June 2003 posts


Previous June 2003  

More June 2003

TVGuide suggestions for Emmy nominations -- pellenaka, 03:27:33 06/05/03 Thu

TVguide has its yearly list of people they think deserve an Emmy nominations.

Two people, one male, one female are on their list. Guess who.


Yes, SMG is one of them.

And no, James Marsters isn't there for once.

Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series

Sarah Michelle Gellar, Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Isn't it about time that Sunnydale's Chosen One was the Academy's chosen one, too? Not only has Mrs. Freddie Prinze Jr. been saving the world in halter tops since before girl power came into vogue, she's done so with a tongue that's as sharp as her wooden stakes.

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series

Tom Lenk, Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Thanks to erstwhile Nerd of Doom Andrew, although it was the end of the world as we know it (again) this year, we felt fine. Lenk's adorably dippy line readings broke up the maiming and killing, and made him a shoo-in for future sitcom stardom, if not an Emmy.

What do you think?

We all know that Sopranos, 24 and West Wing will get them all, but it's still a nice thought.

The link is here, btw: http://www.tvguide.com/newsgossip/insider/030604a.asp

[> Gina Torres as Guest Performer! -- Darby, 06:07:01 06/05/03 Thu

Jasmine was a wonderfully ambiguous character, but could have been much less so without her nuanced performance. Her physical presence gave Jasmine the appropriate feeling of deep power, and the edge often seemed more impatience than anything darker. If they hadn't tipped the scales by having the character eat people, the question of whether what she was doing was evil would have much more interesting, because it was obvious that Jasmine truly believed in her own Goodness. I'm still not sure I don't.

[> [> Re: Gina Torres as Guest Performer! -- CW, 07:00:57 06/05/03 Thu

Certainly the contrast between Jasmine and Zoe in her acting this year ought to be worth something. Excuse the rhyme, but Zoe was anything but glowy. Jasmine had a definite appeal without being overly sexy. Zoe was a lot more military and unapproachable than General Buffy, but sexy as could be.

Re SMG: Her work as Buffy this year was mostly ho hum, but she did show some acting depth as the FE. She could do better acting than Scooby Doo II will require. But, it would be tough to argue with the pay day.

[> [> [> Absolutely agree -- mamcu the GT fan, 10:08:11 06/05/03 Thu

Zoe was more believable than most female action leads--in fact, one of the few actors who made the idea of a woman overpowering a man completely plausible. And very matter-of-fact about her power, too--not a lot of ego.

And I agree the contrast with Jasmine really showed her range. Don't forget her bit part in Matrix Reloaded--small, but yet another, completely different personality, clearly projected with a few lines. Hope we'll see more of her.

[> [> [> [> Hey, cjl! C'mon over and wax poetic about the goddess that is Gina Torres -- Rob (whose passion for GT is surpassed only by cjl's), 10:39:43 06/05/03 Thu

Gina Torres seems to have followed me around, because I rarely ever looked for her in a show, but she seems to always choose parts in projects that are right up my alley.

First saw her on "Xena" as Cleopatra. Loved her. Unfortunately missed her performances on "Hercules." But then when I heard that the same production company was doing a new sci-fi show, "Cleopatra 2525," I jumped on-board, and lo and behold! Gina was there! The show blew, but I kept watching because I loved her that much. It didn't last long, and I all but forgot about the divine GT, until she appeared on a show I'd just started watching recently, "Alias," as the evil spy, Anna Espinoza! Woo hoo! And then I hear there's a new sci-fi show that Joss is doing, "Firefly". I shouldn't have even been surprised when I saw Gina in the first episode! Of course, we all know that after that she appeared in my favorite role of hers to date, Jasmine on "Angel." When she showed up in "The Matrix Reloaded," I knew it. Gina Torres is stalking me.

No need to call for help. ;o)

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> No prompting required. GT for BSA (regular and guest appearance!) -- cjl, 10:54:09 06/05/03 Thu

Come on. How many actresses pull off one series-defining performance in a year, let alone two? Nominate Gina for both Zoe and Jasmine--even if she loses, we'll spend half the Emmys with the camera on her face.

For those of you not going to Vancouver... -- Masquerade, 13:31:31 06/05/03 Thu

Have a good time thinking about all the fun we'll be having!

But seriously, I am going to leave the board on "automatic pilot". That means you'll be able to respond to posts in the archives. This will bring them back to the main board.

Hopefully, the ATPo site will stay up allowing access to archives, episode analyses, and chat, but if the server should go down, chat can be reached at

http://freepop.parachat.com/freepop/freechathost.html?room=atpobtvs

I plan to be out of commission (away from the board) for Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Does anyone know if there will be internet access/computers at the Meet? Lady S.???

[> Have fun, try not to miss us too much... -- ponygirl, waving sadly, 13:53:11 06/05/03 Thu


[> LadyS is already here, somewhere... -- dub, 14:26:50 06/05/03 Thu

She arrived early this morning and is on a quest for used book stores.

Neither Rufus nor I has a laptop, so I don't know if there will be one at the Gathering, but if there is I'm sure we can get the hotel to hook us up...then we can chat to the people who couldn't make it!

See you tomorrow, Masq.

dub ;o)

[> [> Yeah! I get to meet dub and Rufus! -- Masq, 14:32:31 06/05/03 Thu

Plus a host of dozens!

This is exciting.

[> [> [> 'Bit has arrived...and she has a laptop! -- dub ;o), 16:08:29 06/05/03 Thu

So chatting may, indeed, be possible.

I've heard from LadyStarlight this afternoon...she and LittleBit are at the hotel and LadyS is already wearing a tiara, so make what you will of that...pictures forthcoming, I'm sure!

dub ;o)

[> [> [> [> So, err...where are we meeting up? -- fresne, 16:13:53 06/05/03 Thu

My housemate and I will be showing up Friday evening around 8-9. Where should we go to find y'all? Are there strategic meeting points Friday evening and Saturday morning?

Are there any things that still need to be brought?

Tiaras huh. Good to know. Hmmm...

[> [> [> [> [> Lansdowne Room -- dub, 16:30:40 06/05/03 Thu

That's apparently our base of operations, the room with the TV, vcr, DVD, etc. I've asked LadyS to make sure that someone posts a note in that meeting room if the group is all going off to a restaurant, or the water slides, or just taking a break, so those of us that arrive at various times will have at least a chance of catching up with them.

If the Lansdowne Room is sufficiently air-conditioned you'll probably find that Rufus and I don't budge from it!

Hey, fresne! I just put you in the "Absent Friends" collage, cuz I didn't know you wuz coming...that's great!! See you tomorrow night.

;o)

[> In our dreams, we're there too! -- mamcu, 17:27:45 06/05/03 Thu


[> hope y'all have a wonderful time -- Alison (green with envy), 17:46:05 06/05/03 Thu


[> [> Re: Talk 'til you drop, and then share your Buffy dreams -- Brian, 19:48:54 06/05/03 Thu

All that Buffy energy in one place. Vancouver becomes ground zero for the Buffyverse.

[> I'm there in spirit! -- Rob, sobbing into his cheerleader outfit, 23:01:04 06/05/03 Thu


[> Hope you're all basking!!! -- cougar - hearing the call of the wild, wishing I was there, 00:06:33 06/06/03 Fri


[> Re: have a great time everyone :-) -- aliera, 05:14:05 06/06/03 Fri


[> [> Have a wonderful time all! Wish I could be there! -- shadowkat, 08:43:37 06/06/03 Fri


[> Have a great time - wish we were all there! - - Silky, 07:33:35 06/06/03 Fri


[> Could someone note down some minutes? -- Tchaikovsky, 09:45:43 06/06/03 Fri

Not hard-core transcription [cos nobody would be mad enough to do that obviously], just some quotes from the weekend. I'm sure with such an abundance of superintelligent, superbeautiful posters there'll be no end of aphorisms and wise words. And I don't want to miss them all!

Have a great time everyone.

TCH

[> [> It's 2:11 pm -- Vancouverites, 14:25:57 06/06/03 Fri


[> [> [> more minutes... we've enjoyed another 49!!! woo hoo!! -- Vancouverites, 15:14:20 06/06/03 Fri


[> [> [> [> Who knew Canadian air was good for the funnybone! -- Dandy who is dreaming of maple sugar candy., 18:55:10 06/06/03 Fri


[> [> [> [> Thanks everyone! -- Tchaikovsky, 02:52:40 06/07/03 Sat


[> [> The Gathering Chronicles -- The Chronicler with the chocolate bribes ;-), 11:29:39 06/07/03 Sat

The first installment of The Gathering Chronicles is now available here

:-D

[> [> [> Hope you are all having a great time! -- Arethusa, there in spirit if not in person., 14:01:52 06/07/03 Sat


[> [> [> I both love and hate your recaps, Bit. Love to hear what's been going on... -- Rob (your faithful, chocolatey minion), 17:18:57 06/07/03 Sat

...but hate them because it's ripping me to pieces that I'm not there!!

Rob

[> [> [> [> Interesting idea . . . -- d'Horrible, 17:47:14 06/08/03 Sun

Rip Rob to pieces, leave part in New York to take care of his "responsibilities," bring the rest to Vancouver for some dismembered cheerleader fun! Rob regenerates, right? In fact, shouldn't we be able to dice Rob into one-inch cubes, pack the cubes into our carry-on luggage, marinate them in petri dishes filled with a solution of wheat germ and essence of Emma Caulfield, and each grow our own personal Rob? This is how humans work, right?

Maybe I shouldn't assume Rob is human. No one with only 23 chromosome pairs can be that cheerful.

[> [> [> [> [> Hmmmm -- Whipwoman, 19:36:13 06/08/03 Sun

One regenerated Rob wouldn't be of much use, but I could use a whole cheerleader squad of Rob-minions...I can see them all now, doing The Hamster Dance...

MWA-ha-ha-ha-ha!

[> [> [> [> [> [> The Hamster Dance is our penultimate weapon of chaos and destruction! -- d'Horrible, 20:16:21 06/08/03 Sun

Our ultimate weapon is, obviously, in-jokes that the vast majority of our audience won't understand in the least.

Frankly, I know I'm supposed to be evil and all, but contemplating the use of the Hamster Dance against innocent civilians gives me a sinking feeling in my stomach (the second stomach from the left).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> We're ready to go! (Although to tell the truth, in the morning--not so cheery! ;o) ) -- Rob and his Army of Cheerleading Clones!!, 21:51:28 06/08/03 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Uh, wait a minute...aren't you "morningperson??" -- dub ;o), 18:05:51 06/09/03 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Which leads to the obvious question... -- CW, 22:12:32 06/08/03 Sun

What, pray tell, is the antepenultimate weapon?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Check Out Giles' Hamster Dance Instruction Video -- Haecceity, 00:19:38 06/09/03 Mon

Go here:

http://wrym.com/btvsvid1.html

Click on Learn To Dance

Laugh and laugh.

[> [> The Gathering Chronicles, part two -- The Chronicler, 17:47:20 06/07/03 Sat

The Friday Chronicle may be seen here ...Enjoy!!!

[> Welcome to the Nancy Tribe! -- Masq, still giggling from the MST3K version of "Tabula Rasa", 16:07:21 06/07/03 Sat

And not even drunk... yet!

[> [> Hey, Masq, before you get drunk... -- Rob, 17:16:57 06/07/03 Sat

...you think you could swing by in your car to New York, and pick me up? I've missed too much of the gathering already! ;o)

Rob

[> [> [> Hey! Beer Bad! -- cougar, 22:11:35 06/08/03 Sun


[> [> [> [> But vodka good, right? -- Caira, 00:55:28 06/09/03 Mon


Witness some good ole British hate for... -- Tchaikovsky, 14:05:16 06/05/03 Thu

...'Grave'. Gotta love people who have nothing positive at all to say about a season Finale- it really does take a stubborn persistence. Not that 'Grave' was a series highlight, but there's criticism and there's unbalanced gibberish...

TCH

[> You call that hate? -- Malandanza, 22:11:56 06/05/03 Thu

"Gotta love people who have nothing positive at all to say about a season Finale- it really does take a stubborn persistence. Not that 'Grave' was a series highlight, but there's criticism and there's unbalanced gibberish...

Try Television Without Pity's review of
'Grave'.

Although TWoP is more of a critique than simply bashing -- there are positive notes mixed in with the negative ones. The negative comments (even the extremely negative ones) typically have some basis in reality and the reviewers do credit the funny jokes, even if it's just with a "heh". Plus -- Giles/Anya shipping, if you're into that sort of thing...

[> In mitigation -- MsGiles, 04:08:55 06/06/03 Fri

The way S6 was shown all in pieces didn't help it at all, and I think helps understand why some UK viewers hated it so much. Not only was there a huge break for snooker just as the climax was building (following many smaller breaks before) but then there was another break before the final 2 episodes.

I was so happy to have some videos!

S6 doesn't work at all as one off episodes (IMHO), but it does make more (emotional as well as plot) sense, viewed as a sequence, and it gets a kind of darkly humorous momentum going. I think showing it so erratically probably made what is quite a difficult series anyway, just that bit too hard to take.

I'm sorry people didn't get much out of it, because I think in the end there was value in there. A few cracking episodes. And finishing up with Giles in hysterics just seemed .. quite right.

[> Seems fairly tame to me. -- Sophist, 08:50:54 06/06/03 Fri

I've seen harsher things said on this Board about some episodes this season, and I've probably said harsher things myself about Grave. Only in a constructively critical way, of course.

[> I thought it was funny -- Vickie, 09:19:08 06/06/03 Fri

I've thought all those things at one time or another, and said a few of them (though not nearly so well). Of course, other times, I just love Grave.



| ATPoB tVS&AtS Archives |

Feel like a new Round Robin fic, anyone? Then read this! -- Marie, 06:16:02 06/05/03 Thu

I was feeling nostalgic, and came across the following in the December 2001(!!) archives:

A challenge for the writers out there! -- Marie, 03:38:25 12/06/01 Thu

I'm starting a round robin story, and my challenge is to incorporate the titles of Buffy episodes within the story.

