June 2003 posts


Previous June 2003  

More June 2003

The ironies of TV, Harry Groener's new dig in"The Mayor" -- Dochawk, 14:36:04 06/02/03 Mon

So he'll still be eating students for a living:

The Mayor (comedy) A corrupt mayor holds office for 20 years, but finds himself kicked out of office by an 18-year-old. From his office at the local mini-mall the new town leader uses help from his girlfriend, pal and high school teacher/trusted advisor to figure out what to do

HG os going to be the teacher/trusted advisor.

[> Re: The ironies of TV, Harry Groener's new dig in"The Mayor" -- leslie, 15:34:39 06/02/03 Mon

Too bad Eliza Dushku isn't going to be the girlfriend. And, oh, I don't know, Danny Strong as the upstart mayor?

[> [> No, irony is Armin Shimmerman as the Mayor... - - Kitt, 17:13:13 06/02/03 Mon


[> [> [> Re: No, irony is Armin Shimmerman as the Mayor... -- DEN, 17:22:32 06/02/03 Mon

And doesn't it sound like a knockoff of "Buffy?"

Giggly Buffy paraphrases -- leslie, 15:36:34 06/02/03 Mon

Read Charles Taylor's memorial at salon.com to Kathleen Winsor, author of Forever Amber, for the hilarious Buffy paraphrase that ends it.

[> heh! -- ponygirl, 17:41:39 06/02/03 Mon


[> couldn't find it--can you supply the url for the specific page? -- anom, 18:04:32 06/02/03 Mon


Ok, this is really weird -- Vickie, 23:06:44 06/02/03 Mon

but fun, and silly. It made me laugh. And now I cannot get that dammned Manilow song out of my head. Angel would be pleased.

Return of the Philosopher's Slayer
Lyrics Copyright (c) 2003 by Blake Hodgetts
ttto "Copacabana" by Barry Manilow
-----------------------------------------

Her name was Buffy;
She was a slayer,
Protecting everyone from harm--
Gee, it's a shame about her arm.
A Rancor ate it
When she was stranded
Inside a cave on Tatooine,
Which wasn't where she should have been,
'Cause Weasley's spell went wrong.
The force in her is strong;
She'll fly a broom to Sunnydale because this song
Is a fanfic,
Crossover fanfic.
It's driving the purist fen frantic.
Yes, it's a fanfic, crossover fanfic...
Fantasy, sf,
We'll make a real mess of
in this fanfic....

His name was Harry;
He went to Hogwarts.
Transported next door to the Bronze,
They learn to stake vamps with their wands.
Then he met Willow:
She was a Jedi.
Her saber kept young Potter awed
While she checked spells on her iPod.
Will gave his wand a twirl,
Resolved to rock his world.
Hermione agrees he makes a real cute girl
in this fanfic,
Crossover fanfic.
It's not for the timid or xanthic,
Cause it's a fanfic, crossover fanfic,
Mixing the genres
Till you go bananres
In this fanfic....
they fell in love.

Her name was Padmé;
She had Potential,
But she got bitten when she stopped
Into a Knockturn Alley shop.
When Buffy found her
In Jabba's dungeon,
The poison had gone to her brain:
She had poor Xander on a chain,
So Buff got Dumbledore
Decorum to restore,
But Xander shook him off and headed back for more
In this fanfic,
Crossover fanfic.
It's gothic and cosmic and tantric.
Yes, it's a fanfic, crossover fanfic
Mixing the univ-
erses to the tune of
endless fanfic....
They'll fall in love....

[> I think that calls for a special seminar at OBAFU! -- Tyreseus - LOL till it hurt, 07:59:02 06/03/03 Tue


[> Where did you find this? -- HonorH (laughing), 09:08:19 06/03/03 Tue

And do you have any idea if I can get in touch with the author? This is priceless!

[> [> Posted to rec.music.filk -- Vickie, 10:16:33 06/03/03 Tue

By the gentlemen credited. I have his email addy, from his post, but it bounces. He has usually given permission for reposts (with credit) and has give permission to the archivist, so I figured he wouldn't mind.

[> Agreed but I'm passing it on... -- AurraSing, 09:57:38 06/03/03 Tue

LOL! Agreed about the song though-so I'm passing this onto friends who will no doubt be cursing me as they hum all afternoon long!
Thanks!

[> Redshirt Potential Slayers (Minor Season 7 Spoilers) -- Vickie, 10:20:55 06/03/03 Tue

If you liked that one, here's another:

Keith Lim unloaded this one on rec.music.filk:
_Buffy the Vampire Slayer_ filk follows. Contains minor spoilers for Season 7.

Redshirt Potential Slayers
(tune: "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer", Johnny Marks)

You know Kennedy, Rona, Amanda, Vi, Molly,
Annabelle, Chao-Ahn, Eve, Shannon, and Chloe.
But do you recall
The ones who have no names at all?

Redshirt Potential Slayers,
Hunted down at rapid pace,
So to ensure their safety,
They've been gathered in one place.

Now in their Hellmouth haven,
There they'll spend their final days.
Each week will see some getting,
Killed in various nasty ways.

Stab of knife or snap of neck,
Hanged or clawed to shreds,
Blown up by a hidden bomb,
All thanks to the First's pogrom.

From their fates, no escaping,
If they fight or bravely flee.
Redshirt Potential Slayers,
You'll go down; you're history.
*********

Will there be singing at the gathering? Someone make a tape for me? Please?

[> [> those are HILARIOUS!!! thanks for sharing! -- WickedBuffy, 11:03:17 06/03/03 Tue


Dub tells me I'm the only one who's sent her a photo!!! -- Marie, 08:31:25 06/03/03 Tue

C'mon you people! Don't let me be the only one!

Marie

[> Got CW's, too...thanks for the reminder, Marie. -- dub ;o), 08:43:08 06/03/03 Tue

C'mon people, time is getting short. Some of your fellow ATPo'ers arrive in Vancouver the day after tomorrow!

;o)

[> [> Phew! I was getting ready to send you one with a mask! -- Marie, 09:05:21 06/03/03 Tue


[> Come on everybody! You can't be much uglier than me. Send dub a shot of yourself! -- Cactus Watcher, 09:31:47 06/03/03 Tue


[> You just want the people who are going to be there, right? -- mamcu, 09:55:41 06/03/03 Tue


[> [> No! Everyone! -- CW, 10:09:17 06/03/03 Tue

We can't all go. But, we can be there in spirit. Send a shot so we can share even after the meet is over.

[> [> [> Exactly...we want a pic from everyone! -- dub ;o), 10:32:16 06/03/03 Tue

(And don't believe CW; he's as cute as a button--in a very dignified way, of course.)

;o)

[> [> [> [> What 'xactly are you going to do with these after you get them? -- WickedBuffy, 10:50:49 06/03/03 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> Actually, I expect you to sing, as you look at mine, 'All Through the Night' - in Welsh, naturally! -- Marie, 01:31:12 06/04/03 Wed


[> [> [> [> Sorry dub... -- Caroline, 11:05:46 06/03/03 Tue

but the act of actually putting my opinions out there on a public board for anyone and everyone to read is as brave as I am going to get about the internet. I certainly don't wish to have my picture out there too. While I am very happy about getting to know more of the participants of the board at this meet, I'm going to have to ask that you all respect my wishes in this matter. Thanks.

[> [> [> [> [> No problem, Caro...and answer to WickedBuffy - - dub ;o), 11:34:56 06/03/03 Tue

I understand completely Caroline.

My intention currently is to collect the photos, run off copies of them in a sort of collage (maybe?) and take them with me to the gathering to share with our colleagues there. I was originally going to post pictures of people who will be attending, just for the recognition factor, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

Pictures I get of non-attendees will not be posted anywhere online, just downloaded and printed off for the Gathering.

I don't think we've been lulled into a false sense of security by the polite camaraderie of this board, but it's possible! Best to err on the side of safety...

dub ;o)

[> [> [> [> [> [> I make so many enemies in real life -- mamcu, 12:38:27 06/03/03 Tue

I really understand what Caroline is saying.

But I'm a little different--I really can't imagine anyone online feeling anymore angry than the person who just left my office(in my next job I will NOT have power!).

Or recognizing me from a picture, for that matter.

Feel free to use what I sent.

[> [> [> [> Wait??? cute as a button....you mean CW looks like me????....;):):):):):) -- Rufus, 17:04:44 06/03/03 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> Just the twinkle in the eyes, hon! -- dub ;o), 17:20:39 06/03/03 Tue


[> [> [> Look it's the rare vain -- fresne, 11:37:37 06/03/03 Tue

Well, okay.

I look like this:



Hmmm...perhaps that's confusing.

how about this.


Of course, that's only on certain days. Perhaps while dancing.



No wait that's mostly my back.

Okay, how about as Queen of Dead. Woohooo...After all Persephone comes up periodically.


I didn't respond before because I'm vain. It's all about me. And most of my pictures are both Photoshopped (My friends always come out there best in my pictures ;>) and costumerific and of me. Do other people attend these events? Nah...

Look at vain fresne I'm the short one wearing the leather waist cinch in nine out of ten pictures.

[> [> [> [> Woo-hoo! Thanks, fresne!! -- dub ;o), 11:46:42 06/03/03 Tue


[> [> [> [> And I gotta say... -- dub, 11:51:06 06/03/03 Tue

...with your rapier (? epee?) and from the side, you bear a distinct resemblance to a certain pierced-tongue brat we became familiar with in the last season!

;o)

[> [> [> Well, here's me -- Rahael, 12:44:06 06/03/03 Tue

with a bunch of other AtPOers. I hesitate to name them cos they may not want their pic put up again. I think it's fairly obvious who I am! But just in case, I'm the Asian girl and the guy in the black jacket sitting next to me is pretty obvious too!

I have however, instructed d'H to take photos that are more flattering with him! So I can be there in spirit, but vainer.

http://ivyweb.com/btvs/images/group1.jpg

[> [> [> [> Nothing could be more flattering than your smile, Rah! -- dub ;o), 12:57:28 06/03/03 Tue


[> [> [> [> And here's me... -- Rob, 13:16:52 06/03/03 Tue

...with Michael C. Hall, who plays David on "Six Feet Under". I'm the one on the right with the cheerleader outfit...I mean, yellow shirt. ;o)

Click here.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> This is eerie, Rob. You look exactly like I pictured (w/o the skirt) -- WickedBuffy, 14:08:30 06/03/03 Tue


allegory or foreshadowing: thoughts on "Superstar" (spoilery) -- purplegrrl, 10:51:31 06/03/03 Tue

I was watching "Superstar" for the umpteenth time this morning and finally hit me what I think Joss was trying to do with this episode. I've always liked this episode and just thought of it as a one-off (like in comic books). But I believe there's more to this episode than at first viewing.

In "Superstar" Jonathan acqires a magical spell that makes him everyone's ideal everything. For Jonathan this is perfect -- although he never had many friends in high school, now he is looked up to and admired by everyone. Unfortunately, for all the "good" the spell does, it must be counterbalanced by "evil." Therefore, while Jonathan becomes the embodiment of all that we admire and desire, a monster is created to balance the forces of good and evil. Jonathan tries to downplay the monster. At the end of the episode Buffy reminds Jonathan that there are no quick fixes, we just have to struggle through.

Now flash forward a year or so. We are shown Willow becoming more powerful with magic. The very simplest, most mundane tasks (such as showering, changing her clothes, etc.) are achieved with magic rather than just doing them herself. Although Tara tries to warn Willow to the contrary, Willow is convinced she can handle it.

