June 2002 posts
Spike's chip (extensionalism/intentionalism) -- Caesar Augustus, 03:48:59 06/27/02 Thu
I know this is a late time to bring this up - it should ideally have been mentioned in season 4/5. But unfortunately I only recently came across this brilliant site. Also, bear in mind that as an Aussie viewer, I've only seen up to the middle of Season 6.
Spike has a chip in his head, not a soul. But Dawn's flippant "same diff" quip represents a philosophy which no-one seems to have addressed on the site: extensionalism (not to be confused with existentionalism)
The "extensional(ist)" viewpoint is that things can only be judged by the way they interact with the rest of the world. Even if things are different on the untouchable inside, if they respond to every situation we put them in in the same way, they are extensionally the same.
In the Spike case, since 'having a soul' is an intangible quality, if Spike ACTS in a very similar way to how he would if he DID have a soul, the extensionalist would say that there is no difference - that Spike has a soul.
The intensional viewpoint, of course, would be that even if two things behave identically as far as we can tell, if they are different INTERNALLY (even though it doesn't affect differences in their behaviour), they are still different.
Most people in life start out as intensionalists but slowly make their way towards extensionalism as morals, etc. become more ambiguous.
Anyway, I'd appreciate other people's thoughts.
[> Re: Spike's chip (extensionalism/intentionalism) (slight spoiler) -- shygirl, 06:12:45 06/27/02 Thu
I think it will be very interesting to see what they do with Dawn's character this next season. She's been such an obnoxious irritant... and yet, she does make off-hand comments that have a "duh" quality to them... It has been so many years since I studied the existentialist thought. I was first fascinated by it when in high school... Kirkagard(sp) was a hero. How can you measure/evaluate/judge what you can't see? We cannot know what is in a man/woman's heart except by their actions. So what is the difference? If a man does good yet we perceive the motives as "selfish" does that mean the actions are not good? If a woman does evil and we perceive the motives as grief and pain does that excuse the evil? And how much of our perceptions are subjective reactions based on our own experiences, motives, wants, needs, fears,and belief system... and do those perceptions validate the reality of someone else's "world" or only our own?
[> Re: Spike's chip (extensionalism/intentionalism) -- Cleanthes, 06:32:55 06/27/02 Thu
You make a good point. From a storytelling standpoint, fiction writers can always pierce the extensional bubble. In real life, we can only judge by deeds. In fiction, we actually have access to the hidden intentions.
In Mark Twain's The Man Who Corrupted Hadleyburg, for example, the citizens of Hadleyburg extensionally exist as fine upstanding folk. Twain, the the "God" who can pierce the extensional bubble, though, shows that given the right circumstances, these folks will behave very badly.
Because fiction can see the internals if it wants to, extensionalism is pretty hard to demonstrate as a necessary truth in fiction. In real life, there will only be a finite number of trials, so extensionalism works. In fiction, an author thinking about extensionalism will go for the jugular and set up a case where the extensional bubble bursts.
[> [> Re: Spike's chip (extensionalism/intentionalism) -- auroramama, 10:39:23 06/28/02 Fri
Each of us (except perhaps Daniel Dennett) seems to have the subjective impression of possessing an internal self. Or selves. In any case, we are aware of having thoughts and feelings ourselves that other people can only infer from our actions.
Of course, one possible set of actions is telling other people what you're thinking and feeling. Spike is as likely to do this as anyone (and more likely than many.)
There are problems with communication, of course. We may lie about our internal selves, or our impressions of them may not be accurate. To me that's the funniest thing about "I think, therefore I am" -- we can be pretty sure that we have some thoughts and feelings, but uncertain about what they specifically are. Sometimes we don't know what's going on in our own heads until we observe our behavior. Our privileged self-knowledge is balanced by self-ignorance and self-deception to the point where outsiders may see us more clearly than we see ourselves.
So I can sympathize with Spike at the end of S6, as he tries to figure out what's going on in his head and why. I believe in an interior mental world, but I couldn't answer those questions about myself with any certainty. Although I might believe I had. *g*
auroramama
[> [> Re: Spike's chip (extensionalism/intentionalism) -- Caesar Augustus, 02:37:39 06/29/02 Sat
This is very true and one of the major differences between TV writing and fiction writing. Writing a book often takes a non-narrative where you can see inside the minds of one or more characters.
In TV, you (usually) can't. In my opinion, it makes a better show if you have to judge characters' intents from their actions. Buffy works so well because of this. There have been one or two minor exceptions - such as Angel in "Passion", though that was particularly well done, and Dawn's immature ramblings in "Real Me".
But one of the reasons Spike is so great is that it is left completely ambiguous what's going on in that perverted/sadistic/brilliant/funny/obsessed mind of his.
Also gives writers a bit of leeway :-) (apparent contradictions can be explained away by "vested interests")
[> Keepin' the thread alive -- Masq, 07:40:07 06/28/02 Fri
[> Re: Spike's chip (extensionalism/intentionalism) -- Darby, 09:29:58 06/28/02 Fri
The core of the "is he or isn't he?" Spike debate that periodically rages here (and, it seems sometimes, in every other Buffy discussion on the planet) has much more to do with what's going on under the bleach. But deeds are not morality, even though they can act as a wonderful simulation (human society couldn't stand if our chipless behavioral modification techniques didn't rein in many individuals' inclinations).
The problem here is that the chip is not the equivalent of a soul, because it only halts direct attempts to cause physical harm. Spike has been free to help Adam and Harmony, showing that the underlying Spike stills wants to hurt, and then we've been gradually shown a Spike more interested in getting into Buffy's...um, good graces, which sent him down the path as a helper of the Good Guys. What I think we've been watching for a couple of seasons now is a socialization experiment where the desire for approval from the group leader has led to its own chiplike effects. You could make a case for Spike's soullessness being the major impediment to his entry into the Scooby Gang (look at the Angel example, including the Slayer-boinking perqs). It gives everyone a kind of irrefutable reason to not include him. But the chip never gave Spike the empathy that leads to true conscience (supposedly one requires a soul for that, all evidence to the contrary in our boy) and which allows vampires to kill and maim without thought to the victim.
[> [> Re: Spike's chip (extensionalism/intentionalism) -- Caesar Augustus, 19:39:28 06/28/02 Fri
Your point is well taken. Spike is immoral still, adn many of us have hoped that by mixing with the Scoobies he would BECOME moral internally, which doesn't seem to have happened much.
But the question I'm asking is more "does having a chip make him ACT in the same way as if he did have morals?" since extensionally speaking, morals are meaningless. Obviously if a demon came along and found a way for him to do massive evil despite his chip, and he did, we would then have evidence from his actions that "chip does not equal soul". But until then ...
[> Re: Spike's chip (extensionalism/intentionalism) -- Pandora North Star*, 18:05:32 06/28/02 Fri
Very interesting direction to go in. But it doesn't always work. Because if you use this anaology Spike is dead. But he doesn't act like like someone dead. Does that make any sense?
[> [> Extensionally he's ALIVE, intensionally he's DEAD -- Caesar Augustus, 19:34:02 06/28/02 Fri
Extensionalism holds that two things are the same if their "extensions" are the same (circular definition). Extensions are generally held to be "features that others can experience directly, by means of the five senses"
Extensionally speaking, vampires are alive because they behave like fully alive creatures (with a few minor exceptions, like no heart-beat, etc. which are technically "extensions" - someone could notice no pulse in the wrist)
This is an example of where the extensional viewpoint makes a lot MORE sense since vampires do run around like not-dead things.
[> Re: Spike's chip (extensionalism/intentionalism) -- Rufus, 23:59:31 06/28/02 Fri
The "extensional(ist)" viewpoint is that things can only be judged by the way they interact with the rest of the world. Even if things are different on the untouchable inside, if they respond to every situation we put them in in the same way, they are extensionally the same.
The intensional viewpoint, of course, would be that even if two things behave identically as far as we can tell, if they are different INTERNALLY (even though it doesn't affect differences in their behaviour), they are still different.
Season One: The Harvest
Xander: So vampires are demons?
Giles: The books tell the last demon to leave this reality fed off a human, mixed their blood. He was a human form possessed, infected by the demon's soul. He bit another, and another, and so they walk the Earth, feeding... Killing some, mixing their blood with others to make more of their kind. Waiting for the animals to die out, and the old ones to return.
From the season one description of the vampire you could say that the demon hybrid is devoid of a human soul, but perhaps infected with the fragment of the demon soul who caused the vampire to be created.
In the Spike case, since 'having a soul' is an intangible quality, if Spike ACTS in a very similar way to how he would if he DID have a soul, the extensionalist would say that there is no difference - that Spike has a soul.
If you look to the answer to the soul as a conscience question from the Paley festival you can see why words from Joss didn't make it that much more clear.
The Paley Festival, March 30, 2001
Audience Member: "I'd like to know what your definition of a soul is? And what distinguishes Angel from the other vampires, because it becomes clear from both Buffy and Angel that vampires have human emotions and human attachments. So is that a conscience? And then what separates vampires from humans if it is a conscience?"
JW: "Um, very little. (laugh) Essentially, souls are by their nature amorphous but to me it's really about what star you are guided by. Most people, we hope, are guided by, 'you should be good, you're good, you feel good.' And most demons are guided simply by the opposite star. They believe in evil, they believe in causing it, they like it. They believe it in the way that people believe in good. So they can love someone, they can attach to someone, they can actually want to do things that will make that person happy in the way they know they would. The way Spike has sort of become, an example is Spike obviously on Buffy, is getting more and more completely conflicted. But basically his natural bent is towards doing the wrong thing. His court's creating chaos where as in most humans, most humans, is the opposite, and that's really how I see it. I believe it's kind of like a spectrum, but they are setting their course by opposite directions. But they're all sort of somewhere in the middle."
I think the presence of a human soul is what has been a determiner over what the demon feels comfortable "doing". The mortal human is supposed to feel good doing good, the soul-free vampire is supposed to feel good creating chaos, doing evil. The sense of satisfaction in being comes from doing good for the mortal man, and evil for the undead vampire. But, as you have a hybrid and a hybrid that is capable of acting out a series of different behaviors along a spectrum, then, well....there is room for the mortal man to become evil, and the undead vampire to make the choice Spike did in getting his moral compass or soul back. Spike may be an opportunist, a former big bad, but his base identity is that of a human, his experiences are that of a person up until becoming a vampire, then the impulse to do evil takes over when the soul is sent packing upon transformation. Spike as a vampire is just as much an individual as any vampire was before becoming a demon, that doesn't go away because they are a bit more than human...when you get an individual you get the potential for different actions and as both vampire and human start at the same mid point, just how far apart are they anyhow?
But back to what the writers are doing....they are in fact saying that the introduction of the chip opened a window of opportunity that allowed Spike to have less freedom in killing and more freedom in deciding his final outcome at seasons end. We can take pot shots and guess why Spike ultimately did what he did, but the reality is that the result landed the vampire with a soul. And in the mythology of the show the soul is the "thing" that makes people desire order, goodness.
role-playing for season 7 (sp for end of season six) -- Purple Tulip, 06:29:02 06/27/02 Thu
I probably am one of the only people who actually thought that Spike was on a mission to get his soul back. I never really thought it was about the chip, although I think that will become a central theme and obstacle for him to overcome this season. But this morning, I was thinking about the whole "back to the beginning" theme that is set for season seven. To me, it almost made sense that Spike would come back with a soul, because a vampire with a soul was a very integral part of the beginning of this show. If they are truly going "back to the beginning", then they would need to readress this idea of a vampire with a soul. I'm not saying that they will somehow try to make Spike into Angel, but I think that they will simply go down a different avenue to explore how a souled-up vampire can act that is different from how Angel acted. Following with this "beginning" theory, I also thought about Dawn's role for the next season, since she wasn't present in the "beginning." I'm not sure what her role will be, but I'm guessing that she will somehow become a more defined version of Buffy; that is, she will begin training and patrolling and taking some of the load off Buffy. It also seems that if Buffy takes a more hands-off approach to the slaying this season, letting someone else do a part, then she could sort of take on the mentor/teacher role for Dawn that Giles had for her. Not becoming her watcher, per say, but being the kind parental, guiding figure that Giles was. Thus, each role that there was in the beginning there would be again, though some of the characters have traded up- with the exception of Willow and Xander whom I think will go back to the funny and loving sidekicks that they once were, as Joss has promised that this season will be lighter and more humorous.
Anyway- these are just my ramblings--- any thoughts?
[> Spike stuff above!! -- Masq, 07:39:01 06/28/02 Fri
[> I think you're right on. -- Rochefort, 10:52:34 06/28/02 Fri
I buy everything you said. I like the idea of even the Souled-Spike thing being a return to the beginning which takes care of everyone's anxiety that we will have to watch Angel again. I mean I understand that anxiety because, yes, it was very difficult to watch Angel. He was dopey, and broody, and sort of a shmuck. But can anyone seriously imagine any of the Angel plots happening with Spike? Even if they did it would be really different because Spike is such a completely different character. I also like your idea of Buffy becoming a new Giles. Except that I also want Giles to be there, cause he's cool.
Finally, it's fine with me if Willow goes back to how she was although she may kick and scream if you put her in a Sears dress. As to Xander, I'd like him to have some more story lines besides just the Anya story line now. I'd like to see Xander's stuff focused on more specifically. Stuff like was recently brought about dealing with the ghost of his parents and stuff and those emotional issues. I think that would be good rather than just wise cracking Xander.
What favorite vampires would you allow to suck your blood ? -- PMills, 09:27:47 06/27/02 Thu
What personal favorite Buffy / Angel universe vampire character/s and also any from cinema, would you allow to suck your blood and why (compared to lots of other ones) ?
[> Re: What favorite vampires would you allow to suck your blood ? -- Purple Tulip, 10:27:17 06/27/02 Thu
Hands down, gotta be Spike- Brittish accents (fake or otherwise) get me- and I personally think that not only is Spike incredibly sexy, but so is James Marsters. Coming in after him, would be Angel, followed closely by Brad Pitt from Interview with a Vampire.
[> [> Ooops... -- Purple Tulip, 10:33:34 06/27/02 Thu
Forgot one- Jason Patric, "Lost Boys"- although, was he techinicaly a vampire?
[> [> [> Re: Lost Boys! -- ponygirl, 11:33:42 06/27/02 Thu
Kiefer Sutherland in Lost Boys!! My goth wannabe friends and I had that movie memorized in high school. Sure Jason Patric was cute and pouty, but Kiefer was baaaad.
[> [> [> No, he wasn't really, completely yet.... -- Kitt, 12:06:34 06/27/02 Thu
although if you let him bite you he might be. Personally, I would only let either Spike or David (Keifer Sutherland in Lost Boys) bite me, and ONLY if I had garentees that I would still be breathing the next day. Yep, major Lost Boys fan here - not only do I have the poster (Sleep all day. Party all night. Never grow old. Never die. It's fun to be a vampire. :) gotta love it), I got it autographed by Diane Weist (very OT story, email me if you want to hear it)
Swooning for the blue eyed blondes,
Kitt
[> Elvira, Mistress of the Dark! -- GreatRewards, 11:26:39 06/27/02 Thu
What!!?? Don't tell me you never considered it! LOL!
[> Re: What favorite vampires would you allow to suck your blood ? -- SugarTherapy, 12:38:12 06/27/02 Thu
Angelus cuz he's just yummy, and Darla cuz she's just awesome. hehe They could do it together or something - they seem to like that.
Sugar
[> [> VampWillow and Catherine Deneuvre from "The Hunger" -- cjl, 12:39:35 06/27/02 Thu
[> [> [> The BowieVamp from "The Hunger" -- Dead Soul, 13:29:16 06/27/02 Thu
[> [> [> As my mother used to say about John Wayne, -- redcat, 19:41:09 06/27/02 Thu
Catherine Deneuvre could put her cowboy boots under my bed any night...vamp-face or not.
[> Frank Langella as Dracula -- Dead Soul, 13:27:57 06/27/02 Thu
[> Lucy Westenra -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:28:34 06/27/02 Thu
Lucy Westenra as acted in "Dracula: Dead and Loving It!" She was incredibly hot! And slutty!
[> Drusilla, definitely! -- Earl Allison, 17:25:43 06/27/02 Thu
Dru has it all, beauty, prescience, a hot accent (yes, I know, Juliet Landau doesn't normally have an accent any more than JM does), a cute little overbite, and (as of Angel the Series) tight leather pants!
Sure, others may have their VampWillow (excellent choice) or Darla or VampHarmony (who I would have picked second), but give me Drusilla any day :)
Why?
Aside from the seeming erotic thrill of the bite, why not? If you gotta go, may as well go out special. Besides, there's always the hope she'll turn me -- I'll be more loyal than Spike :)
Take it and run.
[> [> Re: Dru, just do me! -- Brian, 18:58:49 06/27/02 Thu
Too many martinis after a too nasty ride home from new England. (I'm a car not a target!)
[> It would have to be... -- Wolfhowl3, 19:05:12 06/27/02 Thu
1. Vamp Willow
2. Darcula's 3 Vamp Women in the "Bedroom" Scene of B.S. Dracula!
Yumm! (As long as they Embraced me after!)
[> Lestat (Interview with a Vampire) or Angel or both or something... -- Sophie, 19:37:35 06/27/02 Thu
[> SMG in Cruel Intentions. She was a vampire, right? -- Caesar Augustus, 22:57:26 06/27/02 Thu
'Nuff said.
[> [> Re: SMG was a vampire as Buffy in S1 ep Nightmares - that do? -- John Burwood, 23:49:19 06/27/02 Thu
[> [> [> Oh yeah. Good point! VampWillow too BTW. -- Caesar Augustus, 01:50:36 06/28/02 Fri
[> Re: What favorite vampires would you allow to suck your blood ? -- yabyumpan, 23:48:56 06/27/02 Thu
Got to go for Angel, apart from the fact that DB is totally lickworthy, when Angel drank from Buffy in Graduation Day, she looked like she REALLY got off on it. I could use a little(lot) of that! ;-)
[> VampWillow -- Drzzt, 14:16:34 06/28/02 Fri
Bisexuall, pouty, evil, beutifull vampiress...in black leather S&M type outfit...
Mmmmm;)
Just saying howdy -- MonkeyPants, 12:29:16 06/27/02 Thu
Hey, long time lurker, etc, just felt like entering into the whole board experience. Hopefully there'll be no bizarre initiation rites/hazings....
[> Well, we'd be tempted -- Sophist, 12:31:33 06/27/02 Thu
to mock you in your monkeypants, but instead we'll just say welcome. Please don't bother the hippos.
[> [> Re: Well, we'd be tempted -- MonkeyPants, 12:36:14 06/27/02 Thu
Well, I think they're just jealous of my pants...there's rumours that there could be a coup at the zoo
[> [> [> The pheasants are revolting! -- Arethusa, 14:52:04 06/27/02 Thu
[> [> [> Re: Well, we'd be tempted -- Cleanthes, 22:55:12 06/27/02 Thu
Well, I think they're just jealous of my pants...there's rumours that there could be a coup at the zoo
I hope you knew of the new gnus at the zoo, they're counting coup, almost like wild beasts. The croup of loup-garou in the coop drooped away but now the harp can play no more in the hall; can she again find anyone to point out the monkeypants?
[> [> [> [> thanks, cleanthes... -- anom, 11:16:14 06/28/02 Fri
Arrggh, can't make up my mind!
1) ...for the new gnu zoo news!
2) ...the new gnus were news to me!
[> [> [> [> [> The gnus in the zoos refuse to be news. -- Arethusa, 11:27:45 06/28/02 Fri
And the pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle....
[> [> [> [> [> [> I doodle I do doodle; you do doodle too -- Cleanthes, 14:32:35 06/28/02 Fri
Okay, that's my memory. I don't have a script site bookmarked...
Since my post was mostly about Willow's relationship with the monkeypants, I intended to chage the subject heading as I did here, but I forgot.
That pellet with poison the the vessel with the pestle - is that a reference to spell ingredients and Amy?
Ooh, I just had a thought --- wouldn't Amy make an interesting vampire, assuming she retained her magic abilities?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I doodle I do doodle; you do doodle too -- anom, 16:15:57 06/28/02 Fri
"That pellet with poison the the vessel with the pestle - is that a reference to spell ingredients and Amy?"
Not as long as the flagon with the dragon holds the brew that is true...or is it the other way around? @>) You mean you haven't seen Danny Kaye in The Court Jester?! Oh, you don't know what you've been missing! But you should find out.
"Ooh, I just had a thought --- wouldn't Amy make an interesting vampire, assuming she retained her magic abilities?"
I'm not sure she needs to become a vamp to reach her evil potential. But good question--would she still doodle that voodoodle that she doodle so well?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Is it the Chalice from the Palace... -- dubdub, 22:31:02 06/28/02 Fri
...or the Flagon with the Dragon that holds the brew that is true?
;o)
[> Welcome! -- dream of the consortium, 12:54:28 06/27/02 Thu
They did tell you about the tattoos before you posted, right?
[> [> Not to worry, your monkey pants should cover most of it... -- redcat, who's own initiation tattoo healed nicely, thanks, 15:24:15 06/27/02 Thu
[> Howdy back atcha :) -- LadyStarlight, 14:26:02 06/27/02 Thu
Okay, as a new delurker, I'll just put you down for snow-shoveling/grass-mowing duty, all right? Nothing bizarre or anything.....
[> You've picked a name with some history here... -- Darby, 15:04:06 06/27/02 Thu
It's one of those stories that just can't be told adequately - does anyone know where it is in the archives? Is it in the archives??
You might get some weird reactions from the oldsters here, though. Try to avoid tricks with fonts. Or poetry that isn't. And I was going to say senseless anarchy, but now I'm wondering if there's sensible anarchy. There'd have to be, wouldn't there?
Today's my day for starting a point and then wandering aimlessly into the cemetery...look! The Pyramid! I'm obsessed with the Pyramid...
[> [> Re: You've picked a name with some history here... -- MonkeyPants, 15:07:55 06/27/02 Thu
Don't worry, I plan to keep anarchy pretty much at a minimum - now, do you mind if i hide out here while the FBI chase me?
[> [> This MonkeyPants isn't Boke -- Masq, 15:08:17 06/27/02 Thu
At least, their ISP #'s have no resemblance to each other. : )
[> [> [> He'd also have to have had a style transplant. -- Darby, 16:48:39 06/27/02 Thu
I'm not that good at recognizing writing styles, but it's hard to imagine the return of Boke as a, dare I say it, sane and reasonable poster with an actual sense of humor.
[> [> [> [> Not unless multiple personalities are involved. -- Masq : ), 16:52:08 06/27/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> Wow! True, and a legitimate possibility... -- Darby (one of him, anyway), 18:28:47 06/27/02 Thu
[> [> Re: Sensible anarchy: Read Ursula K. LeGuin's novel *The Dispossessed* -- OnM, 15:45:59 06/27/02 Thu
[> Bienvenu ! :) -- Etrangere, 15:27:40 06/27/02 Thu
[> Hello and Hello. -- neaux, 15:42:25 06/27/02 Thu
that was a hello to monkeypants and another hello to the monkey wearing the pants??
I'm not sure.. I'm just trying to be overly polite! ^_^
[> Welcome, Monkeypants! -- Wisewoman, 19:57:12 06/27/02 Thu
As one of Boke's major detractors, let me be the first to assure you that I consider your nom de guerre reborn and blameless and...oh yes, the hokey-pokey is what it's all about.
;o)
[> [> Does this mean -- Sophist, 20:11:51 06/27/02 Thu
that the situation is like Angel/Angelus -- two different entities? :)
[> [> [> No. I think you'd call it OOC -- d'Herblay, 20:35:20 06/27/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> Sophist would never do that. -- Sophist, 12:41:09 06/28/02 Fri
From WML 2:
Willow: (stands up in her defense) Buffy would never do that! (realizes) Oh. (to Buffy) Except for that sometimes you do that. (to Kendra) But only with Angel. (to Buffy) Right? (sits again)
Quote from Psyche. No link, though.
[> [> [> Re: Hmmmm.... -- dubdub, 22:09:05 06/27/02 Thu
Now I'm worried...could Boke + soul = new MonkeyPants?
Nah...
;o)
[> [> [> [> Re: Hmmmm.... -- MonkeyPants, 11:19:23 06/28/02 Fri
As far as I'm concerned, there has been no soul transference/multiple personality syndromeness...at least not yet....oh, and i'm not 'boke' - although the name does tempt me ;)
When Buffy was first called... -- The Last Jack, 15:44:08 06/27/02 Thu
From what we saw of Buffy's origin during the 2nd season's finale, she seemed completely unaware of her powers or abilities until Merrick (was that his name or did they choose something different for the series)clued her in on it. You would have thought she would notice developing superhuman strength over night, wouldn't you? This leads me to two theroies:
1: When a Slayer is called, their superhuman abilities develop gradually, taking days, or maybe even weeks to fully develop.
2: In her former cheerleading life, Buffy wasn't much into heavy lifting and just didn't notice ;)
[> I vote in favor of the second option... -- ZachsMind, 16:29:41 06/27/02 Thu
Buffy may have had her abilities long before Merrick showed up on the steps of her former high school. She just didn't know they were there so she didn't use them.
[> Re: When Buffy was first called... -- Wizardman, 16:36:53 06/27/02 Thu
This is actually something that I've been wondering about for some time. I always assumed that it was the first, because if all potential Slayers had the physical abilities needed to fight vampires, demons, etc., then the Watcher's Council would definitely use them to fight the undead. I always figured that the new Slayer's strength just turned on when the old one died, and took a while to get fully active, like a muscle that hasn't been used in some time- in this case, fifteen or sixteen years. We'll hopefully be finding out more about Buffy's Slayer powers this season, if Joss decides to pick up on the 'quest for Slayer history' plotline that began in Buffy vs. Dracula and was dropped in light of everything else that occurred the rest of Season 5.
[> [> Re: When Buffy was first called... -- Darby, 16:42:55 06/27/02 Thu
The mythology according to Fray is that the abilities (physical and psychic/stylistic) are there before the calling but perhaps not integrated without the calling and some training. And maybe some indoctrination, since Joss could also be moving to the "everything you thought you knew about Slayers (what you are, what's to come) that the Watchers have told us - and that vampires believe about themselves - is wrong!"
[> [> [> Re: Fray (poss spoilers) -- aliera, 18:10:08 06/27/02 Thu
And demonbased? So mustn't there be a heritary component?