Rules:

1. Titles must be in their correct order, and not altered, although more than one person can say part of the title, so long as the words are concurrent (i.e. "I never said she had to kill the boy - not on a first date, anyway!" would be incorrect). (And, while I think of it, titles in two parts - like Graduation 1 and 2 - may count as one).

2. Not more than 3 eps per time, so more folk can join in.

3. Put the three eps in the message subject, so we know where we are.

4. Take the story wherever you want to - but I would suggest you don't make your bits too long.

5. Remember - it's just for fun!

I'm sure there should be more rules, but my head isn't working too well today, so that's enough for now.

Perhaps I should add, though, that for the purposes of this round robin I've set it "sort of" pre S6 and post S6! In other words, for now, Buffy is back, and happy. Willow and Tara are still together, and no sex has taken place between Buffy and Spike!

I'm posting the actual start directly after this, for clarity, and you'll see, I'm sure, that the first three are some of the easiest - which one of you is going to be brave enough to try for I, Robot - You Jane, or Doppelgangerland?

(If you want to read who was, go look at December 2001 archives).

I thought we'd done up to and including S3, but could only find up to S2, so thought I'd start again on Season 3. For the purposes of this RR, and just for old time's sake, Tara and Spike are still with us, and the old Scooby Gang are all together... you could even include Oz and Cordy! (Awww!)

See next post for part 1: Anne/ Dead Man's Party/Faith, Hope and Trick

[> 1.Anne/ Dead Man's Party/Faith, Hope and Trick -- Marie, 06:21:01 06/05/03 Thu

"Buffy Anne Summers! You didn't!"

Buffy smirked. "Oh, yes I did.

"Yeah, Will, you shoulda seen 'er! That ole' Professor Millsom didn't know what hit 'im!"

Willow gawped at the sisters. "Buffy - you didn't hit him, did you?"

Buffy rolled her eyes. "Of course I didn't! I just made it quite clear that if he makes life hell for one Summers girl, the other Summers girl makes life hell right back at him!"

Willow smiled. "Wow, Buffy! You're getting all grown-uppy on us! For a minute or two there, I thought you were gonna tell me he was a dead man! S-"

"party!"

The two older girls turned to look at Dawn, who had her head stuck in the refrigerator.

"Huh?"

Dawn straightened, a tub of chocolate chip ice cream in her hand. "I said, "We should have a party". You know, to celebrate. I could invite Hope's brother," she added, with a sidelong glance at her sister.

"Hope?" Buffy frowned. "Not a chance, kiddo. You know what happened the last time we had a party here, when all that stuff with Faith was going on, and you invited Hope! Faith and-"

"Trick or treat!"

All three turned to look towards the kitchen door. Buffy's eyes widened in disbelief. "How the hell did you get in here?"

***

Next 3: Beauty and the Beasts/Homecoming/Band Candy

[> [> A tip, if you're joining in (sorry, Deeva!)... -- Marie, 09:03:44 06/05/03 Thu

Post that you'll do the next three - nothing worse than typing a screed, then seeing that someone beat you to it! (And I speak from painful experience!)

M

[> Oh, I'm sorry that I will miss out on this. - - deeva, 08:09:54 06/05/03 Thu

I'll be out of town for the next week after later today. And it doesn't appear that I will have regular computer access. Darn! I remember this from when it was originally posted it was fun.

[> Here's season three . . . -- d'Herblay, 15:34:28 06/05/03 Thu

. . . right here.

It's my favorite thread of all time. The MOLOJ rescue would replace it, but I didn't participate in that, and I'm just an egotistical bastard, so screw it!

I've already done "Beauty and the Beasts," "Homecoming" and "Band Candy." I need new challenges!

[> [> Ok! New one starting - don't carry on, anyone! See new post above. -- Marie, 02:37:40 06/06/03 Fri


[> OOh, I hope we can get back into this...I'm up for it after the Gathering. -- dub ;o), 17:57:44 06/05/03 Thu


Swimmer's Ear explanation -- pellenaka, 16:34:45 06/05/03 Thu

Remember in Chosen how Andrew says 'I have swimmer's ear' when he is attacked?
Here is Tom Lenk's explanation:

Do I have a Star Trek connection at all? Um, my parents used to watch Star Trek, I remember them saying that every night that it was on, when they were in the dorms at college, they would all gather around and watch Star Trek, so I sort of grew up going to the drive in movies and I think I saw all of the Star Trek movies growing up and I had a particular fear of the second one, The Wrath of Khan and those things that they put in the ear to control their brain and I was so afraid of them that, I also had a severe case of swimmers ear and the earplug looked exactly like the little bug they put in the people's ears so I went an entire summer without getting to go swimming because I was too freaked out that the earplug would take over my brain.

[> So was that an ad-lib? -- cougar, 23:57:49 06/05/03 Thu


Ats S5 Casting news for CC and VK (Spoilers S5 Ats Cast) -- s'kat, 22:10:34 06/05/03 Thu

This from Kristin/Wanda's chat. She's an extreemly reliable source by the way:

http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/Kristin/Trans/Archive2003/030602.html

Unlike Doyle, the decision with Vincent Kartheiser was storyline- driven. It's my understanding that it was never the plan to keep Vincent onboard long-term. But he will be back for one ep next season.

What happened with Charisma Carpenter?

They are still hammering out exactly what her role next season is going to be, but it won't be as involved as in seasons past. I heard a ridiculous rumor that the decision was based on something highly superficial--but I refuse to believe it. I have too much faith in the Mutant Enemy crew.

Cordelia apparently will be recurring and VK will be back possibly for one episode. This jives with news on other sites and interviews.

[> Re: Ats S5 Casting news for CC and VK (Spoilers S5 Ats Cast) -- Rob, 23:02:54 06/05/03 Thu

Well, that's hopefully good news on the CC front. We do definitely need her back at least a few more times. VK, not so great. Would have liked to see more of him than only one ep. I'm a little worried about how they're going to deal with the consequences of Connor having been removed from everybody's memories.

Rob

[> [> Another Ats S5 Casting Possibility (Spoilers S5 Ats Cast) -- RadiusRS, who hopes she's changed her named to Cacophany, 00:08:16 06/06/03 Fri

Many sites have reported that Lilah will also be a recurring character and that Harmony will be back to pick up the CC slack. Like everything else in Hollywood, nothing's sure until the contract's signed but there seems to be a lot of confidence that this is going to happen.

[> [> Re: me too, and thanks, sk. -- aliera, 04:54:37 06/06/03 Fri


Good Morning, Vancouver! -- Cactus Watcher, 06:16:05 06/06/03 Fri

Have fun at the First Three-day International Buffy Philosophical Confab and Monster Truck Exposition. Temperatures today will be in the low 100's (upper 30's if you must go 'native' and use Celsius), somewhere in NA but fortunately not anywhere near Vancouver, which should be sunny and pleasant. Would someone please accompany Lady Starlight to the Aquarium to see the otters. Both you and she will be glad you did. Remember smoking is permitted only in designated areas of the hotel, so vampires, both souled and non, should stay away from the windows at all times during daylight hours. Thank you for your cooperation. Don't do anything the rest of us will envy you even more for. Aw, what the heck. Do it anyway. We'll forgive you. ;o)

[> Go ahead and do it anyway--and take pictures! -- mamcu, 06:28:03 06/06/03 Fri


Interesting review of ED's movie - and a comment about BtVS's influence on the horror genre -- Anneth, 08:48:33 06/06/03 Fri

from The Onion's AV Club (which also interviewed JW almost two years ago, and liked the interview so much they reprinted it in their book The Tenacity of the Cockroach. (And is also worth a read, if you haven't already. You can find it by searching for "joss whedon" or "Buffy" in the a.v. club archives.)

Anyway,

Wrong Turn

If you like to hunt campers with bows and arrows, chop them up on the dining-room table, eat their boiled meat, and keep their possessions as souvenirs, you might be a redneck. Or so it would seem in Wrong Turn, a horror film predicated on the notion that the wilderness of West Virginia is home to horrors much worse than the country roads and mountain mamas John Denver used to sing about. So medical student Desmond Harrington discovers when, after encountering a traffic jam on the way to a job interview, he decides to take a shortcut through the woods. There, he bumps into five stranded hikers on a vacation designed to cheer up heartbroken Eliza Dushku, whose mind shifts from her loutish ex-boyfriend to more immediate concerns when a trio of cackling, overalls-clad, misshapen mountain men begin picking off the group one at a time. Like House Of 1000 Corpses, Wrong Turn is a throwback to the friends-get-terrorized-in-the-middle-of-nowhere subgenre of horror films that thrived in the 1970s after the success of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Hills Have Eyes. Here, the hills again have eyes (and pickup trucks and shotguns), but Wrong Turn lacks the creepiness and craft of the films that inspired it. There's at least a tinge of satire when the heroes come across an elephants' graveyard of bloodstained SUVs, but otherwise, the film is as devoid of humor as it is of scares that don't rely on people suddenly appearing from the edge of the frame when least expected. Stan Winston co- produced Wrong Turn, and his studio provided the makeup effects, but like the rest of the movie, the villains seem pretty half-assed, like the subjects of Brother's Keeper dressed up in leftover George Romero zombie garb. (Don't expect a scene in which Harrington and Dushku battle a rubber-caked baddie, in a studio set unconvincingly dressed to look like a towering treetop, to make any future highlight reels touting the power of movie magic.) Up to a finale that leaves her bound, gagged, and in need of rescuing, Dushku reprises her tough-girl persona from Buffy The Vampire Slayer, but this is otherwise the sort of unthinking horror product that Buffy should have put out of business by now. Everyone does the wrong thing at the wrong time, and women suffer the worst of the consequences. Or maybe it's the West Virginia Department Of Tourism that suffers the most. Actually, it's probably the audience. -Keith Phipps

[> In defense of rednecks.. -- rowena, 11:24:23 06/06/03 Fri

We like our meat fried, thank you... ... first rolled in cornmeal breading, then deep-fried, in lard. ... Boiled, harrumph

A Little More Conversation (Spoilers to "End of Days"/"Sacrifice" -- KdS, 09:12:04 06/06/03 Fri

After most of the second half of S7, End of Days was a perfect tonic. Finally, we have people other than Buffy and Spike in character and really communicating. In a way, this has confirmed my own metatheory about some of the problems with S7, which is that some of the wrong lessons were learnt from the success of S5. More details after Chosen, if it confirms my suspicions

Xander's farewell to Buffy, first: excellently judged, especially the balance between pessimism and optimism. IMHO, the attempts to convince us that this is the Biggest Threat Ever haven't worked well at times. The amount of subsurface emotion here succeeded.

At last, Anya gets a nice scene, which might almost have been the set up for an A/A ship if Andrew hadn't been so unambiguously played as gay for the last twelve eps or so. Her speech about humanity, which struck me very much as an inverted version of some of Glory's ruminations, didn't take her much beyond The Body or Hell's Bells but at least put a stop to the wholesale regression of her character since Selfless. And Andrew's increasing embrace of the backroom support role continues the parallels between his development this year and early Xander.

On the downside, Willow's paranoia about becoming evil finally makes it impossible to reconcile her characterisation in Orpheus with BtVS. I try to fanwank how someone who can't cast a locator spell in Sunnydale without getting dark roots can confidently fight a magical duel with an AtS Big Bad, and fail miserably. The only possibility I can suggest is that it's down to Hellmouth proximity, but it would have been nice to hear a line to say that. On the upside, the jaffa cake line, and the Willow/Giles scene, suggest that we may actually see the Rupert Giles we used to know this season

The scene between Buffy and Faith seems to me to have finally buried the hatchet between them, and as far as I can see probably wraps up Faith's story on this series at least. I also enjoyed the explicit statement that the price of Buffy's socialisation has always been feelings of responsibility for the dangers to her friends, even when she wasn't as explicitly the leader as she is this season. (If they were trying to argue that she always was the leader in this season's quasi military sense, I don't buy it).

Spike's discussion with Buffy about the previous night raises major questions for me regarding Spike's character. If we're meant to accept his lines about sleeping (just sleeping, literally) with Buffy as the best night of his life, and like nothing he felt before, it seems clear to me that ME are saying that you can't truly love or be moral without a soul, however that may annoy some people.

RIP Caleb (except probably not, I suspect a reanimation happening next week). Can't say I miss the least interesting supervillain since the Master. A small exercise for the reader. Look back over all Caleb's scenes in the last few eps, replace all his lines with "I'm gonna rape you, bitch. I'm gonna rape you, bitch." and ask yourself if it really loses any depth of characterisation or philosophy.

Finally, I get the point of the Guardian business, but it really doesn't work as well as it should. I can see the feminist message in presenting a female-centred force balancing the Watchers through history, but I'm not sure that there's much of an empowerment message if they spent the last millennia sitting in a pyramid waiting for someone to look them up, as the dialogue seems to imply. It would have been nicer if we'd seen some more evidence of covert help to past Slayers behind the scenes.

Plot problems this ep: wow, there were a few. Firstly, chloroform. Not only is it rather carcinogenic, but it was actually abandoned as a general anaesthetic at least a century ago because it causes a lethal and uncontrollable rise in body temperature in a dangerously large minority of the population. Still, it's such a hallowed tradition of the thriller that I suspect they just didn't think. Secondly, how did Buffy know where Faith and the away team were, as if I remember correctly Spike had already beaten Faith up and flounced off before any of the planning began? Thirdly, and this may be answered next week, why did the FE so obviously try to dig up the scythe with Buffy around?

Not a plot problem, but alleged to be: how did Angel and Spike get to the pyramid? Answer, those well-established vampire bloodhound skills.

My fellow viewers tell me that Angel is severely out of character in relation to the end of AtS S4, but since Sky has made no attempt to maintain the order of the crossovers, I have no way to judge for myself.

