xander. (turns back) Intent has to be pure with love spells.
Xander: Right. I intend revenge. Pure as the driven yellow snow.
Kinda makes ya wonder about his explanation for the spell in OMWF, doesn't it?
[> [> [> [> [> Magic as a crutch -- ravenhair, 14:08:43 06/26/02 Wed
Instead of an honest discussion with his fiance about their commitment, Xander relied on a magical amulet to cast a "truth spell" on his wife (and himself, although I'm not sure intentionally).
The spell showed the lack of communication between the couple. It foreshadows Hells Bells, as Xander again relies on magic to influence his relationship decisions. Another sad example is seen during Two To Go when Xander thinks Anya blames him for the shooting when she actually was speaking about their breakup.
[> I have no idea - just keeping this alive in hope that someone else does. -- yuri, 12:46:14 06/26/02 Wed
[> Re: I missed a puzzle piece in OMWF (sp for that ep) -- Ete, 13:10:04 06/26/02 Wed
He said he wanted the happy ending. 'cuz Musicals always have happy ending.
Yeah it's lame.
[> Re: I missed a puzzle piece in OMWF (sp for that ep) -- JM, 13:47:06 06/26/02 Wed
Actually I'm standing by my last post on the subject. There is no confirmation that Xander makes a postive connection between something he's done and the singing dancing demon until the talisman is mentioned. I think it's quite possible that he summoned it by accident. Especially considering the talisman was just sitting on the counter casually during the middle of the investigation. If he had realized he did it, he would have tried to hide the necklace.
I'm betting he just ordered "Singing, Dancing Necklace, Cheap, Happy Endings Guaranteed, for the Truth in True Love" from a catalog at the Magic Box as an engagement present for Anya. And maybe never had a chance to check it out before the chaos started. We honestly don't know that he did anything deliberately wrong or stupid. Giles says "Then one of us must have . . ." Fill in the blank. Could have been ordered it as easily as summoned it. Works best for me.
[> Joss thought he could get away with it because.... -- cjl, 13:50:10 06/26/02 Wed
It's a musical! And by gosh, nutty things always happen during those old-fashioned muscials! There's a manufactured crisis, bringing out the song in the various characters, and then a far-fetched, deus ex machina plot twist that sends everybody home happy right after the final number. Xander summoned Sweet? Oh, that wacky Xander!
But Joss can't have it both ways. If he's using the conventions of the musical comedy to emphasize the lack of communication between characters, and dealing with serious issues, he can't use the off-hand, cheesy explanation for the crisis without leaving a bad aftertaste for months. First, and most disturbing of all, Xander did something stupid and PEOPLE DIED. Yeah, Xander might not have completely realized what he was getting into when he summoned Sweet, but why didn't he confess the whole thing to Giles when he heard about the SHC (spontaneous human combustion) incidents? (He confessed in about 20 seconds after the love spell in BB&B, so why not now?) Why didn't the "I've Got a Theory" number reveal his dreadful error? And why didn't the next episode start with Giles yelling at Xander at the top of his well-trained lungs? Unlike Willow, Xander might have listened.
Most people this season have come down hard on Marti Noxon for the S6 production gaffes or Doug Petrie for AYW; my biggest disappointment this season was the ending of OMWF. I've tried to explain away the "Xander did it" ending, but I've never been able to do it. It's a small but crucial screw-up that has shaken my belief in Joss. And once you start losing faith in Joss....
[> [> Re: Joss thought he could get away with it because.... -- Rob, 21:00:58 06/26/02 Wed
Here are some quick patch-ups...They're not all great, but they helped me cope with the Xander prob. Because I won't let anything detract from how much I love this episode...
Here we go!
In BB&B, Giles gave Xander a real (deserved) tongue-lashing for doing the spell, and Xander may not have been so quick to confess for that reason alone, not to mention not wanting others to blame him for all the trouble he caused. At the end of BB&B, Willow wouldn't even talk to him.
The reason he didn't sing about having caused the spell was perhaps the spell blocked that from happening.
And the "it's a musical" rationale also worked fine for me, as well, because on the first level, it was a perfect deus ex machina-type musical comedy ending. Secondly, I don't think Xander wasn't reprimanded because it wasn't serious. I think that the seriousness of what he had done (summoning a demon that caused death) was overlooked by the gang after reeling from Buffy's heaven revelation. That majorly overshadowed it. Perhaps it shouldn't have, but that speaks volumes about the self-centeredness of the characters this year. They have not been totally aware of the world surrounding them, having each been so focused on his or her own internal problems, so I believe the implications of what Xander has done are ignored for that reason. Out of the characters, Buffy's too distant and separate from the world at this point to even care much. Willow is in shock from having caused Buffy so much pain. The others are stunned as well. Giles is also thinking about his plan to leave again for England. Again, I think that is why Xander's major indiscretion is forgotten about.
Rob
[> [> [> Re: Joss thought he could get away with it because.... -- Amber, 00:04:08 06/27/02 Thu
I think it took Xander a while to realize that his singing/dancing Demon was the same demon that set people on fire. Xander seemed to think that Sweet was a harmless demon, and considering new demons are arriving in Sunnydale every day due to the Hellmouth, he just assumed it was a different big nasty that was harming people.
That's my justification for his silence, that and the fact that I just plain love the music :)
[> [> [> [> "Magic always has consequences. ALWAYS." (Except for Xander in OMWF.) -- cjl, 07:38:28 06/27/02 Thu
And that's another aspect of the ending that bothers me, even now. Part of the theme of Season 6 was hubris, specifically Willow's attempt to usurp the dominion of the Gods and resurrect Buffy. She paid for it. Big time. "Magic always has consequences," said Spike in "Afterlife." "Always."
But Xander does something nightmarishly destructive in OMWF, and there are no consequences. None! Oh sure, you can point to the wedding and the disintegration of his relationship with Anya, but that disaster was building since the START of their relationship, and wasn't related to the specific incident in OMWF. I posted a hypothetical situation a few days ago, in which the wife of one of the spontaneous combustion victims walked into the Magic Box, searching for an explanation for why her husband died. I wondered what Xander's reaction would be to meeting that woman, and discovering the face and the story behind the nameless victim of his carelessness. How would he react?
Not that I want to see Xander reduced to a gibbering guilt-ridden wreck (after all, Sweet did the killing, not Xander); but you know, I want the boy at least to think hard about what he did. Six years on the edge of the Hellmouth, you think he'd LEARN already...
[> [> [> [> [> Does magic always have consequences? -- Sophist, 09:12:12 06/27/02 Thu
We've all been reciting this as a mantra, but is it true? Not really. Some spells have consequences, but not all of them. There are 2 categories of examples:
1. Spells which went wrong unintentionally. Examples: BB&B, SB. In each case the spell went wrong, but there was no "consequence" per se. If you see the spell going wrong as the "consequence", then I guess these fit.
2. Spells with no consequence whatsoever. Examples: Tara's spell releasing the SG in NA; the "tinkerbell" spell in Bargaining; the "floating O" spell in WAY; Willow entering Buffy's mind in WotW. All these were harmless, and certainly beneficial to the SG, but don't really fit the mantra.
So what's the explanation?
Even if spells don't have consequences from some cosmic necessity, some of them should from a human POV (those done with evil intent or with true harm resulting). But those don't seem to get punished either in some cases (Anya in Doppelgangerland, Xander in BB&B, OMWF).
Hey Rob, can you reconcile all this for us? :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Does magic always have consequences: Karmic scoreboard -- cjl, 09:28:34 06/27/02 Thu
Excellent point, Sophist. Let's break down the examples in each category.
1. Spells which went wrong unintentionally. (Examples: BB&B, SB.)
You're correct. In each case, the spell going wrong is the consequence and (supposedly) the lesson learned. Xander's attempt to manipulate Cordelia, to put him in the driver's seat in the arena of luv, gets taken to its absurd limit. He's got all the women of Sunnydale under his spell, and it turns out to be his worst nightmare. When Willow asks the hidden powers to let "her will be done," she winds up sowing chaos and nearly killing her friends. Huge consequences immediately resulting from the spell.
Those two examples are also interesting considered together, because neither Xander nor Willow learn anything from their experiences. Both X and W use magic in exactly the same way later on in the series, with even more drastic consequences.
2. Spells with no consequence whatsoever. (Examples: Tara's spell releasing the SG in NA; the "tinkerbell" spell in Bargaining; the "floating O" spell in WAY; Willow entering Buffy's mind in WotW.)
Tara's one spell with resulting "badness" was "Family," when she blinded the SG to the presence of demons. Nearly got them all killed. All other instances of Tara magic are benign, and supposedly in harmony with the natural order. Tara makes that very distinction between frivolous/ destructive magic and "helping people" magic in "All the Way." As for Willow's entry into Buffy's mind, I consider that to be sort of "magic neutral." She didn't alter Buffy's thought processes, she just went in there to talk. Whether Willow's presence helped Buffy sort through her issues is debatable at best--she got Buffy out of the coma, but not much else.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Okay, Sophist, here I go! lol -- Rob, 09:36:25 06/27/02 Thu
I think that the spell did have consequences...not on a direct, literal level, but on more a cosmic, karmic level. Yes, the disintegration of Xander and Anya's marriage, I think, could have partly been caused by this spell. Xander, after all, summoned Sweet (whether knowingly or not) due to the same concerns he finally voiced, and acted upon, in "Hell's Bells." And the consequence to him for trying to make everything peachy keen with a lil' ol' song and dance spell may have been the failure of the wedding to happen.
And there is also the fact that Xander's spell had huge consequences to the huge group. In all likelihood, the gang would never have learned about Buffy's time in heaven otherwise, a revelation that caused a great impact in all the characters' lives throughout the year. This revelation, I would argue, is the seed through which all the other characters' problems this year sprung. No, not all directly, but on a psychological level. This spell caused Willow's hubris to grow (leading to the memory spell in TR), thus causing Tara to leave, thus casting more doubt on Xander about the likelihood of a relationship succeeding. And that's only on a basic level. It lead to great ramifications for all of them, not the least of whom was Dawn. But I could go on all day about this...Basically, to sum up, Xander's spell did come to bite him in the ass...by, basically, screwing up the lives of himself and all of his friends for the year. Now, one could argue that Tara may have found out about the Lethe's Bramble from Dawn anyway, since it wasn't done in song...but would Willow's reaction to Tara's confrontation of her been quite the same had Buffy not revealed that she had been in heaven? Had Buffy's resurrection spell not worked in the first place?
Here's another one...Xander's spell led to Buffy beginning a sexual relationship with Spike, which is arguably one of the things that has hurt him most this year--knowing that his best friend, who he loves so much, and who he always held in such high respect, would do something like that. It challenged his whole belief system.
So that's how I interpret all this. Xander did get cosmic commeuppance.
Perhaps another reason he did not get a direct punishment was the "Oh! Grow Up!" theme of this year. He is a man now, and he can make mistakes just as much as he did when he was a teenager...but adult mistakes are not scolded or always punished in the same way. Willow also did not get a direct punishment, really...She really ended up punishing herself, in a way.
Did anything I wrote make any sense?
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Of course it made sense -- Sophist, 09:51:34 06/27/02 Thu
I especially like the last suggestion. I saw B/S as a consequence of the resurrection spell, but I guess you could see it this way. And it certainly hurt Xander (though he has no right to be hurt). My biggest problem with this is that it hardly seems fair punishment for 2 deaths.
I'm not so convinced by the other explanations. The effect on W/T seems too indirect to be a consequence to Xander. Also, what happened to Willow this year seems necessarily related to the resurrection spell (which should require a huge price if "magic always has consequences").
The wedding, hmmm. Maybe. Xander's doubts about the wedding pre-dated OMWF, so I can't see the summoning spell as causing him to walk away. Also, a big part of his decision to leave was what the demon (?) showed him. That was a consequence of Anya's past; if you take away that, then you lose the lesson to her.
You did pretty well here. What about the other spells for which there was no consequence at all?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No consequences -- dream of the consortium, 12:06:23 06/27/02 Thu
Let's see if I can be clear about this. There have definitely been consequences for the use of magic in some regards. I think it's fair to ignore the small magical uses - Tara's Tinkerbell spell and whatnot - as being essential different in quality from more significant magics. Amy's line about the need for pure motives seems to be key here - if the motives are pure, truly pure (that means no refusal to accept the general ways of the world, resurrection, etc.) use of magic is okay. Using magic in a battle for the side of good with a magical being would fall into this category, as well as very small uses of magic such as Tara generally indulged in.
That leaves us with a whole lot of magic unaccounted for. Some uses, we agree, have clearly had negative consequences. Some have not seemed to. What gives?
I definitely believe that some of the consequences are karmic - Willow pays by way of Tara's death. Xander pays perhaps by his breakup with Anya. But maybe he doesn't pay at all. I looked up the quote, because I couldn't remember if Spike said "There's always consequences" or "There's always a price" (I think price came into it with Anya in the next episode). Anyway, I was thinking that the point might be that magic in uncontrollable, that the consequences are unforeseeable, not that every action has a specific price/punishment attached to it. Because, as much as we might like it to, life doesn't work that way. One person drives home drunk and gets into bed safely. Another person drives carefully and sober and gets killed by a swerving car. One person calls upon a demon and dies as a result; another calls a demon and suffers nothing personally. I do think there was something basically screwed up about Xander's lack of sense of guilt. I mean, I would consider it quite horrific if I ordered up a little singing and dancing and ended up with deaths on my head. Xander seems more chagrinned than guiltridden. But, as in life, I do believe that that you can't sidestep your own demons, no matter how lucky you might be. Which is why, of course, Xander had to deal with losing Anya. He may have been lucky in his use of magic, but he couldn't get around the reason he used it in the first place - to avoid the communications problems in his relationships.
I think this year was the one in which people's personal demons came home to roost, so to speak. Each character had to deal with the results of his/her own flaws of self. It is possible some more consequences of magical misuse will come to surface next year, but it's also possible that there will be terrible mistakes that go unpunished. That happens - I personally have great reason to be thankful for it. To me, having each and every action balanced with a proper and fair punishment would push the show over into a morality play. The problem comes when the writers minimize the horror of a character's action just to keep the character in the audience's affections. I have to agree, I do sometimes feel that this happens, particularly with Xander (though that may simply be personal bias, as he is one of my least favorite characters). I understand those who fear that this will happen with Willow, though I think it is way too soon to tell. Ultimately, though, I think we do have to remember that this is fantasy/horror. The stakes are written high. When the good guys screw up, people die. When they do well, they save the WHOLE planet. A grain of salt is advised.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think this is very fair -- Sophist, 12:23:36 06/27/02 Thu
But then they shouldn't tell us that magic "always" has consequences (or we shouldn't believe it, and we shouldn't analyze with that assumption).
You're right -- often, people screw up and they get away with it. In the long run, those mistakes should result in karmic justice. When that happens, though, it's not the use of magic per se, but a series of mistakes or wrong actions/beliefs.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ME didn't say this - Spike did -- No one character speaks for ME, 12:27:01 06/27/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Duh. And Angel and Cordy said it on AtS -- Sophist, 12:36:41 06/27/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think this is very fair -- dream of the consortium, 12:49:25 06/27/02 Thu
I don't know about AtS, but I have to agree with "No one character speaks for ME," despite how much I dislike the use of an argumentative pseudonyn. Spike says it once, and in anger at a betrayal combined with his disgust at Willow's messing about with things beyond her ken. I think we are supposed to be let into the idea that using magic can open up all sorts of unforeseen consequences, and that Willow's belief that she is in conplete control of the situation is completely wrong. I don't think it's meant to be all-encompassing principle. People have taken it and run (forgive me, Earl Allison), but ME doesn't push the point that hard. Maybe they do on AtS - can't comment on that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think this is very fair -- Sophist, 14:03:21 06/27/02 Thu
Well, ok, I was reacting a little to the anonymity of the poster. And I did know that Spike said it. But.
Here is the discussion from Afterlife:
WILLOW: Thaumogenesis is when doing a spell actually creates a being. In this case it was like, a, a side-effect, I guess. Like a price.
DAWN: What?
WILLOW: Think of it like, the world doesn't like you getting something for free, and we asked for this huge gift. Buffy. A-and so the world said, 'fine, but if you have that, you have to take this too.' And it made the demon.
ANYA: Well, technically, that's not a price. That's a gift with purchase.
I also have this vague memory that Anya said it (could be wrong here).
There's also an entire episode on AtS titled "The Price". Here's the key line from that (just Angel, not Cordy; I was wrong about her):
Angel: "There's a price to pay. I know there's always a price. - The question is, is it one worth paying."
In other words, it's not just Spike saying it. It was said by several characters on both shows. More importantly, ME made it intrinsic to the storyline on both shows. ME does bear some responsibility for this; they didn't just tell us, they showed us.
In any case, my basic point was that lots of posts (my own included) have accepted "consequences" as a "principle". It really isn't true, and we can't base discussions on it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think this is very fair -- aliera, 18:26:01 06/27/02 Thu
I think that perhaps they reinforced that with the remark that the demon in Villians made regarding *natural order*.
Viewed from the perspective of a balance rather than a consequence, the action makes a little more sense to me.
But not complete sense. They borrow from different traditions but do not stay true to the heart of those traditions. A bit of a mish-mash in presentation. I agree with the idea that they reference to serve the action of the story and don't believe that they have a coherent "theory of magic" as such.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great point, dream of the consortium. -- Ixchel, 20:05:08 06/27/02 Thu
IMHO the fact that magic can have results other than or in addition to the result that is desired is its inherent danger. Maybe that is the point, not that magic _always_ has a consequence (bad unintended result), but that it's a wild, unpredictable force that _could_ have consequences and that (perhaps) the magnitude of the (possible) consequence increases with the magnitude of the spell. So, maybe, small spells have less chance of generating a harmful "consequence" than more elaborate ones? Or, perhaps, magic always does have a "consequence", it's just not always negative and/or noticed?
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe -- Sophist, 20:20:39 06/27/02 Thu
but how would you distinguish "big" spells from "small" ones? Was Willow's restoration of Tara's sanity big or small? Who decides these things?