Both Jonathan and Willow do what they consider "harmless" magic, but they do it for their own benefit. Although the Buffyverse doesn't really go in for the threefold rule of magic/witchcraft, there is evidence that magic acts have consequences against the magic user.

This is why I now think that "Superstar" is an allegory or foreshadowing of Willow's dark magical downward spiral. The use of large or continual magic, even if used for good, creates a equal evil -- whether that evil is external (Jonathan's monster) or internal (EvilWillow). We know Joss has the Buffyverse so planned out that there is very little that is "throwaway," even episodes that appear so at first glance (the Dracula episode is another example).

Other thoughts??

[> Re: allegory or foreshadowing: thoughts on "Superstar" (spoilery) -- shambleau, 12:11:58 06/03/03 Tue

I just saw it today on FX and I thoght of something else. Jonathan said Buffy and Riley had something special and pissed a lot of fans off because they thought ME was pushing the relationship down the viewers throats, using Jonathan as their mouthpiece.

But look at the last scenes, where Jonathan echoes back to Buffy that relationships take a lot of work and you can't try to break through with grand gestures. Buffy seems to take it to heart. However, in the final scene, you see her kissing Riley and saying "I'm glad we talked this out" and Riley, puzzled, saying that they hadn't talked at all. I know you can take that scene as saying that physical intimacy is a way of communicating and reconciling too. It's equally valid to see that as NOT working things through, though, in light of the communication issues that had been highlighted between those two as far back as Hush. And the last line is Buffy sighing "Jonathan" and Riley drawing back in dismay. Joke or foreshadowing that there will always be somebody else in Buffy's heart?

[> [> Re: And that scene sets up for WTWTA the following week -- wendywho, 12:24:35 06/03/03 Tue


Random thoughts -- shambleau, 11:57:08 06/03/03 Tue

Here are some observations. Maybe one or two will provoke a discussion.

The first time I watched the finale, I was moved by the little baseball girl. That was it. Spike and Anya died and I only cared about the kid? It took a couple of re-watches before the ep gave me that aching tightness in the throat I thought I'd have from the get-go. Why didn't it break my heart originally? It was because Joss muted the reactions of the Scoobies. For good, writerly reasons, of course, but it's the pain the living go through that affects me in a drama. I liked Tara more than Joyce or Jenny Calendar, but her death affected me least because only Dawn cried. Of course, if you take Willow's crying scene in Grave as the delayed grief for Tara it was, then I was deeply affected.

So, why is a death in a drama moving mostly in so far as it affects others?

Oh, as for moving, let's not forget music. It's no accident that JW didn't use Thomas Wanker for The Body or the Gift. Joss might not have used Christope Beck either for The Body because of the artistic effect he was after, true. But I'm sure Wanker's mediocrity was a factor in going in that direction in the first place. Try to imagine Buffy's death with Wanker doing the theme music. I truly believe that a number of episodes in seasons six and seven would rate higher in people's minds if Beck had stayed with the show, particularly the humorous ones. For the more moving eps, ME substituted pop songs to fairly good effect, IMO, but the funny ones were dragged down by the inability of the scores to set the proper mood.

Xander may someday discover that he's quite the ladies man. It's not just lady demons that find him attractive. Think of the girl in WTWTA at the frat party, the woman at the bar in SR who came on to him, the woman whose dog got eaten. He was Suave!Xander every time until demonic hijinks threw a monkey wrench into the relationships.

It would be fun to have a list from people of bits they personally loved that aren't mentioned much, the underappreciated moments thread. For Buffy, I can think of a couple right off the bat. The "unh" that's wrenched out of her when she sees Rily getting a vampire suck job, for one. A perfect physical realization of an emotional sucker punch. I've never seen it played better. Also, her walk through the cemetery at the beginning of CwDP, with that haunting song playing. It brought home Buffy's essential solitude visually for me in a way that trumped all the talking about it in other eps by a mile.

For Xander, not the doubts expressed, but the sweet sincerity of his love for Anya in the "I'll Never Tell" duet. He didn't always convince me that they were really a couple, but he nailed it there.

For Willow, the deadness in her voice after Oz betrayed her in WAH and she's talking to Buffy. That just destroyed me. Also, her reaction beautifully sets up her lack of affect after Tara's death, as she numbly walks to the Magic Box. The girl just shuts down when the pain is too much.

Funny Riley moments. I know people think there weren't any, but I loved his underplayed "Yeah, it was bad", talking about the sex in WTWTA. Then, there was his "I'm not moving a muscle" when he told Buffy in TYF that he wasn't leaving the room so Buffy could talk to Angel and they just went outside. Not to mention the line about "I've come to ravage your first-born" not going over well with parents.

Other underappreciated moments?

Since it's the most reviled plot twist in Buffy history, I'm thinking of mounting at least a half-hearted defence of the MAgiCrack storyline and, especially, an analysis of why it's so hated. The vitriolic reaction to it is fascinating in its own right. Not in this post though.

Fans rejecting a new character is practically standard operating procedure on BtVS. Oz had a rocky time at first, because some people wanted W/X. Tara was savaged, especially on other boards, for not being Oz, for being bland, for being gay, for being "overweight". Those two, along with Anya, made it through to general acceptance, but others didn't. Dawn will always pay a price for her actions in S6, although many, including me, like her. Riley and Kennedy will never be fan favorites. The other SITs will be despised forever. I've found that my reactions are not as set in stone as some. On re-viewing, I like all these despised characters better than I did at first. I've also noticed that people who came to the series late seem to be less judgemental. What is there about seeing a season quickly, on FX or on DVDs, that leads to a more accepting attitude than longtime fans?

[> Re: Random thoughts -- Eryn, 13:23:45 06/03/03 Tue

"What is there about seeing a season quickly, on FX or on DVDs, that leads to a more accepting attitude than longtime fans?"

I can't say that I see the people on this board as being unfairly judgmental toward the show, but other pages/boards/articles I've read tend to categorically dismiss everything that happened after S3. Having come to the show relatively late--I started watching on and off in S5, in earnest from the S6 premiere on--I did find I was more "roll with the punches" than a lot of longtime fans I'd run across. I figure I saw the show as moving toward a specific end and I assumed ME was doing what it was doing for reasons that only the writers knew; all would be explained at the end. Was it? Yeah, pretty much--at least for me.

Fans who have been there from the beginning probably saw the show as a work in progress, and every time a writer took the story one way, there were many other possible routes that were not travelled.

So which view is right? They both are: When I began watching, rumours of the show's demise were already circulating and all the story arcs were pointing toward that end. In the beginning, with no end in sight, any given storyline could have gone in almost any direction; not to mention many fans who have been there for the duration have a good understanding of the show and can sense when something is awry with characterization or plot.

Eryn

[> On Beck/Wanker -- Tchaikovsky, 05:22:38 06/04/03 Wed

I truly believe that a number of episodes in seasons six and seven would rate higher in people's minds if Beck had stayed with the show, particularly the humorous ones. For the more moving eps, ME substituted pop songs to fairly good effect, IMO, but the funny ones were dragged down by the inability of the scores to set the proper mood.

I agree here. I was disappointed with the use of music in Season Six of Buffy as part of the score- as opposed to the cunning use of 'Goodbye to You' or the Prayer of St Francis, or of course the musical episode. Then in Season Seven, Joss' song at the beginning of 'Conversations With Dead People' is the most memorable musical moment. Wanker's scoring was always mediocre. It would have been interesting to see whether Chris Beck would have been minded, (or just asked) to do a Buffy/Spike theme. I for one would have been fascinated to hear it. The Buffy/Angel theme is one of the key hooks on which the relationship hangs- and the fragile, vulnerable, sad Buffy/Riley theme is one of the best things about the portrayal of their relationship, in my opinion. Incidentally, there's some very good scoring going on over on Angel by Robert Kral. I think the background music is often underappreciated as a componenet of the shows' dramatic impetus.

Oh, and entirely facetiously, just how do you pronounce Thomas' surname? Just asking....

TCH

[> [> What moved -- Dndy, 06:08:22 06/04/03 Wed

I was spoiled for Chosen but did not read the script until yesterday. I found it very touching, much more so than the actual show for some reason.
The actual filmed material felt rushed.
I did love the montage of the potentials getting thier mojo.
That seems so appropriate. Joss empowered the slayers like he empowered so many fans who turned to writing fan fic and posting on boards.
I fully expect that there will be a whole generation of writers who found thier voice through initial involvement with Buffy. All around the world I can see them picking up thier pens, powering up thier pc's.
Thanks Joss.

[> [> [> God, girl get some coffee in you-What moved me -- Dandy, 06:10:33 06/04/03 Wed


[> [> Re: Wanker -- Marie, 06:36:16 06/04/03 Wed

I may be imagining I heard this, since it's a few weeks since I watched the commentary in question, but I have a vague memory of Joss pronouncing it with a 'V', and with long emphasis on the first syllable, i.e. 'Vaanker'. I remember thinking "I wonder if he's deliberately mispronouncing that...".

Anyone else remember noticing that on the DVD?

M

[> [> agree re the need for a buffy/spike theme -- pilgrim, 08:06:43 06/04/03 Wed

I've thought exactly the same thing. But I didn't mind the music underscoring the consummation moment in Smashed. Dark and full, the music conveyed both loss and fulfillment, imo. Although I didn't care for the score under the pre-shag fight. I also rather liked the music behind Buffy's "I believe in you" scene. There's no theme, but the music moves from low and sinister, under Spike's confessions, to that one high sweet note when Buffy affirms him. Hmm. I've thought too much about this, obviously.

[> [> But it is supposed to be -- lunasea, 08:24:40 06/04/03 Wed

I think the background music is often underappreciated as a componenet of the shows' dramatic impetus.

If people were as aware of it as the visual symbolism going on, it wouldn't work as well. Things like the Buffy/Angel theme work because it is a sense memory. It tends not to get filtered through thinking, but through feeling. When they played it in "Orpheus" I reflexively teared up. It was only when my husband commented on my reaction (he thought I was incredibly cute. That got pillows throw at him) that it hit me why I was. Sometimes it is "better" if these things stay underappreciated.

We analyze everything over here, but sometimes it is great just to let the show hit us on a gut level. Music is great for that.

[> [> [> Very true -- Tchaikovsky, 09:36:23 06/04/03 Wed


[> Spike's eyebrow -- mamcu, 09:30:32 06/04/03 Wed

Watching Yoko Factor last night, I really liked Spike's reaction when he sees Tara playing with Willow's hair. With just the barest little flick of an eyebrow we see it register on him--great, because we know that he's learned about their relationship and thus had to shift his view of Willow's sexuality, he's not judging it, but he's seeing how he can use it to further sow discord among the Scoobies. Economy!

Those who know--is this good acting or good directing? Or both?

[> Spike's eyebrow -- mamcu, 09:30:40 06/04/03 Wed

Watching Yoko Factor last night, I really liked Spike's reaction when he sees Tara playing with Willow's hair. With just the barest little flick of an eyebrow we see it register on him--great, because we know that he's learned about their relationship and thus had to shift his view of Willow's sexuality, he's not judging it, but he's seeing how he can use it to further sow discord among the Scoobies. Economy!

Those who know--is this good acting or good directing? Or both?

[> [> Re: Spike's eyebrow -- shambleau, 11:15:42 06/04/03 Wed

Probably both. The wordless reaction shots in BtVS could sustain a huge thread in themselves. You need to know the history of the show to get the full effect, but I think even a casual viewer would get the impression of dramatic depth just from the looks that people are giving. It's one of the things that really distinguish the show.