Speaking of the devil, which role he seems to be very literally taking at the moment if you take a Gnostic/Promethean view, another very solid Angel episode. The Jasminite demon really stole the show (why do we never get interesting demons on BtVS any more?), but there was interesting stuff going on with most of the main characters. Angel's determination to cut off his emotions in the name of victory, and Gunn and Fred's debate on the subject, seem to me to echo BtVS issues this year, and it was good to see Seidel's death returned to. And Fred's final statement about it being better to feel pain than disconnection was another manifesto statement.

The parallels between Connor and Angel in this ep were particularly clear. When Jasmine asks Connor to give up his pain, and talks about it being the only constant in his life, she could be discussing Angel, with the overriding role of the Happiness Clause. Connor's situation just gets more and more tragic, especially his comfort this episode as the leader of Jasmine's battle crew, finally belonging to something. On the down side, I thought that GT allowed a little too much of a hint of open malice and megalomania to filter into Jasmine's visions of the future this week ­ she's far more effective when she seems genuinely idealistic.

On a more lofty level, one wonders about the definition of love as "sacrifice" in the Jasminite's homeworld. Do they mean self-sacrifice, or sacrificing someone else?

[> Re: A Little More Conversation (Spoilers to "End of Days"/"Sacrifice" -- Yellow Bear, 09:54:19 06/06/03 Fri

While I agree that Willow seems out of character for her AtS appearance early this season, the fear of using magic on the Hellmouth is a pretty good explanantion for this seeming inconsistency. Will's behavior in 'Orpheus' bugged me a tad so I am glad to have some justification for it, even if it is a little thin.

The genius of the Hellmouth angle is that you can hang just about any rationale on it which makes it an excellent device for telling these stories.

[> Re: A Little More Conversation (Spoilers to "End of Days"/"Sacrifice" -- curious, 09:59:10 06/06/03 Fri

Spike's discussion with Buffy about the previous night raises major questions for me regarding Spike's character. If we're meant to accept his lines about sleeping (just sleeping, literally) with Buffy as the best night of his life, and like nothing he felt before, it seems clear to me that ME are saying that you can't truly love or be moral without a soul, however that may annoy some people.

You could read it that way or that Buffy didn't let him get close in Season 6. I think he did love her in his way but was missing the closeness. In Touched, Buffy acknowledged that wasn't entirely his fault.

My fellow viewers tell me that Angel is severely out of character in relation to the end of AtS S4, but since Sky has made no attempt to maintain the order of the crossovers, I have no way to judge for myself.

I thought so too. I love him on Angel, but he always seems to regress around Buffy. It will be interesting to see what you think after seeing him in Chosen.

How DID Buffy know where to find Faith and the Pyramid?? How did Angel and Caleb find the pyramid? Spike must have followed Caleb from the vineyard but..... Oh well. I try not to think too much about the logistical plot holes.

[> [> I dunno... -- KdS, 13:39:07 06/06/03 Fri

I wasn't thinking about S6 Spuffy so much as his relationship with Dru - I don't think he said anything during S5-6 to suggest that his feelings were Buffy were that much above his feelings for Dru when they were together.

[> [> [> Immature love? A work in progress? -- curious, 14:43:08 06/06/03 Fri

Maybe it depends how you view the metaphor of the soul and if you think the ability to love is an either/or thing vs. an ongoing process - that it can grow and change. If vampires are a metaphor for arrested adolescence, then you could say they love but in a selfish, immature way. It seemed to me that Spike loved Dru but his capacity to love changed after he got chipped. I don't think a light bulb went on and he was suddenly able to love in a mature way. But do I think there was a lot of evidence of change and growth that led to getting his soul. He obviously did more work in Season 7 and has more work to do. Don't we all?

I think the writers have been saying for a while that Spike is "different", more human than other vamps since Season 2. His love for Dru is what made him more interesting than the other disposable vamps. His love of Dru and being in the world led him to help Buffy fight Angelus at the end of Season 2.

And I guess it depends on whether or not you believe Spike and the writers all the times he says he has changed. "A man can change." All of the characters have changed on Buffy. None more than Spike. IMHO, of course.

I also wonder about Warren's capacity to love - he supposedly had a soul. ;-)

[> [> [> [> Re: Immature love? A work in progress? -- Dariel, 16:08:35 06/06/03 Fri

Maybe it depends how you view the metaphor of the soul and if you think the ability to love is an either/or thing vs. an ongoing process - that it can grow and change. If vampires are a metaphor for arrested adolescence, then you could say they love but in a selfish, immature way.

Good points, curious. Young children also love their parents in what is essentially a selfish, immature way, but no one doubts that they do feel a form of love. Love is not an absolute, but a continuum, with more selfish versions on the one end and more altruistic forms on the other. For most of us humans, what we feel falls somewhere along that continuum, and even that can change from day to day.

As for Spike, what he was saying was that he felt a deeper connection to Buffy than he ever had to anyone. It showed that he had matured as a person, and therefore could feel a more mature love. This is an experience shared by many (well, some) adults as they move past the over-romanticized, sexualized love of youth. It's not just about souls or vampires.

[> [> [> [> Vampire humanity -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:13:20 06/06/03 Fri

"I think the writers have been saying for a while that Spike is "different", more human than other vamps since Season 2. His love for Dru is what made him more interesting than the other disposable vamps. His love of Dru and being in the world led him to help Buffy fight Angelus at the end of Season 2."

Actually, I think the writers started to realize some saw Spike as the "special" or "different" vampire and tried to correct it in Season 7. The season opened with a vampire who, when stuck in the grave, seems nice and just a poor chap confused about his situation, but he turns on Buffy as soon as he's freed. Then there's Holden Webbster, who seems to be a nice enough guy, very amiable, but he makes it very clear that he's evil and intends to kill Buffy. There's the vampire Spike meets in "Sleeper" who seems like a woman just interested in a cute guy, until she vamps out. There's VampAnne, who does seem kind of nice until she starts tearing young Spike apart verbally. Then there's the brief appearance of Richard in the same episode who, as Buffy says, "seems like nice enough guy". A semi-trend in Season Seven was showing vampires acting very human then revealing their monstrous side. It seems quite likely this was a reaction to fans seeing Spike as the most human of vampires and therefore somehow "special".

[> Great stuff - some random thoughts of my own -- Rahael, 11:05:25 06/06/03 Fri

When you said that Fred made a manifesto statement about feeling pain rather than disconnection, it reminded me - this is the girl who ran away from her parents, because if she saw them she would have to acknowledge that it was real, the hell she had lived through. Who didn't want to leave her cave/room, who wanted safety.

Fred's left the cave now, and is all brave now. Ready to feel all those dangerous emotions.

Oh, and I just started reading Promethea Book 2. I'm feeling rather smug about going on about Buffy as Prometheus after the Gift, bringing heavenly fire down, incurring the wrath of the Gods. Is this what Beljoxa's eye was talking about? the fatal weakness that allowed the First Evil to strike?

And I realised also that Buffy's depression after returning to earth could be likened to Prometheus having his soul(liver) pecked away. She suspects, as well, that she 'came back wrong', and souls have this significance and all in BtVS, and this might link up with Spike being able to hit her.

I loved the talky meat demon!! He just seemed so fully realised......

Jasmine demands that Connor give her all his pain, and Fred tells Gunn she would rather feel the pain and remain connected. Perhaps Jasmine, for all her talk of connectedness really just separates everything and everyone. She doesn't really connect anyone at all- it's a euphemism for having everyone inside her (the belly, I'm thinking!) Jasmine seems as if she gets off on pain too, taking Connor's, and the maniacal evil laughter as she gets cut up. Plus the talky meat demon, who of course, loved her first, was doing some elaborate pain magic.

More thoughts about Connor and Angel's pain keeping them on the outside when you post your thoughts on Home.

As for Love is sacrifice, I can't help thinking of George Herbert's poem, 'Love', where the 'Host', asks the weary sinner to draw closer.

'You must sit down,' says Love, 'and taste my meat.'
So I did sit and eat.

Of course, Jasmine tells her followers to come to her and then she eats them. The love as sacrifice line is balanced on a knife edge, encompassing two meanings that contain a gulf - and AtS explores that dark space inbetween.....

[> End of End of Days (spoilers no further) -- Abby, 06:23:13 06/07/03 Sat

Now this episode struck all the right notes with me up until Angel's appearence:

"Jaffa Cakes"
Xander/Buffy
Anya/ Andrew
etc
It felt to me that the wonderful balance we expect from this show was in full force- the humour, the pain, the core message.

BUT. Am I the only one (current UK discussion of course...archives in a mo') who felt that Angel's appearence and the scripting/ direction thereof felt like a chunk of fanfic? The soaring music? The noble/shrugging 'yes, I am the hero' demeanour so out of sync with s4 Angel? For that matter the entire interaction was misplaced by a good three series. Why did they do it?

[> [> Chunk of fanfic, yeah... -- KdS, 07:03:01 06/07/03 Sat

Unless things get much better next ep, I'm going to have to put this down to trying to give warm fuzzies to B/A shippers who haven't watched AtS since S1.

Handling Buffy withdrawal -- HonorH (still seeing bunnies), 10:48:41 06/06/03 Fri

So, how are you handling it? I personally am writing when I'm not curled up in a little ball talking to a phantom Holden. I also found these excellent suggestions on a "Xena" board. The people there must know what they're talking about, since they've now been through this twice:

i've chosen to wander the darkened streets in an aimless stupor, growling at passersby, tackling anyone who looks like they might have the potential to be a vampire and screaming into their ears, "eat mr. pointy!"

also peanut butter. and repeated viewings of episodes on tape.

and crying.

sometimes licking people at random works too.

Might have to try that myself. Hope the rest of you are doing okay.

(out, damn bunny, out!)

[> Re: Handling Buffy withdrawal -- Dariel, 11:03:00 06/06/03 Fri

So, how are you handling it? I personally am writing when I'm not curled up in a little ball talking to a phantom Holden.

Sulking.

Reading depressing fanfic.

Thinking about buying the DVDs (and a DVD player). Which I cannot afford, really, and I'm kind of a Luddite besides. Yay, plastic!

Also thinking about exploring other shows, but not up to it yet. Would seem like cheating.

[> Re: Handling Buffy withdrawal -- rowena, 11:04:26 06/06/03 Fri

1. Rewatching old episodes again and again and again
2. Yummy chocolate indulgence... I'm talking about the good stuff
3. Obsessively checking this board until my eyes cross and my fingertips bleed.
4. Shoe shopping

[> [> New shoes! Yes!! Lord, let me die drownded in footwear. -- Dandy, 15:18:45 06/06/03 Fri


[> agressive sublimation. -- anneth, 11:27:05 06/06/03 Fri

Lots of work, lots of reading, lots of eating, lots of sleeping, lots of exercise, and tons of denial!

[> [> Re: agressive sublimation. -- Dee (just visiting), 11:36:20 06/06/03 Fri

Hoping this is just a mistake, and that there will be a new season in september....

[> [> Just aggression -- ponygirl, 11:54:06 06/06/03 Fri

Some HR flunkie came by today to try and help our team self-actualize or something. Spotting the Buffy poster above my desk he made some comment about trying to watch the show once and finding it silly. Where once I would have tried to explain the show and urged him to give it another chance, instead I just folded my arms, thought 'I don't have to put up with this anymore', and said "Too bad for you."

He had his revenge though -- the meeting was nearly two hours.

[> [> [> Heh -- Rahael, 11:56:39 06/06/03 Fri

Can I point out that by stopping watching a little more than half way through the show will never end for me? Until the day I choose to get the closure.

[> [> [> [> A never-ending state of limbo! -- ponygirl, 12:07:20 06/06/03 Fri

Though I suppose as you say you can get closure any time you want. Or create your own, which might be even better than the real thing. Your willpower is is impressive - I had to get closure on Dawson's Creek, a show I hadn't watched for two years!

[> Can't manage to withdraw.... -- Rochefort, 12:11:07 06/06/03 Fri

I'm lending my DVD's to people who have never seen Buffy and insisting they watch the first episode with me. It was nice to hear "This is really good. I didn't know it was good. I would have watched it." And I'm like "bwa ha ha ha, this is only season 1". Then when they get hooked I can reexperience it all through their eyes. Also dreams. Listening to Once More With Feeling. Writing "The Rescue". :( O.k., really, I haven't withdrawn yet. Planning future MOLOJ sponsored subversive activities in the Latin Quarter.
Rochefort

[> [> Cold turkey -- dream, 12:40:04 06/06/03 Fri

I just can't bring myself to watch Buffy. Isn't that weird? I've been a little depressed (it won't stop RAINING in Boston - except today, which is lovely, and I'm stuck inside), so I've been watching more than my usual allotment of video, but it's been the first season of Six Feet Under. I intend a Buffy marathon once I get the Season 4 box set, but in the meantime, I just don't want to watch. Maybe a delayed dissatisfacion with the seventh season? Maybe wanting it out of my system so I won't miss it so much? Whatever it is, I've been going cold turkey.

[> [> [> Also of the turkey -- pr10n, 14:09:50 06/06/03 Fri

I am waiting for the wierd empty to fade (by August?) and then I'll sneak up on my FX videos and "rediscover" Our Hero.

The first unTuesday I tried to share with wifey, but she asked me to manage my pain without her help. Fair enough, infidel.

Then I found Anne Rice's "Blackwood Farm" at the library. Wot the Hell, says I, and dove in. Whoohoo for the scary vampire narrative!

And now I'm reading Lemony Snicket. The Beudalaire orphans have been through the fire, fer sure. At least I'm not being eaten by a bear.

[> the waxing and waning of Buffy -- neaux, 12:33:10 06/06/03 Fri

well it seems my love of Buffy has waned since the finale. If you noticed even my posts are less on this board.

I've occupied my time playing the .Hack series. Watching the anime .Hack and playing the video game too. Its quite a multi-media experience. Cant' wait for .Hack volume 3 on DVD July 1st. (plug plug)

But I shall be purchasing Buffy season 4 this upcoming week, so my love for Buffy shall Wax On baby! I cant wait to get enthused again!