[> [> [> [> Re: Fray (poss spoilers) -- Darby, 18:27:25 06/27/02 Thu
More magic-based (Joss' standard way around questions that would obviously require logic otherwise), so it can be kind of randomly distributed. It would be interesting if the Calling was the infusion of a demon into one of the many potential girls that imbued them with a kind of uber-killer instinct. I've been wondering since Fray what the Choosing of the Chosen One entailed, but I'd forgotten that it was demon-based (which has only been established by Jane Espenson in another comic she's done, so confirmation is debatable). So what makes a potential Slayer an actual Slayer is the Slayiness!
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Fray (poss spoilers) -- aliera, 18:53:23 06/27/02 Thu
That's an interesting point. I did get that from the darkhorse interview. No real basis for this; but, hereditary just seems to make more sense to me than infection, some sort of recessive. Descent from the first slayer.
When I was looking into some genetics theories last year there was a site I visited that traced a random group of the current population back to I believe it was twelve stone age women.
The calling I assumed was mystical. (I liked your remark about Joss - my bias, I admit).
I was thinking too of the different fantasy novels that link development of powers to puberty (as in Zimmer Bradleys darkover), a commonality though. I would think that there must be something like this - the the other girls seem to be identified young but Buffy still gets surprised by her strength (hurting the men she hugs so it doesn't seem to have developed young.
I have to actually read Fray and not just make statements based on ineterviews and posts. : )
[> [> [> [> [> [> Another detail -- Darby, 19:34:13 06/27/02 Thu
We do have evidence that the other non-Chosen Slayers are used in the war against vampires. What did Kendra do with Mr. Pointy otherwise?
And we have testimony from Wesley that Watchers are themselves used, "under controlled circumstances," against vamps as well. There's a bigger war being fought than just with Buffy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Another detail(poss spoil S7) -- aliera, 19:59:33 06/27/02 Thu
There's a lot to explore if Joss chooses to go that direction (hoping).
I was Googling in search of Pergamum Codex and such (basically came up with too much or not enough depending on how you look at it) because of the Master rumours and in my travels came across online Game which had me rethinking how all our conceptions are based on a lot of single script lines that could be pretty easily reinterpreted to adjust the myth.
I think Joss conceives the story and all else devolves or is made to serve that. The thing is I had the sense from his Onion interview last year that he really has a Lucas-like concept future and past and that he intends to draw on all three series to tell the story, including Fray.
Sorry this got a bit long.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Fray (poss spoilers) -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:00:17 06/27/02 Thu
It's doubtful it's hereditary, since most Slayers probably never have children.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Fray (poss spoilers) -- aliera, 20:06:26 06/27/02 Thu
That's true Finn but they wouldn't have too. At any given time there's a certain quantity of recessives in the gene pool. But I'm not channelling Joss (sadly) so it could be mystical, viral and a million other things I'm too dim to think of. : )
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Fray (poss spoilers) -- Darby, 21:34:42 06/27/02 Thu
It would be really tough to come up with any kind of workable biological explanations. Gotta admit, I kind of like the idea of a disembodied Slayer demon who selects from the available Slayer pool when kicked from the current Slayer's body. Buffy's resurrection (1st) should have been a twinning event that created two lines of Chosen Slayers, though, unless a single split is all that can be managed, and then only from the latest Chosen one, which would make the Buffy-Kendra pairing extremely rare...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Recessive traits - bloodlines -- Off-kilter, 22:49:38 06/27/02 Thu
Totally not necessary for Slayers to procreate. In the past Cystic Fibrosis, Tay Sachs, hemophilia were all recessive conditons where the carrier often did not live to have children. All it takes is the right DNA combination to unlock the traits.
Maybe this is how the COW scouts out potentials? Keeps an eye on lines that have show "true" and snatch up the likely ones early to train and indoctrinate in COW philosophy. Buffy could have come from an "off" line that hadn't shown anything in a long time. How else did they find her? Go through their Stud (or Dam) books and start testing every branch until it came up in S. California?
How do they find Slayers?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Recessive traits - bloodlines -- Darby, 06:54:28 06/28/02 Fri
The only reason that the diseases you mention are distributed in a population is that the carriers did live to pass them on; cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs actually convey advantages (hybrid vigor) to the carriers as long as they don't have both recessives (cf increases resistance to diarrhetic diseases, T-S to tuberculosis), hemophilia persists only in royal bloodlines and is otherwise quite rare. Gene variations are subject to evolutionary pressure, and to try to come up with a Slayer allele you run into the problem that it's too widely distributed in the population. Too many girls of very different genetic backgrounds have been called. Keep in mind that if Slayer powers were genetic, their appearance in Uncalled girls should produce enough advantages that they would spread - that would explain them being widely distributed if the Slayer gene was very old, but we would be up to our armpits in potential Slayers! -And it would be pointless to follow "bloodlines," since virtually every human being would be in a bloodline that would include the First, Kendra, Buffy, the NYC 1970s Slayer, and the Boxer Rebellion Slayer.
Recessive traits persist at a low frequency if there's no negative pressure on them, but vice versa is also true.
You'd also have to be talking about a range of genes - there is no one gene that would produce Slayer powers, or that works on a dominant-recessive basis, which brings up another problem. When I teach about dominance, I use a list of supposed human traits that qualify, but most of them really don't, and the ones that do almost always involve a recessive whose product is non-functional (that's true in the diseases mentioned above). We're trying to discuss a recessive that would be highly functional and likely to increase a carrier's strength, reflexes, and healing abilities. It's hard to imagine what the dominant version would do to cover that up. Dominance is not a feature of a gene, but of the gene's effect, and this Slayer gene's effect would be hard to overwhelm.
The Buffyverse is magic-based, which allows it to set rules which break the rules by which actual worlds run (that's fine, it's part of the fantasy rules). There's a limit to how much you can stretch actual natural patterns to cover things which have no real internal logic, and I'm as willing as the next obsessive to do that, but there are times when it just can't be done - a good theory sets up predictions, acknowledges inevitable repercussions or necessary internal patterns, and sometimes fall apart when either or both become unworkable.
I'm getting more worked up about this than is reasonable, I know, but I'm a fan of old-school science fiction, where the first rule of extrapolation was to ask, "Could it really work this way?" But fantasy isn't science fiction, and Buffy doesn't toe (tow?) that line - hey, try explaining vampires sometime!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: mystical energy -- aliera, 10:14:04 06/28/02 Fri
Whoa Darby...there goes the heat index (joking). But seriously, it's moot...as always it's about what Joss wants to think this moment...can I ask where you teach? Are you up in Saratoga?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: mystical energy -- Darby, 11:03:42 06/28/02 Fri
No, I'm over in Johnstown. Procrastinating right now about writing my last exam for my summer class, which might explain the heat index (and, it's hot here!) - guilt comes out in odd ways...
We also have to keep in mind that Joss is, by his own admission, at a complete loss in matters of science. When you watch the first 2 versions of Star Trek, you can see the workings of minds that at least wanted to stay in the ballpark of explainability (unless you just had to quickly move people around, as in the transporters). Joss seems only loosely constrained by his own invented rules, and I'm sure never envisioned the Slayer as genetic in any way.
I've gotta add, totally off this topic, the more I read in-house comments of how Firefly is a Western, not a science fiction show, the more I expect to cringe at the basic science mistakes to come. I'm all for political metaphor, but you can't magic yourself around space. Well, I guess you could, but I don't think this is going to be the space-future of the Buffyverse.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OT mystical energy -- aliera, 13:01:53 06/28/02 Fri
I'm in Latham right now coasting on the powersurges-weird summer so far, listen to that thunder...back on track, I'll watch Firefly because it's Joss and I'm curious but I know what you mean. I'm not sure if he intentionally leaves things open ended so as to have multiple directions to go or he's just so darn focused on the story in his head that he glosses over things. LOL
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spirit Potential -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:54:33 06/28/02 Fri
I've always gone by the theory that, in the Buffyverse, everybody has a spiritual strength inside of them. People who become great leaders or visionaries have got this spiritual strength, and can learn to utilise it. However, when someone becomes a Slayer, her spiritual strength is translated into physical strength. So, my guess is that the Council of Watchers has mystics who pinpoint girls who have the neccessary potential in there spirit to become Slayers. When the Calling happens, it's like a flare going off.
I think that the Council did know Buffy was a potential Slayer. However, it would be very difficult to drag her away from her family to train her. Kendra's family seemed to be in the know about demons and gave her up to the Watchers, valuing the importance of the Slayer. Buffy's parents almost certainly would have done no such thing.
Something I've thought of for an interesting episode would be where a Buffy meets a potential Slayer. However, when this girl was fifteen (apparently prime age for being called) Buffy was Chosen instead. She spent her entire life training to be the Slayer, and then it was taken away from her. My guess is she would be PISSED at Buffy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spirit Potential -- Darby, 13:26:58 06/28/02 Fri
That scenario would probably settle once-and-for-all how much of the Slayerness exists without the Calling, too.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Toe the line -- Off-kilter, 14:29:37 06/28/02 Fri
Whoa! Didn't mean to step on anyone's toes about the genetic possiblities. Just a random thought about how it could work. It's always possible that the recessive function isn't shown until the PTB activate it with their mystical mojo that calls the Slayer. No tap on the shoulder, no benefits. Also, you'd think that the Forces of Darkness would have an interest in any possible Slayer candidates and "thin the herd" if they had a chance.
Don't know. Not my area of expertise, although it looks like yours. Trying to make sense of something that is likely not supposed to.
[> [> [> [> [> Demon Based Slayerness - Spoilers from Tales of the Slayers written by Joss -- Dochawk, 07:33:35 06/28/02 Fri
From the Prologue written by Joss on the creation of the first slayer:
They say the shadowmen made you born with demon inside and that is how you are able to fight vampires.
"That's why they fear you. Why they chose only one.
They say when you die, there will be another girl chosen. And then another, for always. And you will be in them and they in each other and you will never die"
Sounds like Joss is telling us there is demon inside the slayer, which is difficult given the original mythology.
Regarding slayers Joss only seems to have one rule left:
One one slayer at a time, she is called after the death (or apparant death, obviosuly even the PTB or whomever chooses slayers can be fooled) of the previous slayer.
By Spike choosing to obtain a soul he has destroyed the rule that vampires are necessarily evil, and therefore absolutely worth killing, but the implications of that are a different thread.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Demon Based Slayerness - Spoilers from Tales of the Slayers written by Joss -- Arethusa, 08:37:30 06/28/02 Fri
Perhaps the PTB demonize the PotentialSlayer, like they did with Cordelia. The magical/mystical process can bring out the slayer traits. Which makes me wonder....We guess that *many* girls have the potential to be slayers. Could it be that Cordelia is one of those girls, and that is why she is considered a Champion instead of just another human/demon hybrid? That could open up several interesting questions. Look at the conflicts between Buffy and Faith, Buffy and Kendra, Buffy and Cordelia. Perhaps there's an instinctive antipathy between potential slayers. It must be hard to look on the face of your potential post-death replacement. Of course, Kendra attacked Buffy on sight, Cordelia was "the ditziest bitch in Sunnydale" and Faith was hell on wheels, so that could be the explination too.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> OMG did I do that? I've never read them. Abject apologies. -- Arethusa, 08:46:35 06/28/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the Spoilers from Tales of the Slayers written by Joss -- aliera, 08:42:16 06/28/02 Fri
[> Definitely second option -- Caesar Augustus, 22:36:54 06/27/02 Thu
If a vampire attacked the new slayer the day the old slayer died, she'd be able to defend herself (ala Faith)
It's quite realistic for Buffy not to notice - think of season 1 Cordelia suddenly getting super-strength. She wouldn't want to break a finger-nail and would very likely not notice for weeks, maybe months. Also, if you lift something you don't expect to, your natural reaction is just that it's lighter than it looked. You don't assume you have superpowers :-)
[> [> Re: Definitely second option -- Arethusa, 08:22:33 06/28/02 Fri
Buffy was a cheerleader before she was called. Remember the cheerleading practice in "The Witch" when Buffy was reeling from the effects of Catherine Madison's spell and didn't control her slayer powers? She ended up tossing people around the gym. If Buffy had slayer powers before she was called she definitely would have noticed.
[> [> [> Re: Definitely second option -- MonkeyPants, 11:25:58 06/28/02 Fri
I think that Slayer powers remain dormant within a potential Slayer before they are actually called - there are multiple candidates, but only one is called. Christopher Golden's 'Pretty Maids All in a Row' suggests this, and also the theory that the Watchers Council are aware of these candidates, and can assign a Watcher to them before their powers emerge - Merrick was aware of Buffy before she began slaying, and Giles was already employed as a librarian in the high school before Buffy arrived.
however, there are Slayers in waiting who are trained and educated in the field before being called, e.g. Kendra, whose society recognised the importance of the Slayer.
Additionally, the original film demonstrated that Buffy had some gymnastic ability before becoming a Slayer, and in 'Killed by Death,' we learn that she dressed up as a superhero while a child - so perhaps there are early signs, even if the power has not been activitated by the previous Slayer's death.
Back to the beginning? -- Wizardman, 17:40:19 06/27/02 Thu
We have been told that next season's theme will be 'back to the beginning.' Joss himself has told us that Buffy will be a 'vampire slayer' now. We will eventually find out what he means, but as of right now it means that Buffy will either become a vampire, or she will finally enter a season-long fight a super-bad vampire for the first time since Season 2. I mean, for a show that is called Buffy the VAMPIRE Slayer, she hasn't been fighting too many vampires lately, what with all of the robot-demon-human hybrids, crazed hellgoddesses, and nerds around.
A rumour on the net has Mark Metcalf gracing audiences with another performance as the Master. I don't know if this is true or not- he has been brought back before, but in a very specific set of circumstances, and no one except Anya remembers. Maybe this time, if he comes back, he will finally go to it with our Buffy for the first time since 'Prophecy Girl.'
The possibility of the return of the Master leads one to wonder if maybe some other characters from the early seasons of Buffy will be back. Here's my thoughts on some possibilities:
The Master- a rumour on the Net has this as happening, but we'll find out.
Luke- Highly unlikely.
Jesse- I hope that they find a way- I mean, the guy was Xander and Willow's only other friend, not too much regret was shown over his passing(s), and he didn't even get to come back for Doppelgangerland.
Darla- Very unlikely, as she is not only dust again, but an 'Angel' fixture. If we do see her, it will only be in a Spike-flashback.
Catherine Madison- The statue wasn't destroyed, and Amy is now de-ratted. A sequel to 'The Witch' may be in the works-I mean, after coming on 6 years in a trophy, I imagine that the old bitch will be a trifle pissed by now...
Jenny Calendar- Oh please! I'm in Jenny-withdrawl after seeing her first appearance last night on the Space Channel here in Canada (can't remember the episodes name). She'll be a ghost, but as long as Robia comes back I won't care.
Marcie Ross- A possibility, but if she would have come back, it would probably have been in S4, with the Initiative.
Ethan Rayne- Okay, he's in a government jail for super-beings, but if anyone could break out, it's him.
Dru- Oh yes please! I wanna see her reaction to ensouled Spike, especially if he shows William-tendencies.
Harmony- I even have a scenario for this one- she comes back, Spike feels guilty for the way that he treated her, tries to make it up to her, and the Scoobies have to save him from her wrath (I just want to see the wrath. I can just see Buffy: "Harmony's exposing Spike to her *wrath*? HAHAHAHAHAHA!")
Do I wan't to see Joyce in some form? Do I even need to answer that? Oz? I'd give an ecstatic howl that would do Oz-wolf proud! Would I jump for joy if we got to see Angel, Cordelia, Wesley, or Faith? Hell yeah! I just don't think that the SG are going to make an appearance, at least not in their present forms- although flashbacks are possible- unless this is the last season.
Is there anyone else I'm missing? Please tell me!
[> Put spoiler warnings (even for rumors) in subject lines. -- Maroon Lagoon, 20:31:27 06/27/02 Thu
I got to the part that said, "rumor has it that Mark Metcalf..." and instantly hit the back button.
It only takes a few seconds to be considerate and add the words "possible spoilers" to your subject line. I'm not picking on Wizardman; I mean everyone.
Thanks!
[> [> Sorry! -- Wizardman, 20:48:02 06/27/02 Thu
Sorry! I didn't know that the spoiler warning applied to rumours as well. it won't happen again!
[> [> [> Potential Spoilers in 'Back to the Beginning?' Above -- Wizardman, 20:49:20 06/27/02 Thu
[> [> [> Don't know if it's the official policy, -- Maroon Lagoon, 21:07:58 06/27/02 Thu
but since there's no way to know if a rumor will come true, it's better to err on the side of caution.
Those who violate this rule should be tied to a chair and forced to watch "Beer Bad" over and over until they cry.
TTFN
[> [> [> [> I like Beer Bad -- Vickie, 21:57:21 06/27/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> I second the like: Beer Bad Good! -- Kitt, 22:21:24 06/27/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> Watch Go Fish, Bad Eggs, Band Candy, Gingerbread, Beer Bad -- Arethusa, 08:44:48 06/28/02 Fri
You'll be full for a week.
[> [> [> [> Do it twice and its "Bad Eggs" -- Dead Soul, 23:51:36 06/27/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> And there is a three strikes rule: for that you're sentenced to AYW. -- Sophist, 14:38:08 06/28/02 Fri
Releasing the Inner You -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:49:02 06/27/02 Thu
Buffy the Vampire Slayer has many themes and messages that stretch through episodes, seasons, and even the entire series. Many of these are obvious. However, there is one that I have found that few bring up.
Inside losers there is a hidden strength.
Take a look at these losers:
Buffy - Ditzy cheerleader
Willow - Computer nerd
Xander - Self proclaimed "King of Cretans"
Giles - British nancy-boy (no offense to the British)
Spike - William the Bloody Awful (and horrible Geeky) Poet
Angel - Drunk
Darla - Whore
Drusilla - Mommy-whipped and Church-whipped
But look at what has become of them:
Buffy - Vampire Slayer and Defender of Humanity
Willow - Super hacker abilities, Vamp Willow was pretty tough, and gained witch phenomanal witch powers
Xander - Does very well against vampires for someone with no super powers
Giles - His Ripper days
Spike/Angel/Darla/Drusilla: Four of the strongest vampires Buffy has ever faced
This is the theme I enjoy most about Buffy. I love seeing the potential buried deep inside losers burst free to turn them into powerful heroes or villains.
[> Re: Releasing the Inner Joss? -- Wisewoman, 22:14:40 06/27/02 Thu
Actually, I have commented a couple of times that the "revenge of the nerd" theme seems to be a major one with Joss, and that I personally think it reflects something in his own life. Was it Marti or Jane who said, "If Joss had had even one date in high school, Buffy would never have been created" (paraphrase)?
;o)
[> [> Re: Releasing the Inner Joss? -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:53:02 06/28/02 Fri
I think it was "if Joss had ever had one good day of high school, none of us would be here today".
[> [> Re: Releasing the Inner Joss? -- SugarTherapy, 09:10:55 06/28/02 Fri
If I was at home, I could just grab my Watcher's Guide and tell you who said it and the exact quote. It's on the back of Volume 1. Alas, I am at work. Thank gods for naps and dance recitals; I have the house pretty much to myself.
Sugar - can I have Pink's body? please?
[> Re: Releasing the Inner You -- Caesar Augustus, 22:42:51 06/27/02 Thu
It's a very common theme. Think Spiderman (could Peter Parker be a bigger geek?), the cartoon Freakazoid (if you've ever seen it), Freaks and Geeks, etc.
It tries to sort of involve the viewer, showing that ANYONE can make it big.
BTW, the realisticness with which the Geek Squad of season 6 were portrayed gives Joss away.
Xander/Spike Peace Talks 2002: The Press Conference -- cjl, 00:32:15 06/28/02 Fri
Spike and Xander have been talking things over--and they'd like to issue a joint statement...
(An auditorium somewhere in Southern California.)
XANDER (tapping the mike): Hello? Is this thing on? (Spike rolls his eyes.) Uh, we know the fans out there have been kinda wondering what things'll be like with me and Spike after the mess last season and the whole "soul" thing...
SPIKE: You're losin' 'em, Harris....
XANDER: Right. Anyway, I just wanted to say that...um... (Glances nervously to the side; Buffy is glaring at him from the wings) there are times when I've been a little bit too quick to grab an ax and a little too slow to forgive. I realize now that Spike has a soul, and he's not the same sadistic, brutal...
SPIKE: Easy now...
XANDER: He's not the same person he was. And I think I'm a big enough man to put the past behind us and give him a chance to start a new life without me getting in his face. I mean, hey--who am I to judge?
SPIKE: Well said, mate. Very forward-looking of you. (Steps up to the mike. Glances nervously to the side; Buffy is glaring at him from the wings) Right. And I just wanted to tell my good friend Xander here that I sincerely...I'd like to...
XANDER: It's just a word, Spike.
SPIKE: (Whispers) Bugger. (Starts again) I sincerely apologize for any actions I might have taken when I was...well, what I was. I wasn't capable of understanding what I did was wrong...didn't make what I did any less painful for everyone around me. I hope everyone here can forgive me the way this big guy has. (Puts an arm around Xander's shoulder. Both look extremely uncomfortable.)
XANDER: Thanks, everyone. I think that just about covers it.
(The press corps leaves. Buffy approaches Xander and Spike. Spike lights up a cigarette and inhales deeply.)
BUFFY: There! Was that so hard?
SPIKE: You should have let him stake me. Would have been less painful. (Xander is about to comment, but--)
BUFFY: Nuh uh. You boys are going to have to get along this season. You know, fighting evil as a team?
XANDER & SPIKE (grumbling): Yeah, yeah...
BUFFY: Guys?
XANDER: OK, Buff. You're calling it. No more ax-swinging.
(They start walking toward the exit together.)
SPIKE: Harris?
XANDER: Yeah?
SPIKE: I'm sorry about the girl. It really wasn't...
XANDER: You want to get along with me, Spike?
SPIKE: Not if you're going to be-- (Buffy elbows him) Wouldn't hurt.
XANDER: Don't ever talk about that again.
SPIKE: Deal. (Long pause.) Anybody up for cheese fries? They've got some great ones at this place about two blocks away.
XANDER: Sounds good to me. Buff?
BUFFY: Mmm...cholesterol-y goodness. But--can't. Diet.
SPIKE: Diet?
XANDER: Geez, Buff, you weigh, like, negative 50 pounds as it is.
SPIKE: What is it with you American women and this perverted obsession with looking like a stick figure?
BUFFY: Guys, does this truce thing mean you'll be nagging me in stereo from now on?
(XANDER and SPIKE look at Buffy, then each other, then look back to Buffy.)
BUFFY: I can live with that.
(Curtain.)
[> Re: Xander/Spike Peace Talks 2002: The Press Conference -- Dead (but laughing) Soul, 00:51:29 06/28/02 Fri
Laughing my ass off! Three cheers for stereo nagging!
Dead Soul
[> [> Stereo nagging- great concept! -- Wizardman, 03:08:22 06/28/02 Fri
[> LOL! A wonderful way to start the morning... -- shadowkat, 05:15:16 06/28/02 Fri
Good as always cjl. Now can you write one between
Dawn and Willow? ; -)
[> [> Re: LOL! A wonderful way to start the morning... -- ponygirl, 06:40:16 06/28/02 Fri
Or maybe a G8 Scooby summit to announce a Willow recovery plan?
Thanks for the morning funnies cjl!
[> Re: Xander/Spike Peace Talks 2002: The Press Conference -- cjc36, 05:21:37 06/28/02 Fri
LOL! Wonderful skit! Made my morning!
[> [> Re: Xander/Spike Peace Talks 2002: The Press Conference -- Halcyon, 08:30:49 06/28/02 Fri
What about the Angel/Wes peace talks of 2002?
[> Thanks for this - you made my day! -- Marie, 06:21:08 06/28/02 Fri
[> ROYFLMAO!!! Wonderful..... and possible! -- shy girl, 09:02:54 06/28/02 Fri
Slayers... Origin, Calling & power of, -- JCC, 05:29:17 06/28/02 Fri
"Into each generation a Slayer is born, one girl in all the world, a Chosen One, one born with the strength and skill to hunt the vampires…"
In Buffy & Angel we have been led to believe that there is only one slayer in the world at a time. However, on first seeing Kendra, she says:
"My parents, dey sent me to my Watcher when I was very young."
This means that Kendra was identified as a child. She trained all through her life while other Slayers where in action. If Buffy had never died, than Kendra wouldn't have been needed, despite her training and knowledge. This would mean that there would have been two Slayers, regardless of Buffy's death. Plus Faith, who was also born with Slayer strength in her. At this time, we are aware of three Slayers in the world at once. It seems the only thing that makes a Slayer active, is the fact that they have a watcher. There could have been countless Slayers through history that were never called, but did indeed have the ability. With an average of a Slayer dying every year, (Somebody mentioned that they don't live past 16, I can't remember who) that means that 6 additional Slayers could have been born into the world during Buffy's reign. If the other Slayers are like Kendra, then there could be several being trained by Watchers at the moment. So why doesn't the Watcher's Council train several at a time? (They should be able to find them, seeing as Kendra was identified at an early age. The Council must have some method for finding them) It would be easier Slaying.
This brings up a question about Slayers powers. Are the powers only realised when a Slayer has been identified? This would only allow one Slayer at a time. Why would the Powers That Be only allow this? (Assuming it is they that send a Slayer)
If all this is true, than there could be a hundred Slayers out there, aged anywhere between 1 year and 100 years, some of whom could be trained.
Does this explain Justine?
Just some random brain-spill. Because I think too much.
Comments, Thoughts?
JCC
[> Re: Slayers... Origin, Calling & power of, -- Caesar Augustus, 06:19:22 06/28/02 Fri
My thinking is along similar lines to yours. The Watcher's Council is a human-formed society which *thinks* it has control over the slayers, even though they are PtB-sanctioned, and think first-slayer: there sure as hell weren't no watchers around. At some point they decided to take responsibility for it. A good idea in theory, to help guide the slayer (the first slayer seems far from "good"), but of course they took it too far. Anyway ... I'm getting sidetracked.
If a slayer's full powers were activated from birth, then SURELY the watcher's council would use all of them - it would be a much stronger force if combined to face apocalypse threats, and in non-apocalypse times they could protect more than one place.