Personally, I prefer the idea that there is always a price, and that the price must be paid by the magic user. It solves some inherent problems, like why more people don't do magic, and how Buffy can function with all these wizards and witches around. I just wish they'd really be consistent about it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Maybe -- Malandanza, 04:37:19 06/28/02 Fri
"but how would you distinguish "big" spells from "small" ones? Was Willow's restoration of Tara's sanity big or small? Who decides these things?"
It seems to be a difference between "Dark" magic and not so dark magic. Dark magic requires an outside source of power -- thus Willow's supplications to gods and demons. It is through their influence that she was able to cast her best spells. Minor spells come from herself so ought not to have any consequences beyond temporarily draining her.
The problem with dark magic is that it seems to allow the providers access to the material world. We saw this with Giles and Ethan summoning Eyghon -- no personal consequences from the summoning but it did allow Eyghon to enter the Buffyverse. The shamans from As You Were were destroyed by forces allowed through by their magic. Xander wants singing and dancing at his wedding and accidentally gets a demon. Willow is uses magic recklessly at Rack's magic opium den and gets a demon. Anya speaks of hitchhiker demons in Afterlife. Willow gets pulled into Arashmaharr as a result of her magic in Something Blue. In each case, the use of magic allowed the source of that magic to enter the world. Individual motivations of the demons sometimes resulted in consequences for the summoner, and sometimes not, but the real consequences of the spells were that the demons were given power (so I'd consider two dead people as part of the consequences of Xander's summoning).
By the contrast, the Troll rampage was the result of carelessness on Willow's part rather than a direct result of the magic she was using.
Not all uses of dark magic result in demons running amok -- but I don't think this is an inconsistency. If dark magic always resulted in dire consequence (particularly to the user) who would use it? The practitioners would all be eaten on their first attempt. Willow has frequently used dark magic with no ill effects and this has encouraged her to continue using it. Eventually, she would have ended up like the shamans (it was nice that Sam recognized the inherent danger in magic but still wanted to use Willow for her purposes).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> This is a good theory -- Sophist, 09:16:07 06/28/02 Fri
But what about the opposite problem? By that I mean, if there are no consequences directly to the user, there is nothing to discourage the user from constantly resorting to magic. Sure, the bad consequences to someone else may serve as a lesson to someone fundamentally good, like Xander or Willow (though both of them seem to require more lessons than, say, more enlightened souls like you or I would), but lots of folk wouldn't care much if the world at large suffered.
Perhaps you could say that the consequences sometimes affect the user directly, and it's that risk which deters them from using dark magic too frequently. Like playing Russian roulette.
I'm not sure the distinction between dark magic and "good" ("light"? "white"?) magic would work, though. If there is such a distinction, and if only the dark magic resulted in bad consequences, why wouldn't the good magic users use it all the time? And what is it that distinguishes "good" from "dark" -- the source of the power? the intent of the user?
For example, consider Willow's spell in SB. She did not summon or supplicate a demon. She called on the four elements (seemingly natural), and called for balance (I assume a good thing). She didn't ask for power over others, but over herself. It's hard to see that as "dark" or as directly connected in some way to D'Hoffryn.
Maybe D'Hoffryn called her independent of the spell, or because the spell went wrong and he liked the results. In that sense it might be more like the Troll rampage without the assist from Anya.
Another example that's a little hard to distinguish is the one restoring Tara's sanity -- dark or good?
Ok, I'm rambling now. I think you're on to something, but not quite there yet.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: This is a good theory -- Rahael, 09:35:26 06/28/02 Fri
Does there have to be an intrinsic moral quality attributed to magic? does there have to be a consequence? Interesting questions.
Perhaps the reason why resorting to magic constantly might be bad for you (apart from the volatile and unpredictable consequences, which might involve a demon killing you) would be like (a tenuous parallel, I know) watching television/reading books/playing videogames/surfing net to the point where you lose yourself from the real world?
So instead of being an interesting person, instead of facing challenges, instead of learning to do things the hard way, you just fall back on the remote control of magic. Like all things, it may be just something you need to use in moderation.
In Superstar, not only did Jonathan's spell have an unintended consequence - the monster he created, it actually was bad for him psychologically. He was trying to hide from the real, hard lessons of life. Instead of trying to get a girlfriend, he magic-ed up two. Instead of trying to win friends, he made himself 'famous'. Shortcuts aren't good for us. Furthermore, if you use magic to gain short cuts to emotions (like abusing drugs) instead of deriving them naturally, then again, you are abusing it.
Warren also tried to compensate for shortcomings within himself by magic. Thereby, there's an intrinsic quality within magic which does not have a direct moral quality, but interacting with the wrong kind of personality/circumstance/intentions might lead to a long term negative impact. Like overeating/bingeing on food for instance.
Everyone eats a little too much occasionally, everyone can be a couch potato, or lose themselves for hours on the net, but somehow steer away from getting to a point where it has drastic and negative effects on their lives. Perhaps magic has a greater potential for abuse, and thereby, most users try to be cautious....
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I can see this -- Sophist, 09:58:39 06/28/02 Fri
as applying to the use of magic for things like creating party favors or closing blinds. It's a little harder to apply it to re-souling Angel or loosening the bonds in NA. Of course, such situations are fairly infrequent (one hopes), and therefore wouldn't cause the problem you suggest.
A good example might be an athlete using steroids to improve performance. The athlete gets short term gains at the risk of long term consequences. Unfortunately, the long term doesn't seem to serve as much of a deterrent, and that's probably the case for magic as well. God knows, the long term consequences hardly deter me from overuse of this Board!
Magic should have consequences. ME is right about that. They should just enforce them.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I can see this -- Rahael, 10:11:22 06/28/02 Fri
Yes. I go on living in the grey area of visiting this site constantly at work, despite flagrantly contravening the official internet policy. Possibility of facing a very difficult telling off does not deter me from visiting!
You could argue that someone who was prone to resouling Vamps on whim would also be the kind of person to decide to decorate the house with magic.......
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Some refinements -- Malandanza, 11:28:52 06/28/02 Fri
"But what about the opposite problem? By that I mean, if there are no consequences directly to the user, there is nothing to discourage the user from constantly resorting to magic. Sure, the bad consequences to someone else may serve as a lesson to someone fundamentally good, like Xander or Willow (though both of them seem to require more lessons than, say, more enlightened souls like you or I would), but lots of folk wouldn't care much if the world at large suffered."
Well, consider that if a demon slips through one of the cracks created by the dark magician, reading to wreak some havoc, the magician is standing at ground zero. Sometimes a smart demon with plans and schemes comes through and the summoner may get a break, but other times they just get eaten. So, yes, like Russian Roulette it's a game that will eventually be terminal, no matter how lucky the caster. Add to that the possibility that the summoner would likely have the power to send the demon back and might want to repair the damage caused and even a sentient demon would have reason to go after his benefactor.
"I'm not sure the distinction between dark magic and "good" ("light"? "white"?) magic would work, though. If there is such a distinction, and if only the dark magic resulted in bad consequences, why wouldn't the good magic users use it all the time? And what is it that distinguishes "good" from "dark" -- the source of the power? the intent of the user?"
It seems to be that there is a distinction. The most powerful spells we have seen have required outside sources to fuel the magicks. Dark sources. Why dark? Because by supplying the power, they gain access to the world. A chance to leave their own personal hell and frolic in a place filled with "happy meals with legs". So it's in their interests to provide power to wayward witches or geeks. Dark magic is the last resort (or ought to be). Willow's problem was that she didn't consider the source of her magic at all -- light, dark, it was all just a force to be channeled and used for her own pleasure. Just the sort of girl the demons want using that borrowed power.
"For example, consider Willow's spell in SB. She did not summon or supplicate a demon. She called on the four elements (seemingly natural), and called for balance (I assume a good thing). She didn't ask for power over others, but over herself. It's hard to see that as "dark" or as directly connected in some way to D'Hoffryn."
True -- you're probably right. This spell has more in common with the troll than some of her other spells. And the only reason I say "probably" is because the spell only worked when she was causing harm to others. The power of that spell seemed to be beyond her potential (and we didn't see her "drained" by the spell's use). She may have invoked the elements when chanted her spell, but the ultimate source of that magic may be something darker.
By contrast, Cordelia's magical abilities seem to come from TPTB -- a pipeline to white magic. The difference is that TPTB are a little more discriminating over who gets to use their power.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> AtS does support -- Sophist, 12:56:58 06/28/02 Fri
the distinction between dark magic and other kinds. In The Price Lorne tells Angel that it's messing with dark magic that results in consequences. Someone in ME may have realized the issues here.
That being said, we're down to just a few issues:
1. What distinguishes "good" magic from dark magic?
2. Why don't "good" magic users use it more often if it's free of consequences?
3. How do we know which one the adept is invoking?
If you have answers for these, great. I don't expect you do, because ME hasn't given them.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Can't we just do what we usually do? -- Darby, 13:30:11 06/28/02 Fri
...That is, make stuff up?
Responsibly, of course.
Never drink and theorize! Well, maybe we need a blood-alcohol-level on that one...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL. -- Sophist, 14:08:20 06/28/02 Fri
Of course. Our plothole filling is just getting more sophisticated. Besides, ME has taxed my personal "make stuff up" skills this year. I need lots of help.
BTW, I agree with you about Xander in OMWF. Sometimes a plothole is just a plothole.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Call Shadowkat. We need more interpretive spackle. -- cjl, 14:26:41 06/28/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Call Shadowkat. We need more interpretive spackle. -- shadowkat, 20:20:51 06/28/02 Fri
Once again my name in a thread...LOL!
So what is it this time? I got lost...the thread went off the board way to the right.
OMWF - well you already heard my plot hole theory on this one cjl. Xander admitted to it. Giles was too obsessed with leaving Sunnydale to care. Tara was too busy worrying about
Willow's reaction to Buffy coming back from heaven. Willow was too busy worrying about Buffy being torn from heaven.
Dawn was too busy being happy she wasn't going to hell.
And hey - Spike got kissed, what's he care. And Buffy?
She was numb to begin with and just interested in feeling.
As a result Xander's crime got swept under the proverbial rug.
Xander - well, he has played the cowardly lion all year long after all. So it's fitting he'd be cowardly about admitting to the demon summoning until the last possible instant, when everyone is too preoccupied to care.
Then afterwards? Well Willow did that forgetting spell. Tara left. Giles left. Someone was wandering around freezing people...You get preoccupied with stuff.
It happens. When they were younger and in high school
and constantly in each other's face - well it was harder to get away with it. As adults - you tend to be a little less in each other's face and some crimes get swept beneath the rug - only to hit you later, and you go, whoa, where'd that come from. Like ignoring Willow's abuse of magic?
Or the Troika?
Does that help??? ;-) Or just confuse everyone.
Oh after re-watching Ted and Bad Eggs tonight, I actually found a reason to like both episodes...hmmm getting close to liking every Buffy episode now, or finding a reason to, not a good thing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> OMWF and the Liberty Bell -- cjl, 21:20:12 06/28/02 Fri
Yeah, I see the point, 'kat, but will there EVER be any consequences for Xander's bonehead play? I realize that in the case of Sunnydale and the Scoobies, there are often larger issues to consider, and in real life, sometimes things do get swept under the rug...
But this isn't real life. This is drama. This is BUFFY. And usually, Joss and his crew tie up the larger loose ends in a dramatically satisfying fashion. Venturing a mind-boggling understatement, I don't think this happened with OMWF and the "Xander did it" ending. If OMWF is emblematic of the series and Joss' enormous talents, it's emblematic in the same fashion as the Liberty Bell: a creation of pure, iconic beauty with a huge, honking crack down the middle.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Bad Eggs (with spoilers, including Season 6) -- Brian, 03:36:42 06/29/02 Sat
Hey, Shadowcat, I, too, watched Bad Eggs again, and found great stuff to enjoy. Angel and Buffy's discussion about the future. Buffy couldn't see one beyond Angel. (perhaps a hint of her bleak season 6 point of view) Her concern over being a single mother (forshadowing shades of Dawn responsibilities)The "Hey, that's Angelus, what's he doin' with the Slayer" moment with the Gorch brothers. Xander's hard boiling his child (tough love at the extreme?) Cordelia's we need a little closet, right this very minute.
Two people so wrong for each other, but so caught up in the physical. And finally, Buffy's letter of the law interpretation as she and Angel spoon in her bedroom window.
Now that's Romance!!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And don't forget..(with spoilers, including Season 6 for ATs) -- shadowkat, 09:08:26 06/29/02 Sat
The best line:
Buffy: Not ready to have children for a very long time.
Angel: I can't have children Buffy. Vampires can't have them. I'm sorry.
Well uh...Joss has a sense of humor, doesn't he?
LOL! I died laughing here.
Four years later: Buffy is a single mom raising Dawn, a teenager. (Remember Joyce says - you think it's bad now, wait until they start dating?) And Angel, gasp, has a son.
Hmmm guess some vamps can have kids.
Two reasons I want a cross-over:
1. What do you mean he's your son? Vampires can't have human children! (Buffy looks at Spike with some concern...)
2. You slept with whom? Are you nuts? He's soulless evil thing!
Well, look who's talking - you slept with Darla and got her pregnant! And now you're making moon eyes over Cordy...who well is pretty close to soulless. (;-) )
Oh and one more for next year:
1. What do you mean you got yourself a soul? I'm supposed to be the only vampire with a soul! I'm unique! Dang you! If you screw up the whole Shanshu prophecy for me - I swear I'll kill you! Soul or no soul.
Oh...and the forshadowing? Wonderful! Xander boiling his
young, great look into his up-bringing. Willow getting taken over by hers. Lot's of interesting little metaphors never saw before. Gained a whole new appreciation for an epsiode I used to skip. Now won't.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just happy to foster more appreciation for Joss & Co. -- Brian, 10:03:39 06/29/02 Sat
In fact, "Bad Eggs" has given me an idea (a cunning plan).
How about we take a close look at episodes many people think are subpare, and see if we can find foreshadowing gold and textual richness? A side effect of all this could help Rob with his annotation project.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay, continuing on this thread TED -- shadowkat, 13:59:50 06/29/02 Sat
When I re-watched Ted prior to Bad Eggs, also never one of my favorites, discovered several interesting things never did before:
1. Buffy actually went to Ted's workplace to investigate him and he was described as working as a machine, the picture of her mom his desk, was one he took of her and her mom. She was folded out of it.
2. Xander's comment about the four wives in the closet has twinges of Bluebeard but already theoried this in an essay
3. Ted is the first human Buffy thinks she killed. And Cordy tells Giles he must sympathize since he killed those people via Egyhorn.
4. We have the Giles and Jenny love relationship developing again. Jenny has forgiven Giles. Actually the Giles/Jenny
thread in Season 2 is frighteningly similar to the Willow/Tara thread in Season 6.
5. Angel tells Buffy that her mom needs someone...someone
other than just her...Buffy/Joyce scenes remind me a little of the Buffy/Dawn scenes in Season 6.
Xander and Willow were wonderful in Ted. After Buffy thinks she killed him. Willow goes into full investigatory mood to prove there was something wrong with Ted and Xander helps.
They even risk harm breaking into Ted's house. Anyone who wonders why Buffy would forgive Willow - should re-watch parts of Ted. Same on why Buffy is close to X and W.
Slowly re-appreciating Ted.
Other episodes? How about Go Fish?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great points shadowkat and Brian... -- Ixchel, 19:33:27 06/29/02 Sat
Even the less brilliant episodes have treasures (IMHO) of characterization, interactions, etc. that make them worth watching.
shadowkat, really interesting observation about Giles/Jenny and Willow/Tara, and I agree about Willow and Xander in Ted.
As for GF, I like it's glimpse of the kind and caring Cordelia (talking to the fishman in the swimming pool that she believes is Xander).
Again, great observations.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: More thoughts on TED - 4 points -- Brian, 09:08:39 06/30/02 Sun
1. Buffy's "concern" about Ted and her mother is taken out on a vampire whom she just pulverizes with a trash can lid while Giles watches in dismay. This foreshadows Faith's extreme beating of a vampire in F,H, & T.
2. When Buffy returns to her room after looking for vamps, Ted is there and he has gone through her things. He thinks that the Slayer stuff is some kind of delusion and he threatens to put her in a mental institution, "Ted: Or what? (stands up and steps toward her) You'll slay me? I'm real. I'm not some goblin you made up in your little diary.
Psychiatrists have a word for something like this: delusional. So, from now on, you'll do what I say, when I say, or I show this (holds up her diary) to your mother, and you'll spend your best dating years behind
the wall of a mental institution." A nice foreshadowing of "Normal Again."
3.Giles comment about Buffy's guilt over "killing" Ted, "Giles: Whatever the authorities have planned for her, it can't be much worse than what she's doing to herself. She's taken a human life. The guilt, it-it's, it's pretty hard to bear, and it won't go away soon."
echoes both Faith's accidental killing of the mayor's aide, and perhaps his own guilt about killing Ben.
4. After Buffy destroys Ted, she discovers that Willow has kept parts of his circuitry,
"Willow: The sad part is the real Ted must've been a genius. There weredesign features in that robot that pre-date...
Buffy: (interrupts) Willow, tell me you didn't keep any parts.
Willow: Not any big ones.
Buffy: Oh, Will, you're supposed to use your powers for good!
Willow: I just wanna learn stuff," which certainly foreshadows Willow being able to fix the Buffybot, and her headlong plunge into "knowing" dark magic.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Let's see you find something in Teacher's Pet :) -- Malandanza, 16:28:30 06/29/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Teacher's Pet -- Rahael, 18:46:03 06/29/02 Sat
I found lots to annotate in Teacher's Pet (they should be up in Rob's site)
Of course, it could be complete fanwankery. That's not beyond the realms of possibility.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh Teacher's pet is easy -- shadowkat, 13:24:54 06/30/02 Sun
1. Xander's first attraction to the demon woman - forshadowing of the boys troubles with women.
Also this follows the myth of the female consuming the male after sex - found in both biology and goddess mythology.
I collected several stories regarding this fear in Wales in the 1988. Mostly from older men.