[> Re: Handling Buffy withdrawal -- Kenny, 12:55:12 06/06/03 Fri

Spending 8 hours a day studying organic chemistry, the rest of the time (during the week) at work, getting drunk at night, taking roadtrips on the weekends. Pretty much business as usual. Not much time to mourn.

also peanut butter. and repeated viewings of episodes on tape.

That's all normal stuff.

sometimes licking people at random works too.

A word of warning...I tried to lick Random, and he didn't appreciate it very much. Maybe if you look more like Faith than Oz...

[> Re: Handling Buffy withdrawal -- MaeveRigan, 13:23:46 06/06/03 Fri

I'm re-watching season 7, 2 episodes per day. It makes even more sense this way, without all the endless waiting and re-runs and the griping and wailing on the boards (other boards, mostly) in between.

Refusing to watch season 4 on FX until the S4 DVDs arrive and I can have a marathon.

Wishing WB would re-run Angel during the summer.

[> Re: Handling Buffy withdrawal -- Cheryl, 14:28:41 06/06/03 Fri

Not exactly withdrawing yet:

-reading the Chosen novel
-watching old episodes (Buffy & Angel)
-looking forward to season 4 DVD (next week, woohoo!)
-discussing this season with a co-worker who finally just caught up on all the Buffy & Angel tapes I gave her.
-reading the Anita Blake series, to get some fresh vampire tales
-trying to find good fanfic (even contemplating writing my own)
-finding Buffy connections everywhere: saw Matrix Reloaded with Gina Torres; a friend went to a play in NY that had the actor that played Quentin Travers; was in Vancouver last weekend and kept looking for a SMG sighting (no such luck, unfortunately); saw that FHM cover at the airport with AH on it (doesn't even look like her!). Stuff like that. Kind of keeps it alive.

[> Re: Handling Buffy withdrawal - every night i save the series -- tam, 20:14:35 06/06/03 Fri

not withdrawing - in denial - and every night i save the series.

[> Withdrawal? Withdrawal from what? -- Vancouverites, 20:14:56 06/06/03 Fri


Hero -- grifter, 14:50:28 06/06/03 Fri

Just seen "Hero", the movie, and god, was it amazing. This might be one of the most beautiful films ever. Everything is just so beautiful, the fights, the scenery, the costumes...

A must-see for everyone! Sorry for the American posters who won´t get to see it for a while apparently. ;(

[> stupid Yank here , splain me please -- Dandy, 15:08:46 06/06/03 Fri

I don't know anything about this film. Who is in it? What is it about? What about those beautiful sets and costumes?

When does it hop the pond?

Also, God I miss Cornish pasties. And real fish and chips. Gotta have the paper. And Indian take-away.

Sorry, got carried away there.

Ah, clotted cream..........

[> [> Re: stupid Yank here , splain me please -- grifter, 23:38:02 06/06/03 Fri

It´s a (or rather THE) chinese martial arts/history movie. It´s about the emperor of the chinese kingdom of Chao (?) who wants to unite all chinese kingdoms under his rule. There are three assasins after him, "Sky", "Broken Sword" and "Falling Snow", until one man, "Nameless", defeats all of them. He tells the emperor the story of how he could beat all of them.

Jet Li is in it, as well as Zhang Ziyi (Crouching Tiger & Hidden Dragon) and some other famous chinese actors.

I don´t think it has a US release date yet, although Miramay co- produced it with a chinese studio.

[> [> [> Feeling enlightened. Thanks grifter. -- Dandy, 05:13:41 06/07/03 Sat


[> Did I post on this already? -- neaux, 14:44:49 06/08/03 Sun

sometimes I cant remember when I post on these great movies or just mention them in chat.

Anyway. yes Hero is great. and I thought I wrote a post about what denotes a Hero. The definition of Hero according to this movie and how it related to Buffy. But maybe I didnt post.. I cant remember.

Anyway, Yes this is a movie worth owning on DVD. Buy it from pokerindustries.com before it hits the big screen.

It wont becoming to the U.S. until November of this year.

[> [> Thanks neaux -- Dandy, 15:12:31 06/08/03 Sun


Angel is obselete -- 110v3w1110w (still up set that buffy is over), 17:30:28 06/06/03 Fri

not much need for a champion in LA or anywhere else really seeing as there are probably a good few slayers in each city very able of kicking the ass of demons and vampires. i really want to see how they are gonna deal with this issue almost as much as i want to see how they are going to deal with the almost impossible situation of giving spike a sensible role on the show

[> Let's see, maybe they can spend a really long time redecorating the office -- Dandy, 17:58:18 06/06/03 Fri


[> Spike, Angel, guest apperances (spoiler speculation) -- Deacon, 20:23:25 06/06/03 Fri

I am not really expecting them to explore that storyline on Angel, main reason is that it would be to complicated. What I am hoping for is for the characters from Btvs to stay alive on Ats so we can find out what happens to them and they can make some quest apperances SMG agreed to visit, and since Allyson Hannigan is getting married to Alexis Denisof it make sence that she would appeare. Then when it is time for Angel to end they can make another spin off then.

As for spike, what I think will happen is that Spike will come back as a human. This would create alot of tension because spike would have a chance with a normal life with buffy, when angel gave up the chance to be human.
it is hard to say if that would happen. I have heard both sides on the arguement if Buffy really does Spike, the scene was so intence that I don't think she would just be making the dying guy feel better. I definitly think that she does love him but it might be plationic way,the same way she loves Xander. Spike didn't believe her because he doesn't think he is good enough for her and he has deep regrets about the attempted rape. Buffy feelings are unsure but I think that Spike loves buffy more than Angel loves Buffy. I am not trying to defend Spike in anyway, he should have been dusted for it. He was a vampire without a soul, thier relationship was started with violance, a telling statment of the nature of vampire's love was spikes line in S3 "lover's Walk" "If I want Dru back I know what I have to do, I have to be the man that I was, the man she loved, first I will find her where ever she is, capture her, torture her untill she likes me again." And if you remeber how angel acted towards buffy when he did not have a soul in S2.

What ever happens I do not think that Spike will be part of Angel Invertigations. But since CC is not returning someone will have to have the visions.

[> [> Re: PTB -- Brian, 07:44:04 06/07/03 Sat

Maybe I'm just confused, but didn't Jasmine say that she was the only PTB (old gods) that took an interest in this reality? That all of Doyle and Cordelia's visions came from her? So, if she is gone, then there will be no more visions for anyone.

[> [> [> No, free will versus intervention -- KdS, 08:29:40 06/07/03 Sat

As I understood it, Jasmine wanted to physically intervene in the world to improve humanity against their will. The other PTBs want to preserve free will so just stuck to more indirect methods like sending visions to Cordy, or Darla's spirit to Connor.

[> can't these slayers go bad like Faith, all "we got the power to do what we want" -- fool,, 23:24:19 06/06/03 Fri


[> Those slayers will need some guidance -- Dariel, 10:28:20 06/07/03 Sat

None of the new slayers have watchers. They have the power, but little or no knowledge and experience. They might be good at killing vamps and other demons, but I doubt they'd be much help against an enemy like, say, W&H.

Wesley could be given a slayer or two to work with. Since the list of AtS regulars is a bit heavy on the testosterone, a slayer would help round out the male-to-female ratio. I know Spike is supposed to be the "foil" for Angel, but a difficult slayer, like Kennedy (but not Kennedy!) could serve that purpose as well.

If ME is still thinking spin-off, we're likely to see some slayers, at least at some point, this season. I hope so--I'm not ready to let go of the "hot chicks with superpowers" angle yet!

[> There isn't that many slayers -- Laura, 19:33:05 06/07/03 Sat

There are only around a few hundred Potentials at a time or else the First wouldn't have attempted to kill them all off. It would have been impossible.

Places that have high populations are more likely to have Slayers. The U.S.'s population, it is nothing compared to many countries. Thus it would be very lucky to have fifty slayers and even less likely for there to be more than one (if even that) in L.A.. So, the Fang Gang will still have stuff to do.

The Chocolet Bidding War! -- Wolfhowl3, 19:52:42 06/06/03 Fri

Our friends are over in Vancouver right now, and they have a digital camera right there.

Now Someone, (or more then one) is trying to bribe LittleBit with Chocolet to not post those pictures.

We have to Out Bid that person to get to see the Pictures. I want you all to Dig Deep, and give all the Chocolet covered goodness to Littlebit so that we can see all that we have missed!

Who is with me?

Wolfie

[> I just happen to have a 5 pound box of Godiva on me! We want pix! -- Dandy, 21:23:45 06/06/03 Fri


[> Sweet Ghirardelli squares, blessed by Mendocino air -- Vickie, 23:52:19 06/06/03 Fri

I have four dark chocolate squares left on our pillows during our last (very recent) Mendocino stay. LB, post the pix!!!!!

[> [> Ghirardelli is so overrated -- CW, 07:08:34 06/07/03 Sat

If you want to bribe some one get some good chocolate not just something different. Here in Phoenix, Ghirardelli and stuff made with Ghirardelli (the local Serreta's) is about the best you can get. It's so depressing!

[> I have a bag of Ghirardelli choco chips... -- pr10n, 00:24:25 06/07/03 Sat

They are destined for cookies, to be eaten by children. Hungry children, who will plead with their big fakery eyes for just another or two.

And I will give YOU the bag of chippies, for the pix. Oh for the pix! I have shied away from the board because I know you guys are whooping it in Vancouver and I am Zhealous, but now I must see de ATPo peeps!

Please.

[> How about Jacques Torres chocolates? -- s'kat, 09:14:49 06/07/03 Sat

Jacques Torres outdoes Godiva by a mile. It's a rich chocolate. And his factory is only about 15 blocks walking distance. Expensive, 80cents for a square. But I bid them
electronically.

He also has his own show - Chocolat Creations on the Food
Network. I watched him one day create a Chess board game out of chocolat with Jacques Pepin.

[> I just bought Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory from Charlie... -- Random, 19:30:35 06/08/03 Sun

Who has grown old and corrupt and made a spectacular fortune on the side trading in Bolivian junk bonds(sigh! another illusion shattered) Anyway, free tour and swim in the rivers of chocolate for anyone who'll send pictures our way!

TCH, Sara and all: If it's not too late? My Impressions on Perfume(Long and Spoilers Peace Out) -- shadowkat (who just finished the book), 23:59:32 06/06/03 Fri

Perfume ­ Thoughts & Impressions

(I decided to post a new thread, because was afraid it would get lost at the long thread below what with the sudden switch to the CS Lewis book. Hope I'm not being presumptous. Figure with so many people away and it being summer..won't be a problem?)

[I'll be quoting from TCH, Sara, WickedBuffy and Rob's posts in the Book Melee, as well as from Perfume by Patrick Susskin, some of it is responses to what I read below]

God. What a book. First book I've actually managed to make it through in over three months. Interesting that. Finished it today, as I promised Sara I would. Doubt my thoughts will add much to the posts that have been on the board all week regarding it, but I promised Sara I'd write something ­ so here it is, even though Sara is currently away from the board and having a blast in Vancouver. This my friends is what happens when you are a) a slow reader and b) last to the party ­ the party will eventually move on without you, forgetting you almost all together. Oops no one there to see my wordsand away they go into Voynak hell!

Makes me identify oddly enough with Grenouille, the dark protagonist of this allegorical and somewhat satirical fable. The need for "validation" not the isolation or the friendliness. And if we think about it, isn't that what we all crave ­ validation? Being noticed? Being praised even? Look at all our awards shows and honors. There was a documentary on Bob Hope recently and the point was made about how obsessed Hope was with winning rewards and metals, how important they were to him.

WickedBuffy starts hi/r post off with the following disclaimer, which touched me because it reminds me of my own : "Let me warn you all right off ­ I'm not a scholar. [Neither am I, so you're not alone]. I didn't even know what an "annotation" was until Rob explained it to me. [I'd forgotten what it was too] I graduated college with a major in sociology/psychology. I'm not stupid but I write in very simple language ­ mainly because I write for children." [Actually I always though psyche and soc majors were the bright ones. I sucked at both. And writing for kids? No mean feat. Believe me, I had to figure out how to write copy for a teen site today, not easy.]

Her need to write this made me realize something that each and every character had in common in this book, the something that they all ached for but could not get ­ it's the same thing oddly enough that Connor aches for in Peace Out and Jasmine aches for in all her false glowing brilliance and Angel aches for, whenever he hunts his reflection or stars into those windows. The thing that causes Spike ultimately to desire a soul and give his life in a blast of triumph and motivates Buffy to share her power with millions of other slayers. It is, if we think long and hard about it, the one thing that makes us all human. [Or at least in my humble opinion] And it is the reason Patrick Suskin wrote Perfume, Kurt Cobain wrote a song about it, and I sit here tonight at 11:30 pm writing an essay/post hoping someone will notice it at the bottom of an old and long thread with far more brilliant and insightful posts than mine. [Assuming of course I don't decide to post it separately because the thread has long since disappeared or just the fear, no one will see it.]

In Peace-Out S5 Ats, and please bear with me on this, I could not for the life of me access the script, Connor states something to the effect that all he wanted to do was connect with people. His whole life feels like it was based on a lie. He couldn't connect with Holtz, all Holtz wanted was revenge. He can't connect with Angel, all Angel wants to do is fight for people, be a champion. He thought he'd connected with Cordelia ­ but that was just about Jasmine. And Jasmine ­ she wanted to connect, to be loved, but knew, knew that no one would love her if they saw her real face. The maggot worm eaten version. They only loved the false one. And yes it was one more liebut was it any worse than any of the others? And Why! Why couldn't, he, Connor, have felt the peace it provided, why couldn't he feel that happiness, feel a part of it. Why was he denied the lie when everyone else had it?

Wicked Buffy again writes: " In Grenouille's reality, [scent] was what made everything real and concrete. But he could never be real in his own world because he didn't have that very validator. No genuine scent." S/he also states that everyone realized their ultimate goal. ( Yet ­ their goals to their reader seem sort of empty somehow).