This leads me to believe that powers are only activated when the previous slayer dies. But hang on, how can they train if they've got pathetic girly-girl (no offence intended) strength. There could be some mid-way between the extremes that they have from birth until calling. Either it is a half-way strength (stronger than the average human, but not really strong enough to face slayers); OR maybe it gradually increases from say 0 strength to full strength at time of calling, since the time of calling is KNOWN if they are trained in advance (WML).
This is my current belief, although it is perfectly possible that they have 0 strength until calling, and training is done anyway to improve innate strength/stamina/focus/attitude, etc. Maybe even the ability to do one own's research, judging from what Kendra said.
Ahh, trying to question why the PtB does stuff. How about "why send a Slayer rather than just destroying all the vampires in the first place?"
[> [> Re: why send a Slayer rather than just destroying all the vampires in the first place? -- JCC, 07:31:45 06/28/02 Fri
Maybe they are being stopped by some force of evil. Forces of good send Slayers to influence the effect of Vamps & demons. The forces of evil might send assasains like Vocah and Morah demons to eliminate the Warriors of good. eg Buffy, Angel, sid the dummy, etc.
Remember the first evil tried to recruit Angel, possibly as a warrior of evil. Thet tried to get him to take out Buffy.
That's just a theory though.
JCC
[> [> [> If there are vamps everywhere.... -- shygirl, 09:37:29 06/28/02 Fri
isn't it rather wasteful to only have ONE slayer? To me it's always been a weakness of the whole concept... The ONLY Hellmouth is in Sunnydale? Perhaps Buffy is the Slayer whose job it is to watch at the Hellmouth and there are other slayers out there who take care of the riff raff... and didn't Spike kill a Slayer in the Orient? Does that mean the Hellmouth moves or is there more than one? I know, I'm nit picking a fantasy! LOL
[> [> [> [> My theories . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:36:52 06/28/02 Fri
First, the Slayer isn't always on the Hellmouth. Then why hasn't it opened yet if there isn't always a Slayer to stop it? My theory is that the Hellmouth gets bigger with time, drawing more evil and thus becoming a more high risk area.
As for the fact that there are vampires everywhere, there numbers are stopped from growing too out of control by other means:
1) Ordinary humans who take it upon themselves to kill vampires.
2) Vampires killing other vampires.
3) They don't sire too many vamps for fear of depleating the food supply.
I theorize that the Slayer is drawn to wherever the demonic/vampiric problem is at its worst. Often this is on the Hellmouth, but not always.
[> [> [> [> More than one hellmouth -- Caesar Augustus, 18:52:28 06/28/02 Fri
In "The Wish", when Anyanka creates an alternate reality, Giles tell's Buffy's watcher "you know, we are situated on a hellmouth". This clearly indicates that it is not unique.
The important thing to realise is that a hellmouth is not a PHYSICAL connection between earth and (a) hell, but a SUPERNATURAL one - therefore it is not limited to one place.
[> [> [> PtB vs First Evil -- Caesar Augustus, 19:07:11 06/28/02 Fri
Your raise a very interesting point.
Joss has of course left us very much in the dark concerning the PtB. That can be seen as good (more discussion possible, and more "realistic") or bad, since we have very little facts to go on.
Assuming the "first evil" is the MAJOR power of evil that exists, we are left to wonder how the PtB and the first evil interact/fight. It is very possible that they put some sort of "spell" (in the very loose meaning of the word) on any power that they create which prevents it being destroyed directly by the other party. This would explain, say, not being able to destroy demons.
But then we would also have to believe that this sort of protection is carried on through the phase when demons mixed with humans to produce vampires, and that the protection goes on from siring to siring.
There are questions which it is very hard to answer. Why not create an ARMY of slayers? Gee, that would help. Why not make the slayer even STRONGER and more powerful than she is? There must be one hell of a yin-yang thing going on between the supernatural powers in the Buffyverse.
[> [> [> [> BTW, a cool idea I had -- Caesar Augustus, 19:59:06 06/28/02 Fri
The PtB and First Evil are abstract/spiritual entities that are separate to the real world. Yet they somehow interact with the real world indirectly - but they can only create agents like a slayer and the like.
I think it would be cool if there were intermediaries who were extremely powerful beings (possibly human) sanctioned by the PtB and First Evil that existed on Earth. Kind of like in _The Matrix_ where a person was created inside the system who could change things as he saw fit. I think having two powers like this on earth could create an awesome plotline.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: BTW, a cool idea I had -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:20:52 06/28/02 Fri
1st, I think the First Evil is one of the Powers That Be, and that some of the PTBs are good, while others are evil.
2nd, from what we saw of the First Evil, it had no effect on Earth except for mental images. Maybe the PTBs must convince other, earthly beings to do their will. Therefore, there is a limit to what they can do considering the limits of the people they use.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: BTW, a cool idea I had -- Caeasr Augustus, 22:26:38 06/28/02 Fri
You're right. I wasn't sure whether PtB referred to just good forces or both. It's usually referred to in a context of "good forces".
It's true that the First Evil did not interact with the Earth plane directly in that episode with Angel's visions, but that doesn't mean it HAS TO. Clearly, some PtB can interact - e.g. creation of the slayer.
Anyway, I think it would be neat to have intermediaries (who would of course be quite detached from the real world).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: BTW, a cool idea I had -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:33:13 06/28/02 Fri
Actually, I've heard some people talking about some Fray comic book where shamans created the First Slayer. This would be the PTBs working through earthly beings.
If the First Evil could affect things on Earth, don't you think it would have tried to stop Buffy from saving Angel?
I believe that the PTBs always work through earthly mediums, even if the mediums sometimes remain unseen by our main characters.
[> Re: Slayers... Origin, Calling & power of, -- MonkeyPants, 11:35:05 06/28/02 Fri
It's easy to visualise Justine as a Slayer - she had a parental trainer/Watcher in Holtz, and the knowledge to fight vampires. However, she does not possess Slayer powers, and when faced with the barful of vamps in 'Benediction,' probably wouldn't have lasted long.
Justine herself seems to represent a Faithlike character for the Angel writers - she is driven by her anger and vengeance regarding the death of her sister - this blinds her judgement and causes her to strike out, at Holtz initially and later Wesley. Like Faith and the Mayor, she also grows dependent on her father figure/lover Holtz. His death, as the knowledge of the Mayor's destruction causes Faith to bodyswtich with Buffy, motivates her into assisting Connor/Stephen with the capture of Angel in 'Tomorrow.' Whether her character will join Faith in working towards redemption in Season 4 is possible - although this raises the question - if she is not an emissary of the Powers, than should she have to suffer the same consequences as a Slayer - it is unclear whether Justine has actually killed a human - Wesley was probably the closest, and unlike Faith, she expressed remorse over her actions pretty soon after it.
Answering the question then, while it is possible that Justine could be a Slayer in waiting, it could merely just be a normal human well trained, e.g. Wesley or Gunn.
[> [> Re: Slayers... Origin, Calling & power of, -- Darby, 14:12:20 06/28/02 Fri
That's the thing - we both watch the same scenes and see different things. I think that the evidence is overwhelming that Justine has Slayer physical abilities (my pet theory is that her sister had the psychic Slayer stuff). Remember, without Holtz she was still able to go out and kill vampires (when he watched her in the cemetery, it was obvious that this was not her first foray).
Is the evidence inconsistent? Definitely, but if you try to find consistency in who can fight who you'll go nuts (just follow Giles' spotty vamp-fighting career. Or Wes. Or Angel.). Would Buffy take on a barful of vamps? Not in most cases, and even Angel and Connor, with a slight assist from Justine, had trouble.
I don't think that it's accidental that shortly after Fray was written with clarification on how Slayers work and a twin pair who had each gotten part of the abilities (and one was male, who would never be Called!), we get a set of siblings on Angel with the survivor having suspiciously Slayerlike physical abilities. How long did Justine nurse that wound from being pinned to a table-top? We've even seen her have trouble recovering from injuries sustained when her psyche was wounded by Holtz - very very Buffyish (no wonder they don't want Slayers with emotional attachments!).
[> Re: Slayers... Origin, Calling & power of, -- Dochawk, 16:19:06 06/28/02 Fri
First off, Faith only got called once kendra died. She ran to Sunnydale because 1. she knew of Buffy and 2 her Watcher was killed by Kakistos.
it has been made clear that Buffy was the aberation, that the watchers know of many girls who have the potential (what would they do if they encountered a mother who didnt believe them or wasn't willing to allow the training?) And I think the training was about things that weren't needed for strangth. Accuracy with throws, knowledge of different weapons etc. And the calling includes the memories, which seem to be helpful in knowing how to fight vamps.
But as Justine proves, you can train a regular human to be close to a slayer in the ability to fight vampires. Doesn't have the other trianing and other skills (rapid recovery from injuries for example) though.
[> First Evil/PTB -- JCC, 05:53:07 06/29/02 Sat
The PTB are working on all diferent dimensions. Hence, St. Cordy. They recruited her to fight on a higher plain. Maybe the First Evil can't physically interact on Earth, but can in other dimensions where the PTB can't. They might have sent Cordy to fight whatever the First Evil can do somewhere else.
The First Evil's power seems to be in recruiting warriors. they tried to get Angel on their side. Maybe they saw potential in demons like Vocah (The same way the PTB saw potential in Angel) and recruited him for evil.
JCC
Which is the best season so far? -- Caesar Augustus, 06:23:05 06/28/02 Fri
My personal opinion is a tie between Seasons 2 and 5.
What do others think?
[> Give reasons!! -- Caesar Augustus, 06:28:27 06/28/02 Fri
My own reasons:
Season 2 - Angel's turning - his priceless good and evil - Spike as a kickass bad, aiding good at the end - Buffy's heartbreaking decision at the end
WOW!!
Season 5 - Mainly the great continuity and HEAVY use of clever foreshadowing throughout the whole season. And Clare Kramer is my kind of villian :-) Buffy's "Gift" was also a brilliant, if sad, ending.
Only problem was that other plotlines were put on hold - Tara's warning to Buffy "you think you know what's to come ... who you are .. you haven't even begun" - Tara's mysterious evil side was also ended abruptly, I was hoping for something darker.
[> Re: Which is the best season so far? -- Wolfhowl3, 07:01:52 06/28/02 Fri
Season 3, The Reason, The Mayer and Faith!
They are the Greatest Big Bad's that I have ever seen on Buffy!
Wolfie
[> [> Season 2 (currently screening on my DVD player) -- cjl, 07:29:37 06/28/02 Fri
I reserve the right to change my mind when Season 3 comes out in the U.S. in the Winter of--god, who knows at this point?--2000 whatever.
But I've been paying special attention to the first half of Season 2, the part of the season everyone used to think was a little weak and slow-moving. It has just been one top-flight ep after another, with only one or two stinkeroos (Bad Eggs being the most notable.) But even relative mediocrities like Inca Mummy Girl and Some Assembly Required have had great moments, especially the introduction of Oz and Jonathan in IMG.
Starting with Buffy's Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome meltdown in When She Was Bad, to the spectacular entrance of Spike and Dru in School Hard, the double-barreled revelations about Giles in Halloween and The Dark Age, Billy Fordham's betrayal in Lie to Me, and culminating in Marti Noxon's tour-de-force debut, What's My Line, the first half of Season 2 consistently delivered thrills, chills, laughs and superb characterization, blended into a seamless whole. And the cast! We had Buffy, Xander, Willow, Giles, Cordy, Angel, Joyce, Jenny, Spike, Dru, Oz, Kendra, Jonathan, Snyder, and Larry all running around at the same time.
Don't think I need to say much about the second half of S2, because it's what turned me into a drooling Buffy fanatic in the first place. To this day, I prefer Angel bad and snarky and I can still hear Spike waxing philosophical about Manchester United and Happy Meals with Legs. I still miss Jenny. I like "Go Fish." And I never liked Buffy more than I did here.
[> My Favorites -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:47:53 06/28/02 Fri
This is a list of my favorite seasons from worst to best:
Season 6: What can I say, I'm not big on angsty drama. The evil Willow plot near the end was fascinating, but there wasn't any sense of foreboding through the season. Here's hoping next year will be better.
Season 1: The main problem was there weren't enough episodes. If it had been a full, 22 ep season, then the arc story of the Master trying to rise could have been given more depth. The Harvest and Prophecy Girl were great episodes, but few of the other episodes stand out like many in future seasons.
Season 4: The inclusion of a government organization wasn't something I liked (Buffy's usefullness seemed to be lessened). Plus, neutered Spike! How could they do that to him! However, it had many great, stand alone episodes, and Yoko Factor/Primevil was a truly great ending, even if Adam wasn't as interesting as we've come to expect.
Season 3: Faith and the Mayor truly radiated menace, and many great episodes were coupled with an excellant arc story, culminating in a huge, end-of-season battle. Only flaws were a lack of menacing vampires and having to live up to Season 2's expectations.
Season 5: This one had perhaps the best continuity of any season, and the finale was the BEST EVER! The episodes were great, and it pulls ahead of Season 3 because of Spike (Fool For Love and Crush, plus the brief hope that he was unchipped in Out Of My Mind).
Season 2: The general consensus is (and I agree) that Season Two is the best season of Buffy ever created! Angel went evil, a much liked character died, the Gang battled the Judge, they went through many great, stand alone adventures, Buffy had to kill the man/vamp she loved, and there was Spike! Evil, Big Bad, murderous, don't mess with me Spike! Even without the previous merits, Season 2 would still stand tall above all others simply because it has Spike at his villainous best!
[> [> Same order as mine! -- Caesar Augustus, 19:18:39 06/28/02 Fri
I'm amazed that the order you put them in is exactly the same as my list of preferences, with the slight difference that I put Seasons 5 and 2 on level footing, and I'm withholding my judgement on Season 6 until it's finished (I'm an unfortunate Australian viewer).
I'm glad I'm not the only one who's finding Season 6 bad. (We're up to the ruined-wedding episode with Stewart Burns, I forget the name of the episode). It's had good points: Buffy coming back from heaven not hell, Spike and Buffy getting together, the Geek squad, Willow's magic railroading - but there's just something lacking, it's too depressing; there are great one-liners but there never seems to be a genuinely POSITIVE-ATTITUDE episode.
[> Re: Which is the best season so far? -- Purple Tulip, 10:28:37 06/28/02 Fri
I would have to say that my personal faveorite is season six, mainly because this is when I got hooked (and thank God for fx so I was able to get caught up!) But I also liked this season because I am a big fan of the Buffy-Spike pairing and it was interesting to see the way it played out. I think after season 6, it would have to be season 3, then 5, then 2, then 1, then 4.
[> Re: Which is the best season so far? -- SableHart, 14:53:00 06/28/02 Fri
I loved Season 2 and Season 3, for all of the reasons previously mentioned, but also, I loved the way the two seasons flowed really well together. Buffy's return to Sunnydale, Angel's return and the continuing growth of the gang really carried from Season 2 into Season 3.
[> Re: Which is the best season so far? -- Pandora North Star, 18:10:28 06/28/02 Fri
In my opinion season three was the best season so far. The show had found it's footwork and had worked up enough background. There was constant tension between characters and the ways they explored Angel's different sides as he slowly came back were fascinating. We got to see the first hints of dark Willow which showed up again this past season. The Mayor was a good nemisis because he was the first semi human villain that Buffy had encountered.
This was also one of the funniest seasons. With episodes like Band Candy and The Zeppo we are constantly switching gears, unlike season 6 which was completely depressing the whole way through.
I could go on but there are some good examples there.
[> Judging by problems? -- Caesar Augustus, 19:26:06 06/28/02 Fri
Lots of people seem to like Season 3.
Every season has great features. Perhaps it would be best to decide by finding things wrong with seasons:
Season 1 - light-hearted romp, but no deep meaning compared to later seasons
Season 2 - problems??
Season 3 - I believe (but some people disagree) that there was a serious break of general continuity between the 1st half and 2nd half of the season
Season 4 - Took too long to get going with the interesting vested-interests-of-the-Initiative plotline
Season 5 - No problems in and of itself, but it did put other storylines on hold
Season 6 - Too depressing. Anticlimax that Buffy was "normal". DON'T GIVE TOO MUCH AWAY - I'm only halfway through. I've heard some vague rumours from friends in the US that the season finale is outstanding!
[> [> Re: Judging by problems? -- Rufus, 02:01:27 06/29/02 Sat
Season six may be difficult to watch but I think it was as good as any year of Buffy we have seen. I find people do tend to drift towards finding a fav year and sticking with it. I like all the seasons for differing reasons and the evolution of the story has kept me facinating....season six is difficult because living is difficult..even for superheroes.
Is Fox going after Buffy Cross and Stake? -- Masq, 07:22:48 06/28/02 Fri
Got this email this morning. No time to check it out, but others who visit the Spoiler board at BC&S might know more about it:
======
Dear ATPoBtVS Webmaster:
You might want to check out the following thread at the popular Buffy
Cross
& Stake Spoiler Board http://www.voy.com/13746/. Michelle (AnGeL X),
the
site's "Board Momma," has always been very responsible and strict about
board members not posting copyrighted materials.* It looks like another
example of intellectual property out of control and may be the
beginning of
other notices to Buffy fansites. Just thought you'd like the heads up.
*"DO NOT reveal the names of or addresses to sites or people where
illegal
material (scripts, transcripts, sounds, video files, tapes, etc.) can
be
gotten."
[> Is this the end of DVD Commentary Transcripts? -- Rahael, 07:30:52 06/28/02 Fri
Cos I was going to do a couple this weekend.
Season 4 ones.
Masq, this is already being discussed on the board - Shadowkat has a very informative post below on exactly why they may be targetting AngelX - her spoilers. Her strict policy on illegal materials didn't stop them trying to shut parts of her site down.
[> [> Re: Is this the end of DVD Commentary Transcripts? -- Dochawk, 07:40:57 06/28/02 Fri
Where is Shadow's post, because I was going to post the same point. Angel obviously has a source very high up in ME and Joss couldn't figure out who it was from the inside, so he (and I am sure if C& S was the only board sited they were going after the spoilers) decided to get at them from the outside.
[> [> [> Re: Is this the end of DVD Commentary Transcripts? -- Rahael, 07:47:21 06/28/02 Fri
It's in Doriander's 'Show and Tell' thread.
ShadowKat Said:
"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. ;-)
[> [> [> [> Thanks for the pointer, Rah-- I was trying to find where this was on the board. :-) -- OnM, 08:13:33 06/28/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> More on copyright... -- shadowkat, 08:56:54 06/28/02 Fri
Okay since I do this for a living...will let you in on what I know:
How to know if you are infringing on someone else's copyright?
A great test is: Has this taken money away from the creator or owner of the work in any way? If so - don't do it! One way of figuring it out is putting yourself in their shoes: if you worked your ass off writing something,
finally got it published, the rights are about $ 100,000
and everyone could download it from the internet without paying a dime - how would you feel?
What takes money away?
1. Posting the entire script or portions of the script prior to the airing of a tv show or movie...would definitely take money away.
Psyche is okay - because she/he doesn't do it until after it has been televised. In fact Shooting Scripts aren't available until at least two weeks after the episode airs in the US. Also,
the producers aren't that interested in publishing their scripts, not sure why this is. And if they are? They
still make money off them, because they can have them signed. But don't post psyche's url just in case. You can mention her, but be careful, because I'm not sure whether
or not they've okayed what she/he is doing.
Rah - to be safe, don't post DVD transcripts. That is copyrighted material and even though you aren't reproducing written material - it is a tricky area. What you can do is refer to it, without being exact. They will only go after you if they think you're doing away with needed revenue.
Which is possible - since the DVD's are expensive and the interviews are worthwhile extras...that said, your postings
of the interviews make me want to buy them more. So all in all? I seriously doubt they'll shut you down on that one.
But if I were you? I wouldn't do it.
Regarding citing Btvs stuff in essays? No problem. You're
fine. Citing or quoting information is permissible under the fair use clause of the copyright code.(Falls under scholarly and educational use, besides it brings more interest in the show - they'd have to be crazy to turn down free advertising.) As long as it's not overly substantial and you credit the owner and where it came from. My essays for example are all permissible under copyright law. What is not permissible? Posting
an entire script of Btvs episode before it airs like several sites did with Hells Bells, or
posting the entire script after without permission.
2. Screenshots...might want to watch this. AngelX got in trouble because she allowed people to post a screenshot of DarkWillow before Seeing Red aired. But in some cases screen shots advertise the show or push it forward. If the
screen shots hurt the show - they'll come after you.
Most people ask for permission to be safe.
3. Can Leoff do summaries? Uh yes, you can write a summary or a review of a movie and tv show - that's permissible under fair use. Just as long as you don't reproduce a substantial amount of copyrighted material.
4. Can you give out downloads prior to airing? No. That is
illegal. Don't post any urls of where you can get the
episode prior to airing via satellite...Examples of illegal
copying: If you taped all the episodes of BTvs and sold them on the street - that is illegal. If you just taped them for yourself, no problem. If you taped all the episodes, made multiple copies and gave them away to
hundreds of people for free? Yep, illegal. Distributing
copyrighted information that you don't hold the rights to, without the permission of the copyright holder, is illegal
under copyright law.
Do companys sue you for this? No, usually they send a cease and desist order and wait and see if you obey. If you do.
End of problem. If you don't and they continue to lose money - big problem.
Did AngelX have a case? No. She would have lost under copyright law. Why - because she posted copyrighted material on her site, not because she mentioned who the BB was. It's how you do it that matters. Two huge cases have already set the precedent regarding this: Tasini and Napster.
Fanfiction? This is okay. As long as you don't make money off it. And don't use copyrighted material. Example in our fanged four fic - if we reproduced a large section of
one of the flashbacks - they could and would go after us, particularly if we sold it. As long as it isn't published
and sold, they have no problem. Joss has even encouraged it, since it brings more fans to the show, just as he encourages the academic essays, etc.
But if you want to publish your fanfiction for money? You have to get Fox and Kuzi's to give you permission.
They own all rights to the characters and images.
Same goes if you want to use images and likenesses of the actors. If we published Fanged Four Fic and say we got permission to do so, and we wanted to put a picture of the actors on the cover - we'd need to get the permission of whomever owned their likenesses.
Are the music videos with screen shots illegal - uh, yep.
But since they don't take away that much revenue and costs
way too much to go after all of them, Fox ignores them
more or less. But to protect them, don't post info.
Also be careful about reproducing articles - also a violation of copyright. I know - part of my job is getting permission to reproduce articles in an online database.
So you see a great interview somewhere? Do what Rufus
usually does - post the url or link to it. That is permissible.
IF you wish, I'll look over your site Masq and see if I see anything glaring. So far I haven't seen anything. Except for maybe a few screenshots. AngelX was glaring. As a copyright specialist I was shocked she hadn't gotten slapped before now. (Now there might be someone on the board better than me - I'm not active as an attorney, but
I am up on this stuff. Also copyright law on the net is
a murky thing right now. I've been told by an agent that if you publish anything on the net first - print/trad publishers are less likely to want to publish it elsewhere, which is why I decided not to put any of my own fiction on my website. That said - other people do it.)
The photos on my site are nothing major or worth going after. Just stills.
I think Doc is right - Joss and Company were upset because their ratings this year were partially affected by the release of huge spoilers. Seeing Red was completely spoiled and it was their climatic act. It was also an episode he'd
plotted for awhile. Fans were telling them to rewrite the episode before it aired. I don't blame them for being
pissed. Can you imagine working hard on something -
and perfecting it to show it to your audience, waiting for their gasps...only to be told they already knew about it, had judged it flawed, before they even saw the work?
That's why she got the letter.
Oh some examples from personal experience- I've written cease and desist letters and letters requesting that websites credit my company and provide a link to our website when they use our material.
Example: One website reproduced, they re-typed an entire bio of Rush from one of my companies products and put it on their website. We discovered it and I wrote a letter requesting they pull it immediately. Another website reproduced a bio on an individual - the website was owned
by the individual the bio was on - we told them to make sure they credited us and provided a link to our website, otherwise it was okay. See depends on the situation.
Hope all this made sense. At work, so had to write it quickly and post, before thread disappeared.
shadowkat
[> [> [> [> [> Re: More on copyright... -- shygirl, 09:17:04 06/28/02 Fri
WheW! Thanks for the detailed description shadow... now I don't have to go hunt done the text!!
Folks, she is absolutely right!!!
[> [> [> [> [> Re: More on copyright... -- Masq, 09:26:29 06/28/02 Fri
Shadowkat,
If you want to look over my site for copyright violations, that'd be great. As an ex-academic, it's second nature for me to site my sources and link back to places I get quotes and screen shots from, but you never know...
[> [> [> [> [> [> Don't really see anything -- shadowkat, 09:39:57 06/28/02 Fri
I looked around a few minutes ago and I really don't see anything glaring. You site stuff, but it's more academic.
Also I think Fox is going after spoilers.
If anything you're stuff promotes what they do.
Don't know about the Spoiler Board.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Except for the screen shots, right? -- Masq, 11:05:32 06/28/02 Fri
I assume they are in violation. Might be wrong. I know that saying "But everyone posts pics" is not a defense, but it certainly doesn't make me the worse violator.
Of course, unless I get a cease and desist letter, I'm not removing the pics. My site would get tedious if it were all text!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Except for the screen shots, right? -- shadowkat, 11:35:08 06/28/02 Fri
I have photos too - both our sites are boring without them. Thought about it and decided they were no biggie. Neither of us posted DarkWillow or anything that wasn't already previously in a millon newspapers and mags. Or millions of other websites.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: More on copyright... (some corrections or differences of opinion and more on fair use) -- A different view, 09:48:34 06/28/02 Fri
I too am a lawyer, and also not currently practicing copyright. I think what Shadowkat has done is mix together legal rules and practical advice on what you can get away with because studios don't have unlimited resources to prosecute websites. There is, of course, a difference between what copyright allows and what rights holders will pay money to enforce. I won't dispute her conclusions on what studios will or will not go after, because I don't practice a lot in that area. But, Shadowkat is right in pointing out that cease and desist letters are often all that is done and they almost always demand that you stop doing things that are completely permissible. This is what happend to AngelX, in my view, because there is no way in hell that spoilers are protected copyright material.
Also, for the intellectually curious, fair use does not give you the right to copy unlimited quantities of the original material. It only permits using enough to "call the original to mind." So, essentially, you can use no more of the source material than is necessary to convey your point. This may mean that in some articles, a lengthy transcript is required and would be fair use (like, an article on the changing idiom of Spike as he moves from static to dynamic character form), but in others no quoting would be permitted (a discussion about changing hairstyles on the show).