Take the scene in Wrecked where Willow and Amy and Buffy return from their all-nighters and run into Tara and Dawn in the kitchen. The underlying tensions, resentments, guilt, pain and need are almost all in the reactions, not in the dialog. Dislike of that ep obscures some very powerful acting and directing.

As far as Wanker goes, I thought that he did good work from time to time. I liked the Smashed house-go-boom music, loved the score in After Life and B vs D, but still feel overall he and the guy that took over from him hurt the show.

[> Magicrack, a limited defense (spoilers through finale) -- dream, 13:54:42 06/04/03 Wed

I'm really interested in your ideas about this. I didn't love the Magicrack storyline, but I didn't hate it as much as most. I would be interested in reviewing it in light of the finale. Just to get things rolling...

Some Reasons Why Everyone Hated Magicrack and Some Reasons Why I Didn't (That Much)

1) Lack of precedent. A lot of people seemed to be bothered by the idea of magic being analogous to drugs coming in at too late a date. I really didn't see this at all. The Dark Age made it clear that some magic had drug-like effects for the spell-casters. We've also seen spells which had drug-like effects for the victims - the spell on Buffy in The Witch, the spell on the adults in Band Candy. We've only seen a few serious spellcasters in the series, and most of these only appeared a few times (Amy's mother, Ethan Rayne). Giles was our major precedent as a magic-worker in the series, and he had experience with magic as drug-like. He also had warned Willow against going too deeply into magic, as one would expect. Tara seemed to dip into magic in a different way, which I'll come to when I talk about the finale. At any rate, I saw clear precedence, for the dangerous addictive and euphoric qualities of magic.
2) There were other qualities of magic that came out in this storyline that did not have such clear precedence. We saw no indication before this that magical power could be passed from person to person, or that magical power oculd be "used up" by going on a magic working spree. I think this is a valid criticism, but if it were the only issue, I doubt anyone would mind. One of the things I have always liked about Buffy is that the characters have developed their knowledge of the world just as we do. They don't know everything, they take things in books to be accurate, and sometimes they aren't, they learn as they go along. Since I don't see a major contradiction with anything we have been shown in the past (and in the case of the draining qualities of spell-working, some support in fact), I don't see why this couldn't be a new piece of knowledge for both the Buffyverse characters and outrselves.
3) The responsibility thing. A lot fo the arguments that occur on the board seem to center around responsibility - how much responsibility do each of the characters have for their actions while, say, under a spell, or without a soul, and so on. I like the deliberate ambiguity of the responsibility question - I see it as a very intelligent way of maintaining viewer loyalty to characters while at the same time allowing the writers to take a serious look at very dark aspects of human nature. The wiggle room is important because it allows both empathy and moral rejection, which is probably the best condition for forcing viewers to consider the possibility of their own internal darkness. I know a lot of viewers consider it a cop-out, a way of letting the Scoobies get away with terrible things without the proper moral condemnation. I just don't think the show could work without allowing that space.**
4) But wasn't it a little literal for something that should have been more metaphorical? Well, here's where I think they didn't do a very good job with the writing. There should have been a far finer smoothing of the literal and metaphorical.
5) Related to 4 in some way I can't express very well - People were frustrated that Willow's power and control issues became secondary to her addiction issues. In some ways, I agree with this. But the writers could have been trying to connect the two, and just been unsuccessful at it. Addiction can be about power and control. Ever read Look Homeward Angel? Remember the patriarch, and his wild drunks. A brilliant depiction of the way that alcohol can make certain personalities feel powerful. Willow's issues of control were closely related to her inability to work through pain. She wants to avoid pain at all costs. So do many addicts, who dull their pain with alcohol and drugs. I think the addiction storyline could have been PART of the power/control/fear of pain storyline, rather than overpowering it. I think in fact it was intended to, but the writers didn't quite pull it off.
6) So was it addiction or wasn't it? A lot of viewers saw Giles' statement that Willow's problem wasn't addiction as a retcon. Personally, I didn't. It was LIKE an addiction, and shared some qualities with it, but was not exactly an addiction. Because the whole season developed the theme that how we choose to interpret our problems can in fact cause more problems, can be wrog and have dangerous consequences (for example, Buff's conviction that she came back wrong), I have no problem with the idea that Willow was wrong to see her connection SOLELY as an addiction. That doesn't mean there are no addictive-type qualities to magic, just that the addiction isn't all that's going on. Maybe Willow is less like a drug addict than like someone who considers herself a "sex addict" or a "food addict" of an "adrenaline junkie." Sex and food and risky behavior are not to be avoided forever, like alcohol for alcoholics, and understanding your behavior in terms of addiction might actually be counter-productive. And these non-addictions do have some sort of biological basis, so the fact that Willow did go through withdrawal does not make the argument entirely null. Since magic is not a known quantity, it may be fair to say it had some addictive qualities, while not being just a drug.
7) But didn't you feel like you were watching an afterschool special? Yup. That's where I can't defend the storyline - it was handled clunkily. I do think it is very, very difficult to deal with addiction in any meaningful way on television, at least in the States. We've seen it all before, in a million cautionary tales, and it's hard not to respond with a knee-jerk rejection. "Enough, I get it - drugs are bad! Tell me something new!" If the writers had connected Willow's power issues to the drug storyline better, if the possibility that she was fooling herself about her relationship to magic being just an addiction were brought up more clearly in the season itself, rather than popped on us by Giles the next year, I think the story could have worked.

Oh, and the finale. I was more happy with Willow arc conclusion than anything else. The idea that there is a spectrum of magic, from good to bad, that the good and the bad have different characteristics, because they tap into different poles of human possibility, that makes sense in light of the understanding of magic we saw in the magicrack storyline. The ending also made sense in terms of Willow's character. I loved it.

Okay, go ahead and rip it apart; I know you're dying to. Just to emphasize - I certainly thought there were problems with the plotline, I certainly thought it was poorly handled. But I was surprised at the degree of hostility it received. I think now that the series is over (sniff), it might be time to look back at it.



** My take? Of course Willow's responsible. She was doing the equivalent of buying a gun and drinking a bottle of tequila. You don't do that if you care what you do. Of course, we usually take some pity on those suffering from the pain of grief. I do see her action as more metaphorical than anything - Willow acted out what all of us in grief might want, but never do. She wanted Warren to pay for what he did. She wanted him to feel what Tara felt, and worse. Most of all, she wanted him to admit what he was, to break down his arrogance and force him to be under her power, rather than the other way around. She wanted not to feel helpless in the face of her utter helplessness. Would most of us dod what she did (even if we oculd do it with the force of our minds, even if we could destroy all the evidence beyond any doubt?) Probably not, though I come from a country where the death penalty is supported strongly, and many wouldn't mind vigilante justice. But the point of of a fantasy show is to make explicit the emotions and urges that usually remain controlled in one's mind and heart. There are many who let hate and vengeance consume them, without actually committing the acts Willow did.

[> [> Re: Magicrack, a limited defense (spoilers through finale) -- shambleau, 15:40:42 06/04/03 Wed

Jeez, that's way better thought out than anything I'd worked through yet. Just a few quick comments on your points for now.

On 1), I'd agree that there was precedence for the euphoric, dangerous nature of some kinds of dark magic. Addictive qualities are thus implied, although I can't say I see any unambiguous support for that before Season Six. But, I have no problem with Rack's magic being an especially virulent, addictive form, or with Willow being especially susceptible to it.

On 2) I think we did see that magic could be used up in S5. Willow's attack on Glory for brainsucking Tara was fueled by spells she got from the Darkest Magicks book, and she visibly faltered near the end of her fight. I think Glory even commented on it. The spell that teleported Glory in Blood Ties also exhausted Willow, along with giving her nosebleeds and headaches.

On 3), I agree completely. I see no way that Willow could've remained on the show if she had done the things she'd done all on her own. In fact, the Magicrack metaphor gave the scoobs a reason to try to redeem her and forgive what she said and did to them. ME had already done the same thing with Angelus, really. The first years of Angel were basically the metaphoric story of an alcoholic who'd done terrible things to people when "under the influence".

Of course, you can argue that the writers should have been willing to go where the story and Willow's character led them, even if it led to Willow's death, banishment or whatever. Besides the contractual realities, however, you would have had to abandon the whole finale and end the season on an even darker note than it had begun on. I don't fault them for not going there.

On 4) I agree, but don't know what would have worked as a sufficiently abstract metaphor while still being belivable on a literal plane.

On 5), I think the writers did successfully merge Willow's power/control demons with the addiction story arc in the last three eps, but that one's a close call.

On 6), again, you're about where I am. In addition to Buffy's misinterpretation of coming back wrong, I'd add her obvious conviction that she was in some way addicted to Spike in the same way that Wilow was addicted to magic, which we saw in Wrecked. People in BtVS misdiagnose what their problem is all through Season 6. I don't think that Xander was right at all about his likelihood of turning out like his father if he married Anya, for instance.

Going back to 2), on passing magic from person to person, I assume you're talking about Rack giving Willow her crackly magic hands. No precedence for that, I agree, but it didn't seem to be a major stumbling point for people, did it?

On the rest, I agree.

[> [> Excellent post -- Rahael, 16:01:15 06/04/03 Wed

I agree almost entirely. In fact, throughout Season 7, Willow and Xander ended up my favourite characters, and I loved Killer in Me because it brought back so much nostalgia for Season 6.

[> [> One extra reason -- KdS, 16:26:58 06/04/03 Wed

I may be misremembering, because it got swallowed up by the whole Death of Tara thing, but I think there was concern from gay viewers over the MagiCrack storyline because of the way that magical experimentation had been used as a metaphor for homoerotic experimentation in S4. That the apparent pathologising of magic use in Wrecked threatened to pathologise gayness by association.

I think that you also underestimate (relegating to the last position) the effect of the sheer degree to which Wrecked echoed the most melodramatic and unrealistic cliches of the alarmist anti-drug drama - the utterly EEEEvil pusher, the instant rampant physical addiction after only a couple of uses, the car crash business (which echoed a scene in the notorious Reefer Madness, probably not deliberately). One might contrast the more subtle portrayals of drug use turning to abuse in, say, Chris in Sopranos or even David's self-destructive period in the first season of Six Feet Under, in which the drug abuse was remarkably portrayed as a minor symptom instead of cause of his problems. Without wishing to insult anyone, I think the adult Buffy audience may also have been likely to have had more experience or at least more tolerant attitudes in relation to illegal mind-altering substances than the average viewer, snd felt that their intelligence was being insulted. I suspect that if the drug metaphor had been built up more slowly over the first half of the season in parallel with the control issues instead of the sudden switch from one to another, there would have been less hostility.

[> [> [> Re: One extra reason -- shambleau, 20:19:09 06/04/03 Wed

There was definitely a viewpoint out there that since magic had been used as a signifier for homoerotic experimentation, you couldn't show it as pathology. I never agreed with that. Metaphors shift on Buffy or have more than one way they can be approached. How did the people who objected take Tara's warning to Willow that she was using too much magic? Was she telling her to stop being homosexual? Obviously, magic could also be a metaphor for power or drugs, just as vampirism could suggest forbidden sexuality or arrested moral development or whatever else the writers wanted.

[> [> On After School Specialness -- shambleau, 16:30:52 06/04/03 Wed

I think that having attended the funeral of one friend from drug problems and witnessed the extremely messed up lives of other friends, I don't have the problems with "moralistic preachiness" that others do. Since some of the ME staff are ex-addicts, I don't think they do either.

Still, I think things were more nuanced in that storyline than that. There was no suggestion that Tara was doomed for using magic, or the coven. Specific kinds of magic are bad for specific kinds of people is what I got out of it. I don't see that as preachy, just true, in the same way that you can say that about drugs and alcohol.