Sara writes: "I found that Grenouille as a character had no real odor, in a literary sense. I never really understood why he did anything, the character's coldness gave him no reality for me." She also states: " I think it's interesting to see what people get out of book I didn't connect with, than it is when I like it." And finally: "each character's death was showing the pointlessness, crassness and futility of people's goals and dreams. I finished the book with the feeling that Susskind does not like people."

Actually I think Susskin does like people. His writing reminds me of Orwell, Burgess, and Huxley in the attempt to create an allegorical or false world to demonstrate what happens if we remove something vital to our existence, whether that be morality, attachment, compassion, love, or humility. In the world of Perfume, which is in some ways seems to be a historical exaggeration, the characters lack compassion for one another: they all are unable on some level to form attachments or acquire a sense of value and acknowledgment and without that ability, their goals no matter how noble or lofty seem oddly empty.

Father Terrier ­ desperately wants acknowledgment for his works of charity, he feels guilty about this desire, but he wants it. Nothing much, just a thank you or a good morning or maybe even a friendly smile. As he states to an irritated mid-wife: "It's always a matter of money. When there's a knock at this gate, it's a matter of money. Just once I'd like to open it and find someone standing there for whom it was a matter of something else. Someone, for instance, with some little show of thoughtfulness. Fruit perhaps, or a few nuts. After all, in autumn there are lots of things someone could by with. Flowers maybe. Or if only someone would simply come and say a friendly word. 'God Bless you, Father Terrier, I wish you a good day!' But I'll probably never live to see it happen." Of course all the mid-wife wants is to get rid of the scentless child that feels like a burden to her ­ a thing that only takes and gives nothing in return. The Father, thinking she's insane, eventually takes the child off her hands.

TCH writes in his excellent review ­ " Father Terrier who quite happily dismisses superstition in a display of intellectual superiority to himself, before being so thoroughly shaken by the lack of smell of the baby that he worries about a Devil Child." Actually, I don't think that's the reason Father Terrier has troubles with the child. He really doesn't mind the child's lack of smell. In fact, he even fancies himself as the child's father for a while. "The odor of humans is always a fleshy odor ­ that is a sinful odor," Father thinks to himself, " How could an infant, which does not yet know sin even in its dreams have an odor? How could it smell?" He rocks the infant on his knees, singing poohpehdoo and up until the infant Grenouille awakens, Father Terrier feels "his heart glow with sentimental coziness." But then, Grenouille awakens and smells Terrier. And Terrier's feelings change. It's not Grenouille's lack of smell that frightens him ­ it's Grenouille's ability to so completely smell him. It's ironically Grenouille's ability to acknowledge and see all the blemishes inside Terrier through smell that causes Terrier to see him as a monster. "It seemed to Terrier as if the child saw him with its nostrils, as if it were staring intently at him, scrutinizing him, more piercingly than eyes could ever do, as if it were using it's nose to devour something whole, something that came from him, from Terrier, and that he could not hold that something back or hide itThe child with no smell was smelling him shamelessly, that was it! It was establishing his scent! And all at once he felt as if he stank, of sweat and vinegar, of choucroute and unwashed clothes"

No compassion. But complete acknowledgment of Terrier by a child ­ taking in of his smell, but not acknowledgement in the sense that we like it ­ with rewards or love or compassion ­ but the sort which either judges us, appraises us or merely devours giving nothing back, providing no attachment. Like a pauper finding the Father unworthy for not being able to provide money. Or the reason WickedBuffy makes her disclaimer and Sara in a sense made hers, or I make mine­ I'm no scholar, I couldn't connect to this, I came late to the party am a slow readerdon't judge me wanting, embrace me, please, please understand me. Also the desire TCH and everyone else has ­ for people to respond to our essays, not to just read it and let it be eaten by the archives with no response. Grenouille takes in the smell but gives nothing back, provides no positive stimuli in response ­ there's only a taking not a giving. And it is done without permission. It is in a way a rape of scent. Just as Grenouille strips away or rapes those virgin girls of their scent. Note that he wants the scent of "virgin" girls ­ he wants the untouched, innocent scent. And they don't give it to him freely ­ he has to kill them to get it.

Madame Gaillard ­ is in a sense Grenouille's perfect/ironic counter. Like Grenouille, Madame can't form attachments to others. She can't feel compassion. Yet she does desire some sort of acknowledgment or validation ­ she gets it with an annuity, which will, she believes, provide her with a peaceful death. She believes she can achieve this by playing by the rules, doing no more or less than her duty. Her story is deeply satirical, in the sense that she believes so strongly in fairness and justice yet, in truth how can you have fairness and justice without compassion? Without the ability to emotionally comprehend it? Her views of what is just and/or fair are purely objective, based on equal amounts of cash, ie half for herself, half for the orphans needs, and also purely self-centered. She rationalizes her actions through the idea that she is a business woman, she must fend for herself, her charges are a business. It never occurs to her when she sells Grenouille to the tradesman that she is selling a human being. The irony about Madame Gaillard is the fact that her death, which is neither peaceful nor comfortable is as just and fair as what she gave to others. In the end she is tossed aside like a used up commodity, just as she tossed others aside.

Mme Gaillard feels nothing for Grenouille or anyone for that matter ­ they are no more than pieces of silver to her. Actually much less than that, since she takes far better care of her silver or cash. Deprived of the sense of smell, Gaillard can't attach to others, they don't exist for her. Deprived of scent, Grenouille doesn't exist for others either. Gaillard can't attach. No one can attach to Grenouille. Gaillard's relationship with Grenouille is in some ways tragically ironic ­ because you'd think the very fact Gaillard can't smell would make her able to attach to Grenouille, yet Gaillard's inability to smell makes it impossible for her to attach or feel compassion for anyone. They are both isolated and unable to connect to others, but for opposite reasons.

Talent vs. technique. Baldini has the techniques of the Perfume business down. He knows how to chemically distill and create a perfume, but he lacks the creative talent necessary to create perfumes. He can create it from a formula, but not from his head or even his nose. Grenouille has 0 technique but tons of natural talent. He is a natural perfumer. What he is able to do with 0 technique discombobulates Baldini. And here we get a neat little commentary on the old Saleri vs. Mozart or any scenario between an individual who has raw talent and one who only has technique but will never long as they live acquire the talent necessary to make the technique worthwhile. As an old art teacher once told me ­ I can teach technique, but talent? That's something you're born with. So on the surface it appears that Baldini is taking from Grenouille ­ using him, but in truth it is Grenouille who is using Baldini. Grenouille cannot imbue Baldini with his talent, he cannot transfer it to him, even if he wanted to, the best he can do is put formulas in a little book which can easily be destroyed. Baldini on the other hand can give to Grenouille ­ he can teach him technique, show him how to distill fragrances, tell him where to go to learn other methods of distilling scent, teach him the business. In the long run ­ Baldini gives Grenouille far more than Grenouille appears to give Baldini. Yes, Grenouille makes Baldini rich and famous before the man dies ­ but little else. Baldini is glad to see him go. Glad to be free of what he felt intuitively was a parasite. A tick. And when Grenouille has taken everything from Baldini ­ Baldini dies ­ his office and house magically falling into the river with all the other used up scraps of their business. Once Grenouille is through with it, Baldini and everything Grenouille has distilled falls like waste, dried up, used, into the river.

In his essay, TCH comments on how Grenouille is both an intial blessing and a final curse to the other characters. And in a way he is. But the blessings aren't any more real than Jasmine's to the Shiny Happy People in Angel The Series. Jasmine who provides the people with the sensation of peace, love, solidarity, yetwhen she leaves their presence they feel oddly empty. Husks. She hasn't really given them anything "real". Grenouille is somewhat the same way and so is perfume if we think about it. Is perfume "real" or merely a way of masking what is real? Changing or covering up our real scent? Some perfumes may enhance our scents, but most are used to cover it up or mask it. Grenouille's use of perfume even on himself is to create an illusion ­ one he eventually becomes disgusted with. For Grenouille, of all the characters in Susskind's work ­ comes to the realization that the illusion is empty.

The second consul Richis, whose daughter Grenouill murders ­ embraces the idea of Grenouille as a son when Grenouill drapes himself with the daughter's sent. Richis never sees past the illusion. Partly because what Richis desires is not to form an attachment to Grenouille so much as to possess him. Something Grenouille also initially desires ­ believing as Richis does, if I possess these girls' scents, I will be rich and powerful. Richis' love of his daughter is like a man's love of a jewel or bauble, he sees her as a possession, much as Madame Gaillard saw the orphans, something to be bartered for riches. For a more worthy possession ­ a son ­ which can carry forth his name. To Richis ­ his daughter's scent on Grenouille ­ provides him with the one thing he wanted all along, the son ­ who would pass on his name, his legacy and make him known beyond death. The daughter's only value was as a thing. It may be why Richis comes so close to figuring out Grenouille's plan, because both men see the daughter as a means to an end as opposed to an end in of herself. The difference between Richis and Grenouill ­ is Grenouille in accomplishing his aim, discovers how false it is. How empty. It is after all not based on Grenouille himself, but on the scent of others. What the people acknowledge and appreciate and attach themselves to is not Grenouille, is not Grenouille's brilliance, but rather the collected scents of the virgin girls. Richis daughter. Grenouille, himself, might as well not exist.

In his essay, Rob compares Grenouille to Orpheus who melts fair maidens with his lute, stating: "The major difference, however is that, whereas Orpheus powers are pure and heavenly, Grenouille is for all intents and purposes a soulless demon whose greatest aspirations are to use his powers not to inspire love and bring people to rapture, as Orpheus does, but to control these "base animals" and to make them grovel before him." This statement reminded me of another flute player, a far less sympathetic one, the Pied Piper of Hamline. In the fable of the Pied Piper ­ Hamline is a town overrun by rats, the Pied Piper comes to town and using his flute leads the rats into the sea. When the townspeople refuse to acknowledge his deed or pay him in any way, claiming the rats went of their own accord, the Pied Piper uses his gift to steal all the town's children, leading them away into the mists with his flute never to return. Grenouille if you think about it does the same thing ­ he uses crafted perfumes to capture and kill the young daughters. He uses a perfume crafted from these young women to convince the townsfolk to let him go and engage in an orgy. As Rob mentions, like Pan ­ he creates a Bacchai like sensation amongst the townsfolk where they lose all sense of logic and engage in an orgy.

But, unlike the Pied Piper, or Jasmine in Angel The Series, or other manipulators, Grenouille is horrified by his own success. He realizes that he has gained nothing. He is as isolated and detached from himself and humanity as he was isolated in his cave. And that's the interesting thing ­ detached from himself. He has somehow, possibly intuitively realized that he needs others acknowledgement to determine if he, himself is real. It's that old saying if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it ­ does it have a sound? Did it happen? Or perhaps the legend of the vampire ­ who casts no reflection and cannot see itself, so only exists when we see it. Or Marcy in Out of Mind Out of Sight, S1 Btvs, who becomes literally invisible when no one acknowledges her presence. Their only sense of being visible is when someone else catches a glimpse?

"For after all, he [Grenouille] was masked with the best perfume in the world, and beneath his mask there was no face, but only his total odorlessness. Suddenly he was sick to his stomach, for he felt the fog rising again. Just as it had back then in his cave, in his dream, in his sleep, in his heart, in his fantasy, all at once fog was rising, the dreadful fog from his own odor, which he could not smell, because he was odorless. And just as then, he was filled with boundless fear and terror, felt as if he were going to suffocate. But this time it was different, this was no dream, no sleep, but naked reality. And different, too, because he was not lying alone in a cave, but standing in a public place before ten thousand people. And different because here no scream would help to wake and free him, no flight would rescue him and bring him into the good, warm world. For here and now, this was the world, and this, here and now, was his dream come true."

Grenouille realizes amidst all the adoration and ecstasy, that the emotion is not directed at him but at the perfume, a perfume they don't even know exists. It would I think be a little like being loved for your costume. Like Willow feels in her Restless Dream when Buffy keeps telling her to take off her costume ­ but this is me, she protests, just my clothes. She's hiding. Grenouille is also hiding. But amidst the hiding, he realizes something ­ he wants to be seen, he wants to be acknowledged for who he is. Even if that was just hate.

"For once in his life he wanted to be like other people and empty himself of what was inside him ­ what they did with their love and their stupid adoration, he would do with his hate. For once, just for once, he wanted to apprehended in his true being, for other human beings to respond with an answer to his only true emotion, hatred."

But this doesn't happen and it is so ironic, because he appeared to have it ­ before he put on the perfume. They hated him. But not for him, they hated what he did. His actions. Actions, which can be so quickly ignored and erased with just a scent. Grenouille is oddly enough, worse off than Jasmine ­ at least Jasmine in Angel the Series, could be hated for what she was. People could perceive her true state. Grenouille is invisible. Even when he is finally devoured by the cannibals at the end out of their love and devotion to what they perceive him to be, it is false. They devour the scent, not Grenouille. So Grenouille finally gives something of himself to others but and here's Grenouille's tragedy, the others never acknowledge Grenouille, they aren't inhaling or devouring Grenouille for who and what he is, they are inhaling the world's best perfume plus Grenouill, Grenouill is merely a means of inhaling and devouring the scent, nothing more. They inhale the perfume, without understanding it or comprehending it or even truly appreciating it for what it is or what Grenouill did to create it.

It's a bit like someone reading your post on a posting board, raving about it, going on about it, but not comprehending what it was about or the work you went into creating it. Not feeling you, the poster behind it. Our ability to emphasize with each other, to feel compassion ­ to react emotionally, is what enables us to receive and provide validation, to feel alive. Those who cannot relate to others emotionally, who cannot feel compassion, emphasize with others or emotionally react to them as something other than things - either through words, deeds, smell, taste, etc ­ are like Grenouille, empty, their lives meaningless no matter how much on the surface they may appear to contribute. For in the long run, I believe our most meaningful contributions are the ones we've made through our connections and that I think may be the message of Patrick Susskin's biting fable.