On just the law, I think Shadowkat has about 90% of it right, but here are a few things that are not quite 100%.
A great test is: Has this taken money away from the creator or owner of the work in any way?
Not true. Whether money taken away from the rights holder is irrelevant. In legal terms, it ties to damages, but not to the question of whether their is a violation of copyright. It is more accurate to ask whether the work has taken away the rights of the holder, including the rights to allow or forbid duplication, derivative works (i.e., compilations and sequels), etc.
Psyche is okay - because she/he doesn't do it until after it has been televised.
No way. The rights holder has the right to control duplication of his/her work. Unless Pscyche has permission, she is clearly violating copyright.
Rah - to be safe, don't post DVD transcripts.
Agreed, and this is certainly not a grey area. All works are copyrighted immediately upon creation; the posting of transcripts is clearly a violation of copyright.
Screenshots
No permission needed for fair use type uses like reviews and news articles. For general fan-sites, though, I bet it would be a violation.
Can Leoff do summaries? Uh yes, you can write a summary or a review of a movie and tv show
Agreed
Fanfiction? This is okay. As long as you don't make money off it. And don't use copyrighted material.
Well, I suppose this is kinda right - a fanfic that used no copyrighted material would be ok. The problem is, all fanfic uses copyrighted material because all fanfic is derivative work. So, all fanfic would not be protected at all. One of the rights holder's rights is the power to control derivative works such as these.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: More on copyright... (some corrections or differences of opinion and more on fair use) -- shadowkat, 10:11:52 06/28/02 Fri
Agree with everything you said above and thanks for finding the errors...although I think from business perspective,
Fox and owners go after what hurts their profits not their rights, lawyers go after the rights.
One thing disagree on:
"This is what happend to AngelX, in my view, because there is no way in hell that spoilers are protected copyright material."
It wasn't just mentioning spoilers - it's how she mentioned them. She reproduced actual scripts and photos and information to prove her source. This is a lot more than
Wanda or Herc did. Spoilers aren't copyright. It's the information she used to support them that was.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreed. Spoilers = OK, Pics/Scripts = violation (NT) -- A different view, 10:40:25 06/28/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I would like to ask if you don't mind about... -- aliera, 10:49:23 06/28/02 Fri
a few other issues...
The possible liability of her provider? (Fox contacted them first and got Angel's address from them.)
So she may or may not be in the right...if she doesn't stop and Fox decides to pursue (unlikely as it may be) to make an example of her, then what.
I mean, then what for her? I looked at some of cases they do pursue and it's not a pretty sight.
I really appreciate that both of you explained some of the theory behind this issue. I'm sorry if this sounds negative or some what confrontational; I really don't mean it to.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'll attempt it, but different view might be more precise -- shadowkat, 11:30:50 06/28/02 Fri
Ok - I'll take a shot, because I'm horribly bored at work today and this is the first real copyright issue I've gotten to deal with in quite a while. But I think different
view is the expert on this - so if he/she disagrees go with them.
"The possible liability of her provider? (Fox contacted them first and got Angel's address from them.)
So she may or may not be in the right...if she doesn't stop and Fox decides to pursue (unlikely as it may be) to make an example of her, then what. "
The provider is liable. Now this does depend on what her
contract is with them. If the contract has an indemnification clause and she promises in that clause not
to distribute anything defamatory, libelous or illegal - than she takes the full brunt of it. Unless, and here's the thing, they continue to allow her to distribute through them knowing what she's doing - then Fox can get them on punitive damages. Fox will want to go after the person with the most money and the most power - the provider. AngelX can always get another one of course. But if they hurt the provider and other providers find out? No one will take her.
Sends a bigger message than just going after a college student operating a website.
Punitive damages? These usually result when you go against an injunction (cease and desist order), also and it has been awhile, so I'm not sure if this is exact, they tend to happen if you really hurt the plaintiff (the suing party, ie. Fox.)
Example: If Fox can prove that AngelX's posting of scripted material and screenshots cost them ratings, advertisers,
and profits - then they can charge compensatory and punitive damages.
Compensatory -usually means being reimbursed for finances lost. To get them you usually have to show an exact amount. (Going by memory here - so if I'm wrong, practicing lawyers: Sophist and different view - tell me!!)
Injunctive Relief - this is what happened to Napster, they sent cease and desist and then forced Napster to go offline
entirely. Napster went bankrupt. Napster also had to pay punitive and compensatory damages.
For AngelX - this would mean if she did not comply - the court could order her to shut down the infringing portion of her site (the spoiler section).
Regarding the why's : you aren't being confrontational at all. It's hard to understand.
Let me see if I can put it all in layman's terms. Okay, here's a case scenerio - say you worked really hard on a painting or drawing. It was part of four wall mural.
It was your best piece ever and the Museum of Modern Art had done a deal with you to be the first to exhibit this piece. No one had seen it. People were lining up to see this
work. Millions had been spent to promote the exhibit.
Ad space was bought in magazines and on television. And the
trailer - the catch? No one had seen it! A total Premier.
Okay...how would you feel if someone snuck into your house
or looked through your window and snapped a photo of it
then posted that photo on their website? Or better yet, how would you feel if someone you trusted, one of your many friends, you don't know who, took a photo and leaked it to
a web site?
That is what AngelX did. She took script and photo information that others snuck to her and posted it. That is why they are going after her. And everyone got the information from her site, Spoilerslayer did.
I know it sounds unfair to some us here, but think about
it from ME's pov. I was spoiled for that episode and I did think twice about SR and I almost didn't watch the attempted rape scene. How many others felt the same way?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why they would go after her -- Dochawk, 14:54:37 06/28/02 Fri
Unless she had easily findable money, Fox wouldn't go after her, except for one thing. The name of the person who gave her the info. Joss is seriously pissed off at this person (rightly so, whomever was feeding AngelX her info was being paid in some way by ME and betraying them). If Joss found out who it was the person would never work in Hollywood again, at the minimum. He has been unable to uncover the source in any other way, so that would be a motivation to go after her. Financially the costs of a court fight wouldn't justify the time ME and Fox's staff would put into it (yea you could recover legal fees, but not the hours that Joss and the writers would have to put into the depositions etc) even if they win. And they would have a hard time with proving the financial loss (to get damages) because there is little difference in the ratings between episodes that were not spoiled and episodes that were highly spoiled.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why they would go after her -- shadowkat, 19:01:32 06/28/02 Fri
Somewhat true Doc. Except they don't have to just go after her, they can go after the provider and shut her down that route. Also issue an injunction. If you fail to obey the injunction - then you get fined and if you can't pay? Well there are other ways...don't think for a minute that just because you have no money, means they won't go after you.
And it could hurt her reputation for providers. I wouldn't risk it if I were her.
"And they would have a hard time with proving the financial loss (to get damages) because there is little difference in the ratings between episodes that were not spoiled and episodes that were highly spoiled."
Uh they don't have to prove that. Not for punitive. Just compensatory. (Might be the other way around, I often get them confused) All they have to prove is that she posted information that they owned copyright to and she didn't. That's it! That's what happened with Napster. And several other cases. I know of cases where websites have been shut down and no financial loss could be proven. All you have to prove is copyright infringement. And as different view stated - copyright infringement does not have to equal a clear financial loss.
For both Angelx and her source's sake - I pray they put a halt to it now. There's probably only one season left anyway. Why risk your future on this?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think that's 100% right -- A different view, 15:41:25 06/28/02 Fri
I like your example. As we have said before, spoilers themselves are not copyright protected, but the pics clearly would be. Fox's lawyers are probably making overbroad claims in their letter.
You are absolutely right about punitives, compensatory and injunctive relief. Fox could probably get an injunction (on an expidited basis, without even giving AngelX a chance to appear in court, as a "temporary restraining order" or TRO). I clerked for a federal judge, and we gave these out as a matter of course.
Fox probably would not be able to prove damages, and probably wouldn't bother to go after them. Punitives would be beyond the realm of possibility unless you could show some intent and bad motive (such as disregard of a cease and desist letter). So, punis are pretty unlikely.
Concerning ISP liability.
I know that people who help other people infringe on copyright are, under some conditions, liable themselves. I don't know exactly what the contours of those "conditions" are, though. There may be some intent element required; I really don't know.
Here's an example, for the intellectually curious. Some movie studios sued Sony (I think) for creating the VCR, which they contended was a tool that aids in violating copyright. It wound its way up to the Supreme Court, and the Court ruled for Sony, but only by holding that the VCR has other legit uses, apart from copyright infringement. For example, it can make copies of public domain stuff, or copies of stuff consistent with fair use, or it can be used in time shifting, which means taping TV shows for personal use to watch later.
Some say the Court reached this decision (and invented this time-shifting exception) because it would be politically impossible to declare the VCR contraband. But, without this new exception, the studios would have won in their suit against Sony, because Sony was selling a product that aids in copyright infringement.
An interesting side note: now Sony is a studio and a VCR maker. And, it has long been discovered that the VCR is a boon to studios, because it promotes sales/rentals of movies on tape. Strange how the world works.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! Thanks for the VCR example didn't know that -- shadowkat, 18:50:20 06/28/02 Fri
"Some movie studios sued Sony (I think) for creating the VCR, which they contended was a tool that aids in violating copyright."
Oh that's precious. I love that one. Reminds me of the case someone tried to bring against Netscape and Microsoft for inventing the internet. It was thrown out of court, because honestly, they couldn't prove either did and ...well.
Copyright law is really funky people. Copyright attorneys don't know what is an infringment and what isn't half the time.
But from my own experience. Here's an example of a provider
like say Voy being held liable for helping someone carry copyrighted content.
Tasini case or Tasini et al against NY Times, UMI, Time, Inc. and Lexis - was a group of freelance writers who sued magazine publishers and third party providers for distribution of their articles without permission over the internet. This case went clear up to the Supreme Court.
Without boring you with all the legal rhetoric - the decision was that when you purchase print rights to an article, these rights do not extend to the internet or electronic. And NY times could not break up its articles and distribute them through Lexis - an online database.
Ny Times = Angel X
Lexis = Voy
Both got sued. Because both were responsible. Lexis got in trouble because they continued to distribute NY Times content, they helped the infringing party. According to a copyright attorney I talked to, failure to obey notice to cease and desist or notice to remove content results in punitive damages - very bad. Punitive damages are often determined by juries and in the Napster case were set close to or over a million (can't remember). Compensatory aren't that high - they equal actual amount you lost = ie. I must be compensated for my loss of profits which equaled x amount. Sometimes it's easier to get punitive over compensatory..I think.
If I were AngelX - I'd be really careful from here on out what I posted. (No photos, screenshots, or dialogue from
unbroadcast shows or descriptions.)The board itself is fine.
But what - you say - if someone else posted it on her board, not AngelX? She could get sued along with Voy - for the same reasons Lexis did under the Tasini case. The sad thing is the poster who did it? They would probably get away with it - no damages. For what it's worth here's my opinion on how to help: If you want to help AngelX? Don't post dialogue spoilers or screenshots on her board.
Comply with what she said. Also if you want to help MAsq and the other boards? Don't post screenshot spoilers and dialogue spoilers here either. You might not get hurt, but they could and that would be VERY BAD!
Different View: Do you practice copyright law ? If so where?
Understand if you don't want to answer - privacy and all.
Just curious. Nice to meet another one of us..out there. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Am I a copyright lawyer? -- A different view, 19:25:44 06/28/02 Fri
Not practicing. But it wasn't that long ago that I took the class at law school and I clerked for a federal judge last year, so I did a lot of copyright stuff there. Not that I would hold myself out as an expert on the stuff; and to make sure, I'll leave it at that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The Disney precedent. -- Darby, 12:02:55 06/28/02 Fri
There may be other thinking rather than immediate money vs rights. Long ago, Disney took a longterm view of their proprietary rights and, somewhere at the very highest levels, made a decision to take a pre-emptive strike and slap hard at anyone seen as violating their trademarks (the ME characters and the actors are also kinda-sorta covered under trademarks, too, which affects fanfic and photos). It had the desired effect: people avoid anything that could bring the wrath of Disney (or Mattel, or, ironically enough, Microsoft) down on them, and Disney rarely needs to fight these fights.
Some of this slides over to any of the cease-and-desist orders, which often makes whether there's real infringement or not moot. People don't want to take the chance or spend the money, and even more importantly in these kinds of cases, the challenge alone may be enough to temper the obsession of a website creator and send them off in search of something new.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Disney precedent. -- shadowkat, 12:43:47 06/28/02 Fri
IF that's the case...why didn't they go after some of the more persuasive fanfic and photo sites? Or maybe they are just gearing up?
I know about Disney - they are very good at tracking down infringers. But the reason they do it is a bit broader than what you mentioned. Trademarks. Disney almost lost Mickey to public domain a couple years back and they also almost lost him to generic use. People were using his name like
some people say "Kleenex" instead of tissue. So they came down hard. Mickey Mouse is their lifeblood.
Whedon and company don't own the rights to Buffy. Fox does according to Dochawk and others on this board. Which means
Fox may not be as obsessed as Disney. Buffy isn't their lifesblood. They may be more like PAramount is on Star Trek.
Don't know. Is interesting though.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> True... -- Darby, 12:50:49 06/28/02 Fri
I wasn't trying to draw a parallel between Fox / Buffy and Disney / Mickey, (well, maybe a little one to make the point that there might be other motivations here) so much as to underline the "cease & desist" power lies in a history.
DC put Fawcett out of business over Captain Marvel, even though DC lost the case, so one can't ignore the economic inequity either, but while I thought many here had made that case eloquently, we hadn't beaten the "why is Fox doing this?" theme quite bloody enough yet.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! Agree...I think we're all bored -- shadowkat, 12:57:47 06/28/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah, boredom always leads to boarddom in my case -- Arethusa, overdoing the pun thing today, 13:45:55 06/28/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> oooh, quote of the week -- Masq, 13:56:46 06/28/02 Fri
Which we seem to have on average once a month : )
[> [> [> [> [> Shooting scripts are violations (according to Fox) -- Tanker, 09:51:43 06/28/02 Fri
Rayne's shooting script site was shut down by Fox. They also shut down AleXander's transcript site. They haven't gone after Psyche because he's in Germany. They still could, but it would be a lot more trouble. The fact that the epsidode has aired makes no difference. The script is still copyrighted material, and Fox considers transcripts to be copyrighted also. Being broadcast does not put something in the public domain (I just threw that in there because I've seen that argument on the net).
Note that just because Fox's lawyers say something is a violation doesn't mean it is, necessarily. But how many of us could afford to take them on in court?
[> [> [> [> [> [> You're right thanks for clarifying that. -- shadowkat, 10:05:17 06/28/02 Fri
"Rayne's shooting script site was shut down by Fox. They also shut down AleXander's transcript site. They haven't gone after Psyche because he's in Germany. They still could, but it would be a lot more trouble. The fact that the epsidode has aired makes no difference. The script is still copyrighted material, and Fox considers transcripts to be copyrighted also. Being broadcast does not put something in the public domain (I just threw that in there because I've seen that argument on the net)."
You're right. Being broadcast doesn't put it in public domain. Getting into public domain is very difficult right now. Don't assume it's there. The Psyche site confused me.
You're also right - they are unlikely to fight him too hard right now. But once the series is over? They will. Too much
money to be made in selling that stuff.
Thanks for answering that question. I wondered why Psyche hadn't gotten taken down and PSyche tells everyone to quote him but not to repost on their site - that's why!!
Each country has different rules on this. And other countries are pissed with the US on internet copyright law, so it's really hard to take down foreign sites. They are justified, US doesn't take down stuff that is foreign owned.
Also copyright does vary country to country. Example: In US federal government documents are in public domain, they aren't in other countries. In fact in US works get into public domain a lot quicker than in foreign countries.
Recently the US rectified this by adding 70 years to the
public domain rule. If you publish something - it stays out of public domain in US about the same amount of time it does elsewhere. Prior to doing this, if you were published in US you'd end up in public domain many years prior to the time you would in France or elsewhere.
Suggest being careful on the board from here on in about
shooting scripts.
[> [> [> [> [> [> 100% right -- A different view, 10:13:19 06/28/02 Fri
[> Suggesting we do the following from now on, for a least a while anyway. -- OnM, 08:02:54 06/28/02 Fri
Unfortunately, extensive DVD transcripts would very likely be considered flat-out copyright violation. A line or three from them is one thing, but not an entire commentary track. This is a bummer, 'cos these tracks are a wealth of info, but especially since Fox and ME could see this as a way to defer folks from buying the DVD's, they might specifically target any site that posts them.
So, it might be wise to not do so.
Second, let's place all future fanfic postings at Fictionary corner, where there are clear legal disclaimers and such always present. Posting stories about copyrighted characters not written by the creators on the board could theoretically affect the board if Fox wanted to get picky, since it is a general site, not a specific fanfic one.
This isn't known as a 'spoiler board', which the main board at the C&S is. Fox specifically appears to be going after Michelle for the spoiler content, which as many of you know, has always been highly accurate 90% of the time. I think Doc is right about the 'inside source' that ME wants to cut off, and they're going after Michelle simply because they can find her.
This too will pass, but we need to be careful, 'cos if they go after the C&S-- one of the biggest and most beloved Buffy sites in the world-- other sites might be targeted also. They have to know that this will anger a large number of serious Buffy fans, so they must feel that it is 'worth it'.
Just my 3 cents, I'm not a lawyer, of course. But we all know what happened to a certain (and equally beloved) script site last year.
[> [> Darn. There goes my raison d'être -- Rahael, 08:33:33 06/28/02 Fri
Does this mean I'll have to write an essay with quotes? Tired.
I shall post the essay with my email address. Interested parties will know what to do..............
[> [> [> You're essays are fine Rah -- shadowkat, 09:13:38 06/28/02 Fri
I've read you're essays, you rarely quote and you rarely use anything that would be an infringement. Mine use more
than yours and mine are fine.
They aren't going after the essays. They are going after
the screenshots and spoilers. And possibly those DVD
interviews if you had posted them to a site or anything.
Suggest you don't.
You're fine. Essays are fine. But we might want to hold
back on the quotage...;-)
[> [> [> [> My non-existant essays -- Rahael, 09:23:14 06/28/02 Fri
oh, I was just trying to think of a way of passing on the interesting bits of the DVD commentary to the board. I've never written/posted an essay on Buffy. The reason I don't quote in my postings is cos I write them while waiting for people to phone/email back during work. I don't get time to check out Psyche!
Am interested re quoting - I've quoted copyrighted academic material from books. Often a whole parapgragh. Surely if that is permissable, so is quoting a paragragh of dialogue?
In fact, nearly the whole of my postings are unconcious qoutage of poets/writers. But most of em are dead so that's okay.
And, if I were to be prosecuted for infringement, would I fall under US or UK law? hmmm
[> [> [> [> [> Re: My non-existant essays -- Masq, 09:30:31 06/28/02 Fri
Rah,
If you want to send the DVD commentaries via email, that'd be cool. I'm getting some good VIP quotage for my site from those commentaries, and I'd appreciate it!
[> [> [> [> [> Re: My non-existant essays -- A different view, 09:56:42 06/28/02 Fri
Quoting would fall under fair use.
Fair use gives you the right to use enough of the original material to "call the original to mind." So, essentially, you can use no more of the source material than is necessary to convey your point. In an academic work, this may require whole paragraphs. On this site, this may mean that in some articles, a lengthy transcript is required and would be fair use (like, an article on the changing idiom of Spike as he moves from static to dynamic character form), but in others no quoting would be permitted (a discussion about changing hairstyles on the show).
The fact that people are dead doesn't mean anything, what matters is how long ago they wrote the work. I think under the Digital Millenium COpyright Act, it is 125 years before things fall into public domain, but I am not sure on that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My non-existant essays -- shadowkat, 10:14:46 06/28/02 Fri
Has the Digital Millenium Copyright Act been approved?
Last I heard it wasn't accepted in over half the countries?
So still going by the old act. Course haven't been following the discussion that closely lately.
In US it's Life + 70 years for public domain.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> There were some recent changes in the last 4-5 years-I don't remember what the law was called (NT) -- A different view, 10:21:37 06/28/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The DCMA was approved, but it's US law not an international convention -- d'Herblay, 10:23:41 06/28/02 Fri
[> [> [> Rah, you can quote -- Sophist, 09:38:00 06/28/02 Fri
It's a fine line, but it's perfectly ok to quote for the purpose of analysis. What's not ok is to quote for the hidden purpose of re-publishing the original material. The reason long quotes are a grey area is that they can be argued either way. Your quotes are very unlikely to be seen as re-publications, so don't have a coma about it. We all should always give credit for the quote.
Those who post transcripts after the episode airs raise an interesting case. Such transcripts (not the shooting scripts) require independent labor to create. In that sense, what is posted is original work product; not the script per se, but that person's transcription. Not really sure what a court would do with that.
[> [> [> [> Too bloody right! Takes lots of independent labour to type up commentaries!! -- Rahael, 09:42:44 06/28/02 Fri
hmm. This means I'd have to write an essay about Primeaval and get David Fury's comments as my killer argument supporting quotes.
[> [> [> [> Re: Rah, you can quote -- shadowkat, 09:52:13 06/28/02 Fri
"It's a fine line, but it's perfectly ok to quote for the purpose of analysis. What's not ok is to quote for the hidden purpose of re-publishing the original material. The reason long quotes are a grey area is that they can be argued either way. Your quotes are very unlikely to be seen as re-publications, so don't have a coma about it. We all should always give credit for the quote."
Absolutely right. People ask me for permission to include
paragraphs from my companies books all the time, but
it's really not necessary if it's under 250 words and not the complete work. Grey area - is republishing whole
poems...might be a little dicey. But since most of the ones I've seen you quote are from dead authors and are in public domain, wouldn't worry too much.
"Those who post transcripts after the episode airs raise an interesting case. Such transcripts (not the shooting scripts) require independent labor to create. In that sense, what is posted is original work product; not the script per se, but that person's transcription. Not really sure what a court would do with that."
This one is tricky. I've seen two opposing decisions on it.
It depends on the transcript and how it's used. Right now there's a DMCA (Digital Media Copyright Act) being posed
before Congress which would make digitizing someone else's material illegal. They have been arguing about digitization which is basically writing a transcript of the show or reproducing a book, etc in HTML or electronic format and distributing it online. The reason this is such a hot issue is : Who owns the digitized version? The person who digitized it or the original creator and copyright owner?
So many publishers are dragging infringers into court to prevent the digitization of their property - or automatic transfer of rights to whomever digitizes it first. Very
foggy issue. Still not completely decided.
HAve you seen any cases on it Sophist? All I've seen is discussions ...been half following it for work.
[> [> [> [> [> Haven't seen any cases. Not my area of expertise. Sorry. -- Sophist, 10:13:26 06/28/02 Fri
[> [> A librarian's point of view -- shygirl, 08:44:25 06/28/02 Fri
I'm not a lawyer either, but one of my degrees is in Library Science and copyright law was one of the courses I took. I don't remember the exact wording unfortunately (I can find it if you folks want it), but... it is important to know that if ANYONE posts more than "a few lines" of copyrighted material, they are breaking the the law. It may be okay to post those few lines as long as they are properly attibuted. However, if someone is smuggling out scripts and handing them out wholesale it is difficult to know that to reference. If you post it, you are personally liable and they can come after you. Always best to summarize meaning rather than quoting word for word with the sources of information are muddy as they are here.
I think the push to stem the spoilage is an indication that Joss would like this coming season to be a surprise... and supports, however slightly, the contention that this may be the last season. If I were Joss, I too would spend this summer rooting out those who would potentially spoil my big ending!!!
[> [> [> Agree - also correct -- shadowkat, 09:08:12 06/28/02 Fri
Again agree - this is part of the reason i've stopped quoting or using as much dialogue from the scripts in my essays. While it was fun - it was making me nervous.
I know he won't pursue me - because I'm not into spoilers and was pushing the show. But to be safe suggest following
what shygirl suggested.
[> [> [> Re: A librarian's point of view -- A different view, 10:02:33 06/28/02 Fri
Quoting word for word is fine as long as it is consistent with fair use.
Check out my earlier posts in this thread on this topic.
It may not be "safe," however, if you define safe as "avoiding a threatening (but baseless) letter from FOx."
That is not an unreasonable definition of "safe," by the way.
[> [> OM you're right! -- shadowkat, 09:02:58 06/28/02 Fri
OM is right - this jives with copyright law and what I would advise.
My Background in copyright: I'm the manager of rights & permissions at a large online database and library reference
publisher. I studied Intellectual Property and Contracts.
I am on two copyright listserves. And am in communcation with copyright lawyers.
[> [> [> :-))) Explains the similar wavelength! -- shygirl, 09:30:24 06/28/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> Question... -- shadowkat, 19:17:50 06/28/02 Fri
You said you're a librarian? You haven't written any articles on Giles or worked for a company name of Wilson have you? Just curious. (not giving out company name to protect innocent, since everyone here knows I want out.) ;-)
[> Save early and often. -- LeeAnn, 08:06:13 06/28/02 Fri
I've been saving more and more of the things I access online out of fear that they will disappear. Transcripts. Pictures. Articles.
I foresee the day they will go after fan fiction.
When that day comes I will be through with BtVS. Not even JM will keep me watching.
[> Fair Use: What is it? -- LeeAnn, 08:15:04 06/28/02 Fri
When Copying Is Ok -- The 'Fair Use' Rule
The following types of uses are usually deemed fair uses:
Criticism and comment -- for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment.
News reporting -- for example, summarizing an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report.
Research and scholarship -- for example, quoting a short passage in a scholarly, scientific or technical work for illustration or clarification of the author's observations.
Nonprofit educational uses -- for example, photocopying of limited portions of written works by teachers for classroom use.
Parody -- that is, a work that ridicules another, usually well-known, work by imitating it in a comic way.
*****************
So I think we're pretty safe. Except FOX is using its money and power against people who can't afford the price of resistence. AngelX is doing nothing illegal. She is very careful about copyright enfringement. But she can't afford to defend herself. Which they know and use.
[> [> Fan fiction as fair use? -- ZachsMind, 08:39:20 06/28/02 Fri
One thing that's often concerned me, how is fan fiction protected by fair use? It's really not is it? It doesn't fall in the criticism camp. Occasionally some fan fiction can be seen as parody, but not usually. It's not news. It's not exactly educational. It's just fiction written by fans.