[> [> [> Re: On After School Specialness -- Dandy, 16:55:45 06/04/03 Wed

I never have thought that ME was giving only a straightforward anti-drug metaphor. They kind of turned it around. Buffy's sex and Willow's magic addictions only point to the inner turmoil we all face in trying to balnce our desires with social mores. If we do indeed have power, how to balance the use of it so that we live within our own morality.
The sadness of the episode is the way this inner turmoil isolates Willow and Buffy in thier own world of pain. They have both been blindided and shamed by overwhelming needs and desires, so much so that do not reach out for each other, partake in the comfort and healing thier friendship could bring, always had brought.
I really liked Wrecked because I instantly discounted it as serious in its form. I just thought they used a pastiche of some old bad psychedelic anti-drug movie for the fun and color and differentness of what they could do. I thought Rack was one of thier greatest characters. Fit in with the bikers from hell motif. I will always like this episode. I think it has a wonderful symmetry and is very well done.
I really was not on boards when it came out so I am surprised to hear it was disliked. But, then again I just love Beer Bad. I think it's funny as hell. I loooove pre-historic Buffy! Sarah was so funny. I can never figure out why nobody likes that one either. Oh, well. What's pie for some is puddin' for others.

[> [> I think you made the best defense that could possibly be made. I just don't think it's enough -- Sophist, 17:36:15 06/04/03 Wed

I agree with many of your specific points, but not your conclusions. I'll try to go through them one by one.

We've also seen spells which had drug-like effects for the victims - the spell on Buffy in The Witch, the spell on the adults in Band Candy.

True, but it's the caster whom we need to see as affected, not the victim.

The only evidence for the addictive qualities of magic prior to Wrecked is the ambiguous comment of Giles in The Dark Age. Here are the 2 relevant quotes:

First Willow: 'Eyghon, also called the Sleepwalker, can only exist in this reality by possessing an unconscious host. Temporary possession imbues the host with a euphoric feeling of power.'

Now Giles: Yes. One of us would, um... (nervously pours a drink) go into a deep sleep, and the others would, uh, summon him. It was an extraordinary high!

In context, it was not the use of magic that gave the high, it was the specific fact of possession by Eyghon. This makes sense. Newly-sired vamps (Jesse in WttH or Holden in CwDP) reacted in much the same way. But it wasn't the magic use, it was the sense of power from demonic possession.

I think lack of precedence remains a valid objection.

We saw no indication before this that magical power could be passed from person to person, or that magical power oculd be "used up" by going on a magic working spree

I would phrase it a little differently. We had not seen in the past that using magic would cause someone to crave further use of magic. That was the real "addiction" issue, generating silly scenes of Willow drinking bottled water to stifle her "cravings". Not only is there no precedence for that, it makes little sense.

I think the addiction storyline could have been PART of the power/control/fear of pain storyline, rather than overpowering it. I think in fact it was intended to, but the writers didn't quite pull it off.

I agree. Instead, the addiction arc merely confused everyone.

Because the whole season developed the theme that how we choose to interpret our problems can in fact cause more problems, can be wrog and have dangerous consequences (for example, Buff's conviction that she came back wrong), I have no problem with the idea that Willow was wrong to see her connection SOLELY as an addiction. That doesn't mean there are no addictive-type qualities to magic, just that the addiction isn't all that's going on.

I would have no problem with the addiction angle if it had been portrayed as Willow's POV that served to excuse a power/control issue. I didn't see that portrayal. If the writers intended to show this, they missed me and every poster on this board throughout S6.

And these non-addictions do have some sort of biological basis

Don't mean to divert this into a side topic, but this is a very controversial issue. My understanding is that you have stated the minority opinion.

If the writers had connected Willow's power issues to the drug storyline better, if the possibility that she was fooling herself about her relationship to magic being just an addiction were brought up more clearly in the season itself, rather than popped on us by Giles the next year, I think the story could have worked.

I agree entirely.

My take? Of course Willow's responsible. She was doing the equivalent of buying a gun and drinking a bottle of tequila.

I agree entirely.

Oh, and the finale. I was more happy with Willow arc conclusion than anything else. The idea that there is a spectrum of magic, from good to bad, that the good and the bad have different characteristics, because they tap into different poles of human possibility, that makes sense in light of the understanding of magic we saw in the magicrack storyline. The ending also made sense in terms of Willow's character. I loved it.

Because I agreed with you that Willow is responsible for Warren, I can't agree with this. My biggest criticism of S7 is the failure of ME to address in any meaningful way her horrific crimes at the end of S6. They let her off the hook, while making her character less interesting throughout S7.

The only way I can make sense of the finale when it comes to Willow is to see her as, in essence, being re-souled as an act of grace. That doesn't erase her past crimes, but as with Angel or Spike, it gives her a chance to move forward.

Shanshu Who? (Spoilers for BtVS thru Chosen and AtS s5--though everyone knows this stuff already) -- Kenny, 18:15:17 06/03/03 Tue

So, Spike's dead, and there's a good chance he'll be human when he shows up on Angel next season, leaving the big question of, "Did he steal Angel's Shanshu?"* If he does shanshu, is there even a way of knowing whether or it was intended for Angel or Spike?

Let's say they could determine, and, yes, it was intended for Angel, and, either through manipulation (such as W&H's) or sheer dumb luck, the prophecy is now fulfilled, the vampire with a soul is human, and Angel's SOL. Or is he? We've actually seen two ways for him to Shanshu. He could find a Mohra(sp?) demon and get some blood from it (as he did in IWARY). Or he could get himself staked and have the Darla spell cast on him. Basically an FU to the universe that has screwed him over once again. So two questions...first of all, it's hard to see Angel doing this. What do you think it would take to convince him to go through with it? And secondly, do you believe that if, at this point in time, he decided to take it upon himself to Shanshu he'd be entitled to it?

*OK, I know that 2nd grade taught me to place the ending punctuation inside the quote when the quote finishes a sentence, but, in cases like this, it drives me nuts. It just feels wrong, as the question mark belongs to the whole sentence...the quote itself is not the sentence. I usually ignore that rule, but I felt compelled to abide by it today. Does anyone know of an exception that would make me happy? It's complicated further by the fact that it's not really a quote, but a supposition put into that form.

Say, for instance, someone says, "God, _Chosen_ sucked big, floppy donkey dick." Being the intelligent person you are, you cannot believe that anyone could even make such a statement in jest, so you ask for clarification. You say, "You ignorant heifer, did you just say, 'God, _Chosen_ sucked big, floppy donkey dick?'" (This case leading to the fun of nested quotes and the added problem of parentheses, because I see this statement as being somewhat parenthetical, but it does not seem right to include it within the quotes, but the ending punctuation was in the quotes, so I'm left in a quandary, the parentheses appear outside of any sentence, which I'm sure is bad form, I'm coming perilously close to a run-on, and my cat is about to eat my pizza (stupid cat)(see, a more correct use of parentheses, although I'm sure I broke some rule about nesting them (perhaps I should have used [] for the outermost layer)). Please help.)

[> LOL. Punctuated logic. Or is that logical punctuation? -- Sophist, 19:44:00 06/03/03 Tue

I follow logic rather than rules of punctuation. I put the quotes inside the punctuation when that makes logical sense. Which it does in the examples you gave and in this one: Did you really say "XYZ"?

[> [> The real rule (if any body cares) -- mamcu, 09:04:15 06/04/03 Wed

*OK, I know that 2nd grade taught me to place the ending punctuation inside the quote when the quote finishes a sentence, but, in cases like this, it drives me nuts. It just feels wrong, as the question mark belongs to the whole sentence...the quote itself is not the sentence.

Here's the real rule, from the research page at St. Cloud State College (http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/research/puncquotes.html), but I've seen it in many, many grammar handbooks and learned it in tenth grade (my school system was a little slow on these things).


Exclamation Point/Question Mark

When the whole sentence except for the section enclosed in quotation marks is a question or exclamation, the question or exclamation mark goes outside the quotation mark.

Which British writer wrote, "Ask not for whom the bell tolls"?

When only the unit in quotation marks is a question or exclamation, the mark goes inside the closing quotation mark.

The mediator asked, "What have you learned from this experience?"

When both the whole sentence and the unit enclosed in quotation marks are questions or exclamations, the question or exclamation mark goes inside the closing quotation mark.

What happens when you ask "What do I want from life?"

[> [> [> thanks, mamcu! -- anom, 11:07:11 06/04/03 Wed

I wrote a reply about all this, & my computer crashed while it was in the "Modify/Approve" window. Then Kenny posted below in the same thread, & I decided I didn't need to rewrite it. So I'm glad you posted that.

[> Re: Shanshu Who? (No spoilers...just veered gramatically OT) -- Kenny, 21:04:14 06/03/03 Tue

Wow, I just realized that, in the quote I was complaining about, the "?" made sense inside the quotes. I have such a knee-jerk reaction to not liking to place the punctuation in the quotes that I figured this was one of those times. A wonder what editing does for you.

[> Shanshu thing (Spoilers for BtVS thru Chosen and AtS s5) -- s'kat, 15:45:29 06/04/03 Wed

First - LOL to the meandering off topic on the grammar.
Watch out, Kenny, this board loves absolutely loves off topic subjects like grammar. Me? Hated grammar in school, hate it now. Only put up with it because I need it to make my writing clear to others.

So, Spike's dead, and there's a good chance he'll be human when he shows up on Angel next season, leaving the big question of, "Did he steal Angel's Shanshu?"* If he does shanshu, is there even a way of knowing whether or it was intended for Angel or Spike?

Okay let's look at this whole Shanshue thing for a milli-sec from a network tv/writer/story-teller's pov as opposed to a fan or moral/academic point of view.

Network/Writing pov is all about getting ratings, the most juice as possible from the story, getting people tuned in for longest time possible, and having stuff to write about - preferrably dark angsty painful noir horror stuff - this is ME and ANgel after all, not Charmed and Aaron Spelling or
Seventh Heaven. The other, fan/moral academic is all about the character being redeemed or deserving redemption and
having the happy ever after. These two pov's are often (not always) counter to each other. Another way of putting it?
If you as a fan think Angel should shanshue and be redeemed
b/c it would be happy or he deserves it? You can bet money that the writer/network will do the opposite. Why? First rule of keeping an audience's interest - don't give them what they expect or want for the title character of a tv show. You can give them twists on this, but never deliver the actual carrot. The title character must never get the carrot, that character get's the carrot? The fans stop worrying about him getting the carrot. They switch channels. They look for something else. You lose them.
Yep, it's our own fault - we're sadistic/masochists and the writers milk this for all it's worth. ;-)

My hunch is that the writers who came up with the whole Shanshu thing grew bored of the concept sometime in S2 and decided to do the twist. Let's face it - human Angel, all redeemed and kittenish - uhm didn't we already do that with a) Riley and b) Angel in IWARY? Do we really want to do happy Buffy and Angel ride off into the sunset? Tried that with Riley - audience got bored. Tried that with Angel in early season 2, ratings dipped. Made Angel evil? Ratings spiked. Characters happy? Audience bored. Characters struggling? Audience obsessed. Also from the writer pov - we make human Angel - not much horror or dark noir, although very nifty warm Touched by An Angel theme, which uhm not our thing. So I seriously doubt Angel is ever going to Shanshu, at least not as long as the show has a season or two left in it. He might do it in the finale...who knows? But that ain't this year. So don't hold your breath. Doesn't matter if he deserves it. Doesn't matter if they wrote it in there or even refer to it. They did it - to give the character a clear goal, something to make us root for the character. It happens before the end? Story pretty much over - well unless it becomes the Rockford Files, which is a human detective solving human crimes with crazy sidekicks.