Well it's way past 2 am on a Saturday morning. So I should probably cut this short. At 7 pagesyeah that's a laugh. The book is a haunting one. It strikes me as more of a satirical allegory or fable than a novel, what with its exaggerations, satirical characterizations, and often biting tone. I'm an odd cat, much like WickedBuffy's concept of Felix the Cat, I suppose, only taller, in that I like dark humor and biting wit ­ the darker the better. Because I often see more hope and humanity between the lines of dark wit and within the shades of complex nourish anti-heroes, than I see within the lines of stalwart heroes and hallmark card sentimentality. Perhaps that's the reason the only TV shows I've ever been obsessed with are MASH, Twin Peaks, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Angel the Series. And it may also be the reason that I loved this book. Who knows?

Anywaysthank you for all of the posts on the Book. I did read most of them and enjoyed them tremendously. Sorry this was so late. I'm an incredibly slow readerJ

Hope you enjoyed this one. If you get the chance? Let me know what you think before it disappears within the vastness of the archives.

Best,
SK

[> Preserving... -- Tchaikovsky, 03:07:31 06/07/03 Sat

Brilliant post. I fear I may fall into the category of person who acknowledges and praises a post without actually demonstrating the fact that I've read it- for now at least. If I have a little more time later I'll write a longer, more relevant response. I really enjoyed this post, although I skated over the Jasmine comparisons mostly because I haven't watched 'The Magic Bullet'-'Peace Out' and didn't want to be spoiled. The Hamelin comparison is a good one, and in a response to an e-mail from Rahael I mentioned Burgess' 'A Clockwork Orange' as being another book where the writer is a philanthropist even though the speaker seems a misanthropist. Another is Ian Banks 'The Wasp Factory'.

TCH

[> [> Thanks...more on writers who write satirical/allegorical works -- s'kat, 07:27:42 06/07/03 Sat

The Hamelin comparison is a good one, and in a response to an e-mail from Rahael I mentioned Burgess' 'A Clockwork Orange' as being another book where the writer is a philanthropist even though the speaker seems a misanthropist. Another is Ian Banks 'The Wasp Factory'.

Jonathan Swift is another one who wasa philanthropist but wrote what might be interpreted as misanthropic works:

Modest Proposal - about the eating of children as a means of getting rid of the poor.
Guillvars Travels - which discusses the beastial nature of humanity.

Orwell - wrote allegory with Animal Farm and 1984, both dark works. Animal Farm fits the fable.

Ronald Dahl's books also had an often dark satiric edge, but he often just wrote for children. James and The Giant Peach, Charlie and The Chocolat Factory, Charlie and The Great Glass Elevator, The Witches, Matilda, and several adult short stories and takes on fairy tales.

Then there's William Goldings - Lord of The Flies. And
Richard Cormier's The Chocolat War...

Of these, I think the Pied Piper of Hamlin, Swift's Modest Proposal, Burgess' A Clockwork Orange, and the one I haven't read by Ian Banks comes closest to Patrick Susskind.

At any rate, this is merely an attempt to keep preserving my post so others can see it.

Sorry about the spoilers for Peace-Out and the JAsmine arc
as well as Chosen, I keep forgetting people haven't seen these yet.

sk

[> [> Same here... -- Rob, 10:29:36 06/07/03 Sat

"Brilliant post. I fear I may fall into the category of person who acknowledges and praises a post without actually demonstrating the fact that I've read it- for now at least. If I have a little more time later I'll write a longer, more relevant response."

Ditto for most of what TCH said, except for your Jasmine linkage, which I read and he didn't. I have to say that was brilliant. I had thought about Jasmine connections re: overriding free will through the use of a type of mass-hypnosis spell, but didn't have a clear idea of how to approach it. You did it magnificently. You really did an amazing job of bringing aspects and ideas from many of the different posts in the original thread, and then taking the next step and raising the analysis to a higher level. I loved your analysis of each character. Would also like to hear your take on the guy (forget his name, sorry!) who used Grenouille as a scientific experiment, and Grenouille's time in the cave, if you feel like writing any more on the book.

Rob

[> [> [> Oh, and s'kat... -- Rob, 10:36:01 06/07/03 Sat

...if you need help finding The Screwtape Letters, the ISBN of the edition I found for $10 is 0-06-065293-4. I posted it at the end of the Perfume thread at the bottom of the page, but thought it may get archived before you get a chance to see it.

Rob

[> [> [> Thanks rob, and regarding the scientist -- s'kat, 14:46:24 06/08/03 Sun

I found the Screwtape Letters - in Religion just like you and Hacceity said.

Regarding the scientist or Taillard-Espinasse - this guy actually reminds me more of those self-help gurus/philosophers. It felt like a satirical take on people who will grab any thing and promote it as the miracle cure or manufacture an experiment or manipulate information to
promote their own personal view of the universe.
The irony is that while Taillard is attempting to manipulate Grenouille, Grenouille actually succeeds in manipulating Taillard. Another theme in the novel is how everyone who attempts to use or thinks that they are using Grenouille as a commodity to further their own ends and discards him - is in actuality being used by Grenouille and discarded. And they never know it.

Taillard believes he's using and manipulating Grenouille to promote his philosophy - the fluidity thing. When in truth, Grenouille uses Taillard's philosophy to advance himself in the town, get money and fine clothes. Grenouille eventually gets more out of the arrangement than Taillard, but Taillard believes he got more out of it. (The perfect con is when the mark thinks he won, that he got the better deal.) An example is how Taillard uses the violet perfume all the time, thinking its the best thing ever. Grenouille
convinces Taillard that it is weakening Grenouille's health and is hurting Taillard's scientific process - by doing so Grenouille convinces Taillard to get him access to a perfumery where he can not only create the "human natural odor" he requires, but a better perfume then the violet concoction. As a result Taillard pays Grenouille for using the lab and creating the perfume, instead Grenouille owing Taillard for using the lab. Taillard also adopts Grenouille
new perfume as his new health drug. Just as he becomes convinced that climbing to the top of the mountains that Grenouille once lived within will grant him immortal life.
Taillard's vainity and pride - lead him to fall for Grenouille's act and are ultimately Taillard's downfall.
Grenouille, on the other hand, comes out of the whole experience with money, new clothes, and the odor of a human.
When he met Taillard he was in rags, dirty, and poor with no odor. The scientist in effect becomes the experiment and the experiment becomes the scientist.

Or at least that was my take.;-)

SK

[> Re: -- aliera, 07:41:39 06/07/03 Sat

Thanks SK. Saved for printing. :-)

[> Grenouille uses people -- mamcu, 17:51:14 06/08/03 Sun

Those who cannot relate to others emotionally, who cannot feel compassion, emphasize with others or emotionally react to them as something other than things - either through words, deeds, smell, taste, etc ­ are like Grenouille, empty, their lives meaningless no matter how much on the surface they may appear to contribute.

Thanks, s'kat, for finally helping me find a focus on what I was trying to understand about this book. Grenouille is not just a metaphor for an artist or a politican but for a kind of person who is all too common-- who is able, even talented at, perceiving others, but cannot respond to them. He smells them and they can't smell him. It's a one-way street with him--no real empathy is possible. And hence no connection.

Just try to repeat what you said, but thanks for saying it so well.

[> Never too late sk! -- Sara, appreciating even with jet lag, 21:37:05 06/08/03 Sun

Ok it's midnight Sunday night, or does that make it Monday morning, hard to say, but I'm doing a catch up on the board because I'm sort of wired from a day of travel, so don't expect a whole lot of coherence right now. (not that anyone should expect that from me in the best of circumstances...)

anyway, sk - this is one of your "oooh! oooh! oooh! Now I get it!" posts. I loved your character analysis - especially Father Terrier. Also, very interesting theory on Susskind's motives in writing the book. I can see it either way now, it still seems like it could be a book written by someone who has a deep contempt for people, but I love how you turn it all around and show it as a book that could have been written by someone with a deep love for people as well, showing what's important about humanity by removing it completely from the world he creates. I can't imagine a clearer portrait of what the world would be like if you take away empathy and compassion, and it is certainly a portrait that no one would find appealing. Interesting!

Also interesting the whole discussion on validation. We had an interim acting Executive Director for about 6 months while the board of trustees searched for a permanent director. At the end of his time with us he made a big point in his goodbyes to thank the staff for accepting him as part of the museum so readily. He said that one of the things people crave most is acceptance from other people, and it was our acceptance of him that made his tenure a very positive experience. This does feel intuitively true, and goes along with validation. If Grenouille had been accepted, his mere existence validated by the people around him would he have turned into a monster? In reading the book, it felt like he was born a monster, but maybe the point was to show that the very act of rejection can build the monster that you have already rejected.

I have to think more about your Jasmine comparisons. These must be pondered.

Fabulous ideas shadowkat! I'm so glad you came to the party!

- Sara, thinking way too hard for this late at night

[> Re: TCH, Sara and all: If it's not too late? My Impressions on Perfume(Long and Spoilers Peace Out) -- Kenny, 22:27:58 06/08/03 Sun

I'm refusing to read any posts about this book, _Perfume_, that seems to be causing alot of conversation, for the simple fact that it's causing alot of conversation. It's a good sign that I'd like to read it, but I want absolutely no (or very minimal) info going in.

That said, are you guys referring to _Perfume: The Story of a Murderer_ by Patrick Suskind? I want to make sure I pick up the right book, and that's the most promising candidate from an Amazon search.

[> [> Yep. An explanation on the book club, etc -- shadowkat, 23:24:07 06/08/03 Sun

For the people late to the party and confused by all this.
Sara, Rahael, Tch, ponygirl, WickedBuffy, mamcu, and several others came up with the idea for an online book club to take the place of not having new Buffy episodes ever again. It's something else for us to discuss. And unless you haven't figured it out by now, we love to
have written discussions on things.

Anyways the first book selected was PERFUME: The Story of A Murderer by Patrick Susskind. (If you want to read it first, just do what I did and print off all the essays and read them after you read the book.)

Next one is The ScrewTape Letters by C.S. Lewis, found in the religion section, due June 16th (I believe)

Then Stars are My Destination by Alfred Bester

and finally A Winter's Tale by MArk Helprin.

If you want you can skip one and join for the next.
All are welcome to participate, the more the merrier.

(as you can see, some of us have way too much time on our hands. ;- )

sk

Possible Direction for S5 AtS--Spoilers through Home -- Arethusa, 13:43:53 06/07/03 Sat

(I didn't get to read the thread on S5 Angel and Spike's possible role in it before archiving, but wanted to add a few thought to the discussion. Please excuse any redundancy.)

It's possible that Angel, like Buffy, is on a spiiritual journey, but with a differrent aim. Buffy's mission was to grow up. Angel's mission is to reintegrate himself into humanity. Rather than seeing Shanshu as a shiny prize for good behavior, it's possible that his entire journey is the Shanshu-the process of becoming human again.

I always wanted to be a prince, Angel tells Cordelia, and it's one of his greatest flaws-the need to prove his worth to the rest of the world, which leads him to set himself apart from the rest of humanity. Prince, Champion, favorite of The Powers That Be, Executive/Boss-Angel needs the affirmation that a title bestows. Angel chose to become a vampire because he wanted to elevate himself above and beyond humans. His journey on AtS has been a process of reconnecting to the world-to truly become human by rejoining mankind.

Through the first four years of AtS Angel began living amoung humans again, creating a family and becoming involved with the outside world. But he was still an outsider. He was a private detective with no license and an underground business. He had little contact with the outside world beyond AI. Gradually he gained coworkers, friends, family. They become part of each others' lives, and Angel gradually started to see himself as human as well as vampire, to the point that Jasmine exasperatedly reminds him that he's not human. He has now aligned himself with humanity instead of The Powers That Be. And now he has a whole new set of challenges to face-how to live with humans as one of them.

Angel is offered W&H, and takes it to help his son. His challenges, ME said, will include learning how to participate in the world as one of its integrated members, no longer an outsider. And one of his greatest challenges will be how to keep from being corrupted by his desire to be one of the elite intead of just another man(pire). Lilah called him Charlie of the Chocolate Factory because in that movie (and to a lesser degree in the book), the cildren were corrupted by their various flaws- greed, selfishness, arrogance, and willfullness. A small band of social droupouts are now the bosses and no doubt will have the same problems that any geek would have after his or her hobby becomes a multi-million dollar enterprise.

So where will Spike fit into this, you are asking eagerly (or fearfully)? I'm guessing that as Angel's foil, as shadowkat noted he will be, Spike will show the path Angel doesn't take in integrating with society. He probably will be a contrast and an irritant to Angel, making him question his path and methods. And I devoutly hope we will get more Fanged Four flashbacks to emphesize the different paths the two souled vampires took to redeem themselves.

[> Re: Possible Direction for S5 AtS--Spoilers through Home -- s'kat, 15:24:41 06/07/03 Sat

This is driving me nuts - but the whole concept of two guys each pursuing redemption in different ways, reminds of a tv series that I can't put my finger on. It also reminds me a little of East of Eden by John Stenbeck - where JAmes Dean plays the prodigal son and another actor plays the good son.
Both fighting for father's approval. One is favored, one isn't, both achieve it, in different ways. And their relationship to each other is one based on both love and hate. And a love of the same woman, who loves and cares for them both.

Hmmm...when I think on it, this has been done many times.
The famous Rich Man Poor MAn miniseries with Nick Nolte and Peter Strauss. Nick Nolte played the devil-may-care man and Strauss the good careful establishment one.

Will ME try a similar tact? Place one vamp within the establishment and one outside it? Maybe have Angel be head of Wolfram and Hart, while Spike is helping Anne with the homeless shelter and running a small one man detective agency? Angel needs Spike but finds him an irritant. Spike needs Angel but doesn't want to. Oddly enough this reminds me of Doyle/Angel and Kate/Angel and even Wes/Giles in S3.

Don't know. I honestly have no clue which way they'll go with it. But this possibility is as good as any other.

[> A small disagreement -- KdS, 15:27:02 06/07/03 Sat

If I remember rightly, Darla never told Liam that he was going to become a vampire. In fact, I don't think that any of the significant BtVS undead characters (except just possibly for Darla) knowingly chose to be sired.