Also flips the whole we'll sacrifice the virgin female theme to virigin male theme. clever.
2. The first kind teacher who takes an interest in Buffy loses his head. Reoccurring theme. Flutie who was nice to Buffy is eaten by hyena people, Pychiatrist who is nice to Buffy in Beauty and the Beasts (and WAIT! I suddenly realized who the doc in Normal Again reminded me of - the school counselor who she spoke with and was killed in Season 3)
3. Xander's fantasies of being a rock singer and regarding Buffy are explored in the first 10 minutes. Xander discovers he is enamored with Buffy in this episode.
4. Shows there are things that scare vampires - the horrible razor demon/vamp is terrified of the lady pray-mantis.
5. Watch out for the older woman - she could literally bite your head off.
Not crazy about the episode, but it does further Xander and I've used it in at least two essays. It also demonstrates Xander's attraction to monstrous women or powerful women who can pummel or destroy him - an attraction that is finally explained to great effect in Hell's Bells when we see his father's abuse of his mother. Xander - terrified of continuing in his father's footsteps, goes after women he knows he can't hurt. If he marries a demonic woman, she will keep his monster in check. Except in Hell's Bells - he realizes that she might actually just let it out.
Interesting episode. Very important to understanding the character of Xander.
So is Go Fish actually. In Go Fish - the monster coming out of the man is explored. Go Fish also has the second sexual assualt shown in the series - this time on Buffy by one of the fishmen. She breaks his nose. And Synder holds her responsible not the guy.
Okay...continuing the thread try Beer Bad? (Which I actually like in retrospect..)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Beer Bad - 2 pts -- Brian, 10:25:01 07/01/02 Mon
While at the Bronze Oz is walking through the crowd with two drinks in his hands. Willow
is sitting at a table.
"Oz: Hey. You got a table.
Willow: I had to kill a man.
Oz: Well, it's a really good table."
A stretch to a foreshadowing of her treatment of Warren, but hey, it's what we do.
After the Bronze Willow comes home to find Buffy a little drunk.
"Buffy: (watching MTV) TV is a good thing. Bright colours. Music. Tiny
little people.
Willow: What did you do with Buffy
Buffy: I'm suffering the afterness of a bad night of badness
Willow: You didn't. Not with Parker again.
Buffy: No, with four really smart guys.
Willow: Four? Oh. Ow. Oh Buffy, are you okay? Do you wanna talk about it?
Buffy: I went to see Xander. Then I saw Parker. Then came beer.
Willow: And then group sex?
Buffy: (Hits her) Gutter face. No! Just lots and lots of beer. It's nice. Foamy. Comforting. It's just beer.
Willow: Drowning your troubles over Parker. Mind frying man! He deserves a slow and torturous death by spider bites. Well, for today we'll just have to throw spitballs at his neck in class."
This quote appears to support Willow's growing contempt of men, her concern about Buffy's bad sex choices, even if it is only a misunderstanding, and her idea of torture a guy who does you wrong.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Quote of the week #2 -- Masq, 14:09:34 06/28/02 Fri
"Never drink and theorize"
You know you just put a thousand academics and internet fans out of business.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: AtS does support -- Malandanza, 07:29:54 06/29/02 Sat
"1. What distinguishes "good" magic from dark magic?"
The source of the magic, not the intent.
"2. Why don't "good" magic users use it more often if it's free of consequences?"
Having the potential of setting demons free to ravage an unsuspecting populace counts as a consequence as far as I'm concerned. For a good person (like Tara), I'm sure this potential evil resulting from the use of dark magic would be enough to discourage casual use. For people less concerned about the potential consequence to other people, there's the possibility that they'll be caught up as victim number one in the demon's killing spree (like the shamans) -- less of a concern, but still enough to give pause to the more thoughtful practitioners.
Look at it from another point of view -- if black magic always resulted in terrible, personal consequences for the adept, who would ever use it? That is, if the first time a person tried using dark magic, he was carried off howling into some demon dimension to suffer an eternity of torment, no one would ever use it (or at least not more than once). Because it's possible to escape consequences entirely, dark magic is an attractive proposition -- it's easy, it's more powerful than regular magic and it's potentially risk-free -- if you're lucky. Eventually, though, you get the chamber with the bullet.
"3. How do we know which one the adept is invoking?"
Sometimes it's obvious -- like when Willow grabbed the book of Darkest Magicks to go fight Glory. This incident supports the theory that dark magic -- powered by an outside force -- is much more powerful than Willow's personal magic. She was able to challenge a god with this additional source of power. Amy's comment about Rack's spells have a burnt-out factor of zero also supports this theory -- since the power comes from another source, it does not deplete the magician.
Sometimes the adept may not know which he's invoking. If every spell came with a dark magic warning label, few people would take the kinds of risks that Willow or Xander take. But I believe that any time an outside source is supplicated, the magic is suspect. You have to wonder why these other entities would be willing to supply the magic for what is often trivial and selfish purposes.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good answers -- Sophist, 09:10:11 06/29/02 Sat
But I didn't make one of my questions clear enough:
If "good" magic carries no price, why not use "good" magic every day?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not powerful enough -- Malandanza, 10:11:17 06/29/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Except for the PTB, presumably (and if they exist in BtVS) -- Sophist, 10:38:50 06/29/02 Sat
Kind of an ad hoc answer, but sounds good for now.
If they had hired you from the beginning, they wouldn't have given us all these misleading statements and stories, and even I could have figured it out.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Except for the PTB, presumably (and if they exist in BtVS) -- Malandanza, 12:54:38 06/29/02 Sat
While I agree that the PTB are likely as powerful as any of the evil forces, I don't think it's particularly relevant -- the good guys do not allow the kind of access to their power that the bad guys do. And it's easy to see why:
1. Maybe the supplicant is evil -- the power will be used for evil or selfish purposes. A good thing from the perspective of the FoD, not so good for the PTB.
2. Maybe the person has the best of intentions but, through no fault of their own, end up doing more evil than good.
3. Maybe they use the power for good, but power corrupts -- they've taken the first step to the dark side (and the FoD may be able to influence them). In any event, the FoD have established a foothold in the Buffyverse as a result of the spells and rival evil forces have been weakened -- a good thing.
Magic from dark sources is easy. W&H performed sacrifices and muttered rituals in a language they didn't understand. Frat boys in Fear, Itself were able to summon a demon accidentally. Dark magic is physically addictive -- this isn't just a Season Six invention, we've known that dark magic was an "incredible high" since The Dark Ages. In Season Six we don't just have Willow's example, we have Rack's other patrons, the shamans from AYW:
SAM: Back in the jungle we had not one but two hard core shamans working for us. They were working the dark Magicks. Got addicted. And now they're gone. "Gone" as in nothing left. I never met anyone with enough strength to quit before.
and we have Anya's remarks in OaFA:
ANYA: And whose fault is that? If you hadn't gotten so much of it in your system in the first place - -
By contrast, power from the PTB seems replete with reasons to discourage use. Cordy and Doyle have painful, debilitating visions. The power is less reliable and harder to access -- the PTB keep a tight control over how the power is used. Even then, the good magic can sometimes be perverted -- Cordy's visions are hijacked by a W&H psychic and Willow steals the good power and almost destroys the world with it. So there really isn't an option to access the good guys' power source -- they keep to close a watch on their power. If an adept "needs" power in a hurry --dark magic is the only option.
I'm not sure how much of Willow's spells in the final three episodes were really dark magic. She wasn't invoking any demons. Maybe she called on them accidentally when she scanned those demonic texts into her brain (Like Ms. Calendar scanned a demon into her computer in I robot, You Jane), and Rack's power most likely had another source, but much of Willow's power seemed to be powered by herself (or, in the case of the teleportation spell, also powered by Buffy and Dawn) or power she gained through theft. So, Ironically, her most evil spell (stripping away Warren's skin) might have been powered by "white" magic.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why do the righteous suffer? -- Sophist, 18:19:23 06/29/02 Sat
Every theistic religion eventually has to answer the question, If God is all-powerful, why is there evil in the world? There are various answers to this question depending on your beliefs.
The situation with the PTB is similar: if there is that much good magic available, why not just win the battle today? Since that hasn't happened, there must be a shortage, used only when the PTB judge it necessary.
ME could have made this clear earlier. Instead, it referred to "magic" without distinguishing between dark magic and "good" magic. Even in retrospect, it's hard to separate which spells are which. That's what (IMHO) created so much problem with the fan base in the magic/drugs debate.
BTW, your Teacher's Pet post was hilarious. SAR would be quite a challenge too.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Liking the ambiguity -- dream of the consortium, 09:38:25 07/01/02 Mon
I've actually liked the idea that we've been discovering the rules for magic along with the Scoobie gang. We were given small hints from Giles that magic was potentially dangerous, but we liked the power the Scoobies got from the use. Willow would have asked the same questions you did - why not use the good stuff all the time? There was no consequence from that last spell - why should this one be any different? What if the alternative is an apocalypse? And she doesn't know. And we don't really either, though we can make educated guesses. There's enough internal consistency to satisfy me (I would have been much more bothered if spells always went perfectly up until a certain point, or if there was no reference to Giles' experimentation in his Ripper days and so on), and the slow unfolding has been fascinating. Would love to see Willow put her scientific mind to it next year and try to catalogue spells by potency and danger.
God, I'm a geek.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I love ambiguity. I'm not so fond of mere confusion. -- Sophist, 16:28:33 07/01/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> : ) a smile of amused semi-agreement -- dream of consortium, 06:07:39 07/02/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Magic and the Geek -- Rufus, 16:49:16 06/30/02 Sun
Many times this year we got to see the process of growing up through the characters, we also got to see the consequences of wanting something for nothing. With the Geek Trio, they used whatever means they could to get all they wanted the easy way, without considering the consequences of their actions, only wanting what they wanted. from Flooded....Psyche's Transcripts
ANDREW: Is this the life or what?
WARREN: Mm.
ANDREW: I mean, here we got all the stuff we ever wanted... (we see Jonathan writing "Hypnotize Buffy" on the To Do list) and we didn't even have to...
WARREN: Earn it?
ANDREW: Exactamundo.
JONATHAN: (turns away from whiteboard to face them) It's true, my friends. The way I see it ... life is like an interstellar journey. Some people go into hypersleep and travel at sub-light speeds... (the others nodding agreement) ...only to get where they're going after years of struggle, toil and hard, hard work. We, on the other hand ...
ANDREW: Blast through the space-time continuum in a wormhole?
They all nod and smile happily.
JONATHAN: Gentlemen ... crime is our wormhole.
Jonathan lifts a cigar to his mouth with one hand, with the other hand a flaming piece of paper money. He lights the cigar and takes a triumphant puff.
ANDREW: But ... everyone knows... (Jonathan frantically blowing out the fire on the bill) if the width of a wormhole cavity is a whole number of wavelengths, plus a fraction of that wavelength? The coinciding particle activity collapses the infrastructure.
Warren turns to face Andrew. Warren is wearing a virtual-reality headset that covers the whole top half of his face.
WARREN: Dude. Don't be a geek.
Andrew may have been talking like a geek but he was considering the fact that what they were doing could spin out of control taking away their ill gotten gain and perhaps more (which we can see in Dead Things, Villians, Two to Go, and Grave). This was a bit of throw away dialogue, but I always thought it was important to this season, everyone had to deal with consequences of wanting something for nothing. Had to finally live without someone there to pick them up if they fell. As Tara said "things fall apart" from Psyche's transcripts for Entropy.....
TARA: (OS) Things fall apart. They fall apart so hard.
TARA: You can't ever ... (sighs) put them back the way they were.
TARA: I'm sorry, it's just ... (deep sigh) You know, it takes time. (walking into the room) You can't just ... have coffee and expect-
TARA: There's just so much to work through. Trust has to be built again, on both sides ... (Willow looking upset) You have to learn if ... if we're even the same people we were, if you can fit in each other's lives.
TARA: It's a long... important process, and ... can we just skip it? Can-can you just be kissing me now?
Tara decided to get to the point, get to the actual process of living life, accommodating for our actions as we continue to live, instead of standing still afraid to act, Tara decided to take the step of moving on and taking life as it happens. It becomes so easy to sit in judgement of others actions, try to outthink life, but sometimes the only thing we can do is go on. With Xander, he wanted a guarrantee that life would be easy, instead of living he was so afraid that he didn't want to go on unless he knew he would have a happy ending. The result of this fear was that he wanted to take a shortcut and he suffered for it. So, where does everyone go from here.....I for one think that the only thing they can do is go on, learn from the past and hope that they use that knowledge to make a better future for themselves.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The final kiss and Xander's cosmic comeuppance -- cjl, 09:54:27 06/27/02 Thu
"Here's another one...Xander's spell led to Buffy beginning a sexual relationship with Spike, which is arguably one of the things that has hurt him most this year--knowing that his best friend, who he loves so much, and who he always held in such high respect, would do something like that. It challenged his whole belief system. So that's how I interpret all this. Xander did get cosmic commeuppance.
Perhaps another reason he did not get a direct punishment was the "Oh! Grow Up!" theme of this year. He is a man now, and he can make mistakes just as much as he did when he was a teenager...but adult mistakes are not scolded or always punished in the same way."
Willow's hubris problems and the emotional fallout from Buffy's heavenly sojourn would have been dealt with (or not) whether or not Sweet appeared in Sunnydale. As I said before, the X/A problems pre-dated and were gathering steam before OMWF. But those last two graphs are primo ass-covering on Joss' behalf, Rob. (OK, I'm a little less p.o.'ed at the Evil Genius now.) The idea that Xander is supposedly a grown-up now, and he shouldn't have to be told he's being an idiot is something ME should pick up in S7.
Still not happy with the ending, though.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> lol at the sense? of it -- aliera, 11:51:47 06/27/02 Thu
Rob you certainly point out a lot of very good and strong consequences to the OMWF...so many that it points out the lack of this level of consequences with other spells. Also, we could make an argument that many of the consequences were in process anyway.
Just my perceptions but the show does not use magic in any consistant way, neither the type of magic nor the consequences. I don't have the sense that this is a priority for them.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good point -- Sophist, 12:11:52 06/27/02 Thu
aliera's right: if Rob's suggestions were the consequences of Xander's spell, it merely emphasizes the lack of consequences in many other spells.
Also, as I think about it, a meaningful consequence is one that will be seen as such by the perpetrator. None of Rob's suggestions seem to meet this test.
I think magic is useful to ME when that suits the story and has consequences only when that suits the story. No karma involved.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> If we're discussing magic in the series overall--then yes, I agree... -- cjl, 12:23:57 06/27/02 Thu
But I was specifically talking about the year-long plotline running through Season 6. ME was hammering us on the head all year about Willow's magic jones, telling us that if you abuse the mojo, the hammer's going to come down, baby. In that context, letting Xander (more or less) slide for OMWF is incredibly sloppy writing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree. -- Sophist, 12:38:39 06/27/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: If we're discussing magic in the series overall--then yes, I agree... -- aliera, 14:16:32 06/27/02 Thu
That was a metaphor for drug use; nothing to do with magic. Like some Advil?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: If we're discussing magic in the series overall--then yes, I agree... -- Ashantai, 10:15:03 06/28/02 Fri
There is a difference between the consequences Willow was facing and the consequences of magic in general. Willow did not fear some sort of mystical repurcussions, she feared further loss of her friends' trust and her ability to control her self. She was losing her own identity to black magic, much like with an addiction, a person evolves from someone who had just tried drugs to a crackhead or junkie.
But as far as all magic having consequences, it seems that this was stated on the show as a belief, not necessarily a physical fact. Also, Xander could be considered an innocent consumer by the forces that be in OMWF, and any consequences would be directed at the irresponsible merchant, like with kids who buy alcohol.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> But Xander is not some simple-minded naif when it comes to magic... -- cjl, 14:04:06 06/28/02 Fri
OK, simple-minded in this case, but not a naif. Doing the love spell with Amy in BB&B and igniting the magic book in Superstar should have etched this message into his brain: "Xander, when you have the urge to perform any kind of magic...Don't." It's like a drunk driver who gets behind the wheel loaded after two previous offenses. Can you blame the bartender for serving the drinks if the driver doesn't say he's got a car waiting outside?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Xander - don't speak Latin to the books ; ). -- aliera, 14:27:12 06/28/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> :) -- Ashantae, 08:25:47 06/29/02 Sat
:)
[> Cut-and-paste attack -- Darby, 06:05:14 06/27/02 Thu
I had a theory about this, buried way down in an off-the-right-side-of-the-screen, that I clipped from the archives, so this may sound to the few people who got that far in earlier - note a familiar chord about the Theory song, too...
Joss has set up the following scenario -
- Sweet talisman in Magic Box but not in anyone's possession so Dawn can swipe it.
- Willow in trouble for casting spell on Tara, but about to be given "one more chance."
- A setup for that big honkin' kiss, so no Spike shenanigans.
- No real reason why anybody left would invoke a demon.
- A need for someone to have invoked Sweet.
- A need for that someone to be non-Queen material, and for the pay-off to be resolvable in seconds.
Who's left? Giles? Only Xander. It made no sense, it was absolutely out of character, but it was the only resolution under the circumstances. And, as offtimes happens when a plot device is necessary but terrifically inconvenient (even the Scripture according to Star Trek has cases), everyone has since "forgotten" about it.
The device even opens up a gaping problem in I've Got a Theory - if people were forced to sing what was hidden in their hearts and souls, why didn't we find out then that Xander knew what was going on? He wouldn't have had a theory, he'd have a certainty!
[> [> Plot holes give me belly rumblings...I just ignore them. ;o) -- Rob, 06:49:41 06/27/02 Thu
[> [> [> Re: Plot holes give me belly rumblings...I just ignore them. ;o) -- Ashantai, 10:28:49 06/28/02 Fri
There's no plot hole to worry about, Xander just didn't know. The show has definitely stayed consistent in that way- Xander is not too quick on the uptake.
[> [> [> There's no plot hole to worry about -- Ashantai, 10:48:51 06/28/02 Fri
There's no plot hole to worry about, Xander just didn't know. The show has definitely stayed consistent in that way- Xander is not too quick on the uptake.