Spike on the other hand - could very well Shanshu - all sorts of story potential there. Also no problems on the ratings side. Why? a)Spike is a supporting character - supporting characters can actually be happy, they can do just about anything as long as it contrasts with the title character and in someway affects the title character in a way that creates tension in the plot. OR just tells us something new and interesting about title character's situation. Examples are Willow/Tara's long happy relationship on Btvs, Willow/OZ, Xander/Anya, Giles leaving and having pseudo-normal life, Dawn having normal high school for a while. Of course none of it lasted, but it could far longer...than it can for Buffy. This is why I tend
to invest myself in supporting characters over leads, far less painful. (Well almost - supporting characters unfortunately, can also easily be killed off. But ME is willing to kill off the leads - so no one's safe there. ;-) )b. Spike shanshuing would most likely make Angel crazy, great story potential there. Spike shanshuing and keeping his powers in some way - make Angel even crazier. Crazy Angel = interesting Angel for both Actor and Writers and Audience. Doesn't matter whether Spike deserves it or not, what matters is what it would do to Angel. c.) What is the most horrible thing the writers could do to Angel, that they haven't already done? Shanshue Spike. That creates story potential. Next horrible thing? Make it so Angel needs Spike in some way and is forced to work with him and help him. Can you imagine the pain for Angel?

Remember Angel is the lead. Angel must be miserable. Must
be conflicted. Must have problems. We must feel for him.
What is the best way of doing that, than with your supporting characters? That's why Cordy went evil. Why Connor never really accepted Angel. Why Wes betrayed Angel.
Why Lilah came back from the dead.

I know it seems like an odd way of looking at it - but this is how the writer/creator thinks about it. What generates the most story potential? What causes most conflict?
What gives us the most stuff to do?

Making Darla human in S2 Angel opened up tons of possibilities. Angel tries to redeem her. Just as he is about to succeed, W&H turns her into a vampire again. She goes after Angel, almost succeeds in turning him dark, he sleeps with her, but regains his humanity in doing so, she
gets pregnant, and sacrifices herself for the kid, which becomes Connor. Whoa. Lots of angst and conflict there.
Much more interesting than letting Angel reach his goal of being human.

Same deal with Spike. Lots of possiblities. Can have him become human - then have someone turn him into a vampire again (really hope they don't go that route, been there.)
Can have him become human but hate vampires and try to kill them - all Holtzish. Any number of things. Whatever happens, you still have the vampire hero at the center - with the added benefit of his goal standing in front of him making him ask himself the question - "is this what I really want for myself?" Or equally interesting, dealing with jealousy and envy, wondering why Spike of all people got his dream and not him, and whether he screwed up by
trusting W&H or by letting Buffy choose and not insisting on taking that amulet himself.

Of course none of this really answers your questions - does it? ;-) Reason is, I'm not sure these questions are the ones we should be asking to figure out what they are doing on the show.

But hey here's my answers:

1.Did he steal Angel's Shanshu?"* If he does shanshu, is there even a way of knowing whether or it was intended for Angel or Spike?

Nope. Angel gave it up of his own free will. No stealing.
Although I'm not so sure this was the shanshue the PTB was talking about - assuming they ever mentioned it. They didn't remember - that was the scroll out of W&H, which may have been all about JAsmine. Another interpretation is it was never Angel's prophecy to begin with - it was the vampire who went to get his soul from the entity in the proto-bantu region of Africa, that vampire did not exist at the time Wes read the scroll. The scroll is in proto-bantu, Spike went to a region of Africa that speaks proto-bantu to get his soul. Spike in effect became the vampire with a soul in the prophecy. HE didn't steal it from Angel, because under this interpretation - it was never Angel's to begin with. Lesson - Don't count your eggs before they hatch or better yet - don't count on a prophecy (Angel and his gang spend way too much time counting on prophecy's, half of their problems come from this habit. If Buffy taught him anything it should have been to ignore the stupid things and make your own way in the universe.)

2."Let's say they could determine, and, yes, it was intended for Angel, and, either through manipulation (such as W&H's) or sheer dumb luck, the prophecy is now fulfilled, the vampire with a soul is human, and Angel's SOL. Or is he? We've actually seen two ways for him to Shanshu. He could find a Mohra(sp?) demon and get some blood from it (as he did in IWARY). Or he could get himself staked and have the Darla spell cast on him. Basically an FU to the universe that has screwed him over once again. So two questions...first of all, it's hard to see Angel doing this. What do you think it would take to convince him to go through with it? And secondly, do you believe that if, at this point in time, he decided to take it upon himself to Shanshu he'd be entitled to it?"

YEp, Angel could probably become human if he wanted to.
(Or rather if the writers do.)1. Mothra Demon, 2. Go get the soul the way Spike did and then sacrifice himself for the universe. 3) Have W&H bring him back human. 4)Get Spike's amulet back and try to use it (which may require digging up the hellmouth, but whatever.

Don't see Angel going after this any time soon. Why become human? Buffy has pretty much told him she needs to figure out who she is first, and even if he was human - she ain't available. Makes more sense to stay vampy, so he's still young and attractive (well DB won't be, but you know what I mean) when she finally gets baked. He's son's pretty much grown and has a life elsewhere - no reason to do it for Connor. And becoming human? Takes away the ability to be Batman - no superhuman strength, bit of a downer that.
So, really don't see any reason why Angel would want it.
He doesn't care much about human things to begin with.

(Honestly - I can't see Spike being all that thrilled with being human either.)

Maybe Spike becoming human - would make Angel want it?
Or maybe if Angel fell in love with a normal human woman, like Kate? (shrug)

IS Angel entitled to it? Yeah, why not. Becoming human doesn't redeem you - all it means is you are given the chance to try again - try life as a human with all the pitfalls. Being human ain't a piece of cake. Actually, I think Angel would be miserable because he can't be the champion he was as a vampire, no super-strength, just be a normal guy, a la Clark Kent as opposed to superman. Also mortal. Very ironic idea of redemption. Angel's as entitled to it as anyone else on the shows.

Hope added something. Interesting post.
And great stress reliever.

SK

[> [> Uhm tons of typos and grammar mistakes, sorry. ;- ) -- sk, 15:55:14 06/04/03 Wed

Didn't have time to proofread.

[> [> A few things to add -- lunasea, 16:24:50 06/04/03 Wed

One. How do the various options not only torment Angel, but how do they fit into this season's theme? ME doesn't think "Let's bring back Darla. Darla is cool. What can we use her for?" They think "We want Angel to have to deal with his past. How can we push Angel to Angelus without him actually losing his soul?" It is a great way to write.

Then again, that pretty much has been how Spike has been written. Spike is cool. What can we use him for? It is why there are so many interpretations of him, many of which go against canon. If WB did foist Spike on ME and they have to result to "Spike is cool. What can we do with him?" he won't get an actual arc again and his noble sacrifice won't be validated. He will be in the same position he was on Buffy, a series of points that the audience connected to make an arc. If they do this, maybe they should leave him in the basement again.

I would think that instead, since they have to figure out how to bring back Spike, whatever they will do is what will fit best with next season's theme, which really looks like it will be about corruption. What to do with Spike will answer either what will make Angel the most susceptible to corruption, thus Spike won't get a real arc again OR what will make Spike the most susceptible to corruption. I hope they go with the latter.

Two: Spike doesn't fit the scroll of Aberjian. Neither do the events of "Chosen." The coming darkness, released fiends, plagues, more than one apocalypse. The blind seer kids play a role in whatever apocalypse the prophecy is about. He can turn human all he wants. It isn't THE prophecy. What happened to Spike doesn't negate Angel and vice versa? Why now that Spike actually did something worthwhile is the prophecy all the sudden his?

Three: We aren't sure of the translation of Shanshu. Wesley assumed it was Proto-Bantu, since that had the most favorable interpretation. I think the twist would be if his earlier translation was the correct one.

Personally, I'm hoping he is neither vampire, souled or unsouled, or human. ME is creative. They can come up with something no one has yet? How about Spike as a Troll?

[> [> [> I think his sacrifice has to be *invalidated*... -- KdS, 16:37:01 06/04/03 Wed

Because if we look at Amends and Reprise, and to a much weaker degree The Gift and Tomorrow the traditional myth of the heroism of self-sacrifice has been severely questioned by ME, and suggested to be all too often just a respectable excuse for suicide. I haven't seen Chosen yet (we get End of Days tomorrow and Chosen next Thursday), but I think that towards the end of S7 it has been suggested that Spike still sees his moral redemption as still being all about making up for what he did to Buffy. He still behaves very badly to Wood in Lies and Faith in Touched. I don't mind if he's a human or a vampire next year, but I want to see him make the same journey Angel made through the first three seasons of BtVS and two of AtS, from seeing his redemption as bound up with love for a single person to it being bound up with the love of humanity.

[> [> [> [> been there, done that -- lunasea, 17:44:13 06/04/03 Wed

I want to see him make the same journey Angel made through the first three seasons of BtVS and two of AtS, from seeing his redemption as bound up with love for a single person to it being bound up with the love of humanity.

I actually would like to keep Spike obsessive over Buffy (or transfer that to some other strong female figure) to contrast him with Angel. Rather than seeing it redeem him, I would like his sacrifice acknowledged somehow, but I would like to see the obsession really cause him some serious problems that could lead to his moral corruption.

I think ME's biggest problem isn't how to bring Spike back, but how to keep him from flying right back to Buffy. They did a good job with Angel/Buffy in "Chosen," but they didn't do that for Spike.

[> [> [> [> Sigh, Respectfully disagree, but no surprise there. -- s'kat, 19:03:28 06/04/03 Wed

Okay, guys, I know you both despise Spike, to the extent that you often push my buttons.

So, let's take a step back, and look at what the writers have stated.

1. Next year's Angel is going to be revamped. No more long arcs, no more internal melodrama or huge themes based on prophecies. More stand- alones. Much lighter. More sunlight.

2. WB didn't foist Spike on ME. Whedon decided to do 10
episodes with Spike as a recurring character or maybe a couple 4 episode arcs. He begged JM to do them, because it was vital. JM told them he couldn't afford to do anything less than regular status career wise and financially - he had other offers he'd have to turn down and financial obligations, including an offer from The Rolling Stones to appear in Berlin. JM is 41 years of age and does not have the luxary to do guest appearences with bleach blond hair. He has his career to think about. Being close to his age myself, I wholeheartedly sympathize. WB wanted Spike, because they wanted to grab a percentage of the Btvs audience. Plus over 400 some fans emailed and sent post-cards letting them know that they'd watch Angel if Spike were on it. And no, they couldn't get Hannigan, she turned them down - has movie offers. As did Trachenburg, Gellar, Caulfield, and Benson. So Whedon thought, I can do that, I'll make JM a regular. Everyone at ME gets along with him, David Boreanze loves working with him. The fans love him.
No problemo.

3. Whedon has already stated in interviews that he can't do anything that would invalidate Spike's sacrifice. See slayage.com. Spike did not save the world for Buffy. If it were for Buffy, he would have stopped and joined her when she said she loved him. But instead the writers deliberately had him say, "no you don't" and that he had to do this. Spike did something Angel has never done, saved the world and gave up everything including his mortality, Buffy, Dru, etc. Now that's a selfless sacrifice and it was beautiful. Whether you bought it or not, is well your prerogative.