The lawyers don't bother with fan fiction mostly because there's no money in taking fan fiction authors to court. Yet. However, when someone writes a story using characters that are copyrighted, just how vulnerable are they? I ask this cuz I occasionally venture into writing fan fiction myself, and enjoy reading the works of others on occasion. It's a genre of writing that the Internet has helped fluorish, but are its days numbered?
[> [> [> By our actions, the future will be determined. -- shygirl, 08:55:31 06/28/02 Fri
I don't think the days of fanfiction are numbered at all unless people abuse the opportunities. Look at Star Wars and Star Trek... they have had a very healthy fan fic base for many years. I remember reading fanzines on ST many years ago after the first show was canceled. It kept the fanchise alive and had the support of the ST powers that be. Many of the fanfic has evolved into significant publishing concerns. I do think though, that it behoves anyone wanting to write fan fiction to be aware that since the genre has moved to the Internet that abuses of the privilege can potentially spoil it for everyone. Being responsible is the key. The big guys are out to make money, the fans are out to explore different story possibilities.... these motivations do not HAVE to be mutually exclusive.... but unfortunately, the responsibility for making sure they don't become that way is in the hands of the fan fic writers and readers! This is my professional opinion....no one has to like or agree with it. ;-) I too do not want to see this lovely enrichment of the official versions go away.
[> [> [> Re: Fan fiction as fair use? -- LeeAnn, 10:34:04 06/28/02 Fri
Since I enjoy reading and writing fan fiction I worry about that myself. I worry that someday Fox will look up and decide they will loose their exclusive rights to the characters of BtVS unless they try to enforce their exclusivity. FanFiction.net makes money, at least a little, by acting as a centralized repository for Fan Fiction. And, when it's working, I love FanFiction.net. I think they could get around it by agreeing to pay a royalty for every genre story viewed. Say a penny to Fox for every BtVS story viewed. Or a percentage of the ad revenue generated by that story. Instead I'm afraid they will just try to close it down. They couldn't be making much money since they can't seem to hire good enough people to keep it running. But the last time I looked there were 11+K of BtVS stories on FF.net and over 2K of Angel stories. Considering the reviews left as some measure of how many people view a story, BtVS stories are by far the most popular of any stories they have.
I hope the day doesn't come when they go after Fan Fiction.
[> [> [> [> Fan fiction never technically allowable without permission. -- Darby, 12:10:07 06/28/02 Fri
No matter how much is out there, fanfic will always be potentially attackable as copyright or trademark violations - the characters and situations of the shows are themselves protected. You could theoretically get in trouble for placing a story in Sunnydale, if it was clearly Buffy's Sunnydale, even if you didn't use characters from the shows. It's all intellectual property, except maybe for the quotable lines.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Fan fiction never technically allowable without permission. -- shadowkat, 12:55:59 06/28/02 Fri
True. But wouldn't worry too much. Joss actually endorses the slash fiction. Someone wrote an essay on that a while back and published it in Fighting the Forces of Evil.
IF they wanted to stop the fanfic, they'd have done it by now. If fox and everyone were that worried,
Fanfic.com would be no more way before now.
But this is the reason i've more or less stayed away from doing too much of it.
[> [> Re: Fair Use: What is it? -- shygirl, 08:46:29 06/28/02 Fri
I think a court of law might disagree with you on the "nothing illegal" point.
[> [> Re: Fair Use: What is it? -- shadowkat, 09:05:03 06/28/02 Fri
You're right about fair use but wrong about AngelX.
She posted full accounts of episodes prior to airing
and included actual dialogue from scripts including a whole section of the Hells Bells Script on her site. She also
posted a photo of DarkWillow prior to its release.
That is infringement.
[> [> Flying under the radar. -- Darby, 09:44:33 06/28/02 Fri
Fan fiction will probably be safe until someone at one of publishing licensees gets it in their head that the presence of fan fiction erodes their profits. It probably would not have a significant impact, but who can say for sure that it's not a legitimate concern? If there were widely-known (there's the critical point, probably) Harry Potter stuff available while everyone waits between books, don't you think they'd be targeted by HP's publisher?
As long as none of the fan fiction draws too much attention, it will probably be safe. But don't people want it to be widely read? The first person that puts up a buzzworthy fanfic site may pull the endeavor down for everyone.
[> [> [> You are probably are right about the practicality issues (NT) -- A different view, 10:11:12 06/28/02 Fri
[> Is Fox going after Buffy Cross and Stake? Simply put: no -- d'Herblay, 10:07:11 06/28/02 Fri
Michelle received the cease and desist letter about her web site, not what was posted at Cross & Stake. (Had FOX gone after C&S, they would have written Voy. Voy might have then passed it on to Michelle.)
I have a big question: who sent that email? It looks like a gracious service, giving you the heads-up; however, I like to look at things with a touch of paranoia. Remember that it is Michelle's site and not the board that is being threatened. "Michelle (AnGeL X), the site's "Board Momma," has always been very responsible and strict about board members not posting copyrighted materials," thus seems not only immaterial but designed to have a chilling effect on our behavior. Your correspondent then quotes (I guess) the C&S FAQ: "DO NOT reveal the names of or addresses to sites or people where illegal material (scripts, transcripts, sounds, video files, tapes, etc.) can be gotten." Again, board behavior was irrelevant to the warning Michelle received. I do remember though who threw a hissy fit whenever someone here posted a link to Psyche's.
Anyway, criticism is traditionally protected as fair use, and ATPoBtVS the web site meets my definition of criticism. (It also passes shadowkat's test, though I have never bought The Watcher's Guide or any other official ancillary item, partially because everything I need to know is at ATPo!) I think the only thing you have to worry about is the screen caps. In any case, if you get a letter from FOX, do not acknowledge it. Most of the law they're basing these letters on has not been tested in the court, and they're usually so successful at intimidation that they never push anything to a civil trial. Also, it helps if you have a supportive hosting service.
Up for being a test case, Liq?
[> [> Re: Is Fox going after Buffy Cross and Stake? Simply put: no -- shadowkat, 10:23:08 06/28/02 Fri
I think you're right D'H. I'm sure a different view
would probably agree.
Truth is - it's costly going after copyright infringements.
I usually just send cease and desist. Business people only care if it really hurts them.
In AngelX's case - it really hurt Fox and UPN and ME.
I know, I saw her spoilers and I saw what she posted on her site. She has a Spoiler section on her site where she
posted portions of scripts, interviews, and screen shots.
The board also posted this stuff. What she told the board yesterday was that we weren't allowed to post screen shots or spoilers in that way anymore.
Atptobtvs doesn't do this. Nor does Rob's site. Or mine.
Or most of the others. There are over 2000 buffy sites are the internet - can you imagine the cost in shutting them down? Plus - these sites keep interest in the show.
No...I think we're safe from a practical stand-point.
But if you want exact legal stuff - go to a different
view - he/she seems to be a practicing attorney. I'm
not practicing as an attorney, I work as a rights manager
in a business capacity - so see the practical/legal
aspects more.
[> [> [> Oh, I only came across A different view's views after I hit approve -- d'Herblay, 10:28:15 06/28/02 Fri
And then I remembered the problem with being a jailhouse lawyer without having ever been to prison! (Or, um, law school.)
I trust, agree with, and am thrilled by A different view's reasoning. I just wish he or she hadn't dropped that </B> tag!
[> [> [> [> Re: Oh, I only came across A different view's views after I hit approve -- shadowkat, 11:42:11 06/28/02 Fri
Pesky lawyers. ;-)
Yep, I've been to law school. Passed the bar - Kansas, so inactive in NY, where I live. Been working in rights
and permissions for five years, but not really as a lawyer
more in a business capacity. That said - copyright law
continues to give me a headache. It seems so pesky and
unruly at times.
You should see some of the arguements on my copyright
listserve. They've been arguing about what you can
and can't do on the internet for five years. ugh.
[> [> Re: Is Fox going after Buffy Cross and Stake? Simply put: no -- aliera, 10:57:08 06/28/02 Fri
I think it's also possible that someone was trying to warn you all and or raise support for Michelle...I don't know when the email came in but last night was pretty emotional and today people are still very concerned.
I'm not disagreeing with you -you know this board much much better than I; but there was discussion of this last night.
[> [> [> My paranoia -- d'Herblay, 13:25:51 06/28/02 Fri
Sometimes I'm paranoid for the hell of it. Sometimes I'm paranoid for the fun of it. Sometimes, though, I can back up my paranoia with HTML. Last summer, FOX shut down Rayne's shooting script site and another fansite, and it appeared that they were going on a rampage. (We had a similar panicked discussion then too. Lots of good advice there still holds.) It later came out that one webmaster, who wanted to make his site the "official unofficial" Buffy fansite was reporting violations to FOX -- violations that without the notification, FOX would have ignored. And when this failed to clear out the market for him, he began sending out fake cease and desist letters on his own.
Now, I cannot recall who that webmaster was (I've given you all the links that turned up in my Google search), but I know that in the late winter and spring we were frequently visited by someone who was the webmaster of a new site which wanted to be the premier repository of shooting scripts and transcripts, and who cried holy hell whenever someone would post a link to Psyche's site. On his own solipsistic message board, posts have been made criticisizing C&S and us specifically. The post that was supposedly made by Michelle thanking him for the great spoilers which she would immediately use on her site has been deleted. "vhD's" posts are still there, though.
[> [> [> [> Re: My paranoia -- Masq, 14:03:05 06/28/02 Fri
"It later came out that one webmaster, who wanted to make his site the "official unofficial" Buffy fansite was reporting violations to FOX -- violations that without the notification, FOX would have ignored. And when this failed to clear out the market for him, he began sending out fake cease and desist letters on his own."
That is just so low. As a fellow webmaster, all I have to say to this guy is "If you want to compete in the fan site business, find a damned niche and do your best with its content!"
[> [> [> [> [> Agree very low -- shadowkat, 19:14:37 06/28/02 Fri
All I can say is karma has a way of hitting you in the butt.
Hope he got it.
That is low and I remember reading about that when I started surfing for Buffy stuff this fall. Pysche and others were discussing someone who was notifying fox about
sites that had OMWF songs on them. Ugh.
D'H is right, and so are the articles. Fox is obligated to send Cease and Desist if brought to their attention.
As a copyright person who does this as well - I can tell you, I do not have the time nor the energy or inclination to go hunting down websites to see if my company's content is on them. So we ignore most of it. But - if some customer or employee brings them to our attention? I have to send a notice. If you know about it and ignore it - then legally you are okaying it and that is a big no-no. It means you can't sue later or sue someone else who is even worse.
Yes - the person who is notifying them is your enemy more than Fox is. I'd agree to that.
[> [> [> [> I hope it was vhD cursing them up one side and down the other -- Masq : ), 14:05:16 06/28/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> I understand -- aliera, 14:21:00 06/28/02 Fri
remember... I'm the non-confrontational one and be gentle.
It might have happened that way this time too; but really isn't necessary that it was personally directed by this party. Joss has mention AICN by name so they're already aware. I suspect this has more to due with the magazine articles and the interview Michelle gave, the quote games, the Leoff link, and the comprehensive spoilers...all the main plot points were spoiled. I don't ever remember seeing that before.
Appreciate your post. I'm working my way back through the archives; but I'm not to that point yet.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I understand -- shadowkat, 19:33:01 06/28/02 Fri
"It might have happened that way this time too; but really isn't necessary that it was personally directed by this party. Joss has mention AICN by name so they're already aware. I suspect this has more to due with the magazine articles and the interview Michelle gave, the quote games, the Leoff link, and the comprehensive spoilers...all the main plot points were spoiled. I don't ever remember seeing that before."
Actually I think you're right. That interview made me wonder as well. Herc, Wanda and Michelle got way too cocky.
I mean I'd seen spoilers from last year but not in the amount of detail they went into this year. Spoilerslayer and Spoilerzone both commented on how exceptionally good this year was for spoilers - better than any other year in history of Btvs. And they both congratulated AngelX and
Herc for it. Herc also attributed his stuff to Angelx.
And everyone in Hollywood knows about AICN. I found out about it in a newspaper article and one in the Hollywood
trades.
Also If you weren't spoiled you probably don't know how much in detail they went.
B C & S was telling people details on unaired episodes at least a month before they aired. I knew three of the biggest plot points of SR in February.
And they bragged about doing this in a magazine interview.
Other sites were bragging. B C & S was bragging. All ME had to do was go to B C & S once and see what was going on.
The spoilers were in the subject lines.
Aliera's right - I'm not sure this was vhD.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Not sure who was vhD? -- d'Herblay, 20:38:01 06/28/02 Fri
I never suggested that vhD is pointing out AngelX to FOX. I suggested that the people behind TWIZ (or some other start-up looking to corner the Buffybuff eyeballs) may have either fingered AngelX or taken advantage of the situation to put a scare into Masq.
What I was alluding to in my mention of vhD is the fact that over at the TWIZ message board there are a few posts by "AngelX," though definitely not Michelle. There used to be one there that said something like, "The spoilers are great!!! I'm going to use them at my site!!!" A mysterious stranger named "Paracelsus" (dubdub) responded to this with "The day Michelle gets her spoilers here is the day Hell has frozen over." There are also a couple of posts signed "vampire hunter D." vhD's official position was that someone had stolen his pseudonym to post these compliments to TWIZ.
Isn't one important difference between Wanda and Michelle the fact that Wanda works for E!? (I'm a spoilerphobe so I'm a little unclear on this whole thing.) And that not only is Wanda more likely to tease than to reveal, but she has the legal department of whoever owns E! behind her? So far I've come up with AOL-Time Warner owning 7.5%, AT&T owning 40%, and Disney owning another 40% of E!. These are big boys compared to AngelX and, for that matter, to FOX. (Continuing my search down the list here, Liberty Media owns another 10%. I guess I should try to find that remaining two-and-a-half percent. Can't find it.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not sure who was vhD? (spoilers for 6) -- shadowkat, 08:37:22 06/29/02 Sat
"Isn't one important difference between Wanda and Michelle the fact that Wanda works for E!? (I'm a spoilerphobe so I'm a little unclear on this whole thing.) And that not only is Wanda more likely to tease than to reveal, but she has the legal department of whoever owns E! behind her?"
Two things:
1. Wanda is a journalist. So she has the journalist defense.
The fact she works for E is part of that.
and most important?
2. She doesn't reveal anything, just teases and as "a different view" stated, spoiler teases aren't a violation of copyright. Nor are mentioning spoilers. Posting scripted dialogue and action sequences as well as photos are.
Wanda didn't quote anyone or post actual dialogue or photos.
Her legal team wouldn't have let her.
Here's the difference:
viewer: Can you give us a better clue than fourth one's the charm?
Wanda: well how about multiple choice: a. Tara. b. Xander. c. Anya. d. Spike/
AngelX: I got this from the script and it shows what happens...
See the difference?
Another example;
Wanda: Spike asks for an order of fish it rhymes with a Korean town.
AngleX: here's the scene from Grave at the end...
See?
Who owns E! and the legal team isn't the reason they went after Michelle. It's how she posted it. She posted copyrighted material on her site without permission of the copyright holder. Wanda didn't. That's the most important
and relevant difference. All the other differences? Not all that relevant. They would only be relevant if Wanda posted or quoted copyrighted material which she won't do, because that legal team that you mention? They wouldn't let her.
Everything that goes through that site probably goes past legal first. If it doesn't, it means they trust her and if she breaks that trust? She's fired. I've seen companies fire
journalists for a lot less.
Oh I don't think Twiz did this. I think Fox figured it out on their own...wasn't hard considering the people who started screaming at the writers on Bronze Beta before the episode aired.
[> [> [> [> [> [> US Mail vs Email and some questions -- Dochawk, 02:14:18 06/29/02 Sat
Shadow, my understanding is that Michelle got the letter via US Mail at home, I assume that it was on official letterhead. An email like that wouldn't you just ignore? Would you send a cease and desist letter by email? And would her carrier supply her home address to someone who demands it only by email? if it was a setup, the people doing it, would have to have a different level of machination than vhD or Twiz has shown.
And Shadow? Would Michelle be able to claim she is a journalist and protect her source or would she be forced to reveal him/her if she was forced to give a deposition?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: US Mail vs Email and some questions -- shadowkat, 08:19:40 06/29/02 Sat
"Shadow, my understanding is that Michelle got the letter via US Mail at home, I assume that it was on official letterhead."
That means not a hoax and she should definitely take it seriously.
"An email like that wouldn't you just ignore? Would you send a cease and desist letter by email? "
I've sent at least four by email - they are usually polite and let the carrier know that the next one will come from an attorney. You really don't want one from an attorney.
"And would her carrier supply her home address to someone who demands it only by email?"
No they wouldn't. They were probably contacted directly.
I don't believe this was a set up - for reasons discussed below with aliera.
"And Shadow? Would Michelle be able to claim she is a journalist and protect her source or would she be forced to reveal him/her if she was forced to give a deposition?"
Doc, will try to answer to the best of my knowledge...okay? To the best of my knowledge: Yes Michelle would be forced to reveal her source in a deposition. And no, she can't use the journalist defense. I've been on her site and there is no evidence showing she is a journalist nor does the site proclaim journalistic intent. Yes she could be forced to reveal her source and they could fine her for not doing so. The journalistic confidentiality clause does not protect her in this case.
Now, I haven't looked into this stuff in a very long time.
Nor have I had personal experience with a case like this.
From my foggy brain and your dating me at least five years here - I remember that the journalist defense is very limited and won't protect sources in all cases. And unless Michelle can prove that the site she runs is journalistic - ie. provides reviews of shows, interviews with actors - something like salon.com or Wanda...nope. Wanda would be able to prove that defense. Herc has an outside chance - but it's real slim. Tensie couldn't. Nor could the kitten board. Succubus club? Probably could. AngelX? As far as I know? Nope. I hope she has a good attorney who knows copyright law. That's my advice to her. If she's on a college campus with a law school? She should try there.
Oh - If you are concerned about these issues for personal or business reasons, don't rely on my or "different view's" advice, seek legal counsel. Neither one of us are practicing attorneys or copyright law attorneys. I work in copyright law, yes and know quite a bit about business practicalities. But I am not familar with all the case law on it. So...I could be overlooking something.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Succubus Club -- Rufus, 20:49:56 06/29/02 Sat
Even though Kitty and Candy are just regular gals, they are talking to the writers in person and the transcripts from those shows would be theirs, as there would be at the least implied permission to reproduce the interviews by the writers being on the show in the first place. Where AngelX may have goofed last year was in her quote game where she would have people guess which line of dialogue came from what character. She would have been better off saying the basic outcome of a storyline without using script quotes.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What journalistic defense? -- Valhalla, 00:52:08 06/30/02 Sun
Hmm.. been a long time since law school, but I don't remember any cases (const. or otherwise) or statutes protecting journalists from revealing their sources. It may have changed, but it certainly didn't used to be part of the FRE. Obviously most states protect medical confidences, and confessions to clergy (if part of confession, not all communications), and the martial exceptions, etc., etc. Can someone point me to a concrete legal source?
I know they show journalists protecting their sources on TV all the time, but I really think it's just dramatic fiction.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What journalistic defense? -- shadowkat, 13:32:09 06/30/02 Sun
"I know they show journalists protecting their sources on TV all the time, but I really think it's just dramatic fiction."
Correct - it really is just dramatic fiction. I've seen some cases where it worked, but very long ago and can't remember - and it wasn't a journalist defense so much as:
1. First Amendment Right
2. Fifth Amendment
Both arose during the McArthy and blacklist, but note that the parties that refused to talk served jail time for contempt.
Occassionally you can use it to protect your source from
getting hurt - this was Deep Throat during Watergate.
But again this isn't criminal hearings or civil, this is
Senate Hearings - big difference.
In most cases - if you attempt to use that - you go to jail for contempt. But it's been a while since I did law school as well and I haven't really studied defenses recently, so I could be wrong.
for info on law try www.nolo.com and for copyright?
www.copyright.com (I think that's the site.)
Rufus is right about Succubus club - they own that stuff.
AngelX's mistake was posting script dialogue, photos, and other copyrighted info she did not own which spoiled the
show.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> In defense of vhD -- LadyStarlight, 10:57:19 06/29/02 Sat
if it was a setup, the people doing it, would have to have a different level of machination than vhD or Twiz has shown.
This is just a personal opinion, but I really do not think that 'our' vhD would do something like that. If you're talking about the 'vhD' who posted at Michelle's board, fine. Otherwise, I stand by my opinion.
[> [> Well except for two or three snarky comments... -- Masq, 11:17:17 06/28/02 Fri
I have never done "critical" analyses on the ATPoBtVS site. In other words, I do not pass judgment on what appears in btvs and ats episodes (even though I wrote some analyses gritting my teeth!). My site is, if anything, an apologist site. I try to fill up plot holes.
People who link to my site often lump it in with critical analysis because there aren't a lot of category names for more objective analyses, analyses that explain and report rather than "review".
Or maybe I'm just committing a fallacy here running together the meanings of "criticism" and "critical analysis" : )
[> [> [> You are and you do -- d'Herblay, 12:34:49 06/28/02 Fri
I never meant to suggest that you were "reviewing" episodes of Buffy and Angel. I was using "critical" in the same sense that gives us "literary criticism" (though your criticism is more "metaphysical" than "literary"). In any case, it all harkens back to the roots of critical in the Greek for "to separate; to discern."
Balcony scene versus bathroom scene? -- abt, 09:17:15 06/28/02 Fri
I'm considering the possibility that what Spike said to Buffy during the balcony scene in Dead Things is far less forgiveable than what Spike did/tried to do in the bathroom scene in Seeing Red.
I don't blame Spike for the killing and being evil. Without a soul, there's no choice. But it might be possible that he can be accountable to some degree for hurting the one he loves, the one he doesn't want to hurt.
Having said that, I can be quite forgiving of the bathroom scene. I can look at it like this: Spike didn't go in there to attack her. It was never his intention to hurt her, but to bring out the feelings for him she admits that she has, the response that she had when they had sex. He believes she's perfectly capable of stopping him if she doesn't want it. It's an attempt to fix things, with an lack of understanding that this is exactly what can't be fixed through force. The use of force is what is so wrong. When he realises what he did/nearly did, he's not happy about it.
I don't know if there's any way to look at the balcony scene in such a forgiving light. Here, Spike seems fully in control of himself, and he appears to know exactly what he is doing, and that's trying to separate Buffy from her friends. Spike has said himself that they are her ties to the world, and here he is trying to break those ties. He knows full well how much she needs her friends, so I don't really think he genuinely believes she'd be better off with him.
This seems less forgiveable.
(Both episodes are by Steve DeKnight IIRC)
[> Re: Balcony scene versus bathroom scene? -- Purple Tulip, 10:24:19 06/28/02 Fri
Maybe not. Maybe Spike truly knows that Buffy would not be better off with him instead of her friends, but he's just so much in love with her that he wants her to feel the all-consuming passion that he feels. I think that Spike was just so desperate for any kind of emotion from her that he kept on "taking advantage of her", knowing that it would result in one of two ways: 1. violence 2.sex, both of which he craved from her. But more importantly, with the balcony scene, Spike did what he did because he kenw that she would let him. I think that deep down he would have liked to have been able to reach her another way, but he knew that he had to take what he could get. And also with that scene, Buffy could have stopped him any time she wanted to. She said no but never really meant it, and Spike knew it because that's what she had done in the past: said no and meant yes. In the bathroom scene, Spike was crazed, yes, at the end of his rope, yes, but I agree that he didn't go in there with the intention of hurting her. I think that he was desperate and was going to try and reach her the way that he had in the past, and when she said no this time, and meant it, he was thrown off because in the past it had always meant yes. I hate to be a Buffy-basher and say that she's to blame for what happened because of the way she used Spike, and say that Spike is the wronged party here. Both are equally to blame for what happened because neither treated the other fairly and both wanted something completely different from the other. I think the real culprit here is a lack of communication and the ability to talk to each other like rational adults.
[> [> Re: Balcony scene versus bathroom scene? -- Ruth, 10:40:54 06/28/02 Fri
Well it was suggessted in Normal Again that Spike honestly believed what he was saying in the balcony scene and was not just trying to manipulate and hurt her. He says "I've figured out it's the misery, not the darkness that attracts you" in NA and goes on to say Buffy would be happier if she either discaded him and stayed with her friends or if she left her friends behind and joined Spike in the dark. So it wasn't just a question of him trying to seduce her into the darkness but actually believing it was what she wanted and would make her happy. It is suggessted in NA that is his real concern.
He did come across as sinister in the balcony scene but all he was really doing was saying that she was a slayer and didn't belong in the real world with friends. Didn't Giles do a similiar thing in Welcome To The Hellmouth when he tells Buffy she is not a normal girl on the very same balcony depressing her.
I always saw the attempted rape scene as evidence of Spike suffering a long overdue breakdown. His rant to Clem afterwards was very similiar to Dru's madness backing up that theory. In Entropy we see him having lost his snarkiness and not even bothering to defend himself with Xander. He came across as suicidal and even his admission to sleeping with Buffy wasn't admitted with his usual relish. He just seemed defeated and beaten. So I assumed in Seeing Red he wans't thinking clearly and believed Buffy was attracted to him. In the balcony scene she said no and then allowed him to carry on. And in the morning after in Wrecked she said no and then threw her head back in pleasure. I am not excusing Spike's actions, just saying that I perceived he was having a breakdown and honestly believed Buffy was physically attracted. If he was in his right mind he wouldn't have attempted to rape the slayer knowing she is stronger than him. All JMHO of course.
[> [> [> Re: Balcony scene versus bathroom scene? -- abt, 11:07:48 06/28/02 Fri
That's a good point, in Normal Again it seems Spike did honestly believe she'd be happier if she'd just stop fence sitting, naturally he wanted her on his side, but either way she'd be better off. As if he'd like her dark, but he doesn't want her miserable.
That would indicate he wouldn't have said those things on the balcony if he'd known back then that it was about misery for Buffy, not darkness.
So maybe it is forgiveable after all, if he wanted her happy.
(I don't blame him for the darkness aspect, because he is soulless. Here I'm only judging on the way he treated the one he loves.)
[> [> [> [> Re: Just wanted to add... -- Ruth, 11:18:27 06/28/02 Fri
In Hell's Bell's Spike actually tells Buffy it's good to see her happpy even if it involves her friends rather than him.