[> [> Did Xander know what would happen? -- O'Cailleagh, 08:23:49 06/27/02 Thu
It didn't become apparent to the Scoobs that the SHC and the singing/dancing were connected until pretty late in the game. Also, Sweet obviously didn't appear to Xander when he did the conjuring with the amulet, so maybe Xander really didn't know (until the end) that he was responsible.
As well as the possibility that the amulet's instructions (I'm assuming it came with some) didn't go into detail about the results it would have-as someone mentioned earlier, it probably just said something about happy endings and avoided the All-Singing, All-Dancing, All-Burning Demon part altogether.
Now that I think of it, in 'I've Got A Theory', Giles' verse (I've got a theory that its a demon, a dancing demon! No, something isn't right there), he seemed to know what was going on, and then back-tracked. Perhaps it *was* Giles who called Sweet up, only to find that Xander takes the blame to help Dawn out....I don't really believe that, but its a possibility.
[> [> [> They made the connection in the first 15 minutes or so... -- cjl, 08:55:42 06/27/02 Thu
This exchange comes right after Xander and Anya's duet and immediately after Marti Noxon's Parking Ticket Song, which, as you'll recall, is still pretty early in the game...
[Marti] continues singing in the background as Xander, Anya, and Giles resume walking and talking.
XANDER: As in burnt up? Somebody set people on fire? That's nuts!
ANYA: I don't know. One more verse of our little ditty and I would've been looking for a gas can.
GILES: Well, clearly emotions are running high. (We see people in background dancing together) But as far as I can tell these people burnt up from the inside, spontaneously combusted. (Three street sweeper men in background dancing with brooms) I've only seen the one. I was able to examine the body while the police were taking witness arias.
XANDER: Okay, but we're sure that the things are related: the singing and dancing, and burning and dying.
Giles backs away from definitively connecting the two, but let's face it--deep in his gut, Xander already knows they are. This would have been a perfect time for Xander to sing his confession...but it would have been a short episode.
[> [> [> Giles and singy subtext...sublyrics? -- Darby, 11:06:05 06/27/02 Thu
People here have noted LOTS of subtext in OMWF, especially Willow as the poker-of-fun at Joss (a kid's wacky Broadway nightmare or lines as filler), but maybe Giles serves a similar role as commentator on things Joss had to do out of necessity but couldn't necessarily do well. Did it ever make sense that Giles would make Buffy take on responsibility "cold turkey"? Well, no, but ASH was leaving and Giles had to be removed, so we get his song setting it up. Hasn't Giles always been Buffy's guiding hand, her father figure, and yet he sings likes that can't work. But she's barely out of her teens, returned from death and a Slayer (a much compromised Slayer without a Watcher), so the situation makes about as much sense as the lyrics. But it does sync up with Tara, who had her own awkward must-serve-the-plot scene coming up much later.
And then we get Giles theorizing about the dancing demon, but then acknowledging, "No, something isn't right there." And the Xander connection wouldn't be right, but it was necessary. It was a comment on another awkward twist that pretty much just served the plot (as he did later when, after making Buffy go off by herself, he set in motion the finale with everyone present). Now I'm starting to want to make something of all the contrapuntal lines he had through the group songs, but I'll avoid cranial detonation and stop now.
Yikes! I can't stop! How about the order of singers in Where Do We Go From Here? and the order of significant changes coming up during the season (and notice Willow never has a line, and her significant change isn't done!)? Must...step...away from...VCR...
[> Re: I missed a puzzle piece in OMWF (sp for that ep) -- darrenK, 09:41:03 06/27/02 Thu
While I was surprised that there were NO consequences to Xander's Sweet summoning spell, ultimately, it was obvious that the spell itself was just so much MacGuffin, an easy quick explanation for the Magical singing dancing Sunnydale.
Joss obviously needed an explain that didn't interfere with the very important plot points of the episode.
And I think he chose Xander to scapegoat b/c a) I think he thought of the "Does this mean I'll have to be your queen?" joke before he wrote the ep. and b)he needed to pick a character whose ignorance would be convincing.
The ramifications of anyone else performing the spell would have been much greater. If it had been Dawn, then Hello Persephone. If it had been Willow, then the last scene w/Sweet would have been about Willow's guilt over the Sweet spell rather than Willow's guilt over the Slayer resurrection spell. If it had been Spike then Spike's moral ambiguity is compromised right at a crucial time in his and Buffy's relationship. If it had been Giles, then Gile's role as the responsible parent--so important for Season 6--would be compromised. If it's Tara then she's not really a responsible Wicca.
If it's a non-Scoob, then Joss has to bring more characters into an episode that's really about the Scooby gang, which means cutting Scooby scenes in his masterpiece Scooby episode, or adding time to an episode that's already 8 minutes too long for network TV.
dK
[> [> What on earth is MacGuffin, anyway? (spoilers on season 6) -- Ashantai, 08:55:19 06/29/02 Sat
I agree almost with everything you said, because I do believe that the show was essentially about the Scooby gang. However, I think that Xander was not a scapegoat or a tool of the plot, but that the writers chose to emphasize his continuing humanness and magical bumbling at this point in the story because it sets us up to think of him in a certain way in later episodes, when he breaks hearts, hurts his friends and ultimately saves the world all in his uniquely Xander way. Xander's ignorance (or if you want to look at it more positively, innocence) is not just convincing, it is important.
[> [> [> Re: What on earth is MacGuffin, anyway? (spoilers on season 6) -- mundusmundi, 07:10:39 06/30/02 Sun
"MacGuffin" was a term first coined by Hitchcock to denote the item in a movie that sets the plot in motion. A maltese falcon, a piece of microfilm, whatever. Or, in Roger Ebert"s words, it's the thing that all the characters care about, but the audience doesn't. Almost any plot device will do, though generally speaking, the less conspicuous your MacGuffin, the better.
American Christianity, Vampires and Buffy (Very Long article from poppolitics) -- Dochawk, 17:21:11 06/26/02 Wed
Rufus posted this on her spoiler board. There are only old spoilers, but even as a practicing Jew I found much of what this author has to say stimulating.
http://www.poppolitics.com/articles/printerfriendly/2001-04-23-buffy.shtml
Sometimes You Need a Story:
copyright: WB Television Network
American Christianity, Vampires and Buffy
by Gregory Erickson
A special television news flash announces that several "frightfully disfigured, almost inhuman" terrorists have barricaded themselves in a church with the congregation. In reality, it is three vampires that
hold the group of hostages, and Buffy Summers and her friends race across town to stop them.
The parishioners fearfully await what seems to be certain death, or worse, as the vampires stride amongst the wooden pews inside the small, traditional, stone church. With the cross prominently in the background, one of the vampires looks around, admires the stained glass, approaches the altar, and shouts arrogantly, "I've been avoiding this place for so many years, and it's nothing. ... Where is
the thing I was so afraid of? You know, the Lord?" (episode "Who Are You?").
The question, although phrased by a vampire, is essential to
understanding the popular television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Where is the Lord? Where, indeed? Is there any God for these vampires to fear? The question is, of course, much bigger than this moment. Is there, in fact, a relationship between our popular culture and our popular religion? What God do Americans bring to and get from popular culture? Where does a cultural phenomenon like Buffy fit into our spiritual epistemology?
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
For those who need an introduction: Buffy Summers, the chosen Slayer, and her friends live in Sunnydale, a fictional southern California town situated on a "Hellmouth," or a "mystical center of convergence." This allows all sorts of demons and vampires to pass through and also serves as a constant reminder that adolescence is
literally Hell.
Buffy constantly struggles with fulfilling her appointed role and living a normal life. She must live up to her responsibilities as the Slayer, pass a math test, and try to get a date for Saturday night: "If the apocalypse comes, beep me" ("Never Kill a Boy On the First Date"). She can viciously snap the neck of a hellhound, pull a formal dress out of her weapon bag, and calmly walk into the senior
prom, where her date is Angel, the 240-year-old vampire with a soul ("The Prom").
As Buffy and her friends have grown older and entered college or the work force, they continue to face the typical traumas of youth with a twist. Buffy's annoying dormitory roommate turns out to be a demon, her boyfriend works for a secret military operation, and the gang's
first return to the old high school is to close the mouth of Hell and (yawn) save the world ("Doomed").
As critics have noted, Buffy both questions and fulfills traditional modes of cultural thought, and the space it allocates to religion likewise pulls in both directions. In the opening of one episode, Buffy, wearing a crucifix given her by Angel -- a crucifix that has saved her life in the past -- answers the question: "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior?" with "You know, I
meant to and then I just got really busy" ("The Freshman").
Like many quotes from Buffy, this is both humorous and meaningful. We laugh, but also sense the cultural "in-betweeness" that the show embodies. Watching the show is a more complex experience than we might think. As Rhonda Wilcox writes in the Journal of Popular Film and Television (1999): "Viewers must understand both the language and
the symbolism to see the reality. Life and language are not so simple as problem-of-the-week television would suggest, and Buffy acknowledges that fact."
Behind the witty dialogue and the engaging characters, behind the metaphors of monsters and demons, the show occupies a space between belief and disbelief, between an absolute morality and nihilism.
Buffy and American Christianity
In tracing the history of the vampire, we can find in the
relationship of the European aristocratic vampire to the American everyday vampire a parallel to the relationship between the Christ of Europe, whom St. Augustine in his Confessions saw as "an enigma and as through a glass," and the American Christ who "walks and talks with you" and is a "friend."
American culture, like all culture, creates its own supernatural, and in this context, vampires in movies like Near Dark or The Lost Boys are just trouble-making kids who happen to be undead. The established "otherness" of vampires is completely dissolved by the time we get to Buffy, who even has conventional human sex with a
vampire; or, as fellow slayer Faith says to her in
admiration, "you've boinked the undead" ("Revelations").
On Buffy, vampires have the memories and personalities of humans but the souls of demons, and anyone -- good, bad, rich, poor, handsome, ugly, old, or young -- can become or be a vampire at any time. What had become a morality tale is instantly deconstructed by a world where rational (read: adult or Great Tradition) systems are ineffective.
Both American Christianity and American vampires exhibit similar traces of, and shifts away from, their European roots. As Anne Rice's character Louis says in Interview with the Vampire, "I had met the European vampire, the creature of the old World. He was dead." The American vampire, like the American Christ, is a new creature created
by a new culture.
In summing up his book, American Originals: Homemade Varieties of Christianity (University of North Carolina Press, 1997), Paul Conkin characterizes indigenous Am erican Christianity by its lack of stress on the issue of a trinity; by a lack of commitment to Great Creeds;
and by the creation by American prophets of new and different gods. In looking at the recent American vampire, and specifically at the vampires on Buffy, we see reflections of these ways of thinking: This American originality manifests itself in the creation of new ways of
creating and killing vampires as much as in the creation of new scriptures.
In folklore, the most important thing is to cut off the head and burn the vampire's body. The staking was intended to keep the creature in the grave rather than to kill it. In Bram Stoker's Dracula, you drive a stake through the heart, fill the mouth with garlic and cut off the head; blood spurts everywhere, the creature shrieks and moans, the
soul is saved. In recent movies, vampires are killed by exploding trucks and slashed by chain saws. On Buffy it is different -- more ambiguous and ironic.
In the first of many battles at the teen club "The Bronze," we see vampires killed in ways that reflect traditional methods but also parody them. Buffy beheads a vampire by flinging a cymbal from a drum set Frisbee-style across the room; the Jewish Willow shyly throws a jar of holy water on a vampire; Xander impales one with a wooden stake, but only by accident when he is bumped from behind. The climactic kill comes when Buffy fools the head vampire into thinking
that a lamp is really daylight and then stabs him from behind ("The Harvest").
While traditional methods are used, they are each given a twist and a new attitude. Vampires killed on Buffy explode neatly into powder, leaving no corpse, no unpleasant trace of death. The hateful revenge of recent films, like From Dusk Until Dawn, is gone. Also missing is the horror, spurting blood, and Christian angst in Stoker's Dracula,
as Lucy Westron's lover drives the stake home to give her soul eternal life.
In a similar incident, with a characteristically ironic reversal, Buffy must kill Angel after he has reverted to being an evil vampire. But far from putting his soul at rest, she kills him just after his soul has been restored and sends him to suffer in hell ("Becoming" Part II). In this scene, revenge and salvation are subverted, and
good and evil are not so clearly defined.
Theology: Weapons, Symbols, and Crosses
In Buffy we see no heaven, no God, no Christ. There are no
functioning churches and there is no serious prayer. There are occasional references to the sacred/pagan nature of humans versus demons and vampires, but the creatures of the night are the only ones who get to quote the Bible. The Christian symbolism of holy water and crosses is left unstated. The presence and effectiveness of both have
lessened throughout the run of the series, and by the third year a vampire looks at a cross and a vial of holy water, sneers "Whatever" and walks away ("Doppelgangland").
As Nietzsche says, however, it was Christianity that established the Devil in the world, and Buffy has a fully developed world of Hell, evil, demons and devils. What does this "mean"? Montague Summers, a vampire-believing scholar, states, "For the haunting of a vampire three things are necessary: the Vampire, the Devil, and the permission of Almighty God." Does a demonic presence require at least
an implied Christian one? Can we have an evil without a sacred?
Buffy's cross is never related to Christ, but a vampire says, "This is the most fun I've had since the crucifixion" ("School Hard"), and a church is used by a vampire in a mock crucifixion ritual to restore another to health: "From the blood of this site she will rise again" ("What's My Line" Part II). As Quincy, the Winchester-toting American
member of the male posse in Stoker's Dracula might say, "Just what in Hell is going on here?"
To begin: What does the cross signify on the show? It appears to be neither Christian nor non-Christian. It is constantly present -- in the opening credits, around Buffy's neck, and in her bag of weapons along with holy water, a cross bow and a collection of wooden stakes,
knives, and axes -- but it has no privileged status. Although Buffy symbolically removes her crucifix when she temporarily resigns her position as Slayer ("Prophecy Girl"), the cross is no more a weapon than a crossbow, a broken pool cue, or a well-placed karate kick. The
ambiguity of the cross is emphasized by Buffy's first great nemesis, the Master, who defiantly calls it "two pieces of wood," even as it sizzles under his touch.
By contrast, in Stoker's Dracula, we have the same combination of physical and Christian weapons, but the Christianity is always emphasized. A prayer always accompanies the stake. The truest cross in the whole of Buffy, in any traditional sense, is the burned image
of the cross pressed into Angel's skin from when he embraces Buffy. Here, in Angel, and only here, in the negative image of a symbol burned into the skin of a tormented vampire, does the cross stand for anything remotely Christian. Angel, the eternal soul, has given the
gift, and the cross represents his suffering and sacrifice.
In current American culture as well, as present as the cross is, what it signifies is ambiguous. No longer the space of Christ's suffering, or a sign of religious opulence, the American cross, says Harold Bloom, author of The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation (Simon and Schuster, 1992), is the empty cross, from
which "Jesus has already risen." "Resurrection," he says, "is the entire concern of the American Religion."
As Bloom interprets it, American religion quests for the 40 days when the disciples were with Christ following his ressurection. The Bible says little about this period: There is no text, just company. No theology, just power. No dogma, just friendship. Buffy's cross, as well, is a simulacrum -- a copy with no original -- a sacred and
powerful sign, signifying nothing.
Demons and Reality
As Buffy's friend Willow says, "The dark can get pretty dark. Sometimes you need a story" ("Lie to Me"), and the creative role of fear is clearly a connecting thread between vampires and Christianity. Theories of vampire folk tales point to the fear of death, the fear of what happens to a body rotting in the grave, and fear of disease as related to a belief in vampires.
According to Laurence Rickels in The Vampire Lectures (University of Minnesota Press, 1999), the crosses on gravesites were originally put there, not to commemorate, but to keep the dead person in the grave. In Stoker's Dracula, there is obviously a fear of sexuality and, as
has been pointed to by many critics, a fear of strong sexual women. In Buffy, vampires and demons stand for, among other things, fears faced by young people: fear of sex, fear of becoming adult, fear of not fitting in. Obviously, fear plays a role in the history of Christianity, but in looking specifically at American popular religion, Bloom asks: "When people frighten themselves into faith as millions of Americans do, what ought religious criticism to do with that fright?"
At the same time that the American vampire has moved from Near Dark and The Lost Boys to Buffy, there has been another and perhaps related movement in the American imagination. A growing number of Christian evangelicals have been engaging in what they call "spiritual warfare," by which they mean active battle with evil demons. In his book, Warfare Prayer: How to Seek God's Power and Protection in the Battle to Build his Kingdom (Regal Books, 1992), C. Peter Wagner explains that since "Satan can be in only one place at one time" he must "delegate the responsibility" by maintaining a "hierarchy of demonic forces to carry out his purpose."
Outside of some pretty blatant racism, there is much in Wagner's book that would work in a Buffy episode. He describes in detail the physical characteristics of demons, and he even writes of a rift in a town that allowed demons to come in and take control of a city. He calls it the "Devil's Corner" and Buffy calls it the "Hellmouth," but
it is essentially the same thing. These beliefs are not as marginal as we might want to think. Wagner's books sell in the millions, and articles on demons have appeared in mainstream Southern Baptist publications, such as The Commission (February-March 1991) and Christian Single (October 1999).
How "real" are these beliefs in demons? What does it mean to call them "real"? To call them "beliefs?" Does a practicing Catholic "believe" he is drinking blood? Do I "believe" that my hand is made out of atoms, and is therefore mostly empty space? As shows like Buffy seem to take the literal role of vampires and demons less seriously, at the same time we have books like Wagner's, proclaiming a real demon presence that most of us are supposedly unaware of. Is there a connection? Do all of these gods and demons come from similar imaginative spaces? These questions lie at the heart of the American consciousness, popular and spiritual. As any good postmodernist knows, absence and presence are not, and have never been, opposites, and the experience of American Christianity involves both.