[> [> Re: A small disagreement -- Arethusa, 17:27:26 06/07/03 Sat

I've gone back and forth on this, but currently I think Angel did choose to be a vampire. It's consistant with his personality at the time. He said that sometimes people are punished far out of proportion for their bad choices, and I think he was speaking about himself.

[> [> [> Re: A small disagreement -- Juliet, 17:52:54 06/07/03 Sat

Well, yes, he was, but I think Liam thought Darla was just a beautiful, rich woman willing to take him to billion other places that weren't Galway, Ireland (both physically and not). He was wrong - even if Darla had been a wealthy socialite, that wouldn't have been the case.

He said in BtVS S2: "I always wanted to meet someone exciting." That's the stupid mistake he made - running away from his family and jumping at the first person who seemed remotely interesting and able to give him the life he wanted.

[> [> [> [> That's very possibly true instead. -- Arethusa, 18:16:31 06/07/03 Sat


One of the stupidest ideas EVER! -- Matthew M., 15:50:06 06/07/03 Sat

So how many people are behind this stupid "Bring Back Connor" thing? Three? Four?

Anybody who actually liked that thoroughly despicable chronic whiner should get their frickin' head examined.

That is, unless of course, you actually HATE Angel: The Series and wish to see it not even complete its fifth season (which is what will happen, as Connor's presence would only pull the ratings down further even if the show is not moved again).

I will be specifically looking at all of the high profile bulletin boards, and if any of this tripe comes up, I will personally smack it down.

Connor lovers are in the minority. Build a bridge and get over it.

[> OK, so I just dropped over to jumptheshark -- KdS, 16:04:39 06/07/03 Sat

... and I found possibly the most ridiculous critical argument I have ever seen in relation to an ME series. I actually laughed out loud at the computer for the first time in weeks.

Basically, the unnamed poster felt that he/she had been the first person to realise the truth about Willow and Tara. Willow was never gay! What actually happened was that Tara fell in love with her, after Will had done absolutely nothing to lead her on, and Willow, being a fanatical leftist, was driven by liberal guilt to allow Tara to have sex with her for the next couple of years. Okaaaaay...

So, can anyone beat this for the Most Bizarre Critical Theory of All Time? (Anything which has appeared on this board should probably be left out on grounds of politesse.)

[> [> Not sure I can beat that one. -- HonorH, 18:51:28 06/07/03 Sat

Willow had sex with Tara, lived with her, and then went berzerk over her death out of misplaced leftist guilt? Is this person in any way sane?

[> [> How do these people explain the end of season 6 ? -- 110v3w1110w, 01:09:09 06/09/03 Mon

if willow never loved tara and it was just charity what happened when tara died (still makes me sad) would not make sense. people do not torture, kill, go all dark and crazy and try to end the world over the death of someone they do not love

[> At least you're being reasonable about it. -- HonorH (not impressed), 16:16:59 06/07/03 Sat


[> Is this post even worth responding to? -- Rob (also not impressed), 17:15:06 06/07/03 Sat


[> [> I'd say, no. But, I then I have a bad habit of answering rhetorical questions. ;o) -- CW, 17:36:50 06/07/03 Sat


[> [> [> Me, too. Ya know what I mean? ;o) -- Rob (bein' all ironical), 18:37:36 06/07/03 Sat


[> [> [> [> The rhetoric confused me at first, but after deep contemplation -- Yes, I do know what you mean -- Random, 18:39:09 06/08/03 Sun


[> I really should ignore this post on principle, but... -- Tyreseus, 19:20:03 06/07/03 Sat

Here at ATPoBtVS&AtS, we tend to evaulate characters on more levels than just the surface.

"thoroughly despicable chronic whiner"? Any of us (even a "Connor lover" like me) can agree that Connor has done some pretty awful things this last season. BUT, he'd also shown some remarkable depth, great inner struggle and has driven the larger part of last season's plot.

Can you, Matthew M., at least ackowledge that Connor serves a metaphorical function on the show? Can you understand how people like myself and Masq (this board's owner) want to see the further development of his relationship with his father?

Probably not. I guess I should live in fear, now, of being "smacked down" by one so eloquent and thoughtful as yourself.

[> [> Re: I really should ignore this post on principle, but... -- Corwin of Amber, 19:47:08 06/07/03 Sat

>"thoroughly despicable chronic whiner"? Any of us (even a "Connor lover" like me) can agree that Connor has done some pretty awful things this last season. BUT, he'd also shown some remarkable depth, great inner struggle and has driven the larger part of last season's plot.

So are we saying that Connor is largely a plot device? :)

[> I'm rubber, You're glue... -- MagicBone, 22:50:15 06/07/03 Sat

So, how many people agree with this moron, Matthew M. Apparently he's posted here before but anyone who has read him should have their fricking head examined.

That is, unless you actually hate reading other fan's posts about Buffy or Angel. And wish to see every avenue of internet discussion disappear from posting boards everywhere. His posts will only drive the fan board business off the internet.

I personally will be looking to smack this moron, and his moron based tripe, down.

Matthew M. readers are non-existent. Cover your eyes and don't read.

[> [> Heheh...I know I shouldn't respond to this, but... -- Random, 18:30:20 06/08/03 Sun

You do an amazing rubber imitation. You oughta go professional with this act.

Anyway, I was on record as being distinctly less-than-fond of Connor -- heh, I teased Masq about her love for him -- but having read the original post, I'm starting to feel (ohmygod!) stirrings of absolute devotion for this chronically misunderstood character with hair that may look like he had an accident involving a blowdryer, a missing warning sticker, a bathtub full of water, and, for some reason, Crisco...but in actuality, it was a iconic representation of the tormented disorder of his soul. Heh, thanks Matthew, you've opened my eyes. "I-I-I-I o-o-nce was lost, but now a-a-m found/ Was blind, but now I see...."

~Random, now rooting for Connor and eyeing Matthew M's threat to "smack it down" with amusement and infinite disdain

[> [> [> Whee! We've won you over to the Connor-side of the Force, Random! -- Scroll, 22:36:45 06/09/03 Mon


[> Regarding the radical leftist Willow theory... -- Rhysdux, 03:19:24 06/08/03 Sun

...I've heard a variation of that.

The theory I've heard (and do NOT subscribe to, please note!!) is that Willow was, is and always will be incurably in love with Xander.

Under this theory, Oz meant nothing to her. She simply told him that she loved him after she found out he was a werewolf because she felt sorry for him and didn't want him to think that she was unduly prejudiced against people with his affliction/beings of his species/whatever. Everything she did with him, from talking to him to having sex with him, was an act of pure charity that she endured simply by pretending that she was spending her time with Xander.

Then Oz went away to Tibet and Willow had to pretend to be devastated. Actually, she was angry, not devastated, because even though she was now free, Xander was involved with someone else. And it was dreadfully hard for her to hide her interest in Xander.

When Cordelia left, Willow was happy for a while, thinking she might have a chance. But Xander still took no notice. A blonde witch named Tara did, however.

Now--according to this theory--Willow was never attracted to Tara at all. Willow taking up with Tara was another example of Willow sublimating her own desires to someone else's out of charity and pity. Because she was not attracted to Tara yet did not want to hurt the other girl's feelings, she overcompensated, moving in with Tara, having sex with Tara, and eventually breaking up with Oz--who, after all, Willow never loved in the first place--over Tara. There was no love or sexual attraction involved at all; merely a deep friendship accompanied by three years of mercy sex.

Myself? I think that the person who came up with THIS theory would buy swampland in the Sahara.

I think that's at least on a par with the radical leftist Willow theory. What do you guys think?

[> [> I think the whole thing makes Willow pretty pitiful. -- HonorH, 10:15:44 06/08/03 Sun

Doesn't jibe with her actions after Oz left her. Why do the "my will be done" spell--in secret!--if she wasn't really hurting?

It also definitely wouldn't jibe with her actions after Tara's death. I mean, if she'd never really loved Tara, why would she go all Darth Rosenberg? She might have been upset at her friend's death, but wouldn't have tried to destroy the world over it. This one sinks just as quickly as the other, I think.

[> [> Re: Regarding the radical leftist Willow theory... -- Linne, 10:15:48 06/08/03 Sun

I think the people who came up with these "it was only mercy sex" theories need to stay far, far away from West Hollywood, or Provincetown. The rationalizing they'd need to do there would make their heads explode.

Seriously tho, I understand that it's just Willow they can't handle being at all gay, or not in love with the person they've selected for her. It's a very interesting demonstration of how a fixation can twist thinking.

[> [> Re: Regarding the radical leftist Willow theory... -- Darby, 06:05:36 06/09/03 Mon

On the other hand, Tara was intended, according to Joss, to be part of the "college experimentation phase" and not represent a sea change for Willow. That was the original aim, kinda like bringing in Spike so that he could be killed and Drusilla could be the Big Bad. But if you ignore what the AH-AB chemistry did to the intent, and sttrrretttch so that college phases are based on left-wing guilt (now that often may be true), and ignore a bunch of stuff (and who among us hasn't, if a theory is tempting enough?), you could make a case for this.

I wouldn't, I don't, I'm not a proponent, but I'm just sayin'...

My personal theory is that if folks of the XY variety have the hots for Willow, and forget that she's a doggone fictional character, and figure that they'd have a shot with her if she was only heterosexual, they'll rationalize until the cows fly to Vancouver.

Did I mention that I'm loopy from two 14-hour travel days?

[> [> Re: Regarding the radical leftist Willow theory... -- Malandanza, 06:34:17 06/09/03 Mon

"Under this theory, Oz meant nothing to her. She simply told him that she loved him after she found out he was a werewolf because she felt sorry for him and didn't want him to think that she was unduly prejudiced against people with his affliction/beings of his species/whatever. Everything she did with him, from talking to him to having sex with him, was an act of pure charity that she endured simply by pretending that she was spending her time with Xander."

I think this theory only works until Willow had sex with Oz. Prior to that, Oz really didn't mean as much to her as did Xander. Remember that Willow began her romance on the same night she found out about Xander and Cordelia -- and, as Oz pointed out in the van while they were robbing the military base, it was more about evening the score with Xander than being with Oz. Well into the W/O relationship we even saw Willow crying after finding out that Xander had had sex with Faith. After sex with Oz, however, all romantic thoughts of Xander were banished from her mind. (The occasional sniping at Anya I put down to a dog-in-the-manger attitude).

"Then Oz went away to Tibet and Willow had to pretend to be devastated. Actually, she was angry, not devastated, because even though she was now free, Xander was involved with someone else."

There was quite a bit of self-pity mixed up with the genuine regret. Enough that her closest friends were sick of the "poor me"attitude by Something Blue.

The second time Oz left, we ought to have seen some regret from Willow -- sincere regret for having hurt someone who loved her with his whole being. Yet sex with Tara (the same night Oz left) erased all that (when Willow moves on, she really moves on). It's hard for me to say that Willow genuinely loved Oz any more than I would say that Willow's high school crush on Xander was genuine love.

The Willow/Tara romance was far from perfect. There were elements of bullying and abuse in the way Willow treated Tara -- that Willow could get away with, since Tara was a lovestruck doormat. The argument in Tough Love was a harbinger of the mind control in Season Six -- where Willow disregards Tara's calm, dispassionate remarks and forces an argument, then turns it into a series of personal attacks on Tara. In Season Six, the first mind control was very wrong -- especially, as Tara pointed out, after what had happened to her with Glory. The second was, in my opinion, unforgivable. If all Willow wanted in a relationship was a little robot sex slave, she could have talked to Warren (or reprogrammed the Buffybot). Treating Tara as she did was not love, at least no love in the sense that you mean it.

When Tara was killed, yes, we saw Willow go on a rampage with grief (as we saw in Season Five when she grabbed the Darkest Magicks book and went after Glory), but it wasn't the reminder of Tara's life that saved Willow, but a reminder of her childhood with Xander. When Willow is asked about Tara, she launches into one of her me-centric speeches. Warren is evil because he took Tara away from Willow (not because he killed a beautiful person -- the only one to try to help Buffy through her dark night of the soul). Tara was important to Willow because she made Willow feel special, etc. Too many first person pronouns -- It's all about Willow. Subconsciously, at least, Willow seems to have some sort of understanding that her part of the relationship with Tara was flawed -- she turns into the misogynist who killed her, after all.

The pattern seems to be:

When Willow is in love with Xander, he's the only one she every loved.
When She's in love with Oz, Oz is the only one she's ever loved.
When She's in love with Tara, Tara is the only one she's ever loved.

I think that Willow's love for these people is like Spike's love for Dru -- jealous, possessive, but, above all, narcissistic

[> [> [> Good analysis -- mamcu, 08:31:10 06/09/03 Mon

And given Willow's totally non-connecting mother and evidentally non- existent father (there were no good fathers in the Buffyverse?), it's not surprising that she's not able to form a great, deep, mature relationship in her teens. Her feeling for Xander--a crush on a friend who doesn't reciprocate in early high school years--is absolutely typical. He's close enough then for her to feel at ease, but since he doesn't feel the same way, she's in no danger of having to really relate to him.

Her little fling with Xander in Lover's Walk even after they're both hooked up with other people is also typical not only of really young people who aren't yet able to commit, but sadly also of older people who are so damaged by poisonous families that they can never form strong relationships. it's another step into immaturity for her.

And then what's kind of cute and touching for highschoolers in S3 is terribly sad when we see the same thing being played out in S6, with Willow jerking Tara around in a weird co-dependence and Xander dumping and still trying to hold on to Anya.

And Kennedy? The rebound thing?

Sounds like real life to me! And makes Buffy's "cookie dough" speech in Chosen sound like the ultimate statement on all the relationships in the series except maybe Giles and Jenny.

BTW, I certainly know many people who are able to form good relationships at a young age. I'm not saying that it's youth that makes Willow and Xander have such a hard time with relationships--it's the baggage they bring from home.