[> "Without a soul, there's no choice..." -- ZachsMind, 10:45:32 06/28/02 Fri
Actually there is a choice. Whistler claimed to be a demon, but he was doing what he could to serve humanity and "maintain a balance between good and evil" when he asked Angel to help Buffy. Clem gives no indications of having a soul, but he also gives no indications of having an evil bone in his body. Well, okay there's the fact he likes to eat kittens, but I'm a dog lover so I don't personally see the idea of killing and eating kittens as something evil. My point is, demons don't HAVE to be bad. Human beings are (in Whedon's world anyway) naturally apt to commit good actions, but are also easily swayed to doing evil. Demons are naturally apt to commit evil actions, but can be easily swayed to do good.
I look at the bathroom scene a little differently. The violence that happened was perhaps inevitable. Spike's tried everything from force to pleading to be a part of Buffy's life. The violence was an act of desperation. What I personally find unforgivable was his intrusion into the bathroom. In my experience, the last place a woman wants a male to seduce or accost or in some cases even talk to is in the bathroom. The bathroom is like sacred ground for a woman. Some wives & husbands may feel comfortable in the bathroom together, but unless the woman initiates an interest while in the bathroom, or invites the guy to come in, a gentleman should assume the bathroom is completely off limits. Spike blew it the second he snuck into the bathroom. Soul or no soul, he could have chosen any other place for that altercation. Even without a soul, he had a choice. He chose wrong.
The balcony scene is also unforgivable but understandable. He wants Buffy all to himself. He has this belief that he is "love's bitch" and is quite the extremist. This is largely due to Drusilla, who pretty much spoiled Spike when they were together. Dru herself has admitted that vampires can love, but they just don't love smartly. Dru & Spike's relationship was an all-consuming thing. Spike wants that from Buffy, and she can't provide it. She can't just drop everything to be his everything.
Spike wanting Buffy is like some chauvinist wanting a career woman to drop her job and stop seeing her friends and just serve him all the time. This is the 21st century. It's not that Spike is potentially evil or potentially good, he just needs to grow the hell up.
[> [> Re: "Without a soul, there's no choice..." -- shadowkat, 12:24:44 06/28/02 Fri
Can you tell I don't want to work today?? Okay I agree with you on everything but the whole soul thing - on the fence with this one.
"Actually there is a choice. Whistler claimed to be a demon, but he was doing what he could to serve humanity and "maintain a balance between good and evil" when he asked Angel to help Buffy. Clem gives no indications of having a soul, but he also gives no indications of having an evil bone in his body. Well, okay there's the fact he likes to eat kittens, but I'm a dog lover so I don't personally see the idea of killing and eating kittens as something evil. My point is, demons don't HAVE to be bad. Human beings are (in Whedon's world anyway) naturally apt to commit good actions, but are also easily swayed to doing evil. Demons are naturally apt to commit evil actions, but can be easily swayed to do good."
How do we know that Whistler, Clem, and Lorne don't have
souls? ME hasn't told us. OR did I miss that piece of dialogue? Possible.
Assuming they don't - ME has established there are neutral demons, who veer towards good in both Btvs and Ats.
But and they appear to be unmoveable and incredibly consistent on this point: Vampires without souls are evil. They are vicious and veer towards evil. If given a choice, it is more likely they will veer towards evil. Vampires also equal their metaphor for Arrested Development...which I find incredibly interesting. Sort of wicked peter pans.
The confusion I have with ME and the whole Vampires are
evil without souls thesis is : 1. Spike (why did he choose a soul if this is the case???) 2. Sort of messes with the
metaphor for arrested development and needing to grow
up. What are you saying ME? That all adolescents are
evil? Or only those that won't grow up, ie vampires?
3.Finally they are trying for two metaphors here and I don't think they got away with it: arrested development demon and the lust demon. Do one or the other...already.
All in all - not a bad depiction of a 20 something woman's relationship with a sexy dark hoodlum who needs to grow up.
[> [> [> Demons & souls... -- ZachsMind, 14:27:36 06/28/02 Fri
The BuffyVerse is a bit unclear regarding what's a soul. It's sometimes referred to a life force of an individual being. That being the case, all living things have souls, demon & human alike. However, vampires are supposedly humans without souls but with something demonic controlling them. The mind & body of a recently turned vampire thinks he's the same person he was before the turning, but his soul is gone so he's most decidedly not. So a "soul" isn't a general term just for lifeforce. That's misleading.
At other times the word "soul" means the moral conscience of a being, which most vampires definitely don't have. However, Spike's appeared to have somehow grown a conscience since he got that chip put in his head. It's working like Pavlovian psychology, punishing him for doing bad until he learns to do good.
Demons in the BuffyVerse have spirits similar to souls. Each demon has a lifeforce, but most appear to have no conscience. It would be more accurate for the writers of Buffy to explain that all living things have souls, but demons have demon souls & humans have human souls. When a vampire is turned, they do lose their human soul but a demon soul takes its place. An undead creature without a demon soul or a human soul is just a mindless zombie. Whedon seems to be encouraging the idea that humans & demons are not black & white. It's more of a spectrum. Some demons can choose to do good and some humans do choose to do evil. Each entity is a different story, and it's not all cut & dried.
[> [> [> [> Agree -- shadowkat, 18:29:04 06/28/02 Fri
"Whedon seems to be encouraging the idea that humans & demons are not black & white. It's more of a spectrum. Some demons can choose to do good and some humans do choose to do evil. Each entity is a different story, and it's not all cut & dried."
Agree. But I think that Vampires still far further towards the evil end of the spectrum, according to what they've told us so far. Outside of ensouled Angel and chipped Spike and Darla pregnant, haven't seen evidence stating otherwise.
If Vampires aren't swung towards evil - Buffy might be wrong in killing them when they jump out of the grave.
Don't know. Was arguing your point just a month ago. Now I appear to be arguing in the opposite direction. This Devil
Advocate thing is confusing me. ;-)
[> Re: Balcony scene versus bathroom scene? -- shadowkat, 12:14:06 06/28/02 Fri
"I don't know if there's any way to look at the balcony scene in such a forgiving light. Here, Spike seems fully in control of himself, and he appears to know exactly what he is doing, and that's trying to separate Buffy from her friends. Spike has said himself that they are her ties to the world, and here he is trying to break those ties. He knows full well how much she needs her friends, so I don't really think he genuinely believes she'd be better off with him. "
Disagree. A lot has happened since FFL. In Afterlife, he
finds out that her friends brought her back - tore her from heaven and she's miserable. She is spending more time with him less with them. And in the Gift? Her friends and her ties to them is why she died. She jumped off that tower to save them. So I think he probably threw that idea out.
I think you need to brace what he said in FFL against these later episodes.
He believes if she's with him, it will be enough, she'll be happy. She has supported this belief - by more or less telling him the only time she feels anything at all is with him. "I know this isn't real - but I just want to feel" she
tells him in OMWF. And Giles leaves in TR - another tie broken. She seems adrift to him.
If I was Spike, I would have thrown the whole friends, Mom, sis keep you alive theory out the moment she died in The Gift. And sure they bring her back - but they do it in a fashion in which she's miserable.
Another thing to remember - in FFL he believed she was above him in some ways. In Dead Things, he believes she came back wrong, is part demon? Or just another resurrected Dead Thing. That's why he says what he does in
Smashed -"There's nothing wrong with me, there's something wrong with her." If he didn't think there was something wrong with her - I seriously wonder if what happened at the end of Smashed would have? He may have backed off again.
Another thing to remember - this guy is a demon, he tends to move to an evil compass. So if given a choice, he will in most cases pick the evil/selfish relationship thing to do. It is really unusual when he doesn't. HE wants her to be happy, he loves her. But he honestly believes she's happiest with him, part of that is wishful thinking, but she does to some extent reaffirm it by her actions - going to him, sleeping with him. He knows that she enjoys herself in his arms and he knows that she wants him. He does not understand why she denies herself - that is beyond him, he needs a soul to get that.
Yes, the Bronze scene is very disturbing. But Spike doesn't see it as hurting her. He sees her friends as hurting her.
Her friends as hurting "them". If she separated from them, they would be together ...that's how he sees it.
How would you feel if your boyfriend or girlfriend's friends didn't approve of you? Made it clear it was either them or you? And you honestly believed you were better for them (you might not be) - what would you do? (Maybe not something as bad as Spike, you have a soul and are a good person...but what if you weren't?)
Just food for thought.
[> [> Re: Balcony scene versus bathroom scene? -- abt, 12:27:02 06/28/02 Fri
Those are very good points about it being her friends that she died for, her friends that brought her back to misery. I hadn't thought of that. She was already separate from them.
It's interesting in the OMWF lineup that Buffy is on the end, holding Spike's hand. He can be viewed either as an obstruction or as a link.
I'm now starting to view the balcony scene more like the bathroom scene, another misinformed/misguided Spike attempt to fix things and make Buffy happy.
[> Re: Balcony scene versus bathroom scene? -- Jade, 14:12:08 06/28/02 Fri
No, I see what you mean. Trying to rape someone is totally forgiveable.
[> But she was wearing a short skirt, your honor. And the twinky made me do it!! :p -- Majin Gojira, 17:04:29 06/28/02 Fri
How The Slayer Thing Works... -- ZachsMind, 10:17:59 06/28/02 Fri
Someone asked questions about slaying in an earlier thread. Much of this is explained in ATPoBtVS itself, but it's scattered all over the place in the website. Here's an attempt to explain it in detail. Please feel free to correct and improve upon this document.
**Before The Dawn of Time**
At some point in pre human history, when "The Old Ones" no longer controlled the Earth, there was an unnamed village that found itself being overrun by the earliest vampires. The clerics of that village called upon The Powers That Be and found a way to instill within an innocent young girl the power to defeat the vampires. She was the First Slayer. These powers include but are not limited to inhuman strength, stamina, durability, increased self healing properties, an unnatural aptitude towards fighting skills and an instinctive ability to detect their vampiric prey in a crowd or in hiding.
Why the clerics chose to use an innocent young girl for the first slayer is uncertain, but it could have been a strategic move. The young female looks unsuspecting and an easy target, to it attracts the average vampire into foolishly attacking her. A vampire slayer is basically the equivalent of a roach motel. She lures vampires into a trap. Since the First Slayer, this tendency of future Vampire Slayers being young females has not been known to change.
When the clerics performed the ceremony that instilled these powers into the First Slayer, the vague spiritual entity from which these powers stem functioned in a symbiotic relationship between the human vessel and itself. When the human vessel dies, this entity of power seeks out a similar vessel within which to continue the fight. It seeks out a human vessel that vaguely resembles that of the first slayer, but beyond that what actually controls this cycle is unknown. The chosen slayer is usually about fifteen years old and female, but there are not many other known physical similarities between the slayers of history. Until the 20th century, there was only one Slayer at a time. The Slayer spirit would rest inside its new human vessel, the Slayer would meet her Watcher, the Watcher would train her in the ways of vampire slaying, the Slayer would do her duty, and would in most all cases die an early, unnatural, violent death. At which point the spirit entity which contains the powers of the Slayer would move elsewhere on the planet to find its next vessel.
The First Slayer did not have a Watcher, but some time after the death of the First Slayer, a group of people banded together to seek out and assist future Slayers. The Watcher's Council has made it its goal throughout history to seek out these Slayers as they are called and when discovered, each Slayer is assigned a Watcher. The Watcher's Council actively seeks out potential Slayers throughout the world, educates and trains them hoping that someday the spirit of the Slayer will choose one of the potential initiates that the Watcher's Council selects. The Watchers Council has no say in where the Slayer Spirit will go next. They can only make educated guesses.
**Slayers We've Known**
Buffy was not found by the Watchers Council until after the Slayer spirit made her its vessel. Buffy was completely unaware of the transformation. Her first watcher, Merrick, sought her out in Los Angeles and had to prove to Buffy that she was indeed "The Chosen One." Soon after her realization, Buffy went to battle against vampires near her Los Angeles high school. Though she was ultimately victorious, her first Watcher died during the battle, a great deal of damage occurred to her old school, and Buffy got in trouble with the school, who blamed her for the damage. Few were aware that Buffy saved the world that night, and she was unable to convince anyone that it was not her fault. Her parents divorced, and her mother was forced to move to another city in hopes of a fresh start. This is why Buffy ended up in Sunnydale. After a year in Sunnydale, Buffy went up against The Master, who was a particularly powerful vampire. Buffy died during the confrontation, but her friend Xander managed to resusitate her, so Buffy was only dead for a moment or two.
This is apparently unprecedented. Prior to Buffy, when a Slayer died they stayed dead. Buffy came back from the dead, but she still retained all the powers of a Vampire Slayer. No one thought any more of it until the middle of the second season, when Kendra showed up claiming she was now THE Slayer.
When Kendra was called, she explained that she had been in training since she was a child. However, there was no certainty that she would be the next Slayer. Her parents believed in her destiny enough to give the guardianship of their daughter over to the Watchers Council. It is assumed that this happens all the time in some parts of the world. Apparently only in parts of the world where inalienable rights are mildly downtrodden. The Council's main headquarters is in England, but they have offices all over the world, and secret academies where potential Slayers In Waiting are trained, educated and conditioned to accept their calling. Kendra was one of these Slayers In Waiting. It is not known how accurate the Council's educated guesses about the next Slayer are.
Buffy wasn't recruited by the Council as a potential "Slayer In Waiting" because in America social interaction and individual rights work a little differently. The Slayer Spirit's choice of Buffy as the Slayer seemed to come as a surprise to The Council. She's also been uncharacteristically rebellious towards the Council, because they were never able to properly prepare or condition her to accept her destiny, as they were Kendra.
When Kendra died at the hands of Drusilla, Faith became the next Slayer. She's even more of an anomaly. She's from Boston Massachusets. She had a Watcher before arriving in Sunnydale, but a demon killed her Watcher and Faith was not able to prevent it. She ran to California in retreat, but her Watcher's murderer eventually hunted her down. With Buffy's assistance, Faith was able to avenge her first Watcher's death. Faith's second Watcher was Gwen Post, who turned out to be a powerhungry rogue Watcher, forcing Buffy to kill her when Gwen Post got hold of a powerful ancient artifact and treatened massive destruction. Faith's third Watcher was Wesley Wyndham-Price, who was a dutiful Watcher but ultimately weak and unable to control Faith's growing insensitivity towards death and her rebellious rogue tendencies. So overall the Watcher's Council has failed Faith even moreso than they did Buffy.
Since Faith's first appearance, Buffy has died and come back to life at least once. Another Slayer was not called, so it is assumed that although Buffy is a bit of an anomaly, her eventual permanent death will not bring rise to a new Slayer. When Faith dies, the Slayer spirit will then move on to another human vessel. So long as Buffy remains alive there will be two Slayers. Faith went mad and rogue and eventually had to be incarcerated in prison for her crimes against humanity. Her eventual fate is still unknown.
**Ending The Confusion**
So in summary, the Slayer Spirit that infuses itself into a young female human vessel in order to fight vampires went to Buffy and after Buffy's first death it then sought out Kendra. However, it didn't apparently leave Buffy more than a moment, before continuing to serve Buffy's needs as a Slayer. Buffy's second death did not initiate a new Slayer. The death & resurrection of a Slayer only works once per Slayer to initiate a new Slayer. When Kendra died, she was not brought back to life. Faith entered the picture and in theory when Faith dies a new Slayer will be 'born' into the world. Who that new Slayer will be is unknown.
The Watchers Council has many educated guesses, but they are unable to recruit every 15 year old female on the planet on the assumption that one of them will eventually become the next Slayer, and are only able to condition a very small percentage of potentials. It is not known what happens to a Slayer In Waiting who never actually receives her powers. Some may serve the cause of the Council in other ways, but others are probably returned to a resemblance of a normal life.
The Watchers Council should really be disbanded or put under new management or something. They pay their Watchers, but they do not offer financial stability for the Slayers. What's up wit dat? They claim to assist and serve Slayers, but they take it as a given that the Slayer will die young, and do not take proper precautions to truly prepare their Slayers. The Watchers Council claims that Slayers should keep their position secret in order to protect them, but keeping the war between humans and demons secret is actually a benefit of vampires, because knowledge is power and if all of humanity knew about the battle in a way that didn't make them think it's as hard to believe as aliens or leprechans or whatever, the battle between good and evil would dramatically change. Letting vampires and demons hide and do their damage in secret does not serve humanity at all.
[> Here's some random thoughts... -- Darby, 10:52:38 06/28/02 Fri
Was Gwendolyn Post an uncalled Slayer who became a Watcher but was never satisfied with such limited power?
If part of the Slayer essence includes a psychic link to the previous Slayers, wouldn't Kendra have recognized Buffy? I guess you could infer that the link was subconscious - she did agree to trust Buffy in ways I can't imagine her doing if she really thought Buffy was a vampire.
Would Giles ever have been assigned to check out Justine as a possible Slayer candidate? And if ASH guests on Angel, is that technically a crossover when he isn't a Buffy regular anymore?
What does the Watchers' Council really see as their role? As Joyce pointed out to Buffy about her own shortcomings, it's not like they are really trying to win this war they claim to be in. At best they're waging a holding action - in preparation for what?
A quibble - I don't have the Tales of the Slayers in front of me, but the Slayer backstory never really mentioned the PTB explicitly, right-? That's just an assumption. I still tend to think of the Powers as another faction in this (sometimes literally) many-headed underground conflict, and am expecting them to turn out to be hostilely separate from the WC. But that's my assumption.
[> [> Tales doesn't mention them. -- VR, 11:40:21 06/28/02 Fri
[> [> Re: Here's some random thoughts... -- MonkeyPants, 11:46:13 06/28/02 Fri
According to JossLore, the Slayer was created by the PTB following a plea from a group of mystics/shamans, who we can assume later evolved into a Watcher's Council, although the First Slayer did not have a Watcher.
We have already seen that the Council is not integral to the success of a Slayer, as they can ultimately only provide information, and possibly magical artifacts. Buffy proved that she didn't need their help in 'Checkpoint,' and hasn't offically been the Slayer since Graduation Day. With Faith imprisoned, the Council may try to even spring her or even kill her, in order to create a more easily controlled Slayer. Without Eliza Dushku on the show though, this story-arc might not be explored for some time.
The PTB seem to approve of Buffy being resurrected, as she has not had her powers removed - or perhaps they are simply part of her, i.e. at a molecular level she is the Slayer, unlike magic or a soul, which can be removed through magic. It is unlikely that a Slayer's power could be removed from her completely without killing her.
This therefore suggests that the Council is not loyal to the PTB, or that their relationship is purely self-implied by the Council themselves. This does not mean that Watchers are unnecessary - without Merrick or Giles Buffy wouldn't have lasted a few months, let alone seven years. Losing her Watcher at an early stage of her life as a Slayer severely damaged the confidence of Faith, even though this wasn't apparent to the group.
However, with Faith and Buffy both Watcherfree, then the Council has been rendered virtually obsolete, setting them up as a potential Little/Big Bad in Season 7 or even Season 8.
[> [> [> Re: Here's some random thoughts... -- Darby, 12:17:34 06/28/02 Fri
Can you cite a source for the "Josslore"? I and several others here have asserted that the PTB are overtly only a force (aka a plot device) on Angel, and have at best been very obliquely implied on BtVS (and most of those fuzzy cases directly involve Angel). If you can find an authoritative source (Joss certainly would be one) that actually asserts the PTB as a force on Buffy, I'd love to see it.
[> [> [> [> Re: Here's some random thoughts... -- ZachsMind, 14:14:03 06/28/02 Fri
Here's some evidence that there is a PTB of some sort both on Buffy & Angel, but you are right in saying it's less prominent in Buffy. In my opinion, the primary force of good in Buffy is Buffy herself. She is the hero after all. A notable example of Good outside Buffy's actions though is the idea of it snowing on Christmas day in California (Amends). Joss Whedon himself has been quoted as saying "the snow was good. It was hope." However he falls short of giving the credit for the snow to any particular benevolent god.
Joss Whedon likes keeping his options open.
[> [> Re: Here's some random thoughts... -- ZachsMind, 14:00:50 06/28/02 Fri
The psychic link between slayers seems to only kick in, in their dreams. It may also have a subtle conscious function which would explain why Buffy & Kendra didn't completely annihilate one another when they first met. However, I've always attributed that to the fact that though Kendra talked a good game, she really was inexperienced and lacked self-esteem. She was a follower, not a leader. Buffy took the upper hand with her almost every time they spoke. In fact I doubt Kendra really had an accent. I think she affected the accent in an attempt to impress people, but she didn't seem to be very sure of herself and put up a lot of barriers socially. At least that would explain a lot of things.
It's never established how Post came into the Council, only that she was allegedly removed two years before for using dark magic. The Council claims they sent Giles a memo about her removal. However, I've always suspected that Post was operating in an official or unofficial capacity to get that glove at all costs. Not to destroy it. The Council wanted that glove. When she got so close to it, the temptation to wield it herself was too great. When she failed in her mission, the Council disavowed her. I'm not saying all of the Council is evil, but there's definitely a conspiracy of some sort. I agree, the Council never seems to be interested in actually winning this war against evil. They seem to prefer maintaining a balance in order to perpetuate their own existence. "At best they're waging a holding action - in preparation for what?" Personally I'm hoping that's what gets explored in Season Seven. I want the Big Bad to be the Watcher's Council.
DRACULA: All those years fighting us. Your power so near to our own, and you've never once wanted to know what it is that we fight for? Never even a taste?
BUFFY: If I drink that-
DRACULA: I have not drunk enough for you to change. You must be near death to become one of us. And that comes only when you plead for it.
BUFFY: I'm not hungry.
DRACULA: No. Your craving goes deeper than that. You think you know. What you are. What's to come. You haven't even begun. Find it. The darkness. Find your true nature.
As for the whole PTB/Slayer thing, I agree they never established in the series that the powers of the Slayer come from "God" or whatever force of ultimate goodness the "Power(s) That Be" is in Joss Whedon's BuffyVerse. In fact, it's insinuated in some episodes ("Prophecy Girl," "Restless," "Before Dawn/Buffy vs Dracula") that the unknown spirit thingy that gives Buffy her powers is actually a force of evil that's somehow been commandeered by good to operate as the Slayer. It could be that the elusive force is actually demonic in origin. Perhaps one of the vampire's demon souls which attacked the village in the first place. There's a great deal of mystery to what Buffy actually is. She's not human. She's not a vampire. She's not a demon. However, the power that makes her a Slayer is dark and dangerous. Since it's rare that a slayer actually sticks around as long as Buffy has, it's possible that several years of exposure could eventually leave Buffy's soul darker than Dark Willow.
[> Re: How The Slayer Thing Works... -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:14:29 06/28/02 Fri
Actually, there is a physical similarity:
The Slayers are very hot.
OK, the First wasn't, but she might have been by the standards of the society she lived in.
I think the Watchers don't tell the public about the demonic world because they remember the Middle Ages and earlier times when everybody believed in monsters. The superstition often led to atrocities of human against human (take a look at Gingerbread. The Demon enhanced the townsfolk's emotiongs so that the effects would get greater more quickly, but similar things could happen if the truth got out).
[> [> Re: How The Slayer Thing Works... -- MonkeyPants, 13:52:10 06/28/02 Fri
Remember though, in 'Gingerbread' the concept of a Slayer was exposed, as was the supernatural goings on in the town. Similarly, the students of Sunnydale High recognised Buffy for her work as the Slayer in 'The Prom.' Taking account other examples, it seems that many people simply repress the memory of vampires or demons or supernatural force, as their brains search and locate a logical answer - remember Snyder's explanations in Seasons 1 - 3.
The same could be applied to other parts of the world, and even if the Council did try and make their work public, it would probably receive the same amount of ridicule as any conspiracy theory seen in the tabloids. Other examples of repression or denial would be Joyce Summers in Season 1 - 2. and Giles' girlfriend Olivia in Season 4. To this extent, the secrecy under which the Scooby Gang and Angel Investigations operate would almost certainly continue.
[> [> [> Clouding the minds of the masses... -- ZachsMind, 14:17:15 06/28/02 Fri
In the fifth season we saw that when normal humans saw Ben change into Glory, they would forget having seen it. Is it possible there's a similar clouding of the minds of humanity when it comes to fighting evils like demons and vampires? Is it that some people are more immune to this repression of thought & memory but most humans are destined to never remember or understand?
[> [> [> [> In Steven King's _It_ -- Arethusa, 15:52:33 06/28/02 Fri
a monster living in the sewers of a small town clouds the minds of all the residents so it can feed on the town's children every 30 years. Although many people in Sunnydale just seem to rationalize the mayhem away. "Gangs on PCP" "Gas Leak" "For some reason Sunnydale property values have never been conpetitive....etc."
[> [> [> [> [> Re: In Steven King's _It_ -- O'Cailleagh, 17:20:04 06/28/02 Fri
I've always thought the whole repressed Sunnydalians thing was very reminiscent of Stephen Kings books. A number of them are set in a town near to the town It was set in (Derry?), and it was almost a running joke that no-one except the heroes of the story ever noticed the strange goings on. (For those of you who haven't read any!)
As to the origins of the Slayer, look out for part three of my metaphysics essay, 'The Slayer and The Key'. (I know its late, I'll have it posted by Monday!)
[> [> [> [> It's the mystic energy from the Hellmouth....:) -- zargon, 16:28:41 06/28/02 Fri
[> [> Also, evil/vengeful humans could create more demons (NT) -- Caesar Augustus, 19:50:12 06/28/02 Fri
Was Spike's Soul Restored in "Seeing Red," not "Grave"? -- cjl, 12:09:24 06/28/02 Fri
We've been arguing for days now about the JE and JM interviews, about how Marsters was slightly misdirected about chip v. soul, and the relative strengths and weaknesses of Spike's trials (in terms of on-screen believability and drama). But I'd like to discuss exactly when Spike got his soul back. Did the Lurker Demon do the job with his Macy's 4th of July light show at the end of "Grave," or was the real transformation three episodes earlier?
In discussing the trials, I offhandedly said that Spike's guilt over the attempted rape in "Seeing Red" was unprecedented. But more than that, I think it was impossible as defined by the Soul Canon. No matter how much he thought he was in love with Buffy, a soul-less vampire shouldn't have been able to feel that sort of empathy. The standard vampire motto of "want/take/have" should have been in play here; she was withholding affection, interfering with the gratification of his needs, and we had the standard demon's reaction to that frustration: burning anger. But, incredibly, we also had the human reaction of guilt. If the soul wasn't already present, then where the heck did that come from?