Postmodernism: Fragments and Margins
So finally, after all this, I want to think about how Buffy the Vampire Slayer is truly a postmodern American religious experience. The American relationship to "God" is in many ways one of negativity, a nothingness we can see in contemporary urban and cyber culture. Could we say that popular culture and vampire tales create a subjective or absent God that reveals the American soul? This absence
is the imaginative space for our art, our religion, and our vampires. Our fear, belief, disbelief, conservatism, and innovation exist both at the center and in the margin and fragments of this imaginative space.
Vampires, according to Nina Auerbach, author of Our Vampires, Our Selves (University of Chicago Press, 1995), "may look marginal, feeding on human history from some limbo of their own, but they have always been central: What vampires are in any given generation is a part of what I am and what my times have become."
As represented on Buffy, none of this feels rebuilt from old scraps of stories, but, in the spirit of American Christianity, it is an experienced conversion; Dracula is born again as Angel, the good-hearted avenger with a cross seared into his skin, one sexual encounter away from becoming evil again. And, as we have seen, Buffy implies a divine presence and seeks a transcendent G(o)od at the same
time that it denies this existence.
What is Buffy's cross for? Where does Buffy get her powers from? Why is Angel allowed to return from Hell? Why is there a Hell? Questions like these are suggested, but are left generally unasked and always unanswered. During the fifth season a more mature and introspective Buffy becomes more aware of some of these issues, asking the librarian Rupert Giles to become her Watcher again to help her work
out answers. But as she experiences the loss of another boyfriend, the death of her mother, and her most powerful opponent yet (a "god," not a demon or vampire), any sense of a divine presence or a transcendent purpose evades her.
Buffy creates a world of absence/presence, immortality/ mortality, sacred/secular, where the experience is always on the edge or in the gaps of perception. It is an ironic world just this side of literal belief in demons, but one that is also close to the spiritual experience --praised by medireview Christian mystics and contemporary theologians -- of gazing upon a space where God isn't.
While America has often been characterized as simplifying God (and vampires) there is another side that is constantly slipping, full of tension and contradiction. The characteristically American phrase "I know that God exists," can be read to say just the opposite. (If we
can know, then God becomes of this reality, an empirical object that we can posses, and therefore is not God.)
Somewhere in all of these images of demons, the death and life of vampires becomes hopelessly (or hopefully) reversed. The postmodern God is desired but not found. The American Christ both is and isn't. Negation and affirmation can never be separated, and in this world of hypertext Bibles and Buffy chat rooms, of spiritual warfare and
vampire Web sites, the virtual becomes real and the real virtual.
We create, in our monsters, in our gods, and in our theories, reflections of who we are. Yet, like vampires, we cannot always see ourselves in the mirror. As Auerbach says, "There is no such creature as 'the vampire.' There are only vampires." And although it is perhaps our historical insistence on a monotheistic theology that has
created the need to be one autonomous individual, in looking at American religion we see that there are many Gods and many Christs, just as each of us is endlessly fragmented.
If one of the purposes of monsters has been to help us define who we are, a show like Buffy, where the categories and boundaries are constantly blurred, can help us to further understand the confusing and complicated stories we continue to tell ourselves.
Link to Guide to Christian Symbolism:
http://landru.i-link-2.net/shnyves/Christian_Symbolism.html
Link to articles on Vampires:
http://www.cesnur.org/dracula_texts.html
[> Interesting. Though he did get one important quote wrong -- Sophist, 19:30:19 06/26/02 Wed
In WML, the quote he gives is "from the blood of this site...". In fact, it's "from the blood of the sire..." The latter would not fit with his thesis (not inconsistent, just irrelevant).
[> [> Re: Interesting. Though he did get one important quote wrong -- ...typo?, 20:11:20 06/26/02 Wed
Thats probably just a typo. The 't' key is really close to 'r' on qwerty keyboards. :)
[> [> [> Probably not -- Sophist, 08:48:07 06/27/02 Thu
I noticed that. But there are 2 words wrong, not just the one: "this site" should be "the sire". Also, as I pointed out, the correct quote doesn't fit at all with his argument. Either he misheard it, and quoted from listening, or got the error from some other source.
[> thanks for sharing this.... -- shygirl, 05:45:05 06/27/02 Thu
I will definitly have to re-read this many times to really understand. It does show that this program is a focus for serious discussion in serious quarters. What has drawn me to this site is the discussion of all of the important issues facing us in the real world today brought down to a personal level and somehow easier to deal with externalized to "fictional" characters. I believe these discussions are important and all of the opinions presented here important because as this article points out (and I am paraphrasing here) we seem to be existing in a between space. The old and the new are being examined, dissected, and analyzed which will hopefully lead to a new understanding of our "reality" as well as our spirituality. When you consider that organized religions are founded on beliefs that structured a much simpler world view it's not surprising that there is a "betweeness" to our views. If you try to hold on to the past wholesale, you eventually die. If you jump into the future with no thought, you may in your ignorance destroy that future. The Scoobies, the demons, the vamps, the watchers...different groups representing different perspectives...sounds like us! ;-)
[> Re: another essay by this author, misquotage -- Dyna, 08:58:48 06/27/02 Thu
If you like this essay, the same author has another on this subject in "Fighting the Forces," the recent book of academic essays on Buffy collected by the editors of Slayage. (At least, the title of the essay in FtF is different. I don't have the book here to compare, so I can't be certain this isn't the same essay under a new title. But in any case, the book as a whole is very worthwhile for anyone who enjoys the discussions on this board.)
The author cites the same misquote in his essay in FtF, about "from the blood of this site" instead of "from the blood of the sire." I think he got his hands on a garbled transcript and unfortunately he seems quite taken with the quote. I noticed a few misquotes among the essays in the book, but I think this is the only one where the misquoted part was key to making the quote fit the author's thesis.
I can see where getting the quotes right could be a tricky business--the scripts are often different than what was broadcast, and for transcripts you have to rely on the ears (and spelling skills!) of whoever's doing the transcription--but I was still surprised that the editors didn't catch the mistakes. I mean, they're academics, so they must be aware of how important accuracy is when citing evidence, and they study Buffy, so presumably they have pretty thorough knowledge of it. What's up with that?
Then again, I'm willing to consider the possibility that my knowledge of Buffy dialog borders on the freakish. :)
[> [> It's essentially the same essay -- MaeveRigan, 10:16:22 06/27/02 Thu
Maybe with slight revisions. I was surprised that there was no acknowledgement in FtF that the essay had appeared previously elsewhere--this is the usual thing to do. Maybe he thought WWW publication didn't matter?
Another point--FX's ruthless cutting of the reruns seems to have eliminated the line "Things can get pretty dark; sometimes you need a story" that Erickson uses for his title.
DVDs are obviously a must for the serious Buffy scholar from now on.
[> twisting 2 threads together -- anom, 13:57:11 06/27/02 Thu
"The characteristically American phrase 'I know that God exists,' can be read to say just the opposite. (If we can know, then God becomes of this reality, an empirical object that we can posses, and therefore is not God.)"
Off-Kilter's post in the too-quickly-archived Douglas Adams thread says:
"Too bad there I can't find a babble fish anywhere; they seem pretty useful even if they disprove the existence of God."
The theory being along the lines that (paraphrased except the part in quotes) the existence of the babelfish, which when inserted into the ear of the speaker of any language in the entire galaxy translates anything said in any other language in the entire galaxy into the hearer's native language, can't have happened by chance; the only possible explanation is that the babelfish was intentionally created to do this by God. But philosophers say belief in God must be based on faith, & definitive proof like the existence of such a thing as the babelfish obviates faith; so God disappears "in a puff of logic."
I wonder if the article's author is aware of this further convergence of theology & science fiction/fantasy....
[> [> Did you have to remind people that I can't type or edit? -- Off-kilter, 17:10:23 06/27/02 Thu
[> "Where's your Messiah now, Buffy?" (a rebuttal) -- ZachsMind, 14:47:13 06/27/02 Thu
Audiences do not get easily offended by the phrase "demon" but for some reason they do get easily offended by the use of a specific name for a benevolent God. Why? Because everyone wants it to be "their god." Jehovah, Yahweh, Ra, Allah, "The Great I Am." Which God is Joss Whedon to use? Who would still tune in if Whedon solidified which God exists in Buffy's Universe as The Supreme Being? As Mel Brooks once said in his 2000 Year Old Man comedy routine, "there's always someone bigger."
This Gregory Erickson means well I'm sure, but his very narrowminded approach to Buffy from a Christian angle is mildly disturbing to me. I am a Christian personally, but one of the nice things about BtVS is that it doesn't preach. It doesn't specify who/what/which is the One True God. Whedon leaves that to the interpretation of the viewer. In so doing, he captivates rather than alienates the viewer. I mean let's be honest. In a country where The Pledge of Allegiance is being questioned in the courts as unconstitutional because it happens to include the phrase, "under god," a tv writer/director/producer like Joss Whedon has to be careful.
In the DVD commentary of the movie Die Hard, director John McTiernan explains that the 'terrorists' in his movie were depicted as German capitalists, because it was apolitical. He explained he wasn't making the movie to make any political statement. He was making the movie to entertain audiences. I'm sure if pressed for comment, Joss Whedon would make similar statements regarding the use of religion in BtVS. He wants to entertain audiences, not preach a certain gospel. That's not his job.
Still, in telling stories about vampires one cannot completely dismiss the battle between good & evil, so good must make an appearance in some form. However it doesn't have to identify itself. We learn of benevolent Spirit Guides in the Buffy Universe, but what guides those spirits is anyone's guess. In the episode Amends it miraculously snowed in California, saving Angel from his own inner demons and a sunrise that would have certainly destroyed him. In the series Angel, Cordelia gets visions, but from what benevolent force we are unsure, or even if it is a benevolent force. Whistler admitted he was a demon, yet he insisted to Angel that he could either continue being a nothing or do something with his life by helping Buffy do good.
Who possessed Willow when she was in the hospital bed having difficulty with Angel's soul restoration spell? Surely she didn't complete the ritual without some benevolent influence. Well okay, maybe it was The First Evil, but I got the indication it was taking credit for Angel's return from hell (and not very convincingly) but not for the return of his soul.
There is a very strong reason why Christianity is not solidified in the BuffyVerse: Joss Whedon knows that not only Christians are watching. In 1965 the movie "The Greatest Story Ever Told" was budgetted at $20 Million and only grossed $8 according to imdb.com. Not very profitable if you ask me. If you make a film or tv show and only assume Christianity as the basis, odds are you will only attract Christians as audience members. There's a market for that, but obviously it's not the only audience that M.E. wants to attract. They also want pagans, aetheists, jews, agnostics, and people of other faiths or theologies to enjoy the show equally, or at least have an equal choice to enjoy or shun the series.
If God became a prominently visible character in the series, people who don't believe in God wouldn't tune in. People who do believe in God would tune out if the God presented by Whedon & others didn't happen to reflect the God that the person watching believes in. Whedon approaches the storytelling of BtVS in such a way as to allow those who believe in a Christian God to "see" God's influence in the show, and those who believe in a different diety as the force for good in the universe see whatever they believe in. Those who don't believe in a God at all just see a cute chick running around beating up on guys with three hour makeup jobs.
Whedon allows you to see what you want to see, and this opens up the accessibility of the series. One can opt to see BtVS as a retelling of the Jesus Christ story. Buffy is the saviour of the universe. Her Scooby gang are like her disciples. The Big Bad of a given series can be seen as The Great Satan if one so chooses. It's a narrow viewpoint to take in watching Buffy, but it's available if that's what the audience member wants. Whedon keeps it open to interpretation, even avoiding the temptation that most writers have: to introduce their own narrow viewpoint about theology into the series. Whedon works off the mythology of vampirism that has been passed down in stories for generations, he keeps what works for him and dismisses the rest. He uses crosses because that's what vampire stories before M.E. used to combat vampires. When a cross was once used on Vampire Willow, she responded indifferently. Since Willow Rosenberg comes from a jewish family, perhaps a Star of David would work more effectively against Vampire Willow. Whedon didn't go there either because it was too obvious of a joke, or he feared offending his jewish audience. We may never know.
When the Scoobies investigate the origins of the hellgod Glory, they learn that there are thousands of "hell dimensions" each trying to worm their way into Buffy's reality. Perhaps there's an equal number of "heaven dimensions." Whedon doesn't specify because many viewers believe in theologies that insist there is only one hell and one heaven, and many other viewers may believe in one but not the other, or neither. Whedon likes to keep his options open. We know that Buffy's soul went to a heavenly place when she sacrificed herself in "The Gift," but it's not made clear whether or not that was THE heaven. Perhaps her soul just went to Disneyland. Again, it's left to the interpretation of the viewer.
There is definitely a force of good in Buffy's Universe. Most predominant in this good force is Buffy herself. We're given indications that her power as a Slayer comes from something dark, but that she has opted to use her powers for good. It's a choice. It's her choice. A choice she makes practically every episode. There are human characters who choose to do evil. Warren. Dark Willow. Even Giles on occasion. There are demon characters who choose to do good. Angel. Spike. Anya (occasionally). Doyle from the Angel series. Whistler. The writing staff of M.E. illustrate that there is a moral ambiguity in the Buffy Universe. Perhaps some people like Gregory Erickson would prefer to see a more concrete message, but M.E. is simply saying that life doesn't work out that way. The world is not black & white. Things are not cut & dried.
According to Catholicism, demons are fallen angels. Perhaps demons who do good are trying to pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and carry on with the good fight. Maybe we don't ever see angels in BtVS because an angel can't appear in Sunnydale without having fallen first.
In Judeo-Christian theology, God gave his Creation the choice to use their lives for evil or good. Those who choose to do good become instruments for that force of good. One can see God in Buffy every time one person saves another, but only if they see that God in their every day lives. Pagans interpret what they see in a different way, but the end message is similar: good triumphs over evil. Be it the Universal Force of Nature, or a wrinkly old bearded man in a robe floating in the clouds, Whedon's message is the same. Evil sucks. Good struggles against evil but eventually triumphs, though not without sacrifice. And sometimes, you have to fight fire with fire.
There is a greater benevolent force which plays a pivotal role in Buffy, but it doesn't take center stage. Instead it is represented by a little blonde girl with a pointed stick. Pay no attention to the man/woman/thing behind the curtain. =)
[> [> Re: "Where's your Messiah now, Buffy?" (a rebuttal) -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:57:05 06/27/02 Thu
Also there are people who are Christians but don't find theology entertaining, so would tune out if a show like Buffy became too religious.
Ded's new essay -- Etrangere, 19:33:26 06/26/02 Wed
is one of the greatest thing I've read ! go read it, people, it's worth it.
Ded, I've only read it once right now, but i think i must read it again to sort some though. I'm in awe. Not very long ago I was writing about that feeling you've got when someone's saying something and you exactly understand what he says even though you have troubles expressing exactly it and you though you were crazy... well got it. This was very enlightning and just wow...wow...wow. And I don't even like Star Wars.
Some personnal thoughs... I'm the kind of idealist (proper sense of the word) who think that meaning is reality, and reality is meaning, and that it's immanent. That thining there is a gap between observation (commentary) and experience of life is the error, the illusion.
Okay and to relate it to Buffy too... what you described, about this falling in awe with life, this feeling of wonder, that's what I felt this season final was meant to convey. That's how I think anytime I feel depressed... life is hard, and painful, and boring (and why should we live, what should be the point, the meaning of life if it's so much pain and suffering and self-loathing, so why not destroy it like Willow wants...) but, God, how life is beautiful and wonderful and someday you just have to STOP and LOOK to see it, and we're so caught in our life (commentary:) we forget to see it. What I mean, is, that's what Giles gave Willow, the possibility to really feel life, to be connected with everything. That's it. A mystic experience. And for Buffy, an Epiphany ("there's so much things I wanna show you") (and some day i should write some theory of magic in Buffy linked to feelings... I disgress)
Again, thank you for this wonderful essay
[> Darn it! -- ponygirl, 07:32:05 06/27/02 Thu
I was determined to wait until the weekend until dipping into the Fictionary Pages, but after Ete's glowing review I couldn't resist, and now after Dedalus' fab essay I want to run to the bookstore and pick up some Alan Watts. I am so looking forward to the day when I can quit this job and devote myself to the board and board-related reading!
Such agreement on the importance of wonder in our lives. And I love that phrase "falling in awe with life". If magic in BtVS, like a mystical experience, serves the purpose of connecting one to something larger than the self, I can understand why the abuse of it for selfish reasons is such a terrible thing. To make magic ordinary, to confine it within the bounds of one person's limited experience, is to rob it of the wonder and the awe. It's like the old expression familiarity breeds contempt, treating magic, or life, too casually can cut us off from this all-important sense of wonder.
Have to agree with Ete on Star Wars though, especially Attack of the Clones. I know the dialogue's really not that important but does it have to be so bad?
[> [> Re: Darn it! -- Dedalus, 08:42:10 06/27/02 Thu
Well, I'll weigh in.
I too love that phrase "falling in awe with life." Easily as good as anything I came up with in the essay. That was a long time in perculating, I'll say that much, but I think it came out well. I know Rufus loved it too, and posted it a few other places.
I do like what I did by combining Watts and Campbell. They did know each other, at least in passing, and were more or less friends. They just seem to compliment each other well. At any rate, I may not fully agree with everything either of them ever wrote (though just about), but those two have had a huge impact on people's lives, and making people fall in awe with life in general. As Campbell said, "to see life as a poem, and yourself as participating in a poem, is what the myth does for you."
And I totally agree about the season finale. That was what it was all about! My life has sometimes sucked beyond the telling of it, but I have had a few moments like that. I think it all comes down to what Alan Watts once said, "The only interesting people are interested people." The only reason my essay is interesting is because we have a board full of interested people, and that's mar-ve-lous.
And hey, everyone I know loved Attack of the Clones!
[> [> [> Re: -- aliera, 11:16:24 06/27/02 Thu
I just printed off your Mythic Experience. I was wondering if you would be willing to suggest some further reading beyond the bibliography? I'll be done with the Masks of God series by tomorrow and at a loose end for direction after that. It would be greatly appreciated. By email so as not to waste board space?