4. Theme? Obvious - Spike shanshues - and can be corrupted as a human. OR maybe, and far more interesting, Spike isn't corrupted and Angel is - doing all the right things. Spike has to interact with more than just Angel, since it's ensemble. Actually I think Gunn and Angel are going to be the ones corrupted next year then having to climb out of it.
The suggestions:

1. Shanshue
2. Ghost
3. Male Vampire Slayer
4. Ensouled Vampire
5. Superpowered Human
6. Troll? LOL!

If he becomes a troll - I will do the same thing I did when Worf joined DS9, switch to West Wing, which is a decent show and I've had to give it up for Ats. More than happy
to go back, if need be. ;-) Because I believe Spike was redeemed. I saw redemption this year and the writers stated it in interviews. I do not see Angel as being redemed at the moment. He is still a split personality with a trigger that he can't overcome. (Buffy/Riley/Xander reference Angel's soul trigger in Yoko Factor.)

And yeah I know KdS saw Spike as nasty in Lies. I respectfully disagree with KdS' interpretation, as I disagree with his take on Spike. My interpretation is more in line with Caroline's and TcH's. No need to revisit an old arguement. ;-)

Since we appear to be going around in circles on this.
Perhaps agreeing to disagree is the best approach. I know a couple of boards have declared it a dead topic. I love all the characters - except for Principal Wood, who I hate with a blind passion and would have enjoyed watching die. Instead they killed two characters I loved. Oh well. Them's the breaks.

All I was pointing out - is the potential for conflict in Angel and contrast and more can be gained, by introducing spike in a positive manner as opposed to negative, since they already did the negative last year with Cordelia and Connor and Wes. Remember the pitch to WB was for a lighter series, less dark.

I am going to spoiled on this. So I'll probably know everything before the premiere.;-)

[> [> [> [> [> Looking forward to being spoiled myself ;) (and spoilers for 7.22) -- ponygirl, 20:03:26 06/04/03 Wed

Originally the "No you don't, but thanks for saying it," line troubled me a great deal. What's worse than dying alone, believing yourself unloved? But now I see it as a necessary thing. If Spike died believing that Buffy's love was a prize he could win, then he's no more mature than Dawn lying down in front of the train so RJ would always remember her, or Pippin seeking to show the world how bright he can shine by burning up. He would have still been searching for that bright glowing prize, never realizing that any light must come from the inside.

Self-sacrifice for a reward, as KdS points out, is not something we see in the Buffyverse. Nor for release or peace. Dying for the hope of a better world, as in The Wish and The Gift, seems to be the only acceptable loophole. Even that has its dark side as we saw on AtS this year, with Jasmine and later with Angel's sacrifice of Connor, and is one of the reasons I'm interested in seeing what they do with Spike.

Now one knows yet what's going to happen on AtS next year, but it might be interesting to look at redemption not as an end point but a beginning. Where does one go from there? Does the past become a blank slate or does it still inform all you do? How does one get on with the business of living? And does the act of living in the world rather than apart from it entail a certain corruption of ideals?

[> [> [> [> [> [> My thoughts entirely, PG -- Rahael, 20:09:54 06/04/03 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> Another interesting view from Angel's Soul Board (Egyptian Ra-tat) -- s'kat (illegally importing), 21:54:19 06/04/03 Wed

"Date Posted: 22:12:20 06/04/03 Wed
Author: Ramses 2
Author Host/IP: 48.mercerville-03rh16rt.nj.dial-access.att.net / 12.94.197.48
Subject: Fanwanking the Ra-tet, Shanshu, and Spike's restoration

In Long Day's Journey, we learned the little girl in the white room was more than W&H's only connection to the senior partners. She was also Mesektet, part of the the Ra-tet, 5 very powerful beings linked to Ra the sun god. An ancient order around since the beginning of time.

So these guys are important, so important that Jasmine feels the need to wipe them out before she is born into the world. The Beast kills Mesektet, drawing a dark energy from her. Next we learn that Ashet is looking for a protective amulet. He is found by the beast and Gwen watches as he is destroyed and a bright white light is released. We learn later that he was a being made entirely of light. A powerful Shahman, Ma'at has her heart torn out of her chest. Semkhet is a skinless saber tooth tiger. The last one killed is Manjet, sacred guardian of the Shen, keeper of the orb of Ma'at and devotee of the light.

Manny is the neutral totem. Representing the potential of every human soul. He's just a guy but he's immortal, unless he's ritually murdered.

Hmm, I guess you could say he get's to live as human until he dies. Could Angel's reward be not such a great thing? (Though I would love Angel being representing the potential of every human soul)Could W&H be reassembling the Ra-tet? Could they need to do so to reconnect with the senior partners? Doesn't it stand to reason that the Ra-tet would need to be replaced?

And isn't it interesting that we've seen the sweet childlike Fred become darker and darker this season. She says she doesn't want the mission to harden her but what if she becomes Meseketet incarnate?

When last we saw Gunn, he was bonding or something with a black jaguar. Could this be Gunn becoming Semkhet? The skinless saber tooth tiger?(If they been around since the beginning of time one could fanwank that the first Semkhet was created using a saber tooth. Skinless? If Gunn becomes Semkhet, one with the jaguar but keeps his human form then wouldn't he be a skinless jaguar?(being in human skin not fur?)

Now who would be Ma'at? The shahman who had her heart ripped out? I'm guessing Lorne.

And Ashet? Well, who was last seen as Mr. Big pile of ashes? With an amulet? With bright white light pouring from him? Do I think W&H wanted Spike? Nope, I think they wanted Buffy. Lilah offers the amulet for the Slayer. Angel thinks W&H is up to something, doesn't trust them and so offers to wear it. Buffy tells him she has another champion, Spike. I think Lilah's offer of the sun to Angel was her sly way of trying out Manny's position of devotee to the sun on Angel.

Now, what's interesting here is that Manny calls the Ra-tet a family. Skip has made some reference this season to the MoG being manipulated, brought together by Jasmine. In season 1, Cordi assures Angel in To Shanshu in LA that they are a family. Perhaps Cordi/Jasmine has now assured that AI is a family indeed. Funny how the prophesies always come true...just in ways that no one, including the powers can control.

W&H are reconnected to the Partners. AI is not only working for the enemy, but have become the PTB themselves. Angel is an immortal human. Rewarded, but still unable to be with Buffy. Spike for the same reason. And Wes? What is Wes to do? One of the women he loves is dead and bound to W&H, and the other may be bound to evil as well.

Just fanwanking mind you, summer speculating before we get the juicy red meat of spoilers."

Now this is just way cool!! I really hope this is what they are doing.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spoilers for Ats Home above !! (this explains/fanwanks several things) -- s'kat, 21:57:05 06/04/03 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very cool. Confusing but cool! Thanks! -- curious, 22:11:43 06/04/03 Wed

I'll have to watch "Long Day's Journey" again. I found the Ra-tet stuff a little baffling. It would be a good way to tie Spike to W&H.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very interesting idea -- KdS, 03:36:12 06/05/03 Thu

Although I would pick Means-boy Wes rather than Fred as the potential replacement for Mesektet - no reason why it has to be the same physical type of person.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ra-tet -- Rufus, 18:00:20 06/05/03 Thu

The Ra-tet are a series of beings devoted to order..remember the little girl in the White Room or Mesektet liked trouble but hated chaos. So we see a series of totems, but these totems are like a spectrum of light and dark, good, evil.....all aspects needed to keep the order lending some credence to what Jasmine said about there not being absolutes. The Ra-tet isn't powerful because they extinguish either good or evil, light or dark, but because they represent the cyclic nature of life as we know it in the Buffy/Angelverse.


MAN
I am Manjet, sacred guardian of the Shen, keeper of the Orb of Ma'at, and devotee of light. Off hours, I like Manny.

ANGEL
You're Manjet?

MAN/MANNY
Right.

ANGEL
The last totem of the Ra-tet?

MANNY
Right.

GWEN
I thought you were in Belize.

MANNY
Was 'til I heard Mesektet got whacked. Never liked that chick-evil, right down to her Mary Janes. But family, what're you gonna do?


You may not like a member of your family but they remain your family. So, even though Manny finds members of his family opposed to what he believes in he realizes for life as it is to go one both opposites are required.

GUNN
I'd rather be here than back at the hotel, plowing through them annoying books with the symbolic manifestos and the "brilliant."

MANNY
Never trust the book or the bookies, kid. Real juju takes place on the QT. That's why you can't find this Beast, he's too powerful. I mean, taking out the Ra-tet-

GUNN
Speaking of, ain't you Tet folks supposed to be all mighty and colossal?

MANNY
The mid-day totem is man. The neutral totem, the potential of every human soul.

I'm surprised no one has talked much about man's influence in the scheme of things as they hold the mid place in the totem....and it is man that seems to be able to travel to either side of light/dark, good/evil....all because they have that gift Darla mentioned to Connor....choice.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Choices, the Ratet, Angel, Btvs and Matrix Reloaded. (Ats S4 Spoilers) -- s'kat, 21:28:24 06/05/03 Thu

MANNY
The mid-day totem is man. The neutral totem, the potential of every human soul.

I'm surprised no one has talked much about man's influence in the scheme of things as they hold the mid place in the totem....and it is man that seems to be able to travel to either side of light/dark, good/evil....all because they have that gift Darla mentioned to Connor....choice.

Which seems to be a major theme in both series this year.
In Angel - the choices the characters make propel the events. Yes - they may have been manipulated somewhat, but they still made choices.

Connor - he had several choices this season. 1)Sleep with Cordelia 2)Kill Angelus, which he was stopped from doing by the AI teams choices, 3) Whether or not to take the girl for Cordelia or help Cordelia...numerous ones. In some ways Connor reminds me of Andrew in Btvs - a mushroom, or Manny, neutral like a mushroom, they could go either way.

Same with Fred - Fred made a choice on how to deal with Jasmine's shirt and how to deal with Jasmine's visage and whether to attempt to wake up Angel to what Jasmine was, or take off on her own.

The choices we make are based on numerous variables, who we are, our Myers-Briggs personality profiles (ie. if we are Sensing/Judging - our choices may be based on logic and principles like Mr. Spock on Star Trek, if they are Feeling/Intiutive - our choices may be based on emotion and gut instinct like Dr. Bones McCoy on Star Trek), our environment (economics, needs, parents), and our goals.
They are also based on whether or not we are moral, amoral or immoral beings. And the number of choices one can make in any given situation are numerous - too numerous sometimes for any one of us to safely predict. (Ex: if you order your kids to either finish their homework or go to bed, they can: go to bed and finish their homework, do neither and disobey you, do one or the other, lie and say they did one, sneak out their bedroom window ... And how you decide to deal with their behavior is predicated on the choice they made and is also numerous and depends on your personality. )

Human is by nature an unpredictable animal, constantly changing and adapting. Choice is our gift. What we do with it is and how we perceive it is another choice altogether.

Yes, I saw MAtrix Reloaded today. If you haven't seen it yet - it's well a bit like watching a video game through the mind of JEan-PAul Satre or the existentialists or rather a video game inside Satre's head or by Satre. All about choice and what that means and if we have it and why it matters and who that makes us. Whether you like it or not, probably has a lot to do with whether you like being inside a video game in Satre's head. ;-) (I sort of grooved on it after a while...but I'm in an existentialist frame of mind. ;-) )

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sigh, Respectfully agree -- sdev, 21:28:53 06/04/03 Wed

Great post. What if Spike's sacrifice was for Buffy and the world as he came to see it thru her. Does that negate it? What is this concept of pure selflessness? It is a standard even Buffy never adhered to (Graduation,The Gift). I don't believe it is a concept one can ever apply to a human.