So was the Lurker Demon like the Wizard of Oz, merely confirming a quality that, deep down, Spike already knew he possessed? Was Lurky an agent of the PTB, making sure the transition from demon to champion went smoothly, and nothing more? Or was the Lurker put there by sinister forces in an attempt to turn Spike back to the dark path before it was too late? (And, if the latter--did he succeed?)
[> Re: Was Spike's Soul Restored in "Seeing Red," not "Grave"? -- abt, 12:14:19 06/28/02 Fri
Spike also felt guilt over not saving Buffy.
I think the soul makes one feel guilt over moral matters, matters of right and wrong, good and evil.
Spike's guilt is the guilt of letting down or hurting someone he loves, and good/evil can be irrelevant to that.
[> [> But isn't hurting someone you love a moral matter? -- cjl, 12:17:46 06/28/02 Fri
[> [> [> Possibly -- Sophist, 12:24:11 06/28/02 Fri
But in that case, Spike demonstrated that in S2. Re-watch WML, for example.
[> [> [> [> Re: Possibly -- shadowkat, 12:37:52 06/28/02 Fri
Also look at Lie to Me - when he apologizes to Dru and
also let's everyone go to protect her.
Whedon states in his description of Spike and admittedly he's walking a tightrope here and the quote isn't exact - but he says something about vampires without souls can love and will do whatever is necessary to make the person they love happy, because that's of course what you want when you love someone. But outside of that they are pointed towards evil.
Now Dru states they can love well but not wisely. If Spike had a soul - he may not have ventured in the bathroom and he would probably have understood, under Whedon's canon, why she couldn't trust him. Without the soul - he was able to feel the pain he gave her. Just as he is able to feel Anya's pain in Entropy. Empathy doesn't equal soul.
Characters without souls have been proven to not empathsize with other characters = Warren is a perfect example.
No soul means something else.
Not quite clear what...I'm hoping I'll find out next season.
But I think we can believe them when they say he got ensouled in Grave not before. That Lurker gave him what he requested a soul. Rufus proves this theory quite well in the Show and Tell thread. Until ME shows me otherwise, that's the theory I'm sticking with.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Possibly -- wina, 12:41:33 06/28/02 Fri
agree with some of the above. yesterday I read an article on SFX published inthe Uk wich neatly sums up my feelings about this season. And I truly feel that the inability of the writers to agree on what to do with Spike and other thorny isuues (sorry!) made things too uneven and at times quite frustrating.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Possibly -- shadowkat, 12:50:23 06/28/02 Fri
"And I truly feel that the inability of the writers to agree on what to do with Spike and other thorny isuues (sorry!) made things too uneven and at times quite frustrating."
Agree a little with you on this. I think they are working to remedy it. I know David Fury is no longer an Executive Producer on Buffy - moved to Firefly, possibly along with
Petrie and some other dissenters. According to some interviews on Bronze Beta and posters on B C & S - Fury was against B/S and Spike being ensouled. I think that's why he got promoted to the other show. I also think that the disagreement amongst the writers and directors resulted in several episodes seeming somewhat uneven. They were attempting something extraordinarily ambitious this past Season and that's hard to pull off under the best of circumstances - try doing it on a new network, first time producers, and disagreement over direction? I think they did pretty well considering. No one else this year came close in my humble opinion of pulling it off, actually I ended up ditching over half the US network shows b/c without exception they seemed predictable and unchallenging in comparison to Btvs and to a lesser extent Ats. But I realize this is a subjective thing...and purely my opinion. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Possibly -- wina, 14:45:22 06/28/02 Fri
Actually think they were not brave enough on a lot of areas. I enjoyed the series, I think more than a lot of people.I liked 'entropy' & 'DT' Btvs has always been great dealing with the grey areas, being tender finding the humour in serious stuff, an intelligent show.
Looking forward to more goodness in series 7.
(missed fighting scenes with the puns)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Possibly -- shadowkat, 18:19:25 06/28/02 Fri
"(missed fighting scenes with the puns)"
Me too, they had them this year, but way too few.
Most were early on in the season: Smashed, TR, All The Way.
Towards the end...well..
That said, first year went online with the series. Wrote
essays and put up a website. If it had stayed like it
was in Seasons 3 and 4...I wouldn't be here now.
[> [> [> [> I Re-watched "What's My Line" two days ago... -- cjl, 12:45:11 06/28/02 Fri
And Spike, bless his degenerate heart, was working his undead butt off trying to get Drusilla her restoration spell. He was willing to sacrifice his minions and eventually, even his (grand)sire, Angel, to get Dru back on her feet. The fact that he succeeded despite the intervention of two slayers and a falling church organ gave me renewed respect for the guy.
But still, there's no denying that his love for Drusilla, while real, is the selfish love of a vampire. The minute Angel hints that Spike isn't satisfying Dru (if you know what I mean and I think you do), Spike gets snarly, possessive and jealous, even though Angel is (yecch) ensouled and currently smooching with the (yecch) Slayer, and certainly not a real rival for Dru's affections at that moment.
When Spike betrays Dru and Angelus in Becoming II, the same principle holds. Screw what Dru wants--I'm throwing Angelus to the Slayer and I'm dragging Dru out of Sunnydale even if I have to club her half to (un)death to do it. And Dru, being a vampire herself, actually appreciates the betraying and clubbing part--it's the "dealing with the slayer" part she doesn't understand.
The guilt over not saving Buffy is still a somewhat self-indulgent romantic notion. The object of his affection is gone, and she is beatified in her absence. Dealing with the actual Buffy, as Spike and the rest of the gang discover in Season 6, is a lot tougher. And in "Seeing Red," Spike entire history of selfish love comes to a crashing halt. He is actually horrified that his own wants and desires have caused pain to someone he loves. This is extraordinary, and for Spike--and for vampires in general--unprecedented.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I Re-watched "What's My Line" two days ago... -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:59:15 06/28/02 Fri
Ah, but we saw that Spike tried very hard to make Drusilla happy. Why? Because when you love someone you're happy when they're happy, and unhappy when they are. Spike did love Buffy, and by hurting her he hurt himself. Plus, it ruined whatever vague hopes he had of getting back together with her.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Agree. -- shadowkat, 13:02:54 06/28/02 Fri
Wow...I think this a first Finn, I actually agree with you on something regarding Spike. Interesting. ;-) LOL!
[> [> [> [> [> [> But making Drusilla happy didn't run counter to any of Spike's vampiric tendencies... -- cjl, 13:07:14 06/28/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Vampiric Tendencies -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:24:42 06/28/02 Fri
Spike's feelings for Drusilla did run counter to his vampiric tendencies at one point. When he valued getting her back over destroying the world in Becoming II.
Also, if Spike had developed a soul, he would have felt guilt for all the other horrible things he has done.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> In that situation... -- cjl, 13:53:09 06/28/02 Fri
Spike would rather be Dru's consort on miserable old Earth than watch her be Angelus' in Vampire Paradise. Again, she's mine and you can't have her. (Besides, Spike thought Angel was nuts for trying to destroy the world. It would have been like blowing up your favorite restaurant.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Its Spike, don't post, don't post.. damn it I will anyway -- Dochawk, 16:30:11 06/28/02 Fri
Spike doesn;t give a damn about whether or not the world is destroyed. he just knows that he needs help against Angel and therefore the thinks of a reason to get the slayer involved. When Angel has Buffy at swordpoint and Spike passes by carrying Dru, he can save the world by attacking Angel. but he doesn't because that isn't what he cares about, he cares about Dru and that's it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Vampiric Tendencies -- aliera, 17:13:42 06/28/02 Fri
Have to agree...he's says he wants the world the way it is; but, his real motivation seems to be getting Dru back. As a side note (and maybe I'm confusing this with another Apocalyspe) but wouldn't the world have got pulled into a hell dimension on this one? After a while they all sort of start to roll together : )
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well...agree and disagree on this one -- shadowkat, 18:12:17 06/28/02 Fri
Did Spike have selfish motivations? You betcha.
Did he want the world to go to hell? Nope. Doesn't really fancy hell. I'm going to act like Spike now, just for fun: Spike to Doc: "Hey I like the bleeding world Doc. Like Manchester United. Leicester Bloody Square. The Sex Pistols. And all those happy meals on legs, people that I can eat at will. Hell? Nah...going there when I die, I expect, don't want to now. Set the Judge lose to burn everyone up - hey that's different. But sucking the world in an untold hell dimension? That's just bleeding insane. That Angelus is a couple stacks short of a full deck. Bleeding crazy vampire. Even if he wasn't boinking my Dru day and night and making me feel like a bleeding fool, i'd still want to help Buffy...Besides think what I gain if we succeed? Get rid of bleeding Angelus. Get Dru back. Get out of Sunnyhell alive. Selfish? Well yup. But I have no soul.
I ain't human. Hello Vampire? What the...bleeding heck should I care? As long as I get what I want?"
;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm sure your right shadowkat... -- aliera, 19:25:55 06/28/02 Fri
more of my foggy logic. Maybe I'll have to accept that I can't define the characters actions entirely on the basis of logic. Wouldn't it have made more sense for him to turn back and help her defeat Angelus then? I guess continuity issues really span the season or more likely there's something about this scene I'm forgetting.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm sure your right shadowkat... -- shadowkat, 19:51:24 06/28/02 Fri
"more of my foggy logic. Maybe I'll have to accept that I can't define the characters actions entirely on the basis of logic. Wouldn't it have made more sense for him to turn back and help her defeat Angelus then? I guess continuity issues really span the season or more likely there's something about this scene I'm forgetting."
Not completely off. As I said, agree and disagree and mostly with Doc. Posted under wrong one.
Actually Spike's first priority was Dru. Always Dru. Spike as soulless Vamp cares about the person he loves. And the boy's love consumes him. He had to get Dru out of there.
Angelus hadn't opened the mouth yet. As far as he knew, world was fine. Yeah he'd like it to stay the same.
But if it came between Dru and the world, keep Dru...would be hell without her either way.
Age sent me a brillant email recently which got me thinking about what a soul means and where they may be going with all this. Maybe it's like what was expressed in film Ghost in the Shell. In the film, a robot girl with a soul inside is trying to learn of reality outside herself. She meets up with an rebellious computer program that has become intelligent and in a way human. It tells her that she is limited isolated inside her shell, if they merge they become we, instead of just I, and will reproduce in the network and all be a part of the universe. Well age told me something about how we are more than simple "I" - id, super-ego or ego. We categorize, seperate ourselves out in subsets, and our morality becomes defined in almost robotic mechanized way as rules. Now I'm not sure if I totally understood her..but it got me thinking. (Dedalus by the way echoes this in a more academic way in his myth essay) If we move past "I" and think that we are a part of each other - ie. If you get hurt, I hurt, because you are a part of me, just as the ground beneath my feet is and the sky above, we are all part of each other and to hurt one another is akin to stabbing or staking ourselves. But to understand that - to all be a portion of each other, a portion of god of the collective unconscious - we need that essence which does connect us - a soul. Without a soul we are unconnected.
So when Angel gets a soul - he feels the pain of all those he hurt keenly, because he suddenly has that connection.
Warren also would feel it - but he chooses to deny it.
Chooses to remain a child, the mechanized I.
Not sure this makes sense...just rumblings in my brain.
When I figure it out more fully and understand it- I'll post something. Until then...let me know your thoughts?
Have I lost it again...;-) Do I make sense? Should I spend more time reading Campbell?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: shadowkat... -- aliera, 20:15:28 06/28/02 Fri
No no and nonlinear is good sometimes.
Campbell himself said find someone whose ideas you enjoy and then read what he has read...in other words, read what speaks to you challenges you involves you...or watch the shows movies and speak to others of like and different minds explore new and old places reach out draw in and just be. See Ded has this right; words just make the idea smaller.
Who are we? Why are we here? What can we do? The purpose the journey why? See it's too small.
I am way off topic. I've been painting baseboards while I post, must be the fumes. Signing off now, theres some pasta primavera and peasant bread with my name on it and it's been a long, full day!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just a quick correction -- Sophist, 20:40:22 06/28/02 Fri
Just listening in to this thread. But one correction:
Angel had opened Acathla at the time Spike saw him ready to kill Buffy. Spike shrugged and walked off with Dru.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just a quick correction -- Cleanthes, 21:00:00 06/28/02 Fri
Angel had opened Acathla at the time Spike saw him ready to kill Buffy. Spike shrugged and walked off with Dru.
This is true, as I enjoyed this ep today on my new DVD's. It didn't seem to me that Spike knew that Acathla had been activated. Until the swirly hole-to-hell opened, the only way to tell would be to note the absence of the sword in the statue. Angel was using the Acathla sword in the fight with Buffy, but I don't imagine that Spike thought that far along. No doubt he was glad the world didn't end, but there's no question that his only real priority was getting Dru and getting away from Angel, regardless of what dimensional reality ensued.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank, Cleanthes...that was helpful -- aliera, 09:11:11 06/29/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Makes sense ... -- Exegy, 22:18:22 06/28/02 Fri
When one adheres to the egocentric system, then one becomes a monster, limited by the very walls that are meant to protect the self. One is bounded to the self, caught in the personal labyrinth that separates ego from the Outside. There is no connection to the greater world; one turns inward, again and again, choosing the self over God (the universal consciousness) every time. One becomes the monster in one's own life, trapped in a hell of one's own making.
This principle is illustrated perfectly in The Divine Comedy. Those who reside in the deepest pits of hell are those who have chosen the self only ... and the epitome of selfishness is Satan. He would have made himself the God in his own life ... but when one chooses this path to Godhood, the God becomes a monster. So Satan exists as a twisted parody of the Triune God, rendered impotent by his very choice. He cannot escape; he is bound by his own self-imposed limitations ... condemned to the point at which only the self exists, for everything else has been denied.
I think this basic principle also applies to BtVS. We see that the monsters, by and large, are those who have chosen the self over the other. They are those who have not put off the infantile ego. For example, vampires are symbolic of arrested development, the inability to truly grow up. They are limited to an unlife; they are trapped by the image of what they once were, unable to escape the "chosen" condition of what they are now. They are bounded by this self, truly monstrous in their frozen state. Everything negative comes to the fore ... vampires exist only for their conception of themselves, turned inward against the world, humanity denied.
Spike is an odd case, because he seems to be more open to humanity. He seems more open to the world. While he is fixated upon the image of himself as "love's bitch," his very identity allows for some reciprocal attraction. To follow Dante's model of hell, Spike would be condemned to the uppermost levels. He would be among the lustful, those who seek mutual attraction with another. He would be with Paolo and Francesca, buffeted by the storms of passion.
Because he is not totally closed off to the Other, there remains a path of escape. Spike has a choice, and he chooses to change ... he chooses to cast off his egocentric limitations. He breaks from what he was to become something new; he willingly explores broader horizons. Those barriers he has been "living" with are broken down, destroyed along with his image of himself. And now true development can take place ... because he has broken free of himself.
This choice resides in all beings, but some close themselves off to the option until nothing remains but the self, frozen inward. I think this is what happens with Warren. He chooses himself until there is nothing left but the self. He limits his person until there is nothing left of him but that speck which exists in the dark wood of his empty soul ... caught, unable to escape. This is the hell of his own making, the hell that he has made by refusing to grow out of himself. He has become the monster in his own life ... his own destruction.
And the metaphor of the vampire has been stripped away ... a human has done this. A human with a soul has frozen himself into a condition not unlike the one experienced by the vampires. The message strikes home, I think, for we see that perhaps not as much distance separates the figurative from the literal as we would like.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wow...I think that's what they were going for - (season 6 spoilers) -- shadowkat, 07:59:45 06/29/02 Sat
"This choice resides in all beings, but some close themselves off to the option until nothing remains but the self, frozen inward. I think this is what happens with Warren. He chooses himself until there is nothing left but the self. He limits his person until there is nothing left of him but that speck which exists in the dark wood of his empty soul ... caught, unable to escape. This is the hell of his own making, the hell that he has made by refusing to grow out of himself. He has become the monster in his own life ... his own destruction.
And the metaphor of the vampire has been stripped away ... a human has done this. A human with a soul has frozen himself into a condition not unlike the one experienced by the vampires. The message strikes home, I think, for we see that perhaps not as much distance separates the figurative from the literal as we would like."
I think you've got it. Joss said in one of the interviews, maybe the Saturns? that in adulthood we move away from mythic metaphors and towards more literal ones. His goal in Season Six was to show that drift, to show how the old childhood or adolescence metaphors which are easier for us are stripped away and the literal ones, far harder for us to handle take their place.
That's why SR was so visceral in its violence as opposed to early Buffy episodes. And it's why the literal blended so much with the figurative in Villains.
Something else that I just realized in reading this post -
when Willow kills Warren - she extinquishes him, he becomes dust, just like the vampires that Buffy slays. Remember in Hells Bells when they kill the demon and Willow says - why doesn't he just go poof? Well that's what she did to Warren.
This reminds me of another point Age brought up to me in an email - hope Age doesn't mind me bringing this up here -
but vampires bit the female - are predators on the female staking their territory, when the female stakes the vampire she regains the power, emasculates him, makes him dust. No longer has power over her.
Willow gains enormous power by "dusting" Warren. She rapes him with a bullet, emasculates him, then stakes him - makes him go poof just as Buffy does. Willow who was up until recently portrayed as "weak" little girl, with a little girl's high wispy/squeaky voice, and never had much luck with men - they always asserted power over her - see Spike in The Initiative or even Lover's Walk? But here - in the woods - she takes on Warren. Warren whom Buffy could not defeat. And she defeats him not with the masculine phallic symbol of a stake. But with the feminine symbol of magic.
She takes back the power. And also magic traditionally is considered of the universe - but the magic Willow initially draws on comes from a dark place within her self and books and hubris and men like Rack. This magic takes her to a selfish place like Warren and like Lucifer - she sets herself up as God. God of vengeance. The patriarchial role. That is Until she takes Giles borrowed energy - which comes from the heart of all things from the universe and the earth and all the women in the coven (matriarchial). So after taking in Giles energy, she forgets about her selfish designs - vengeance on Jonathan and Andrew or fighting with Giles. Instead she thinks about the pain of the world. When she tries to destroy the world - she does it because she is now connected to everything's pain, she feels the pain of all things and it overwhelms her, she wants it to stop. The connection is almost too much. At the end of Grave - Willow is at the opposite side of the spectrum from Warren, Warren is isolated in himself in the dark woods, Willow on the bluff is part of the whole world, her power comes up from the earth itself, she is connected to all the pain - she it the opposite extreme. Except this extreme doesn't destroy her like Warren's destroys him nor does it really destroy the world, by giving her the ability to feel all things - Giles has connected her to her humanity. Her humanity is the connection to all things. The connection - is what disrupts the dark magic and allows Xander's love to reach her.
Oh another interesting thing - did you notice that when Giles returns he tells Buffy the Council (male and isolated from the world) knows nothing about what is going on - no he's not working with them, he's working with the coven
in Devon who sensed it and told him. So he's moved from the patriarch council to the matriarchial coven?
And Xander offers no weapons. Doesn't defend himself against
Willow onslaught. Just offers love from his heart with outstretched hands in front of the phallic symbol with the woman demon strapped to it?
Willow stops when she falls into Xander's arms...embraces him and they are one. We. Not I.
Just a few more long rambling thoughts to add to the discussion. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Wow...I think that's what they were going for - (season 6 spoilers) -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:03:06 06/29/02 Sat
Two points:
1) We've seen female Watchers.
2) Not all covens are matriarchal.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Wow...I think that's what they were going for - (season 6 spoilers) -- shadowkat, 09:14:06 06/29/02 Sat
You're reading me too literally.
I don't mean actual sex. I mean social structure.
Coven's have a matriarchial or maybe that's the wrong word, here's a better one - a "we" view and hierarchary. Their
view is id, ego, and superego are one. They don't just
rely on intelligence and books.
Watchers - rely on books and worship intelligence. Magic is a no-no. Very into power and phallic images - stakes. The women are buttoned up and wear glasses or hair back and faded colors. (see Checkpoint and Revelations) And the Watchers are rigid. World is black and white.
Coven is more forgiving embracing.
Watchers tried to kill Faith and would have killed Willow.
Coven wanted to heal Willow.
See the difference?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:53:22 06/29/02 Sat
Kind of an anti-masculine stance though. I'm offended! IU will sue!
[> [> [> [> [> Here's the scene I had in mind -- Sophist, 13:07:53 06/28/02 Fri
Drusilla: Spike, come dance? (holds out her hand)
Spike: (angry) Give us some peace, would you? Can't you see I'm working?
Drusilla pulls back her hand and begins to pout and whine like a puppy.
Spike: Oh, I'm sorry, kitten. (goes to her) It's just this manuscript. Supposed to hold your cure, but it reads like gibberish. E-even Dalton here, the big brain, he can't make heads or tails of it.
Drusilla puts her hand to her head.
Drusilla: I... I, I need to change Miss Edith.
She takes a few steps and then puts her other hand to her head as well, bends over and whines. Spike rushes to her, puts his arms around her and pulls her back up.
Spike: Oh, forgive me! You know I can't stand to see you like this. (sits her down and crouches) We're runnin' out of time.
Same kind of remorse for his behavior, it seemed to me. The reason I noticed it (watching WML last night) was that my initial reaction to the bathroom scene was yours: how did a vampire feel remorse for his actions? But Spike seemed to previously. Can't say I have an explanation for it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmm...puzzling. Possible explanation: -- cjl, 13:18:41 06/28/02 Fri
In both cases, the hostage situation in "Lie to Me" and the Dru-puppy scene in "What's My Line," it's an OUTSIDE threat to the health of the Love Object that provokes Spike's actions--Buffy in the first case, and Dru's debilitating illness in the second. (Spike has been Dru's consort for 100 years after all, and he'd feel lousy if that crazy Cockney lovin' was taken away from him.) In "Seeing Red," Spike realizes for the first time that HE and his actions are the threat to the Love Object.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmmm...puzzling. Possible explanation: -- Sophist, 13:59:21 06/28/02 Fri
In WML, Spike was expressing regret (remorse?) for his own action in yelling at her. Her illness was the cause of his short temper, but not (directly) of the yelling or (in any way) of the feeling which followed.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree, Sophist. -- Ixchel, 18:35:15 06/28/02 Fri
It seems to me they do this a few times in S2, Drusilla irritates Spike, he looses patience and snaps at her, she cries or looks pathetic and he is _contrite_. IMHO, this ability to feel "sorry" when he upsets her is an expression of the positive aspect of his personality.
I believe this kind of remorse doesn't conflict too much with his negative aspect because it's fleeting (he apologizes, is forgiven and, presumably, doesn't consider it again). But, his remorse over his actions in SR is intense, it can't be dispelled with an "I'm sorry" and so it affects him profoundly.
IMHO, he doesn't first feel true remorse in SR, but rather _overwhelming_ remorse, that he can't resolve or escape. I believe his remorse at failing Buffy and Dawn on the tower was very acute, but he could attempt to alleviate it by keeping his promise (protecting Dawn) and doing what he thinks Buffy would want (helping the SG). But, in SR, there is no hope of this.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I agree, Sophist. -- Sophist, 20:42:26 06/28/02 Fri
He showed similar, brief remorse/regret in HB and at the beginning of the bathroom scene.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Degrees of remorse/regret? -- Ixchel, 15:43:14 06/29/02 Sat
I agree about his regret in HB, but it's followed by more positive behavior, unlike in S2 with Drusilla (IMHO). Buffy is honest about her pain, he feels remorse at hurting her, she is then very kind (stating his "right" to be there, seemingly confirming his place in the group), he then seeks to remedy the situation by removing the offensive "date" and himself. Maybe, not only to feel better about himself, but, perhaps, to let her alone so she can be happy with her friends.
I think the the remorse about Anya is slightly different because (IMHO) he doesn't have much hope of being forgiven. So it could be an attempt to alleviate his guilt, but one with little chance of success. Of course, there are all sorts of complications involved with that apology, if Buffy's angry (her remark that it didn't take long and her glares) _and_ hurt (according to Dawn, a fairly authoritative source), what does this mean, etc.?
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I agree, Sophist. -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:11:19 06/28/02 Fri
Ah, but Drusilla always forgave him. He never gave it much thought because he could count on her forgiveness. With Buffy, being forgiven isn't as easy. I think, if Spike had shouted at Drusilla, and she didn't respond to the doting that followed, his remorse/regret would have continued. Also, he never did anything to Drusilla that was near as bad as what he did/tried to do to Buffy.
(OK, he did say he was gonna torture her, but Dru has shown a masochistic streak, she'd probably like it)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Drusilla's influence on Spike... -- Ixchel, 17:34:12 06/29/02 Sat
IMHO, Drusilla's behavior was conducive to the expression of his positive aspect up to a point, being receptive to his love and care. But, if she had been unresponsive to apologies, she, probably, would've been more responsive to eventual anger than to further remorse. So he, probably, would've reacted accordingly (expressing his negative aspect more fully). Presumably, she responded favorably to him after LW, for awhile, when he went after her and tortured her in order to have her want him back.
Drusilla seemed to want two, somewhat conflicting, behaviors from the vampire she made, a faithful and loving "knight" (and so turned William, an appropriate choice) and a consumately "evil" companion, like Angelus (so she rewarded and encouraged the slaying of Slayers). The former behavior enabled some expression of Spike's positive aspect (IMHO, unlike what Darla wanted from Angelus), but the later equally encouraged his negative aspect.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Remorse versus pampering -- Cleanthes, 21:13:12 06/28/02 Fri
I interpret Spike season two willingness to indulge Dru as an affectation. He's insincere in his apology for snapping at her; he's not really sorry. His motive for the apology is that it feeds into the game he plays with Dru - she's weak and he's her manly man protector. He loves this because it betokens ownership. It's not at all inner-directed and Dru remains an object to him.
In contrast, his 6th season remorse for having hurt Buffy stems from existentially understanding that she's the Other. He doesn't imagine he can own her and so he truly feels shame for his actions because she exists and can have thoughts outside of his control. His deeds have consequences in her control. What he wants from Buffy he cannot have if he treats her as he did Dru in `Becoming part II` where he yanked her neck 'til she passed out and then carried her off.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Remorse versus pampering -- Ixchel, 16:04:36 06/29/02 Sat
I believe I understand your position on his relationship with Drusilla, but I perceive it as more of a superficiality than insincerity. His ability to feel remorse (and other "positive" emotions) is embryonic, but static at this time, never fully actualized until (perhaps) Buffy's death and definitely after the incident in SR.