[> [> [> [> Well, I'm up for wasting some board space. -- Dedalus, 15:36:42 06/27/02 Thu
It's always nice when someone wants to even go beyond the bibliography.
Well, if we're talking myth, I would suggest anything Campbell, naturally, but you probably have that covered. Though none of this relates exactly to what I discussed in my essay, there is some very interesting stuff out there that I have read.
Mircea Eliade and the Myth of the Eternal Return is something of a classic. I think it was certainly influential to Lucas' style and his perceptions of mythic time. Jesse L. Weston did a very good one on the Holy Grail legends called From Ritual to Romance. The thesis is a bit out of favor today, but it is still quite interesting. For a general overview of a lot of myth and a lot of mythologists, try JF Bierlein's Parallel Myths. If you're into discussion type stuff like The Power of Myth, I was recently reading through Bill Moyer's Genesis, another PBS series that is currently available in book form. If you're into Star Wars, Stephen Galipeau wrote a book called The Journey of Luke Skywalker, which gets into things from a Jungian perspective, though his descriptions of scenes can be redundant at times.
Just for reference, there is also a book available at most Borders called The Dictionary of Symbolism by Hans Bierdemann. Very cool and informative.
If we're talking Eastern philosophy, there is a wonderful book called The Tao is Silent, by Raymond Smullyan. It's one of my favs, and is rather funny, if you're into that sort of thing. Stephen Mitchell has done recent translations of the Baghavad Gita and the Tao Te Ching which are excellent, as well as edited a volume of poetry I like called The Enlightened Heart. As for Alan Watts, a lot of his lectures have now found themselves in book form. What is Zen, What is Tao, and Still the Mind are all very good. One of his most famous ones is called The Way of Zen, though I have yet to read it. The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are is based on Vedanta, and is quite a read. I would also suggest a neat little translation of some of the Upanishads by Juan Mascaro.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Well, I'm up for wasting some board space. -- aliera, 17:40:15 06/27/02 Thu
Thank you very much. All new to me except Watts and maybe it would be time to revisit him also. I'm also going to look at Sumerian, Babylonian, symbols (beyond or before Jung).
Not to prolong; but do you have any idea on why the God/Goddess references (osiris, dionysis, proserpexa=proserpine, asmodea=asmodeus) were used in the way they were? The first three make some sense to me although they weren't very developed; but the asmodeus reference has been niggling at me in particular.
Thanks again for the suggestions. I printed off your essays to read tonight.
[> [> [> [> [> an alternative translation & yet another button -- anom, 22:46:11 06/27/02 Thu
"Stephen Mitchell has done recent translations of the Baghavad Gita and the Tao Te Ching which are excellent...."
When I finally looked for a copy of the Tao Te Ching to read a couple of years ago, I was surprised to find one by Ursula K. LeGuin (better known as an sf/fantasy author--her The Dispossessed is deservedly recommended by OnM in another thread). Actually, she calls it "a new English version," not a translation--she worked closely w/a professor of Chinese, which she doesn't speak herself. Her account of the process of writing this new version & her history w/the book is fascinating in itself; one of the things it does is restore the gender neutrality of the original. Not to be PC or anything--apparently Chinese just doesn't get specific with regard to gender in many cases. Or verb tenses, either...OK, I'm getting carried away here--see what I mean?
"As for Alan Watts, a lot of his lectures have now found themselves in book form. What is Zen, What is Tao,..."
Heehee--reminds me of a button I wear a lot: "That was Zen, this is Tao."
[> [> [> [> [> [> A few other suggestions... -- shadowkat, 05:35:19 06/28/02 Fri
Well you're taking me back in time...but you can try:
Robert Graves: The White Goddess, Graves has written other works as well. I studied more Graves than Campbell when I was doing my Mythology minor.
Enrich Neumann wrote several books, one on Cupid and Psyche, another on the Collective Unconscious (can't remember exact title)
Some films you might look into are by Luis Bunel - who is really into myth depiction. That Obscure Object of Desire,
The Exterminating Angel. Also the film Black Orpheus.
If you can - get a good copy of Greek and Roman Myths.
Fictional Books: CS Lewis does a take on Cupid/Psyche with Till We Have Faces. Other writers who have a firm grasp of the myth in their writing but are less obvious are:
Faulkner, Gabriel Marquez(sp?) (A Hundred Years of Solitude), JAmes Joyce
Celtic Mythology - The Mabinogion - it's the medieval rendering of the celtic myths. William Butler Yeats also collected several fairy stories and myths - he collected
the Books of Ulster and irish myths.
Give you credit for finishing Campbell so quickly. I'm still struggling with it. But I am reading a portion of The Hero With A Thousand Faces - the atonement of the father.
Interesting.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks everyone this... -- aliera, 05:47:38 06/28/02 Fri
Should keep me out of trouble for a bit...no credit needed, gift and notgift, I read too much (why don't those author's write faster?just kidding and 'kat this was not directed towards you : ) Red all of Daedylus's essays last night (enjoyment!) and he referenced some other things to look into also. Thanks again everyone for the responses.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> My gawd aliera...you must speed read -- shadowkat, 11:47:24 06/28/02 Fri
How do you do it? You've read all the posts on two boards, the essays, and all of Campbell?
I've barely made it through a chapter of Campbell and am still working my way through these posts and essays.
I got Ded's in my bag for train ride home.
Impressed.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Absolutely not...books are like chocolate... -- aliera, 13:25:13 06/28/02 Fri
To be enjoyed or what's the point?
The essays were between 4 and 14 pgs (that being the 6/20 one) and they're all good. Some nights I'll down load all the posts from this board and a few others and then read something heavy -I think it's like anything you do a lot of you just get faster. Back on topic, my points of curiousity right now are very BTVS, dualistic...what happened before Greek/Egypt and what happened after Campbell? gentle smile.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Absolutely not...books are like chocolate... -- redcat, 17:56:43 06/28/02 Fri
You ask, " What happened before the Greeks and Egyptians and after Campbell?"
With a gentle smile of my own, I would answer the first question with, "the Sumerians, of
course." Inanna's "Descent into the Underworld" is the oldest extant example in human
literature of the classic hero's journey, as well as being among the oldest extant pieces of
human writing yet discovered. It contains all of the classic components of the hero's journey
as articulated by Campbell, including those focused on by Ded in his essay. The best and
most accessible translation/modernization is Samuel N. Kramer's and Diane Wolkstein's,
_Inanna, Queen of Heaven and Earth_, still widely available after almost twenty years since it's
original publication in 1983. Also of interest in the context of Ded's articulation of the centrality
of experience to religious ecstasy is _Inanna, Lady of the Largest Heart_, Betty deShong
Meader's fabulous translations of the poetry of a Sumerian High Priestess of Inanna,
Enheduanna, who was also a daughter of the first true emperor in world history, Sargon.
Meader's meditative biography of the 5,000-years-dead poet places her "numinous"
experiences, as revealed through three very long lyric poems written in praise of the goddess,
in historical and social context.
Although I would champion the basic premise of Ded's essay, I would like to suggest that there
are intellectually rigorous debates about the nature of experience that his celebratory exercise
necessarily dismisses out of hand. If you're interested in reading from the other side, one of
the most influential works within postmodernist historiographic politicized theorizing has been
Joan Wallach Scott's article, "The Evidence of Experience," originally published in _Critical
Inquiry_, Vol 17, no 4, summer 1991. The journal is generally available if you live near any
major university; the article has also been reprinted numerous times in anthologies, both
feminist and non. It's a very carefully constructed argument that experience and language
cannot be separated, including ‘sacred" or "numinous" experiences of the type Ded discusses.
And although I enjoyed Ded's essay tremendously and agree with most of his insights, I was a
bit dismayed when I realized that every source he cites in the essay or lists in his bibliography
is male-authored. Nothing wrong with this, and certainly nothing wrong with his fabulous
collection of authors. Many of these writers have been quite influential in my own life and their
works remain on my library shelves. I would just like to suggest in a spirit of balance that
women mythologists, Buddhist sages and Christian theorists have also contributed greatly to
both academic and general cultural conversations about the role of religious experience in
modern life. Carolyne Larrington's _The Feminist Companion to Mythology_ is a wonderful
read in conjunction with Campbell. Barbara G. Walker's work on myth and symbols is often
quite illuminative and always educational, an excellent addition to anyone's myth library. And
for a very interesting ramble through the world of feminist pagan experiences of the sacred,
may I suggest any of Carol Adams' individually-authored works or her bright anthology
collections of other women's writings, _Ecofeminism and the Sacred._ In many cases, one has to
look beyond the boys if one wants to see what's happened "after Campbell."
Hope this helps and doesn't start a gender-based flame war...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Absolutely not.. -- aliera, 18:52:38 06/28/02 Fri
bit of a glow instead...I finished Descent to the Goddess by Perera before Oriental by Campbell but it wasn't quite what I was looking for. I also picked up Knot of Time by River and Gillespie which is astrology from a feminine perspective but was also quite interesting. I think I now have my summer reading list, thank you.
I don't know the answer to integrating different perspectives; we all gravitate toward what speaks to us. But duality...there's a concept that is very old and at the root of human experience, naturally. And yet the myths seem to consistently preface it with the One. Inadequate terms, I'm afraid.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> duality/unity -- anom, 22:24:23 06/29/02 Sat
"But duality...there's a concept that is very old and at the root of human experience, naturally. And yet the myths seem to consistently preface it with the One."
Hmm...sounds like birth. "One" creature becomes two (even w/multiple births, each child experiences a single separation). And according to psychologists, emotional separation--the concept that "I" am separate from the "Other"--takes longer to achieve. Yet there's still an underlying oneness--a commonality--to those dual elements, even in all their complexity. Maybe that's what these myths express.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: duality/unity -- aliera, 05:49:35 06/30/02 Sun
I hesitate answering since I don't have the expertise of others...so (JMHO) I think the age and prevalance of the duality myths speak to something fundemental in our nature not about the environment around us.
We often speak as if duality is a reflection of the world around us; but that is not completely accurate. The world contains many variations, not simply light or dark. Dawn, dusk, moonlit...ok it probaly wasn't the best example. But me and not-me, there *is* duality.
Many older myths do relate the one (as you mentioned) to birth or creation. There is sometimes originally the One which is everything. And then for a variety of reasons the One would make another or split into two. Often, loneliness is the explanation given.
This is from Campbell and relates both to loneliness and to what you said, from an indian example circa 700 BC in the Brihadaranyanka (anyanka? :) Upanishad,
...This universe was nothing but Self in the form of a man. It looked around and saw there was nothing but itself, whereupon its first shout was, "It is I!"; whence the concept "I" arose.
Then he was afraid. But he considered: "Since there is no one here but myself, what is there to fear?" Whereupon the fear departed.
However he still lacked delight and desired a second. He was exactly as large as a man and woman together. This Self then divided itself into two parts; and with that there was a man and a mistress...
In the Indian version it is the God himself who divides and becomes not one alone, but two, then many, then all creation. Thus, each is a part of all creation.
In the traditions that we are perhaps more familiar with however, there is a separation of God and man. Man is created in God's image and woman from man. What is split is not the Creator himself (I feel very conscious of my gender language, so apologies).
To bring it back to Buffy one of her conflicts is this inability to reunite the two sides of herself. This was my great unfufilled hope for this season (still season 7 yet to come). For, and again I'm drawing on Campbell, true strength comes from this union.
Thank you for your post!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: duality/unity -- anom, 22:45:36 06/30/02 Sun
"I hesitate answering since I don't have the expertise of others...."
No need to hesitate--I have nowhere near the expertise you show in your post (certainly I couldn't cite the Upanishads), & I jumped right in!
"...so (JMHO) I think the age and prevalance of the duality myths speak to something fundemental in our nature not about the environment around us."
That's what I meant (at least I think so). The separation of birth is our experience, which we then project onto our environment.
"We often speak as if duality is a reflection of the world around us; but that is not completely accurate. The world contains many variations, not simply light or dark. Dawn, dusk, moonlit...ok it probaly wasn't the best example. But me and not-me, there *is* duality."
It's a great example. Light, dark, all the shades of grey, all the shades of all the colors...in all the possible patterns...how can we reduce that complexity to a duality? Me & not-me, at the simplest level, is a duality, but look how complex each one is. What is not-me is made up of animal, vegetable, mineral; solid, liquid, gas; all the rest of the world I know, of the world beyond what I know, of the universe, & everything that makes these up; every individual thing & substance, all of them different. What is me might seem easier to define, but is it really? The substance of me is the same as the substance of not-me. If me is my body, it's made up of multiple complex systems at many levels. If me is my mind, it's equally complex--& me is even more complex if it's both. When does what I take into my body become me, & when does what leaves my body stop being me? Me is constantly engaged in exchange & interaction with not-me. Are my thoughts part of me? When I express them, put them out into the world, are they still part of me, or are they now part of not-me...or both? What about ideas that I encounter (say, on this board, which is apparently part of not-me)--do they become part of me? If I forget them, are they no longer part of me?
"In the traditions that we are perhaps more familiar with however, there is a separation of God and man. Man is created in God's image and woman from man."
That's one of the stories. But there are 2 places in Genesis that say God created the human species in S/His image, & both are immediately followed by "male & female created S/He them." (Note: my personal solution to the gender-neutral pronoun question is "s/he," "s/him," "s/his.") I interpret this as meaning that God is both male & female (or at least has qualities humans consider masculine & feminine) & that creation of the human species in S/His image required creating both male & female, implying that they were created that way from the beginning. (Interesting that animals are also male & female but this isn't mentioned in the Genesis creation story.)
"To bring it back to Buffy one of her conflicts is this inability to reunite the two sides of herself. This was my great unfufilled hope for this season (still season 7 yet to come). For, and again I'm drawing on Campbell, true strength comes from this union."
I wonder if they're really separate or if that's just her perception. Maybe it's more a question of recognizing that the "two sides" are really one Buffy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: duality/unity -- aleira, 10:34:58 07/01/02 Mon
anom-
"No need to hesitate--I have nowhere near the expertise you show in your post (certainly I couldn't cite the Upanishads), & I jumped right in!"
And yet, that entailed opening a book and typing what was conceived by others. I don't think I have any illusions about this - reading is gathering information not insight.
There is much to consider in what you said, and I would like to discuss it. But this thread is taking up quite a bit of board space; and I'm not sure that it's of interest to all. So if you'd like to continue, would you open a new thread? Otherwise, thank-you for very much for you thoughts :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> that never stopped anyone before! -- anom, 10:21:17 07/02/02 Tue
"There is much to consider in what you said, and I would like to discuss it. But this thread is taking up quite a bit of board space; and I'm not sure that it's of interest to all. So if you'd like to continue, would you open a new thread?"
Even when a troll was deliberately grabbing up board space, other posters still extended many of s/his threads (not that I'm making any comparison!). And many threads & subthreads are of interest only to subsets, not to all posters, so that's no reason to hold back either.
I would like to continue, but I already said what I had to say (so far)...which makes it your turn! Why don't you start the new thread? Go for it!
BTW, I'm flattered--no one ever invited me to start a thread before!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> OK -- aliera, 08:52:38 07/03/02 Wed
Didn't Socrates teach in the same way you post?
If it is OK, I will tell you how I *feel* about your questions (at this moment) and not try to prove it. Just my thoughts, OK?
Anom, you wrote:
"That's what I meant (at least I think so). The separation of birth is our experience, which we then project onto our environment." Yes, very true, but is it A experience or THE experience. You seem to say that you think it is THE experience? If I doubt that it is THE experience than does that mean that for me THE defining experience is something different? (also could mean my understanding is incomplete :-) which, of course, it is.)
Is THIS why we search for wholeness, because of the separation of birth? That's what I noticed about Buffy's statement about the heavenly time...she felt whole.
"Light, dark, all the shades of grey, all the shades of all the colors...in all the possible patterns...how can we reduce that complexity to a duality?" I can't. I have great admiration and envy for people who can and even more admiration for those who can say "something IS this." My struggles lie in the opposite end of the sprectrum, all POV seem to have some validity, even if it's only for the person making the point. Not all POV have equally attraction for me though. There are very few areas where I am comfortable saying *this* is the answer. Can you view it as a duality? (I suspect not since you wrote reduce.)
"Me & not-me, at the simplest level, is a duality, but look how complex each one is. What is not-me is made up of animal, vegetable, mineral; solid, liquid, gas; all the rest of the world I know, of the world beyond what I know, of the universe, & everything that makes these up; every individual thing & substance, all of them different. What is me might seem easier to define, but is it really?"
I am not able to define what IS me. I can tell you things about myself. What I look like. What my skills are. What I like to do. But I can't define myself. I'm not sure that I would want to, it feels like a cage. How would you define yourself?
"The substance of me is the same as the substance of not-me. (this is very eastern, anom) If me is my body, it's made up of multiple complex systems at many levels. If me is my mind, it's equally complex--& me is even more complex if it's both." Here we go to Duality again = mind/body…And your soul?
Yes, to what you wrote though; and do we understand these things? Is not our understanding limited? Will not those who come after us understand it differently even though I may feel (I don't) that I have the right answer today?
"When does what I take into my body become me, & when does what leaves my body stop being me?" This can only be answered subjectively. I would ask if you are a part of everything than how can you define this point? If you view yourself as separate, then you should be able to. How do you view yourself?
"Me is constantly engaged in exchange & interaction with not-me. Are my thoughts part of me? When I express them, put them out into the world, are they still part of me, or are they now part of not-me...or both?" I feel both. I also feel my thoughts change over time. Sometimes, like recently, over relatively brief periods of time.
"What about ideas that I encounter (say, on this board, which is apparently part of not-me)--do they become part of me? If I forget them, are they no longer part of me?" I feel they do. I am not sure if others would feel the same. A point of curiosity for me. I read many things that I don't agree with. I hear many words that only incompletely resonate. Yet, it is why I enjoy finding out about others perceptions. It is why I come to this space. I already know what I think. It is challenging. It is puzzling. Perhaps it will help me understand others better and the world.
Can I choose what becomes a part of me? Is that my choice?
Can you truly forget others ideas?