Also, it lends itself to tautology--the ultimate reward is the satisfaction of having sacrificed; therefore pure sacrifice does not exist.

[> [> [> [> [> That's not agreeing to disagree -- lunasea, 08:00:00 06/05/03 Thu

Perhaps agreeing to disagree is the best approach.

That post wasn't agreeing to disagree. It was an attempt at having the last word using points already made. For one avid reader of interviews to point another avid reader of the same interviews to an interview (which I have quoted from in the past and can probably do so from memory at this point) is almost insulting. (www.whedonesque.com is a much better site than slayage any way)

If you want to see what agreeing to disagree looks like, this post is. I agree to disagree. Then nothing else is said. No reinteration of points that have already been made. No statement of new argument. No arguing a tangent (such as I didn't even say what form that Spike would take, so to bring that up isn't even topical). Just silence. It looks like this:

[> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe the response wasn't just for you -- curious, 09:19:59 06/05/03 Thu

And I quote:

If WB did foist Spike on ME and they have to result to "Spike is cool. What can we do with him?" he won't get an actual arc again and his noble sacrifice won't be validated.

That's not what ME and JW said they were going to do with the character or on AtS next year. S'kat was simply presenting evidence from various places to make an actual argument for why your position and KdS's positions are not supported by what ME and JW have been saying in interviews lately. She was not attacking you or "getting the last word in". The notion of using Spike as a "cool" villain a la Season 2 BtVS has been done already.

A lot of lurkers, newcomers and Spike fans appreciate gathering various information and forming our own opinions - thank you very much. Many people have participated in this and similar threads. I have read some of the interviews but not all. I enjoy and appreciate getting the fuller picture from all sides. I don't have the time or inclination to read every single interview but I do look at articles and resources and make up my own mind.

There is a lot of misinformation and nastiness about JM's move to AtS that amounts to personal actor bashing in addition to the usual character bashing that is common on many boards. Most of it is not supported by the actual evidence from recent interviews and articles. I have never gotten the impression that WB forced Spike on ME. It seems clear to me that ME begged him to come over. You may read it differently but I think it was a legitimate point to try to argue based on the evidence that is available and let people form their own conclusions.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> You do know what IF means? -- lunasea, 09:36:33 06/05/03 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the JW quote -- KdS, 09:43:56 06/05/03 Thu

As I said, I haven't seen Chosen yet, so I shouldn't really have commented. (Although in the last few weeks I've really tried to avoid bashing JM or commenting on off-screen gossip, and I've never believed that CC's and VK's departures were a consequence of JM's arrival) But thinking back over this season, I think that the problem is Spike's lack of interaction with people other than Buffy. I know people, at times including me, have been saying that Spike took up too much time, but really it was Spuffy and the plot-related stuff that took up too much time. If you look back on it, other than the brief moment of bonding (I said bonding, get your minds out of the gutter) with Faith in Dirty Girls, the mutually demeaning feud with Wood, and the comic relief bickering with Andrew in Empty Spaces Spike hasn't had much emotional interaction with anyone but Buffy. So it's only natural for those of us who are predisposed against him to see his development as still being all about Buffy.

[> [> [> [> [> [> This I agree with. -- s'kat, 10:17:15 06/05/03 Thu

But thinking back over this season, I think that the problem is Spike's lack of interaction with people other than Buffy. I know people, at times including me, have been saying that Spike took up too much time, but really it was Spuffy and the plot-related stuff that took up too much time. If you look back on it, other than the brief moment of bonding (I said bonding, get your minds out of the gutter) with Faith in Dirty Girls, the mutually demeaning feud with Wood, and the comic relief bickering with Andrew in Empty Spaces Spike hasn't had much emotional interaction with anyone but Buffy.

Yep agree. I also had major problems with this, believe it or not. The only character who had a great arc this season in my humble opinion was Andrew. Think about it? Which character got to interact with every other character in the show? Needed to be redeemed and was shown that redemption logically bit by bit? Andrew. I may never forgive the writers for devoting the best redemption arc to a character that did not exist until S6 and was underdeveloped until S7. ugh!!

What annoyed me about the Spike arc this season was it was ALL ABOUT BUFFY. It wasn't really about Spike so much as it was about how Buffy dealt with Spike and how she handled it.
We rarely if ever got to see how Xander, Giles, Willow, Anya, or Dawn related. We got 0 character development from that score. So I do in some ways agree with the posters who stated Spike's best seasons ironically enough were S4 and S5, where we saw him interact with Xander, Giles, Dawn, Willow, and Anya. This season he gets a few scenes with Anya. One or two with Giles - very brief. One episode with Xander - and most of that is quiet bonding made me really miss Doomed and Hush. No, the problem wasn't Spike - it was the fact that the writers focused on Buffy's relationship to Spike, sometimes more than they focused on Spike's struggle in of itself. Which is odd, since we did get to see Andrew's struggle in and of itself. But Spike was Buffy's romantic foil/the fatale - so he had to be used as her shadow and his redemption had to be through her pov constantly, even when she wasn't around him. Same thing with Cordelia on Ats - her character became Angel's romantic foil. I think that in some ways hurt both characters. I'm not sure ME is very good with the romantic foil thing...but that's just my personal opinion and I'm on the fence with it. I just tend to find the characters more interesting when they aren't put in romantic relationships, or when they are - their relationships with the other characters are more interesting then the one they have with said love interest. I just don't think love/romance is really Whedon's strength, again personal opinion.

Part of the reason I'm looking forward to seeing Spike on Ats is the fact that I might actually get to find out something about this character that has zip to do with Buffy. I had to wait for Angel The Series to get info on Angel that had zip to do with Buffy, so in a way it's sort of fitting.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Chiming in -- curious, 10:47:16 06/05/03 Thu

Spike hasn't had much emotional interaction with anyone but Buffy. So it's only natural for those of us who are predisposed against him to see his development as still being all about Buffy.

That makes a lot of sense. It explains a lot of the hostility toward Spike.

I also think Spike's minimal interaction with anyone but Buffy was a major problem with Season 7. Could the relationship with Spike have represented Buffy's inner struggles while the other stuff represented Buffy's struggle with the outer world? That's the only way it makes much sense to me. Otherwise - what was he doing during the second half of the season when Buffy wasn't around?

And I agree that ME doesn't do a great job with romantic relationships. The Cordy/Angel relationship seemed especially forced to me. Not a big fan of Gunn/Fred either. Although Lilah and Wes were a fun couple. And then there's - Willow/Kennedy.....

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rebuttal -- lunasea, 12:41:51 06/05/03 Thu

And I agree that ME doesn't do a great job with romantic relationships

Buffy/Angel
Willow/Oz
Willow/Tara
Xander/Cordy
Xander/Anya
Spike/Dru
I even liked Buffy/Riley, even though I wanted to hate it

There was possible sparkage with Angel/Kate and Angel/Gwenn. Angelus/Darla are absolutely amazing.

As for Spike's minimal interaction. Could that be perhaps because the show is called BUFFY the vampire slayer? What was he doing when not with Buffy 2nd half? Seems he was moping in the basement. He couldn't even get up a full-blown good brood, just a weanie mope.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Xander in Him--just a little bit -- mamcu, 06:13:50 06/06/03 Fri

There was a little bit of interaction with Xander, working together to handle the jacket problems. But Spike really just seemed like a sidekick here.Watching some old S4 and S5 tapes and seeing the wonderful comic interactions Spike had with everyone, even I am inclined to agree that loverSpike, seriousSpike, wasn't nearly as much fun, episode by episode, even though the whole season arc of his redemption was. To me, of course. IMHO only.

The great comedy made the occasional serious scene, like the end of The Body, all the more moving.

[> [> [> Why does it have to be the Shanshu prophesy? - - curious, 21:58:43 06/04/03 Wed

I don't see why Spike can't become human - or whatever - in a way that has nothing to do with the Shanshu prophesy. That was Angel's light at the end of the tunnel and it could have been grossly misinterpreted by Wes anyway. I've never seen the logic in all the "Spike is going to "steal" Angel's Shanshu" arguments. If the prophesy "belongs" to Angel (he was drawn to the scroll) AND was accurately translated, then he should get it when/if he fulfills his destiny. What happened to his Epiphany in Season 2 anyway? Theoretically, the Shanshu should be a non- issue to Angel at this point. Has the prophesy been explicitly mentioned on the show since Season 1? Maybe it is a bigger deal to some of the audience than to the show.

If it were for Buffy, he would have stopped and joined her when she said she loved him. But instead the writers deliberately had him say, "no you don't" and that he had to do this. Spike did something Angel has never done, saved the world and gave up everything including his mortality, Buffy, Dru, etc. Now that's a selfless sacrifice and it was beautiful.

Absolutely! I also don't see any reason why ME would regress Spike. Like it or not, Spike made a lot of progress without a soul and CHOSE to get a soul. Angelus did not, would not. Like it or not, Buffy trusted and cared about Spike. She may or may not have been "in love" with him but she believed in him and chose to be with him in the end. He was there for her. I hope they bring an end to the B/S romantic relationship very quickly so that the season doesn't get bogged down with it but I really don't think that it can be argued that Spike died to win Buffy's love. He sacrificed himself because it needed to be done without hope of getting Buffy as a reward.

There are lots of interesting twists that could have little or nothing to do with romantic ships. That's been done to death. Angel still has issues with making decisions for other people in a very paternalistic way. He still has his own ego and vanity to deal with. He made the deal with W&H, not Spike. We still don't know anything about the fine print of that deal. A certain amount of corruption has already happened. Angel wouldn't have resisted Lilah initially unless he knew that some degree of corruption was part of the deal.

The show is about Angel so he will go through the most hell. What could make him more crazy than to "need" Spike for some reason or for Spike to be tied to W&H for some reason? What could make him crazier than for Spike to be "good" while he struggles with the aftermath of the deal he made with W&H to salvage Connor? How will he deal with the fact that Spike did indeed sacrifice himself? Spike's character flaws will certainly surface but Angel is the main character who needs to explore his new situation.

I find these questions a lot more interesting than - "Who gets the girl?"

[> [> [> [> Agree...oh note on ratings as well -- s'kat, 22:19:05 06/04/03 Wed

Agree with your post. (no surprise there ;-) )

A poster on Angel's Soul board, Lisa, said something that I really like about the whole soul thing and shanshue prophecy, she said - they are ultimately ex deus machina and probably just contrivances. Shanshue has been redefined several times on Ats. We don't know what it means.

I think, from what I've read, that the show is moving away from the whole prophecy thing started in Season 1, hence the droppage of Cordy and Connor who linked strongly into that. They seem to want to be more appealing to new viewers.
This season lost viewers as opposed to picking them up.

Neilsen's for this season's Angel btw were incredibly low.
3.8, 139 out of 200 shows. Dead last was Abby.
Buffy I believe was 138. Btvs' highest rating was Chosen with 4.9. Average was slightly higher than Angel for the season. Firefly got cancelled at 129. Angel lost viewers this year. To see the thread go to Buffy Cross and Stake Spoiler board - wwolfe posted the news. At any rate - with this news, it's amazing Angel got renewed for a fifth season.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree...oh note on ratings as well -- curious, 22:45:59 06/04/03 Wed

Shanshue has been redefined several times on Ats. We don't know what it means.

But that doesn't stop people from referring to it repeatedly. ;-)

At any rate - with this news, it's amazing Angel got renewed for a fifth season.

Exactly. I wonder if all the people complaining about JM joining the show realize he was a big part of saving the show. If the show doesn't do well - he'll be blamed. If it does do well, he probably won't get a lot of credit. Kind of a dicey career move.