IMHO, his relationship with Buffy forced him to "grow", something his relationship with Drusilla never could.
Maybe our ideas aren't too far apart?
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Remorse versus pampering -- Cleanthes, 16:16:34 06/29/02 Sat
You're right. It's more superficiality than insincerity. He hasn't had the existential insight. He can't really be insincere with Drusilla because he doesn't have the necessary grounding.
He doesn't really "live", which is appropriate for the undead. When he sees Buffy die, then he does come to an understanding of the other, as in "hell is other people". So he can fear hell because he understands that he isn't the only standard of comprehension.
I'm with those who think that Spike already had a soul when he went, less than knowingly, in search of one. That the writing played with him wanting to have the chip removed is so very small-scale to me; it's like that nerd on the Simpson's who worries that Xena rides slightly different colored horses from scene to scene. "A wizard did it."... Bwahaha
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Soul Gain -- Ixchel, 18:52:42 06/29/02 Sat
I believe we're in agreement, we're just coming to it from different perspectives. I perceive it as more an increasing expression of his positive aspect due to the possibility of this created by the chip (a window into a world of _not_ being an "evil" thing) and (especially) his love for Buffy.
I tend to agree with Exegy that gaining the soul was an outward manifestation of change already present within, so, in a way, he _did_ have a "soul" before he actually obtained it in Africa. I also tend to agree with Rufus that he went knowingly, just angry that it was necessary. This is understandable, how galling it must've been for him to "need" a soul, to have to be "like" Angel.
Regarding the chip misdirection, I believe they could've been more subtle, but you're correct, it's ultimately (IMHO) not terribly important.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah. I think you just answered part of the quandary ... (Spoilers) -- Exegy, 14:10:30 06/28/02 Fri
"In 'Seeing Red,' Spike realizes for the first time that HE and his actions are the threat to the Love Object."
Spike's remorse centers on this specific betrayal of his love, the core upon which he has built his identity for so long. His quest for a soul arises as a direct reaction against said betrayal ... he desires to become more than the nothing he has made himself.
Spike isn't trying to atone for all his years as a violent demon. He has no such grand plan of redemption in mind. He's merely reacting against one specific incident ... that cuts right to the heart of his fixation on limited romantic ideals. This is the fixation that truly captures the essence of Spike's vampiric arrested development. I think that shadowkat mentions a difficulty in reconciling the metaphors associated with vampiredom: lust and arrested development. These metaphors are usually associated with each other, but not always. With Spike, however, we see that the two are hopelessly intertwined--his limited notions of romance were what caused him to embrace unlife in the first place. This is how he defines himself as a vampire. He is a creature driven by passion to serve the Love Object, and if he fails in this purpose ... then he is nothing. In The Gift, events were mostly out of his control. His failure could be attributed to an external source. But in SR, the failure can only rest with himself. He has done this ... he has betrayed that which he has made his identity. The limited ideals that have governed him as a vampire are destroyed, leaving Spike to remain nothing or to choose change for himself. He chooses change, and so he breaks free of his arrested development.
His quest for a soul symbolizes the desire to change; his gain of a soul indicates his dedication to such a painful change. When all is said and done, this is what Spike wants: to become someone deserving of Buffy. He will undergo radical transformation in order to obtain this goal; he needs to defeat himself in order to become someone else. Thus we have the trials of the cave. Spike's vampire self is beaten down ... he is burned as he has been burned so much by passion, he is pummeled until the Big Bad visage drops away, and finally he is excavated, cleaned of himself so that he may be reborn. Beaten free, only the desire for change remains. Such proven dedication results in a soul, the outward signifier of an internal condition.
This inner journey was undertaken so that Spike could become someone who would not harm the Love Object ... someone who would be deserving of the Love Object. But the journey may lead him somewhere far different, somewhere even he could not glimpse.
"Magick" always has consequences.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> About as satisfying an explanation as I'm going to get, Exegy. Thanks. -- cjl, 14:22:29 06/28/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're welcome! -- Exegy, 14:24:56 06/28/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent. Said what I couldn't figure out how to put in words -- shadowkat, 18:16:10 06/28/02 Fri
because I was far too busy focusing my mental energy on the legal entanglements of internet copyright law.
Yes, I can walk and chew gum at the same time, truly I can.
;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Regret/remorse Spoilers-end of Season 6 -- Arethusa, 13:26:22 06/28/02 Fri
Remorse, by definition, includes feelings of guilt. "A gnawing distress arising from a sense of guilt for past wrongs." Regret is "to be very sorry for." (Mirriam Webster). It is possible that what Spike felt was regret, not remorse. For the latter, he would need a soul. Perhaps anyone, even a Master Criminal, can feel regret for actions that had unwanted consequences. We see the externalization of Spike's thoughts and intentions (thanks, Monkeypants), but only Spike knows exactly why he did what he did. His regret and fear of losing Buffy forever could have sent him on his African quest. We'll probably see true remorse in S7.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes. Perhaps the feeling of regret... -- cjl, 13:35:47 06/28/02 Fri
Is the ultimate expression of empathy possible for a soul-less being. The next step--if the creature is willing to take it--is the leap across the chasm to acquire a soul.
OK, I'll buy that.
[> "why don't you explain it to me" -- Etrangere, 16:25:59 06/29/02 Sat
There's many things souls can be seen as, many concepts it can stand for. From Whedon's explanation, soul allow a moral compass. He never mentionned anything else. (Not identity, for exemple)
How can one feel guilt and shame without a moral compass ?
Once I theorised about the difference between souled Angel and chipped Spike that there were two kind of source for ethics : the inner morality (the soul) and the outside morality that comes from the society's rules and norms. The two interract constentantly to create one each others in reality.
Every vampires can feel shame. They feel ambition, they care for what their pair thinks of them, they want acceptation and admiration, and if they fail their ambitions and expectations, they feel ashamed. Harmony felt ashamed when she realised she had little capacity to do evil. Actually Disharmony's bounce of her ego was what set her back in the road of evil. It happens that Spike was from his chippage around people who didn't hold as admirable the same things that the vampires he was with before. That's the key to him wanting to be good for Buffy (in Crush or Smashed) not the inner kind of morality. One can interpret that as "wanting to get in her pants". It's not false, but it's not the whole truth either, as other's respect and acceptation is one of the main drive to forge one's morality for every one, humans included. Duh, Angel included. That's also why, ofcourse, he could feel ashamed for yelling at Drusilla.
What is left for the soul, the inner compass, then ? As someone else mentionned it could be to feel connected to everyone, not only the people you know, not only the people you care for, but also the people in the street. And also, that even when others (society) drives you to do evil (as they often do), to find in oneself to resist that impulse. (exemple: Jonnathan being disgusted at what Warren was doing and finally stopping Andrew)
Spike's unability to feel for the people he didn't know was made clear in Smashed, and Dead Things. he was unable to see why Buffy cared. For the first time maybe, he began to see his being a vampire not as "powerful experience" giving him supperior abilities, but as a handicap, removing something from him.
In some way, yes, he recovered his soul in Seeing Red. Symbolicaly, the soul was only the diploma rewarding his willness to get one, his trials were the whole season. But that's merely a metaphorical reading. (one which everyone might not agree with)
I see him seeking a soul not as something he would do for Buffy, but for himself. To at last be able to see, to understand why Buffy cares for them. To be able to care for her in that way which will prevent him from failing in his ambition to be good enough for her.
In some way, this is the difference, the first step in actually having a soul, because when you want to be good for yourself, for one's self-respect by difference with for the others' acceptation, you're more in the realm of an inner morality.
Because after what he did to Buffy in Seeing Red, he burned his bridges, nothing he can do can really make up for it.
So yes, you could read it as he got his soul back in Seeing Red. The actual soul is the confirmation of it, the symbol of his transformation, but also what will bring on the next trials in S8.
well IMHO, offcourse.
OT/Just found out Steve Jay Gould died May 20. R.I.P. -- LeeAnn, 18:19:57 06/28/02 Fri
Steven Jay Gould (1941-2002)
[> Re: OT/Just found out Steve Jay Gould died May 20. R.I.P. -- Darby, 20:08:08 06/28/02 Fri
The July-August issue of Natural History has a small tribute (read the end of Neil deGrasse Tyson's article for a particularly moving story), including an old column of his that is typically fascinating, even though I can't quite figure out why they would have picked that particular piece.
He was discussed here the day he died, in the May 2002 archives at thread http://www.voy.com/13746/1842941.html
or if that doesn't work, go to http://www.ivyweb.net/btvs/board/archives/may02.html
and do a page search on "Gould" (it's the second thread that comes up)
Many people here will miss him.
[> [> I know we all have AngelX in our hearts during this difficult time . . . -- d'Herblay, 20:49:22 06/28/02 Fri
But that's no reason to go to her (now archived) announcement at the Cross & Stake!
The thread Darby is referring to is here.
One of my favorite Gould/board moments was deep in response to mundus's Dawn Character Post, which he had titled "The Dawn-Haunted World." He (mundus, not Gould) and I quickly ran out of variations on Sagan titles, and so began applying Gould's titles to the Buffyverse. He wouldn't bite on Dawkins, though.
[> [> [> I think I speak for all of us when I say... -- Darby, 21:25:31 06/28/02 Fri
...Huh? Probably I'm just speaking for me.
You made me think that I had somehow put the wrong address up (I suspected that the thread bookmark wouldn't work as a cut-and-paste, which is why I put the second up with the search recommendation) and I was inadvertently sending people to AnGelX, but I don't think that's what happened. It wasn't when I rechecked my post. Is there some connection here I'm missing?
[> [> [> [> Re: I think I speak for all of us when I say... -- d'Herblay, 22:25:44 06/28/02 Fri
You wrote:He was discussed here the day he died, in the May 2002 archives at thread http://www.voy.com/13746/1842941.html
This was the address for Michelle's announcement that she had received the C&D letter. (Now the address is http://www.voy.com/13746/1/1842941.html or something like it [keep increasing the number in the middle until you get the archive page it's on], and you'll get an "invalid path" page from Voy if you paste the original address into your address bar.)
Your further instructions were a good, polite instinct, and please don't think that I didn't appreciate them; however, my polite instinct was to provide people with a direct, clickable link. The rest is just me being cheeky.
[> [> [> [> [> Geez, I feel really pathetic when I can't even cut-and-paste right -- Darby, 08:49:08 06/29/02 Sat
I'm not even sure how I got the AnGelX in my copy queue. I'd swear that's the address that came up when I went directly to the thread on Gould, but maybe I somehow popped it into the box before I "copied" it. And of course, when I checked it later and hit a dead-end, I figured it had something to do with the thread being embedded in the page (as usual, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing).
Can't drink and theorize, can't cat-and-paste (or analyze my errors) late at night, and of course no good deed goes unpunished - soon I'll have no do-able vices left...
[> [> [> [> [> [> OMG! Does Clem know about this?? -- Wisewoman, 20:27:49 06/29/02 Sat
Can't drink and theorize, can't cat-and-paste (or analyze my errors) late at night, and of course no good deed goes unpunished - soon I'll have no do-able vices left...
;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah, yeah, yeah, mock the senile... -- Darby, 06:53:28 06/30/02 Sun
The key to harnessing Dawn's good -- Caesar Augustus, 20:06:44 06/28/02 Fri
Sorry bout the really lame pun.
OK, it was once asked somewhere why the monks did not destroy the Key, but remoulded it into human form to be protected. I think I've come up with a decent theory - think of Dawn instead of breaking down barriers between Hell dimensions and Earth, breaking down a barrier between a Heaven dimension (like Buffy was in) and Earth.
Aahhhh ...
This raises an interesting little question on the side - wouldn't it be like unleashing a hell onto that heaven dimension. As we saw, Earth seemed like hell to Buffy after heaven. This all depends on what the heaven dimension is like. Presumably it contains souls with NO PHYSICAL FORM, and then if combined with earth it wouldn't matter because they wouldn't have to interact with, say, the humans, etc. They would simply stay in their content state.
The possible metaphysical side-effects for the humans on the other hand, such as ascension of all human souls on earth, would be drastically good.
I think Dawn's potential for good should really be examined. It's not like she was "used up" in The Gift. She still opens stuff, surely. It's just a matter of getting her to open the right stuff.
[> Re: The key to harnessing Dawn's good -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:39:02 06/28/02 Fri
The General of the Knights said that the Key broke down all barriers. And Giles said that every dimension would be plunged into torment. I take this to mean that the barriers seperating universes (ALL universes) would break down resulting in Chaos.
I've got my own theory why the monks didn't destroy the Key. Maybe, someday, the Key's energy is destined to be used for good. Or maybe the monks had a creed forbidding destruction of primevil energy.
[> [> Re: The key to harnessing Dawn's good -- Caesar Augustus, 22:12:56 06/28/02 Fri
Clearly the purpose of Glory was to break down ALL barriers. But that doesn't mean the key can only break down all barriers at once. Perhaps there is some way to break down a LIMITED cross-section of barriers, maybe all the barriers to heaven dimensions; or ideally just the barrier to ONE dimension.
It's hard to find of course - that's why the Monks couldn't do it straight up, but just preserved it in case they could find a way. Now that Glory's gone, there's free reign to reexplore that issue.
What's your theory BTW?
[> [> [> Re: The key to harnessing Dawn's good -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:26:43 06/28/02 Fri
I thought I said it in the first one, but, oh well:
Either destroying the Key could have consequences as Apocalyptic as using it to open all barriers, or . . .
The monks have got some creed against destroying things, including the Key, so they just transformed it.
[> [> [> [> Sorry, misunderstood you the first time -- Caesar Augustus, 00:08:14 06/29/02 Sat
It's vaguely possible that destroying the key would cause an apocalypse, but I find this very unlikely. The key is the tool to open the dimensions. Glory needs to USE the key to open them, not destroy the key, otherwise she could've just killed Dawn rather than waiting for the right time. It would seem strange to me if the destruction of something NEEDED to open portals would itself open the portals.
Also, the Knights of Byzantium have always wanted to destroy it, long before it was in human form. "The key is the link, the link must be severed ..." Their intentions were good. They weren't tryin to cause an apocalypse.
The second option is interesting, though. It kind of ties up with a yin-yang view of things. Destroying primeval energy might have metaphysical consequences and ramifications elsewhere - best not to mess with that stuff. But I think this option supports the view that the energy can perhaps be harnessed in other ways than was originally intended.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sorry, misunderstood you the first time -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:36:31 06/29/02 Sat
First, not all Apocalypses involve portals. I've gone by the theory that the Key is tied to all energy in this universe. If it were destroyed, our entire dimension just goes poof. The Knights of Byzantium might not have known this, and so tried to destroy the Key.
Granted, I also think the second possibility is more likely.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sorry, misunderstood you the first time -- LittleBit, 17:25:18 06/29/02 Sat
It was my impression during that story arc that Glory needed the Key because it would remove the barrier between our dimension and her demon dimension. That the key would also remove the barriers between ALL dimensions was a consequence/side effect that really didn't concern her. The Knights, however, had dedicated their lives to the destruction of the Key to prevent that consequence. It was the General who explained what the Key would do, and the scobby gang were appalled by the possibilities.
[> [> [> Pardon me? -- Rufus, 00:07:19 06/29/02 Sat
Clearly the purpose of Glory was to break down ALL barriers.
Glory was a god, she was there first, the key created at a later date, and no one including the monks knew why. What the monks did in moulding Dawn into human form was open up the potential of the key to live and interact as a human instead of a glowy green bit of light. The Key was created to open portals, dissolve barriers between dimensions, Dawn was created, supposedly, to be the key in human form and kept safe with the Slayer. The monks had the idea that the key could be used for the forces of light, but they never got a chance to realize that as it appears they are all dead.
Now all we have to find out is if the Key is now fully human or does Dawn still have Key potential...and does that potential extend past being spun in a lock.
[> [> [> [> Re: Pardon me? -- Caesar Augustus, 00:13:45 06/29/02 Sat
I understood the Monks' intentions as being merely to protect the Key by "moulding it into a form they knew the Slayer would protect with her life" (Spike reading from Gile's notebook). I don't think that her potential for good comes from actually being in human form.
I see no reason why Dawn would no longer have Key potential. Her blood still flows. Her blood is that very energy. Maybe we should ask her to walk near some crazies ...
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Pardon me? -- Rufus, 01:37:10 06/29/02 Sat
She may have key potential but her humanity must have some effect upon how the key can or will be used. Before Dawn was human she had no input into how she would be used, much like a plain old door key. When Dawn had lived for a few months as a human her reaction was to protect humanity when she knew the portal had been opened with her blood. I think the monks may have had more reason than simple protection when they made Dawn not only human, but part of Buffy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Dawn the Vampire Slayer? -- Caesar Augustus, 06:35:19 06/29/02 Sat
It's not as ridiculous as it sounds. And now that I think about it, why isn't she a slayer?
"The monks, they made her out of me." - Buffy, The Gift
We know Buffy is a slayer at the molecular level, since she didn't lose her powers when she, ummm, died. Twice.
Continuing your point, it seems to me that Dawn should have a natural aptitude to do good just as the human she is, let alone by means of the key energy.
[> [> [> [> Re: Pardon me? -- Rattletrap, 07:59:11 06/29/02 Sat
I like this line of thought, Ruf, and I think I'll take it a step farther.
Perhaps putting the key in human form is an example of using its power for good. The key was, we're told, "living energy." This suggests to me that not just any old energy could be converted to a living, breathing human being. In doing so, the key retained the power to break down the walls between dimensions--the monks could do nothing to change that--but, in making the key human they also gave it (her?) the opportunity to do good, positive things--to save lives, even to sacrifice herself to save the world (tho it never came to that). In its own way, then, the very fact of Dawn's existence could be seen as an example of the key's powers being used for good. If, as some of us have suspected, we see a DtVS-type storyline next year, it would only support the monks good judgment.
[> [> [> [> [> I've mentioned this in the past -- Rufus, 16:24:59 06/29/02 Sat
When Buffy first found out that Dawn wasn't her sister she automatically thought Dawn was some sort of threat until she talked to the monk she snatched away from Glory.
MONK
My journey's done, I think.
BUFFY
Don't get metaphory on me. We're going.
She tries to lift him again but he stops her.
MONK
You have to... the Key. You must protect the Key.
BUFFY
Fine. We can protect the Key together, okay, just far, far from here.
MONK
Many more die if you don't keep it safe.
BUFFY
How? What is it?
MONK
The Key is energy. It's a portal. It opens the door...
BUFFY
The Dagon Sphere?
MONK
No. For centuries it had no form at all. My brethren, its only keepers. Then the abomination found us. We had to hide the Key, gave it form, molded it flesh... made it human and sent it to you.
Buffy stares at him in shock as the realization sinks in.
BUFFY
Dawn...
MONK
She's the Key.
BUFFY
You put that in my house?
MONK
We knew the Slayer would protect.
BUFFY
My memories... my mom's?
MONK
We built them.
BUFFY
(angry)
Then un-build them! This is my life you're-
The monk starts coughing heavily. He's fading fast.
MONK
You cannot abandon.
BUFFY
I didn't ask for this! I don't even know... what is she?
MONK
Human... now human. And helpless. Please... she's an innocent in this. She needs you.
BUFFY
She's not my sister?
MONK
She doesn't know that.
The monk exhales one last time and dies. Buffy is stunned, her life
turned upside down.
Talk about transformation of consciousness. There is some important things the monk said before he died. Buffy is horrified that her memories are changed, that she now has this new responsibility, this life she didn't create, but now has to take charge of. But if you look at what the monk said it is clear they knew what they were doing. They sent the Key to Buffy because they knew the Slayer "would protect".....then in The Gift, Dawn is the one who is instinctually compelled to "protect". Not only did the monks send the Key to Buffy but they made the Key with a little bit of Buffy. If you had a neutral force that could destroy all you knew, how better to up you chances of survival than to change this force into something that will have the "Slayer" quality of protecting above all else. The monks knew that the Slayer could not abandon, specially a being that is part of her. Dawn is an innocent lending that much more weight to Willows comment that Dawn "is the baby" because in season five, Dawn was a new form of life, a baby in the form of a teenager. Just as Buffy protects the world, Dawn in human form went from a thing to a conscious being who was made conscious, given free will, could understand why her use by Glory would be wrong. The key as a glowy ball of energy was just there an instrument to be used by anyone, as a person, Dawn could "feel" and understand the consequences of her use. Dawn as part of Buffy had the same impulse to "protect".....smart guys those (RIP) monks.
[> Re: The key to harnessing Dawn's good -- ZachsMind, 02:19:04 06/29/02 Sat
The Knights of Byzantium wanted Dawn destroyed because if there is no key the doors can never be opened. The monks were entrusted to care for the Key by some unspecified Powers That Be. The monks believed the key existed for a reason, and hid it in the form of a girl, for the same reason you keep your keys but hide them in a pocket or a purse.
You want to be able to open the doors in your life some time in the future, but you don't want other people to be able to open your doors. If the PTB wanted the Key destroyed, he/she/it/they woulda destroyed it. The monks couldn't destroy it because it would have been going against the will of their god. However, the Knights of Byzantium believed their god was telling them to destroy it. So either we're talking about two different gods here, or there's some major communication breakdowns happening. Joss Whedon's in a unique position to make some powerful philosophical statements about two different kinds of mortal humans listening to the same god and getting uniquely different messages. He probably won't though because that would potentially offend people. Whedon purposefully avoids going into too much detail about which god is the Supreme Being in Buffy's Universe. He knows his job is to tell entertaining stories and not make bold religious and political statements.
Whatever he decides, Dawn's story is far from over.
[> What the Monks were thinking when they created Dawn... -- cjl, 07:46:52 06/29/02 Sat
For those who have already read this, I apologize. But for those who haven't, enjoy:
Ever since Dawn almost literally popped into existence at the start of Season Five, Buffyphiles have been debating the nature of her existence, her relationship to Buffy, and her ultimate purpose in the series. But the one aspect of Dawn’s creation that seems to have baffled everyone is her humanity. Why did the monks make her human? Since Glory apparently needed blood to shatter the dimensional barriers, why didn’t the monks transform the Key into, say, a bicycle pump (or a spacious, but comfortable living room sofa)? Would’ve been much easier to protect, less cleanup--and a lot less whining.
Let’s try to analyze the monks’ line of thought. October 2000: the remnants of their order were holed up in a lamasery somewhere in the Czech Republic, and they knew Glory was going to track them down within days, if not minutes. Three facts weighed heavily on their minds: 1) they were all going to die; 2) Glory was going to get the Key; and 3) the arrival of the Beast on Earth was most likely a sign of the upcoming Ultimate Conflict or--The End of Days (cue dramatic music).
Obviously, their first and only priority was to get the Key to safety. Since they couldn’t trust the CoW (and that’s a disturbingly common problem in this series), they decided to send the Key to Buffy, who had already broken virtually every precedent in Slayerdom with her first resurrection, her defeat of the Master, and her well-deserved reputation for not taking crap from the Council or anybody else, living or dead, on this planet.
But more than that, they sent the Key to the Slayer because the Key belonged with the Slayer. Without the Emerald Fire, the Hand is only dust and water; and without the Hand, the Emerald Fire is without form or focus. Only the Hand and Fire, working in unison, could stop the End of Days. And this is where the humanity part of the equation comes in. If the monks were custodians of the Key for centuries, they must have been doing more than taking shifts guarding a glowing green ball of sunshine. ("Two a.m., Ralph. Bathroom break.") I can imagine a long series of philosophical debates over sacred texts, interpretations of portents, and analysis of historical events, all centering on their precious burden. They must have asked themselves, over and over again: How could Mankind keep its covenant with the Powers that Be? What did the Council do wrong when they wielded the Key all those times before? And how would they shape the Key when the moment of crisis arrived?
Their answer to all of these questions was both elegant and poetic. The great gift the Powers That Be bestowed upon Mankind was twofold: the capacity for Free Will and the freedom to use it. They entrusted humanity with the Emerald Fire, and despite all the screw-ups along the way, they had faith that Man would eventually learn from its mistakes and earn that trust. What greater way to honor the first covenant, the monks must have thought, than to return the blessing. Mold the Key into human form, infuse it with hopes, memories and dreams. Instead of endless non-existence as a cold, lifeless tool manipulated by the Council, the Key would have Free Will, and it would decide its own future. The risks, of course, would be great: in human form, the blood of the Key could be spilled and open the gates to Chaos again. But the monks were sure they had the answer for the crisis to come: Human. Sister to the Slayer. Young, so her powers would blossom at exactly the proper moment. With the love of sisters, The Hand and the Fire would hold off Eternal Night, and there will be a new morning.
A new Dawn.
[> absolutely -- shygirl, 08:24:16 06/29/02 Sat
and this fits nicely with the idea expressed above that Spike comes back for Dawn... for that good part of himself... maybe it isn't Buffy that can redeem Spike but Dawn...and only as she begins to understand what it is to be the key...
[> [> and.. -- shygirl, 08:58:39 06/29/02 Sat
hard to continue when work interferes!
I really think that Dawn as the key was basically ignored this last season and what we were exposed to was whiney, bratty, unhappy Dawn... someone needs to help her understand what she is instead of "shielding" her from the world. Seems to me as a primordial power Dawn as a force must be very basic to the world and very important to keeping the fabric of the worlds together...integration?
[> [> [> Good points -- Caesar Augustus, 18:48:50 06/29/02 Sat
If one thinks of Dawn first finding out she's the key, (side-note: the 'cut scene' was brilliant) she wanted to find out more about who/what she is. That was very natural, and realistic.
But unfortunately, it has been forgotten season 6. The thing is not for Buffy, or Spike, or anyone else to figure out how to use Dawn. (Buffy will *hopefully* have her hands full figuring out stuff about HER OWN history and possibilities) It is up to Dawn to find out more about her history and her possibilities. To grow up a bit and go through the same sort of transcendence that Buffy did in Season 1 and 2 (... back to the beginning). Clearly, it would be great if Spike returned to play some part in helping her, but she really needs to be the instigator. At the moment, she's really just a season 5-device which has been kept on and served little purpose, rather than her own character. I know it's sorta realistic for a teenager, but her history should start looming large on her mind again ...
Current board
| More June 2002