You also wrote:
"That's one of the stories. But there are 2 places in Genesis that say God created the human species in S/His image, & both are immediately followed by "male & female created S/He them."
But no matter how quickly he created them, isn't that different than creating them out of *himself*? There is a separateness implied? Some of the eastern philosophies are grounded in wholeness and their relationships with their gods and goddesses, since it is based in a different concept would naturally be different.
"I interpret this as meaning that God is both male & female (or at least has qualities humans consider masculine & feminine) & that creation of the human species in S/His image required creating both male & female, implying that they were created that way from the beginning." Yes, I don't see God as simply he. But this is a thought/feeling that I have come to over time. Is that not the case for you also? Is this not the accomadation you have made based on what you feel is the truth, not necessarily what you were taught? If we change the taught precepts of a religion is it still the same religion?
"I wonder if they're really separate or if that's just her perception. Maybe it's more a question of recognizing that the "two sides" are really one Buffy." Here's my opportunity. Yes.
If I had time and skills to do so, I would have tried to polish this more. It's seems very odd that I read it a whole day ago and lost sleep over it and came up with so little. Thank you for giving me so much to think about. I feel very small now. ; )
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Absolutely not...books are like chocolate... -- Dedalus, 18:54:21 06/28/02 Fri
Sometimes I do get the feeling that everyone here is better read than me ...
And in my humble defense I did list Jesse L. Weston in my recommended reading. :-)
Eh, what was that other ... there was something else about language and experience being inseparable that I read in my History of the English Language class that I just remembered, but I can't recall it to save my life. Bummer.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Also, I did refer to Emily Dickinson in the essay, so ha! :-) -- Dedalus, 19:03:51 06/28/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> More in the spirit of balance - Elaine Pagels! I can't believe I forgot her! -- Dedalus, 19:48:26 06/28/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "In the spirit of balance"! - Yes! LOL she was one of the Xtian theolgians/historians I had in mind -- redcat, 19:54:20 06/28/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> P.S. George Lucas also reads her! -- Dedalus, 20:47:32 06/28/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re books, myth and star wars -- shadowkat, 20:06:58 06/28/02 Fri
"Sometimes I do get the feeling that everyone here is better read than me ..."
So do I. I thought I was pretty well read until I popped over here...in my defense, have to say I've been out of academia for a while and spent tons of time on law stuff.
Also fiction.
You actually seem pretty well read Ded. I'm a slow reader..
always have been. But also massive collector of books and will pretty much read anything. Getting on this board has for the first time since 1989 taken me back to my myth roots..for the first time in a long time I'm actually dredging up all those old myth readings I once did. And remembering why I went there to begin with. I think Myth connects us to each other...somewhere inside it and our oral folktales are what makes up the human experience, what makes up who we are and what we mean to each other, the world, etc. This feeling was why I collected folktales back in the 80's and may be why I'm exploring the concept of myth again through artistic works like Btvs, Ats, and even Star Wars (yep, long time fan...).
Oh - regarding Attack of Clones - I think I'm the only one I know who actually liked it. The myth within the story intrigued me so much that I didn't notice the bad dialogue or direction - people had to point it out to me. Hmmm does this kill my creditability as a critical reviewer of Buffy?
;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Go to the links page and check out my SW site at Suite101! -- Dedalus, 20:46:07 06/28/02 Fri
I think you will enjoy it. I've already got four articles up, and just finished editing the fifth. I've been writing about SW long before Buffy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually your essay on the one site about SW -- shadowkat, 08:54:56 06/29/02 Sat
is the whole reason I went to see Attack of The Clones.
I was so disappointed by Phantom Menace that I was going to avoid it. But your discussion about Anakin going after his mother intrigued me - so off I went. Don't regret it.
Was visually amazing. I ignored the dialogue. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm very pleased to hear that. Neat! :-) -- Dedalus, 11:41:53 06/29/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> requested spelling (w/notes!) -- anom, 11:29:01 06/28/02 Fri
"...Gabriel Marquez(sp?)...."
Gabriel García Márquez (I was a Spanish major, I have to put the accents in!).
That's also how I know that you'll have to look for it under the G's at the library or bookstore, because in Spanish the first last name is the last name (confused yet?). Spanish last--er, make that surnames--have 2 parts, the father's surname & the mother's surname. The second can be left out, but not the first. So his surname is "García Márquez," & that's how he'll be listed in book catalogs & how to look for him in computer searches.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Gender Neutrality -- Dedalus, 19:11:07 06/28/02 Fri
Stephen Mitchell switches up on the genders at several points in his translation.
Speaking of such, from what I can gather, most of the works about Chuang Tzu and company that are available in English are combination interpretations/translations. That's certainly the case with Merton, I recall. It's made doubly wierd by the fact that people use both the Pinyin version as well as the Wade-Giles method.
I know next to nothing about Chinese, but from what I understand a single character can convey many, many different shades of meaning - it can act as a noun, verb, or adjective. And another whole set of inflections come in the pronunciation.
It's interesting, but the character for Tao is a combination of the two characters that represent the words head and foot, head representing consciousness, and foot representing path. They each suggest a beginning and an end, an inner way, and an outer path. One of these days, I'm going to have to learn calligraphy.
And I like your button.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: A Try at a Zen Comment about your Essay. -- Age, 00:31:46 06/28/02 Fri
Putting the words down,
Fingers tapping at the moon,
No words, no moon, KATZ!
Age.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: -- Dedalus, 19:01:35 06/28/02 Fri
[> [> [> *everyone* you know? -- The Second Evil, 13:18:33 06/27/02 Thu
Uh, you don't get out much, do ya.
bwahaha.
[> [> [> [> Revise - *most everyone I know* -- Dedalus, 15:16:35 06/27/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> hehehehe. ;-) -- The Second Evil, 21:16:56 06/27/02 Thu
[> Re: Ded's new essay -- redcat, 18:27:29 06/28/02 Fri
Ded,
This was a wonderful essay! It was like being taken on an interesting, illuminating journey through someone's very focused thoughts. It's rare for a writer to actually convey so clearly the sense of the experience of the sacred, and even more rare for one to then be able to use the idea of that sense in a complex, funny and well-written argument. The last few paragraphs in particular were very fine, they swept me away on the wave of your words. Very beautiful.
I suggested a few additional texts to aliera, somewhere in the thread above. You might like some of them, too. I did find your sources surprisingly male-centered (and even some of the quotes you chose ackwardly masculinist), but that did not detract from my enjoyment of your work, it just made me want to continue the conversation.
Thanks again for such a lovely essay,
redcat
[> [> Re: Ded's new essay -- Dedalus, 19:00:14 06/28/02 Fri
Thanks redcat. I'm glad that the journey was illuminating and interesting, though I sometimes have to wonder whether my thoughts are all that focused. I think using common examples sometimes helps in talking about such things (like DVDs), another idea I stole from Watts. And the purpose of the last few paragraphs was to sweep you away on a wave of words. What I can't compete with on this board intellectually (which is most things), I have to emotionally.
You know, the gender of my sources never even occured to me.
[> Re: A Word on Ded's New Essay -- Dedalus, 19:23:38 06/28/02 Fri
Thanks to everyone who waded through that. I trust it was interesting, if nothing else. The main purposelessness behind the purpose of writing it was just to get clear in my own head many things I had been thinking about for a long time. The context was already there, but I felt it needed to be given form.
Reading some of the more than gracious replies, I'm more fortunate than I deserve to have people to not only read it all but take time to discuss it.
At any rate, I just wanted to say that ... this was never particularly meant to be a definitive explanation of, well, anything. Obviously, this has been talked about in many avenues before. Obviously, it has been deconstructed in many avenues before. And for anyone interested in doing so, it could quite easily be ripped end to end. And I know that, and have no illusions about that. Of course, anybody could do that about anything, but this was (hopefully) written in the spirit of Lao Tzu when he wrote that the "good man doesn't argue." Meaning, all arguments are inherently circular because they only lead from words to words back to more words and finally to even another stack of words. This was about stepping back from all that, at least for a minute.
It was very much a celebratory exercise, but it just ... works for me. Both for what I have said and will say. It felt good writing it, and hopefully it felt good reading it. Most of it was written in the same spirit as a child jumping up and down on their bed, and it should be read in much the same way.
[> [> Re: A Word on Season 6 and a question for the mythic inclined -- aliera, 20:00:55 06/28/02 Fri
I am realtively new to this board so no need to respond if this has been talked about before...
I have read a number of posts pro and con on season six; but since we have been talking about myth's I was wondering if anyone had any additional thoughts on season six and mythic elements or lack thereof and on the journeys that major characters took?
Ded, I know you mentioned that you stopped watching at one point. Was it the darkness of the season? Did you feel that some of what you watched Buffy for initially was missing?
My experience was a bit at the opposite pole, because (retrogirl) I resisted installing cable in order to watch a particular show, even though it is one of the few TV shows i watch. I was cold turkey until March when I wandered onto this site out of curiousity to see what was happening. Tapes followed, downloaded essays, cable of course, message boards etc. until now I think I'm harder bit than before.
And yet I had a very difficult time getting a grasp on the show this year. Any thoughts?
[> [> [> Re: A Word on Season 6 and a question for the mythic inclined -- Dedalus, 20:57:30 06/28/02 Fri
You're new huh? Well, there use to be a HelloBot around here, but I guess she's been deactivated. Anyway, HELLO, and welcome aboard.
Anyway, I never stopped watching this season. Never, ever. I don't know how bad the show would have to be before I did that. I don't foresee a time when it would happen, put it that way. :-)
I think the show did hit a minor slump around midseason. That almost always happens, but it was a little more pronounced this time. I thought it started off very well with a lot of surprises. It constantly played against my preconceptions. It was very dark though, and it seemed to not quite move as fast as some would have liked. However, once we got to Hell's Bells, I thought the season was really good. Scratch that, great. It really had me, and I loved the finale.
The prob for me this year was that Star Wars was constantly winning out for my attention. Buffy is only second to SW, but it is second to that. So I spent a lot of time on SW boards. The only significant things I've written on this season have been To Heaven and Back and Vampire Slaying and Cultivating Insanity over at the FC. I've still been on this board though, mostly cuz these guys are like internet family now.
Incidentally, I squander most of my internet time at chat, and I recommend that you join in sometimes. It's sometimes profound, but mostly just a bunch of Buffy geeks acting really silly and having fun.
[> [> [> [> Re: A -- aliera, 09:05:53 06/29/02 Sat
I humbly apologize sir. I read all the essays Thursday evening and must be remembering it from someone else. I read an awful lot. The chat, I can't this system and I wouldn't from work. So her is about as close as I'll get to chat but thanks for the suggestion. Really enjoyed your last essay and the post about the boy jumping up and down on the bed!
[> [> [> [> [> Re: People who read as much as yourself should never apologize for anything! :-) -- Dedalus, 11:47:48 06/29/02 Sat
Well, we were chatting last night till about two thirty in the morning.
Discussion ranged from nose hairs to Dr.Pepper to maternal instincts. Very little Buffy actually. :-)
Anyway, no prob. I just don't see a time when I would give up on Buffy, but some don't feel that way. It has successfully re-made itself in my book many times. And actually, this forum has been pretty excited about season six.
I liked the jumping up and down on the bed too! Just came to me. I didn't want to seem like I was backing off what I wrote, but I equally didn't want it to seem like I was making proclaimations for everybody. I try and always write about things in that manner!
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: People -- aliera, 12:45:06 06/29/02 Sat
Thank you that was kind. My experiences this season were different perhaps because of watching Bargain->Normal Again on video all at once and then back to regular watching plus the message boards. Taken as a whole gulp (and as opposed to season two & three which I also have on video) the difference is startling and yes, it is dark. However, I don't equate light with good/dark with bad in either shows or mythology.
I was also thinking about duality a bit more last night which figures heavily in myth, Buffy and a number of the scoobies essays. Black and white, good and bad, up and down, etc... but it occurred to me that this isn't a reflection of the world around us at all but rather the world within. Because we don't have just black and (well some animals might) but humans can perceive shades of gray plus the colours. So duality may be rooted in some internal question rather than external.
Thanks for you thoughts, sorry about the chat.
[> [> [> Re: A Word on Season 6 and a question for the mythic inclined -- redcat, 21:14:07 06/28/02 Fri
I think these questions are really intriguing. There has been a lot posted over the last few
months on myth and its uses in BtVS. I remember especially fine postings by Caroline, who
wrote some very interesting analysis referencing several different versions of the hero's
journey myth, including Inanna's Descent. Am sure it's in the archive, but where?? Feels like
there's still plenty to discuss, though, especially re: season 6.
Earlier you had asked, "do you have any idea on why the God/Goddess references (osiris,
dionysis, proserpexa=proserpine, asmodea=asmodeus) were used in the way they were? The
first three make some sense to me although they weren't very developed; but the asmodeus
reference has been niggling at me in particular." I don't remember where Asmodeus appears
in BtVS - could you remind me, please? Thanks.
But what I was able to find through a quick search of some of my sources is intriguing. The
Judeo-Christian demon Asmodeus seems also to have been known as the Lord of Lust and
The Destroyer, but probably even earlier as Aeshma, a Persian god linked in service to the
Great Goddess Ma, the basic archetype for all other Indo-European "great goddesses," in
whose myths Aeshma was simply an expression of the male sexual/regenerative force without
the negative "destructor" overtones. There's some dispute in Christian theory about whether
the Judeo-Christian demon does actually derive from the Persian ancestor demon, but since
the Hebraic name, Ashmedai, is clearly derived from the ancient Persian "Aesham dev," the
case seems pretty closed to me. The story also shows up in the Old Testament of the Bible
and is, in fact, the central story of the book of a particularly brave and notable man, Tobias. In
Tobias' story, Asmodeus supposedly killed all seven husbands of a virgin named Sara (a
complex and often "sacred" name with a whole raft of connections across ancient middle-
eastern cultures). The demon killed each man on their wedding night before the marriage
could be consummated, because he was so in love with the pure Sara, who had resisted his
overtures of lust. Only a pure and chaste (in the ancient sense of that word) man, Tobias, can
rightly claim Sara and slay the demon, which he does in about a dozen chapters, if I recall. In
non-Christian tellings, the beast is a 3-headed demon who can make virgins fall in love with
him and was sometimes used to scare young brides into chastity. He is particularly sensitive to
names and naming, believing that through naming he can control something, thus language
(sweet seduction) is his particular speciality. Some modern Catholic theologians have taken
the demon's existence and his slaughter of 7 men as literal proof that God works in mysterious
ways. On the other side of the metaphysical pond, some modern pagan practitioners
incorporate Asmodeus in his older, less destructive aspect, into their fertility rituals. One could
argue that, in much later incarnations, Asmodeus becomes both the horned green man of pre-
Christian Celtic ritual and the horned black devil of medieval Christian witchhunts.
Metaphorically, this story seems to have **rich** possibilities for the show.... Any ideas?
[> [> [> [> Re: A Word on Season 6 and a question for the mythic inclined -- aliera, 08:59:01 06/29/02 Sat
I'm not near your level but here's a few things you didn't mention, it's from memory and the finale was a while ago so...he was exiled and bound in Africa by Sameal...he is the only surviving member of the ancient pantheon in current mythology...he had an interesting relationship with Solomon and helped build Solomon's temple under duress, actually seized the throne for a bit (one of Willow's spells in bargaining *borrowed* from the lesser key of Solomon, it is one of the few ritual magic spells this season...in certain magic traditions he is viewed as a giver of knowledge (dangerous, but it all is).
Asmodea was called by Willow in one of the latter scripts. I'll have to look through them again. Asmodea is italian for Asmodues; but this is an actual asmodea who was a famous witch nun who supposedly married a demon. She is best remembered perhaps because of Goya's painting but you can find her story in the internet if your interested.
I'll try to dig out my notes later if you're interesting in continuing the discussion; but the most interesting bit to me was the Africa connection.
[> [> [> [> [> Ref to Asmodea -- aliera, 11:02:26 06/29/02 Sat
From Grave Act One:
INT. MAGIC BOX - CONTINUOUS - NIGHT
WIDE as WILLOW, GLOWING and BLACK-EYED, directs her power at Giles and the others.
WILLOW
(incanting)
Asmodea, bring forth--
GILES arm shoots out.
GILES
Vincire!
A GREENISH ENERGY FIELD emerges from Giles outstretched hand and snakes itself around a confused Willow, running up and down her body.
WILLOW
What--? No! Off me--
(attempting spells)
Solvo! Libero--
She suddenly throws her head back, lost in a semi-conscious state, as the ENERGY coalesces into a FORCE FIELD encircling her, her had and shoulders visible above it, as she FLOATS within the confines, gently bobbing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ref to Asmodea - VERY long and with spoilers to Grave -- redcat, 15:25:04 06/29/02 Sat
Wow, what a fabulous journey you have sent me on this morning, aliera!!! Mahalo nui ia‘oe
(thank you very much)! Since reading your last post, I've spent a delightful few hours following
Asmodeus and Asmodea across centuries and interpretations and mythic tellings, back and
forth between the academics and the religious philosophers, with pit stops at the pagan's
circles and visits to some quite interesting (and loud..) pop culture havens. (I do love the
Internet!)
I am especially intrigued by your notation that the Asmodea being called upon in Willow's
interrupted spell in "Grave" is the historical witch nun, not the biblical or mythic demon. You're
right, her story is fascinating - again, thanks for the directions to her tale.
On the blissful overload that only a great morning spent learning new things can provide, I
offer the following random thoughts on connections between BtVS, Asmodea and Asmodeus
in his many manifestations. Most of this you, aliera, will already know, but I hope some others
will find it fascinating and fruit for thought as well.