I hope the show can move to a format that is more of a real ensemble like "Firefly". Lots of character conflict and interaction but also begrudging respect and working together. The shippy melodrama is getting kind of tired. I have a friend who is trying to make sense of Season 4 to get ready for next season. Pretty difficult to come into the middle for anyone but the most hardcore. I am not suprised that ratings dropped this season.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Dicey career move -- Dandy, 07:55:21 06/05/03 Thu

I think it's a good career move for him. With the money from this season JM could probably afford to do theater in the future. I think he would always be able to guest spot on TV and do at least some film work. His acting talent and popularity are already a given with fans and industry people. He has a reputation for being good to work with, not difficult. He would not be blamed if this season was the last for Angel. It's having a fairly long run as TV shows go. If ratings were boffo and then he csme in and they slid tremendously it might reflect on him but that won't be the case. Ratings will probably be somewhat higher than last season, at least initially, due to Buffy fans.
I would not have minded JM turning down Ats and going back to theater or interesting small films. I'd like to see what he does with other characters. My hope is he feels so financially secure after this that he goes after really interesting roles.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I hope you're right -- curious, 08:42:49 06/05/03 Thu

JM seems to have gone back and forth between "Spike is a Cadillac role, man." and "I'm going to take a year of two off to get away from the Spike role." It must have been a hard decision - made harder by all the Charisma Carpenter fan backlash.

[> [> [> [> Re: Why does it have to be the Shanshu prophesy? -- lunasea, 08:53:04 06/05/03 Thu

The prophecy was important to the season premier of Season 2, "Judgment." Angel was keeping score of all the demons he killed to merit his reward. That episode effectively dealt with Shanshu and set up the mind set he needed for the arc of season 2. It was typical Angel arcing. He goes into the season wanting his reward and redemption. The purpose of that season is to get him out of that mindset and it does that rather harshly. It succeeds. What Angel really wants is to have control over the demon. He uses what he fights for to do that. He channels the demon to "good" ends. That is why being human is so important to him at that point. That season really shows how loose a hold he has on himself. The season ends with the trip to Pylea, so Angel can actually face the pure form of his demon and overcome him. It is a reward of sorts. Angel isn't nearly as afraid of himself after this. After this point, the prophecy isn't needed to motivate him and is pretty much dropped. It is mentioned indirectly even in "Epiphany" "I fought for so long. For redemption, for a reward - finally just to beat the other guy, but... I never got it."

How well does Angel "get it"? We will probably find out more this season.

Never said that Spike won't come back human. Not really that interested in how he does come back. I am much more interested in how they will attempt to corrupt each member of AI. Fred, to me, seems the most susceptible, so her arc (besides Angel's) holds the most interest. The ways that neutral scientists can be manipulated towards evil ends and how this affects them is a story I have always liked. "Real Genius" is one of my favorite movies. Fred may be used to ask the question, can we really remain neutral in this battle. I hoping Knox gets lots of screen time with her, not just as a romantic interest, but perhaps as a contrast to her. Fred isn't neutral. She has a strong moral sense. I want to see her revisit both what she wanted to do to Professor Sidel (and what would drive him to that) and that they did in fact end world peace. I think she will get a lot of story time next season.

My only point about Spike is he doesn't fit the Scroll of Aberjian. The only thing I find interesting about Spike's introduction is how they will keep him away from Buffy. Never was interested in the redundancy that he is. That is just me.

[> [> [> [> Re: Why does it have to be the Shanshu prophesy? -- Kenny, 14:15:02 06/06/03 Fri

Has the prophesy been explicitly mentioned on the show since Season 1? Maybe it is a bigger deal to some of the audience than to the show.

Yep...end of the Jasmine arc. She comments on everyone wanting to know which side Angel would take in the final battle. And when she states that Angel's not human, he replies, "Workin' on it." That's why I think shansu will come into effect. They actually took the time to mention it at the end of last season, to remind people of it. Why do that unless they wanted to play off of it? And having Spike shanshu would be an excellent way to play off it.

[> [> Re: Shanshu thing (Spoilers for BtVS thru Chosen and AtS s5) -- Dariel, 19:24:57 06/04/03 Wed

Great points, SK. You've practically convinced me that it will happen this way.

Spike, as you pointed out, is unlikely to be happy about Shanshuing. Which makes it a twofer--misery and conflict for two characters, not just one!

I could also see them using it to explore issues about manhood and identity--think of badass vampire Spike being reduced to a not very tall, kind of skinny human. Without his vamp persona and strength, and without Buffy, who would he be? Would he hate himself for being a weak human again, (and how much would it piss of Angel if he did?)

[> [> Agree-please no good cop show -- Dandy, 07:29:03 06/05/03 Thu

I agree with you that from a dramatic point of view Shansu might not be the best choice for Spike or Angel, immediately. It is the end of the journey. The writers have a responsibility to make it an interesting, meaningful and entertaining journey.

Personally, I'd like to see them throw a wrench in the monkeyworks and do something totally unexpected with Spike. Let him come back WRONG initially, warped physically by his ordeal, as the physical side of the Quasimodo/Beauty and the Beast story. Or ancient and he slowly gets younger-something that acts as an entertaining disgtraction from the way too much angstiness. I don't mean permanently. just as a way to introduce him to the show, a change of scene, like Pylea after the W&H arc wrapped. It wasn't like they were going to stay there permanently. Also, I'd like to see ME play with and twist the fans love of Spike's physical beauty. It would be saying, Do you love him now? Would you still love him if he weren't pretty? Or is it just for his golden hair alone? I suppose Xander losing an eye suggested this to me. The physical wounding of Xander made me realize how precious his vulnerability and humanity were for me. Maybe a physical deprivation of Spike's assets would lead to a different appreciation of, a different take, on the character's meaning for us.

I do agree that Spike could go through a period of self-realisation regarding the seperation of his morality and his love for Buffy. I could see the character coming to the realization that he never really has loved any woman, that it has always been unhealthy romantic obsession. I have always seen his quest for morality and his quest for redemption as two seperate things. I would be plausible for he character to come, slowly to the same realization.

I see a student/mentor aspect to Spike and Buffy's relationship, she taught by example. Now that he has achieved (if, inded he does) a transcendant morality and self awareness he could look back on that relationship, reasess it and move on.

Will ME let him move on? They should. I disagree with ME's stance of 'No permanent relationships.' I think they failed with Riley and were afraid to ever try again. I think it can be done well and the greater challenge to themselves would be to integrate at least one functioning couple into the show. I would be more than happy to see Spike with a girl who adored him and he could be sort of shocked and unbelieving at first. Some cute comic possibilities there as well as serious ones dealing with the nature of true love, healthy versus unhealthy relationships. I see a whole treatise on the difference between love and romantic obsession that never really came to fruition on Buffy. What is good love? What needs in ourselves do we meet first-the need for sex, intimacy, communication? What parity do we demand of our lovers? What moral standards do we demand of other people? If we sleep with someone immoral does it affect our morality? What does it mean to sleep with someone but never let them in emotionally? Can we allow ourselves to be loved, to be treated well or do we subconsciously demsand mistreatment?

I really have not watched much of Angel for a few years so they may ahve explored some of these things with other characters. I don't know.

Chosen, the paperback -- purplegrrl, 11:08:24 06/04/03 Wed

That's right. Just in case you haven't seen it at your local bookstore or read about it here or on another board, the final season of BtVS has been novelized in a very thick paperback entitled "Chosen." Found mine at Borders late last week. (costs about $8.00)

[> Re: Chosen, the paperback -- Sgamer82, 13:47:48 06/04/03 Wed

Might be a bit cheaper in other places. In my experience, Borders usually has great selection, but the prices are a bit steeper than other stores.

[> [> Re: Chosen, the paperback -fills in some nice details -- Wendywho, 14:00:45 06/04/03 Wed


[> [> [> Re: Chosen, the paperback -- Desperado, 16:38:12 06/04/03 Wed

And it has 8 pages of cast photos - all in color

[> [> The price is $7.99 at B&N and Amazon... -- Sofdog, 20:00:01 06/04/03 Wed

Though the publishers website, www.simonsays.com, lists the price as $6.99 and the wrong ISBN number.

Also, every review I saw said that it's so rife with type-o's and misedits that it's confusing and plain maddening.

[> [> [> Re: Some B& N's have it for 20% off -- Brian, 20:29:07 06/04/03 Wed


[> [> [> [> Re: Who wrote this book? -- lifejacket, 04:22:36 06/05/03 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> Nancy Holder... -- Sofdog, 06:43:16 06/05/03 Thu

According to all sites and the cover.

[> The Amazon reader reviews are scathing. -- V, 22:23:06 06/04/03 Wed


[> I have a question about Chosen, the paperback -- d'Herblay, 23:29:24 06/04/03 Wed

There's no way I'm going to buy the thing, but I will pick it up in the Young Adults' section at Borders and flip pages lackadaisically. In fact, I've already done this, and I'm left to wonder: who actually wrote it? I flipped and flipped and could not find an author credited on the physical book. There is an acknowledgements page, in which the author thanks his or her sister by name, but I could find no mention of the author's name.

I don't really care who did the actual writing or, as it may be, typing, but I am curious as to how one could publish a book without ever crediting the author (or, perhaps, how I could spend three minutes looking at a book without finding a clear and obvious author's credit). I know work-for-hire contracts suck, but this is silly. (Anyone who wants to make a postmodernist point about the "death of the author" is welcome to, though this seems not really the death of the author so much as the "El Salvadoran-style Death Squad-induced disappearance of the author.")

[> [> I believe it is listed as "none" under author. ... -- Briar Rose, 00:33:22 06/05/03 Thu

And I think I ordered it in a BtVS novel buying spree. Goddess knows I ordered so many at one time I COULD have missed it... *L

To my thinking it is suited to a "none" author title because the show was such a team work all along. Since this book appears to be a collaberation of Joss, Marti and the rest of the writers and is more or less a script book for the specific ep of "Chosen". That's why there's typos and grammatical mistakes, BTW. I perused it at Borders yesterday and it definitely appears to be a script book, but no way was I paying Borders prices for it.*L

I'm all for it - especially since it will take EONS for the actual DVD to come out since they are still working on release of season 4 as we speak.

[> [> Amazon UK site lists Nancy Holder -- KdS, 03:57:17 06/05/03 Thu


[> [> [> Re: Arrgh! I see typos! -- lemonface, 10:12:45 06/05/03 Thu


[> [> [> [> One fan's reaction to the paperback... -- Thomas the Skeptic, 14:19:03 06/05/03 Thu

...is that it is definitely a mixed bag. On the one hand, I did find all the typos and misedits terribly distracting as it breaks up the flow something fierce. Also, the fine print on the copyright page notes that the book is "based on shooting scripts so some scenes may be cut for time." This works to the reader's advantage in some of the chapters as you get scenes and dialogue that never aired but I get the impression that Nancy Holder did'nt have the final version of some scripts because somethings are horribly truncated. For instance, the great conversation between Buffy and Holden, full of Jossy goodness, in "CWDP" is abreviated into practically nothing. Other scenes are described so sketchily that if you did'nt see the episode in question you might be scratching your head saying "huh?". Yet, despite these many shortcomings its just cool as hell to have a print version of the final season in the palms of your hands, free to relive your favorite scenes over and over again! Next best thing to the DVD!

[> [> My copy has Nancy Holder's name on the cover - other versions don't - very weird -- Dochawk, 15:42:59 06/05/03 Thu


[> [> [> Re: Did you get your copy in the USA? -- Desperado, 19:28:50 06/05/03 Thu


Current board | More June 2003