First, Asmodea:
I agree with you that reading Willow's use of the name in this specific form does suggest that
she was calling on the witch nun rather than the demon. Why would this particular witch be of
interest to her at that moment, in a fight with Giles? Asmodea was the "devil-given" name of
Suor (Sister) Maria Deodata Fabri, born in Florence about 1690 and most likely forced by her
family to enter the Dominican convent of Santissima Annunziata in the town of Marradi at an
early age. She believed that, shortly after she had been sent to the convent, she had been
approached by the Devil in the form of a handsome young man with cloven feet. She had
made a marriage pact with him, he had taken her to his kingdom in Hell and had made her his
Queen, and had given her a new name, Asmodea, the female form in Italian of the Biblical
lust-demon Asmodeus. In 1721, when she was (most probably) in her early thirties, she was
accused of witchcraft by several of her sister nuns. Since she readily boasted of her affair with
the Devil, she was imprisoned and underwent a five-year-long trial by the Inquisitorial
Congregation of the Holy Office for being a witch, during which she boasted of having had a
prolific sex life with her demon husband, as well as murdering 9,000 babies, causing untold
sexual harm both to newlyweds and couples who had been long married, and infecting the
minds of several holy clerics with thoughts of lust -- all in the name of revenge for having been
sentenced to a life-time of cloistered repression and service to God.
Most critically for her initial inquisitor, Fra Vincenzo Maria Ferrero, she also claimed that she
had run a witch-school of sorts among the other nuns, several of whom either freely
confessed, as she had done, of their activities with her husband, or who were accused and
then confessed later, possibly under pressure from the inquisitor. Asmodea herself was
apparently never physically tortured, possibly as a consequence of her class position, although
by the early 18thC, the Congregation of Cardinals had ruled that confessions of witchcraft
under torture generally could not be believed or accepted in court. Her free confession, a later
formal request for annulment of her nun's vows, and her continued insistence on having run a
school for witches irritated the Cardinals no end. She was neither burned nor hung, however,
but was forced to re-take her novitiate's vows at a new convent and was then buried even
further within its cloistered walls -- along, apparently, with the child she bore from being raped
while in prison.
Willow's use of her name suggests associations with a deeply sexualized relationship to
witchcraft and power. In addition, Willow's "training" in the dark arts, as she calls them -- and
if such training can even be said to have taken place - occurs primarily through her
relationships with books and ancient texts, not with a living mentor or teacher (other than
perhaps Tara occasionally). Asmodea was an extremely well-educated woman for her time,
but her story is told, not through her own writing, but through "ancient" texts written by
intermediating male authors, her destructive and sexual "practices" having been transcribed,
and thus transformed, by her inquisitors into a textual transliteration of her "real" female
powers of creation based on passion and destruction based on revenge.
The spell in which Willow calls on Asmodea does not work, and Giles is able to trap her in a
"green energy field" of his own, although she does eventually break free of it. Asmodea's story
sound's much like Willow's, e.g., the repressed and alternative forms of sexual and
metaphysical power as well as the links between sex and power; the sense of having been
betrayed by those you love, your family, and being confined to a lesser role than one feels
capable of; the insistence on an inner specialness or special inner relationship to dark forces
(Queen of Hell); a very high intelligence and literacy level that has often been silenced by the
stronger outside force of conventional power. Lots of other connections to be found, I'm sure,
when the group's collective consciousness starts to put the pieces together.
As for Asmodeus, the demon:
He may well work as the male half (or the shadow self) of Willow's Asmodea reference. Not
only is the witch nun metaphorically descended from the demon, I think looking at Spike
through an "Asmodean" window is illuminating, especially given the exciting (and I think, quite
convincing) work that shadowkat has done on the structural and metaphoric relationships
between Willow and Spike.
Asmodeus as the Lord of Lust and Seduction clearly works as a reference to Spike's "love's
bitch" aspect. In his role as Lord Destroyer, he references the destructive nature of the link
between masculine passion and power when both that passion and that power are corrupted
by obsession, as was true for Spike in the attempted rape of Buffy in SR, and for the biblical
demon when he was blinded by his lust for the virginal Sara. Asmodeus is also called the
husband of Lillith, that being another name of the great goddess Ma, as well as a cognate of
Inanna, Ishtar and Isis, which links him to the Hero's Journey. He is always lesser than his
wife in the pantheon of gods, and claims his identity primarily through his relationship to her
and to sex with her and her representatives, i.e., human women. [I find it very interesting that it
is only after the switch from goddess-centered religions to patriarchal ones in the Near East,
roughly circa 2,500 BCE, that Asmodeus is assigned a destructive aspect and becomes a
demon rather than a god or demi-god -- although I'm not sure how to relate this to his possible
use as a referenced metaphor in Buffy...]
Further possible Spike/Asmodeus connections:
Asmodeus is not killed by Tobias, as I had incorrectly stated in another post above, but is "cast
out" of Sara's chamber by a two-punch whammy. Her chaste, pure husband Tobias, under
instruction from the archangel Raphael, burns the magic liver and bile of a sacred fish he had
earlier caught in the Tigris River, on a bed of angel-blessed charcoal [now, see Joss in your
mind chanting, "Spike got his fish order changed..." ]. As the smoke rises from this fishy
offering, Raphael binds the demon and forces or transports him into the desert of upper Egypt,
leaving him bound there (in some versions, in a cave on a high mountain). The exact quote
from the Vulgate Catholic Bible in the Book of Tobias, Chapter 8, verse 3, says only, "Then
the angel Raphael took the devil, and bound him in the desert of upper Egypt." Asmodeus is
also linked in some Talmudic interpretations to the snake who tempted Eve and later Adam in
the Garden of Eden, and is further linked to the snake-headed "great goddess" of fertility of the
pre-Sumerian Ubaid culture of Mesopotamia.
Artistic representations, especially those extant from the European medieval period, often depict the
demon as a creature with three heads, one a ram's and one a bull's (both ancient symbols of
male fertility and sexual prowess), both animals usually with their mouths open. The middle
head is of a corrupted man or ogre - a man-looking monster, often whispering sweet words of
damnation to his victims.
Given all of this, this story has wonderful possibilities for thinking about Spike's visit to the
Lurker demon in the cave. Not only is Asmodeus linked to ancient service to the great fertility
goddess, and thus to rampant sexuality, chaos and seductive language (poetry), he is bound
and banished for his "crimes of passion" under the new patriarchal order to the same area of
Egypt/Africa that is clearly linked to the Osiris myths and their ancient precursors. Asmodeus
is said to have, besides his three heads, great wings that can stretch from heaven to hell and
taloned feet like a cock or peacock. He is usually seated on a dragon or lion's body, and has
fire, literally the fire of sexual lust, shooting out of his hands. Ring any bells, folks? Spike's
first trial in the cave is with a man-monster with fire for hands. Much has already been written
about the meanings of this. Then, we see Spike after his second battle, when he tosses two
monstrous heads at the Lurker demon's feet. I didn't find any connection between Asmodeus
and any kind of sacred beetles, but there seem to be a plethora of other connections here to
work with and my research is clearly incomplete.
The part of Asmodeus' mythic career that links him to Solomon is less convincing to me in
terms of the show. In that part of his story, Asmodeus does not stay bound in that Egyptian
cave for very long. There are various stories about Solomon tricking him into helping him build
the Temple without using iron on the sacred stones. After the Temple was finished, the demon
then tricked Solomon into temporarily losing his throne by giving to him (the demon) his fabled
Ring of Wisdom. Asmodeus by this point in Semetic culture is also considered to be King of all
the minor Demons or Djinns, and is more revered for his great knowledge than his fecundity.
He may even have made Solomon's Ring, but certainly wore it for a time. He is said to have
brought humankind arithmetic, geometry and astronomy, but to have used them to tempt men
and women with offers of (false) immortality. Not sure how any of this fits in either with Willow
calling on Asmodea the teaching witch-nun, or with Spike and the demon in the cave.
Sorry this is so long, folks, but aliera's questions and comments got me going. Hope this
information helps someone a great deal more intuitive than I - aliera, shadowkat, Rufus, Age,
Exegy, ponygirl, et al -- to "take it and run," as Earl Allison always says.
And once again, thanks to Dedalus for getting this started
and to aliera for taking it down this crick in the road.
Aloha no kakou,
redcat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> contented sigh...thank you. -- aliera, 16:44:25 06/29/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Impressing ! thank you rc for doing this reseach and reporting it -- Ete, 17:12:38 06/29/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The Scoobies should have you to help them with research .... -- Dedalus, 18:20:47 06/29/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Much thanks to all and some further nibblets.. -- redcat, 20:05:23 06/29/02 Sat
Wow, some stuff just won't leave you alone...
I wrote in the post above that I didn't see much connection between the "Solomon" side of the
Asmodeus myth and BtVS, and also that I hadn't found any link between Spike's 3rd trial by
beetles and anything linked to the lust demon. Should have trusted Joss more...
In several of the more classic versions of the Asmodeus/Solomon story that I found, the demon
helps Solomon build the Temple by giving him information about something called the "Shamir
worms." I got this info from a fine little essay by Ilil Arbel, called "Asmodeus and the Shamir." I
don't know how to do links, but the URL is:
http://www.pantheon.org/areas/featured/solomon/ksqb2.html
Arbel, following what seem to be Talmudic sources, says that King Solomon had been
instructed by Yahweh not to use any iron in building the Temple. His seers (the story is longer,
I'm cutting corners) suggested he go to the King of Demons, Asmodeus, who will be able to
take him to the "shamir," which Arbel calls "a magical little worm that could cut stones with its
glance. After being captured through trickery, Arbel says that Asmodeus tells Solomon that:
"All the Shamirs belonged to the Angel of the Sea, who had assigned their use
to the moor-hens under oath of guarding them with their lives. The moor-hens
would take them to mountains that were too stony to inhabit and cultivate. The
Shamirs would break the stones, the moor-hens plant seeds in the cracks, and
new land would be thus prepared for settling on. The king's counselors found a
moor-hen's nest with a few nestlings. They covered it with a piece of clear glass.
The moor-hen, seeing that it could not get in to feed her young, fetched a
Shamir and was about to put it on the glass. The counselors threw some dirt at
her, and in terror, she dropped the Shamir on the ground. The counselors
grabbed it and triumphantly carried it to King Solomon. Seeing that her oath to
the Angel of the Sea was thus broken, the moor-hen committed suicide, and her
nestlings were orphaned. So the Shamir was now available to the King, and the
Temple could be built. But the use of so much cruelty and deceit carried a
price."
That price being that Asmodeus was later able to trick Solomon, by calling on his arrogance
and pride, into giving up his Ring of Wisdom, which then allowed the demon to temporarily
take his place on the throne, leading to Solomon's own journey into and then out of the
underworld of poverty and shame.
Now, I'm not saying that sacred soul-excavating beetles and magical worms that can cut
through stone with their eyes but can only be captured at the price of deceit and cruelty are
metaphorically the same - or even *very* similar - but I might argue that they do seem to
resonate at least a tiny bit in the context of flaming hands and multiple-headed lust demons.....
just a thought..
rc
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: (spec) (spoil B1&2) some further nibblets.. -- aliera, 02:34:27 06/30/02 Sun
There may be another link. He's paralleling TTG/G and Bargaining I & II (sorry should say IMHO). Bargaining we have spell from lesser key of solomon (deer), snakes, Osiris, robot death (Osiris) again.
"According to the "Courier de l'Egypte", the people of the country still adore Asmodee, whose temple sits in the desert of Ryanneh. He allegedly will cut himself into pieces and then immediately after disappear."
Um, not that it matters but any idea on finding Ryanneh? Not showing up on maps of ancient Egypt.
By the by that ring of Solomon's showed up in a fish.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: (spec) further nibblet -- aliera, 02:53:55 06/30/02 Sun
Apologies forgot to mention,
"although a great multitude strove on the temple (of Solomon) it's growth was slow...at last one named Jair...(Solomon's favorite slave), came to him. Once young and...Jair was now shrunken and utterly emancipated. Each night,...a vampire came and sucked his blood and the blood of...the same demon (Ornias) spirited away food and gold, and materials...cedar and stone."
This is from a new age institute. Most stories just say demon. This prompted Solomon's prayer and Yahweh's sending Michael with the ring. Have a nice day...you made mine.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Mostly listening here..but Shamir reminded me of something else -- shadowkat, 13:51:38 06/30/02 Sun
"All the Shamirs belonged to the Angel of the Sea, who had assigned their use
to the moor-hens under oath of guarding them with their lives. The moor-hens
would take them to mountains that were too stony to inhabit and cultivate. The
Shamirs would break the stones, the moor-hens plant seeds in the cracks, and
new land would be thus prepared for settling on. The king's counselors found a
moor-hen's nest with a few nestlings. They covered it with a piece of clear glass.
The moor-hen, seeing that it could not get in to feed her young, fetched a
Shamir and was about to put it on the glass. The counselors threw some dirt at
her, and in terror, she dropped the Shamir on the ground. The counselors
grabbed it and triumphantly carried it to King Solomon. Seeing that her oath to
the Angel of the Sea was thus broken, the moor-hen committed suicide, and her
nestlings were orphaned. So the Shamir was now available to the King, and the
Temple could be built. But the use of so much cruelty and deceit carried a
price."
This is a story reminds me of the demon who lays the eggs elsewhere in As You Were, is tagged and gets killed by Riley and Sam. Maybe I'm reaching here. But the demons eggs are taken and orphaned to be sold to governments to hurt others = cruelty and deciet. They are lying in a crypt - or the cracks. They hatch to run all over the crypt, and Buffy explodes them.
The crawly spidery nestlings are similar in my mind to the beetles at the end. Is there a connection here? Particularly since the nestlings in the eggs are found in the lust demon (Spike's) crypt. Spike was introduced in Season 2 as the lust demon - he's always been used as Joss
Whedon's metaphor for lust. In episodes that deal with the consequences of lust - Whedon pulls out old Spike.
1. School Hard
2. Surprise/Innocence
3. Lover's Walk
4. Harsh Light Of Day
5. The Initiative
6. Where the Wild Things Are
So I'm wondering if the use of the nestlings associated with spike in both instances is Whedon's way of finally breaking down that metaphor and pulling the character beyond it and into something new?
Hope I didn't just confuse the discussion. Really enjoying it.
Thanks for the excellent analysis redcat and aliera. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks for your thoughts on Shamir (spoiler Grave) -- aliera, 16:22:20 06/30/02 Sun
Thanks all for the wonderful posts...my last post on this subject. I know that Redcat would do this better, but for the sake of tieing off the thread...
I believe I've located Paul Lucas's site (from his book "Voyage l'Egypt) for the cave where the demon Asmodeus was bound/imprisoned. I still cannot locate the desert cited. However by searching through the web pages for Paul Lucas, I stumbled across his visit to a Cave temple at Akhmim, Egypt which contains the relevant myth.To recap Redcat's superb posts:
Willow called on Asomodea in Act I of Grave. He is a prince of demons whose historic powers relate to lust and wrath. Also known for demonic possession. His myth in Egypt is a rebirth myth (link to Osiris and Dionysis) of death by cutting himself into pieces and disappearing and then reappearing whole (or reborn). He is also associated with the serpent which figures heavily in Egyptian myth (and B1 and Grave) and through the serpent linked again to rebirth but also healing. He is bound/imprisoned in a cave in Egypt, possibly in Akhmim.
Thank you all again for your help, board space and indulgence of the mythic research.
[> [> [> [> Have only just returned to the cyber-world after weeks of absence... -- Caroline, 11:57:52 07/02/02 Tue
and wanted to thank all those involved in this sub-thread. I found it absolutely fascinating and am upset that work sent me off to places where I can't get a decent internet connection! I miss this discussion board way too much.
[> Idiot question: where can I find this essay? -- Caesar Augustus, 19:42:07 06/30/02 Sun
Sorry, I'm fairly new to this site. What's the name of the essay, and where can I read it?
[> [> Come on over to Fictionary Corner! -- d'Herblay, 20:45:06 06/30/02 Sun
Ded's colossus of an essay.
Be sure to check out the rest of Fictionary Corner while you're at it. Lots of juicy essays, fiction, and a few half-assed scribblings of mine.
Off-topic question, for those who are in the know. Who is Jonathan McDonald? Is there any relationship? There is a slight resemblance, at least in opening sentences!
And Sol, if you're listening (and you listened so eagerly to my <A HREF="e010908A-DEHz.asp TITLE="by d'Herblay">The End of the World, As We Know It: Defining <I>Apocalypse</I> in the Buffyverse</A> suggestion), you simply must take out those intermediate screens which give the synopses of the essays! It's a real pain in the ass to link to multiple essays at one time; it's having a chilling effect on my desire to link to things at Fic Corner!
[> [> [> I think Jonathon McDonald is Spotjon ... -- Dedalus, 12:37:02 07/01/02 Mon
[> Very impressive. No surprise that you're a writer. BTW, a SWII question ... -- Caesar Augustus, 00:07:51 07/02/02 Tue
I've debated this with my brother/sister but we just can't agree.
Does Darth Sidius = Palpatine or is Palpatine just a servant of Darth Sidius?
[> [> Perhaps I can help, but I need to know what you know Re:SWII question ... -- Isabel, 05:44:44 07/02/02 Tue
Have you ever read any of the novelizations? Specifically, I mean the official Book Star Wars by George Lucas that came out in 1978?
Had you ever heard of Senator Palpatine before The Phantom Menace?
I do not want to just reveal information that almost got me decked for revealing walking out of The Phantom Menace 3 years ago. I blurted out a plot point that I thought everybody knew. I was wrong. My friends were not happy.
If you want to know, I'll tell you.
[> [> [> Re: Perhaps I can help, but I need to know what you know Re:SWII question ... -- Dedalus, 11:11:27 07/02/02 Tue
I read the novelization of SW loooong time ago. It was actually written by Allen Dean Foster, I believe, but was just credited to Lucas.
And anyway, I believe the Emperor was called Palpatine - if not in the credits to ROTJ, at least in the novelization.
And yes, Lucasfilm has said that Darth Sidious and Palpatine are definitely the same evol guy.
[> [> [> [> Really I didn't know that.... -- Isabel, 07:35:07 07/03/02 Wed
You are brave. I assumed three years ago that my friends who were my age knew as well as I did that Palpatine became the Emperor. There were shocked and really annoyed at me.
Gee, I guess I was the only one to read the Italics at the beginning of the Star Wars novelization.
Current board
| More June 2002