[> [> [> Heads I win, tails you lose -- Sophist, 13:30:48 06/09/03 Mon

Prior to that, Oz really didn't mean as much to her as did Xander.

Yet sex with Tara (the same night Oz left) erased all that (when Willow moves on, she really moves on).

So let's see here. When Willow retains affection for Xander, she's wrong for not moving on. When Willow does "move on" to Tara, she's wrong for doing that. Maybe you should write a fanfic. Call it Catch- 22.

There was quite a bit of self-pity mixed up with the genuine regret. Enough that her closest friends were sick of the "poor me"attitude by Something Blue

What we really saw was the contrast in friendship. Where Buffy's best friend always demonstrated understanding and compassion when Buffy moped about Parker, Willow's best friends couldn't wait for her to "get over" the much more damaging and traumatic events with Oz.

The second time Oz left, we ought to have seen some regret from Willow -- sincere regret for having hurt someone who loved her with his whole being.

Well yeah. Especially after Willow ran off to Tibet, leaving Oz alone to grieve in Sunnydale.

It's hard for me to say that Willow genuinely loved Oz

Hence your criticism of her unreasonably long period of grieving after Oz left.

There were elements of bullying and abuse in the way Willow treated Tara

Examples? Prior to S6, of course, since that's the context of this comment.

Tara was a lovestruck doormat

As we saw in TR.

Willow disregards Tara's calm, dispassionate remarks and forces an argument, then turns it into a series of personal attacks

Calm and dispassionate, but wrong. Willow could have views about Buffy's treatment of Dawn without having lost her mother, just as I can have views about President Bush without ever having been President.

Tara's the one who made it personal: "frightens".

she turns into the misogynist who killed her, after all

So being the victim of an evil spell makes Willow blameworthy?

[> [> [> [> Disagreeing on a few things. -- HonorH, 13:52:47 06/09/03 Mon

We saw Buffy and the others being compassionate and understanding after Willow lost Oz. However, when Willow, several episodes later, turned that around and started acting selfish--acting like Buffy should stay in with her rather than go out slaying, attacking Xander verbally (twice!), and claiming that Giles, who'd suffered a much more traumatic loss, couldn't possibly understand her pain--the Scoobies lost patience with her, and rightly so. It wasn't a failure of friendship. It was Willow being too self-centered to see that her actions were hurting her friends. The spell was a full-color illustration of that. Even grief doesn't give you the right to treat your friends like crap. To Willow's credit, she's able to step out of her poor-me attitude enough to break the spell and bake cookies.

Also, I think that Malandanza was referring to Willow and Tara's argument in "All the Way", not "Tough Love". That *was* Willow turning an argument about Willow's magic use into personal attacks.

Mind you, I don't really subscribe to Malandanza's take on Willow. I think Willow has as much self-centeredness in her as any teenager/young adult. However, I think she really did love Oz, even if she loved Xander concurrently for part of their relationship, and she really loved Tara. S6 was about Willow having to let go of the things she thought made her "special"--witchcraft and Tara--and learn to value "plain old Willow". Tara's death interrupted that process, and she had to spend the summer with Giles and even the following months in Sunnydale rebuilding herself.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Disagreeing on a few things. -- Sophist, 14:35:01 06/09/03 Mon

I think that Malandanza was referring to Willow and Tara's argument in "All the Way", not "Tough Love". That *was* Willow turning an argument about Willow's magic use into personal attacks.

Based on context and previous discussions, I think he meant Tough Love. If he did mean AtW, I'd agree that Willow was the one at fault.

However, when Willow, several episodes later, turned that around and started acting selfish--acting like Buffy should stay in with her rather than go out slaying, attacking Xander verbally (twice!), and claiming that Giles, who'd suffered a much more traumatic loss, couldn't possibly understand her pain--the Scoobies lost patience with her, and rightly so.

You have the sequence wrong. The SG lost patience first, then Willow reacted to them. Here are some quotes:

Willow: No! Why should I? I've got pain, here - big-time legitimate pain.

Xander: We all have pain, Will

This comes before Willow says anything to her friends. I'm still trying to figure out what pain Xander had that he might be talking about.

Willow.. I know that you're going through a very difficult time.. But, sherking your responsibilities-

In other words, Giles tells Willow to do her work and put aside the grief. Only after this does Willow react.

Now, her reactions were hardly admirable. The fact is, though, that Willow never said anything to Buffy about moping after Parker, though that went on longer than Willow's grief over Oz, and with less justification. She probably expected and deserved the same treatment from her friends. Instead, she got impatience. Not a huge amount, but still impatience. She then overreacted to that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Disagreeing on a few things. -- HonorH, 16:41:25 06/09/03 Mon

Yes, Willow said she had "big-time legitimate pain"--while she was drowning her sorrows in beer. Xander was pointing out this wasn't a good way of dealing. He didn't say anything to deserve what she said to him. As for Xander and pain, he did lose Cordelia the year before, while Oz hooked back up with Willow. Xander also grew up in an abusive, alcoholic home. I think that qualifies. Furthermore, Willow knew all this. What she said was downright mean, and probably would never have escaped her mouth if she'd been completely sober.

As for Giles, what he said was correct. He's had to do it, Buffy's had to do it, and yeah, Willow has to do it. They've had to keep doing their responsibilities in the face of far greater pain. Right after Angel broke up with Buffy, she had to go back to Slaying. The Parker analogy doesn't really wash, either. Yeah, Buffy was moping because he treated her like dirt. But she didn't start telling off her friends about it. Per usual, she internalized it all.

As for Oz and Willow, Buffy provided Willow with a shoulder (and more) to cry on in both WaH and "The Initiative". She was even sympathetic in SB, but Willow still got in a snit when Buffy didn't drop chasing down an escaped Spike for chick flicks and ice cream. Then Willow went to Xander and started griping, and when he defended Buffy, she turned on him.

Point is, her behavior was way out of proportion to any perceived slights.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Disagreeing on a few things. -- Sophist, 17:35:40 06/09/03 Mon

Point is, her behavior was way out of proportion to any perceived slights.

I'm in general agreement with this, despite my disagreements at various points along the way.

As for Xander's loss of Cordelia, that was his own fault and not to be compared to Oz leaving Willow because it could not reasonably have generated the same sense of loss.

Xander's home life was awful, but everything we know of Willow's suggests it was also. Certainly everything we knew as of SB suggests that the 2 were comparable. Thus, if that is what Xander meant, it isn't very thoughtful or nice on his part.

I see Xander's comment as downright cruel and uncalled-for. Willow simply needed some sympathy, not a lecture about the man who had no feet. That, of course, does not excuse Willow's equally cruel reaction.

True, Buffy didn't start telling off her friends about Parker. However, none of her friends made comments as hurtful as Xander did to Willow.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Disagreeing on a few things. -- HonorH, 18:28:46 06/09/03 Mon

Actually, we've got no indications that Willow's homelife was as bad as Xander's. Her mother and father were distant, certainly, but we've got indications Willow still talked to her mother ("Forever"--she said she was visiting her mom more often) and that her parents knew what was going on in her life (TKiM--her mother knew she was gay and approved). Xander, otoh . . . well, we saw his family, and we saw his nightmare future in which he became his father. So I think he's got feet to stand on as far as pain goes. Maybe he wasn't sensitive enough, but I personally didn't find his words to be cruel.

Other than that, though, I think we've reached a stopping point with this argument. Willow was out of line, no matter what her friends did or said.

[> [> [> [> Re: Heads I win, tails you lose -- Malandanza, 23:43:03 06/09/03 Mon

"So let's see here. When Willow retains affection for Xander, she's wrong for not moving on. When Willow does "move on" to Tara, she's wrong for doing that. Maybe you should write a fanfic. Call it Catch- 22."

Or we could just call it "Sophist misses the point (again)." My point was that the Willow-still-loves-Xander theory just doesn't work after Graduation Day. From that point on, the crush is over. There is nothing in Seasons 4-7 that suggests Willow has any romantic feelings for Xander -- and some things that suggest otherwise (the lack of a connection in TR between X/W while T/W are still drawn towards each other -- plus the "I'm over you now, sweetie" remark from Help - - brilliantly delivered by AH (as was NB's response). It was a simple refutation of the Willow-still-loves-Xander theory, not moral commentary about "retaining affection".

However, I do believe that Willow began the relationship with Oz for the wrong reasons (as Oz deduces and Willow fails to deny) and, in an ideal world, it would have been better for her to get over her crush on Xander before starting a romance with Oz -- not really fair to Oz, you see. Certainly, I understand the clothes fluke and subsequent interrupted infidelity -- here was the boy she had dreamed about her whole adolescence suddenly taking an interest in her. Still not fair to Oz, though. While I understand it is difficult to be "over" someone just because they're not seeing you anymore, I do think it is best to put the baggage behind you before having sex. As late as Consequences, we know that Willow was devastated by the revelation of Xander's "connection" with Faith -- five episodes after Amends and the attempted seduction to prove that "Oz comes first". So while I think that the Willow/Oz one-sided relationship was unfair to Oz for Seasons Two and Three, it worked out okay over the summer and ended up a committed, reasonably healthy relationship for the first part of Season Four. But commitment doesn't mean love.

"Well yeah. Especially after Willow ran off to Tibet, leaving Oz alone to grieve in Sunnydale."


Don't motives count any more? Oz left because he understood that until he had control over the wolf, he could not hope to maintain a relationship with Willow. Plus there were those "I just killed someone" issues to work out. He found a solution and came back to make things right again. No, Willow shouldn't have spent her life waiting for him to come back, but she ought to have been honest with Oz from the start -- he ought not to have found out about Tara by accident. The timing of formal relationship with Tara is also disturbing -- she just gave Oz his walking papers and hops into Tara's bed. It's unseemly.

"Hence your criticism of her unreasonably long period of grieving after Oz left."

Unreasonably long period of self-pity, I would say.

As for abuse in the W/T relationship, I think the example from Tough Love (since you arbitrarily restrict me to pre-Season Six, I'm not sure why) is the best example of bullying. Willow wants a fight -- Tara does not. The conversation does not begin as you suggest:

"Willow could have views about Buffy's treatment of Dawn without having lost her mother, just as I can have views about President Bush without ever having been President."

It began with Willow being angry at Buffy for objecting to Willow helping Dawn goof off instead of studying -- Tara, as the voice of reason, took Buffy's side. Okay, switch the topics to dead mothers and big knowledge woman. Willow's losing that argument too. She picks up on a slip Tara makes about saying how Willow's rapid advance with magic "frightens" her and attacks again -- Tara tries to defuse the situation with humor, then backtracks. Time for another shift -- and we get the "lesbo street cred" remark from Willow and a parting shot of guilt. Willow controlled the argument -- Tara was bewildered. Willow wanted a fight and she got it -- simple transference for her earlier anger at Buffy that she took out on Tara.

As for Tara not being a doormat in TR, I'd point out that Tara did not confront Willow about the mind control until after Willow announced she could use it on Buffy -- then Tara spoke up, not on her own behalf, but for Buffy's sake. At the end of TR, Tara leaves, but she does come back, and comes back without any real evidence that Willow will treat her better. So while Tara is willing to stand up to Willow for Buffy's sake, I don't think she would have confronted Willow so quickly, if at all, had it been for her own sake (there are some self-esteem issues).

I agree with HonorH about Something Blue -- yes, when a friend is hurting, you try to help them out. But you don't quit your job to coddle them. Buffy
, Giles and Xander all have responsibilities and they each tried to help Willow. They each do have experience in these matters (as HonorH points out) -- they can understand. Willow was completely out of line in that episode -- her friends were not. As each tried to help her, she cursed them.

"So being the victim of an evil spell makes Willow blameworthy?"

As I understand Amy's spell, Willow's subconscious controlled the specifics of what would happen. On some level, she understood that there was a little piece of Warren inside of her.

(and what's wrong with writing f anfic, anyway?)

[> [> [> [> [> Re:Heads I win, tails you lose -- Sophist, 09:08:48 06/10/03 Tue

Or we could just call it "Sophist misses the point (again)."

That's been used so often it's a cliche.

Willow began the relationship with Oz for the wrong reasons (as Oz deduces and Willow fails to deny)

She certainly was willing to. Once Oz reacted as he did, we can, in Joss's words (Innocence commentary), "see Willow fall in love with Oz right there".

Don't motives count any more?

Sure, but so do actions. Oz can get some credit for motive, but he loses a lot for actions. Not just leaving for Tibet, his failure to resist Veruca.

Oz knew when he returned -- he said so -- that he had no right to expect her to be unattached. Then, of course, he found out he wasn't so cured after all.

The timing of formal relationship with Tara is also disturbing -- she just gave Oz his walking papers and hops into Tara's bed. It's unseemly

I don't see why.

Willow helping Dawn goof off

No, she was making learning fun. That's a good thing. Buffy was wrong.

Willow's losing that argument too

I'd say she was prepared to drop the argument at that point. Tara is the one who started it up again.

Tara tries to defuse the situation with humor

Not "defuse", "deflect". Tara knew she was in the wrong.

They each do have experience in these matters (as HonorH points out) -- they can understand. Willow was completely out of line in that episode

Xander's comments in the Bronze really started the whole problem. Contrary to you and HH, I don't see Xander as having relevant experience or a basis for his cruel comments. Willow was wrong, but she was provoked.

On some level, she understood that there was a little piece of Warren inside of her.

Say rather that she "feared" that. In any case, this does not support your original point that Willow turning into Warren meant that she understood her relationship with Tara was flawed. It meant that she understood her reaction to Tara's death was wrong. Which it was.

[> Using the power of quoting... -- Forsaken, 03:34:45 06/08/03 Sun

Matthew M. let me illustrate something for you using a simple Buffy quote.

Spike: This... is gonna be worth it.
*proceeds to smack Xander in the back of the head*
Spike & Xander: OW!!

Like the above situation, trolling can seem fun at the time, but in the end it hurts us both.

[> Okay, I feel like ranting... -- Darth JCC (feeling the darkside rise), 10:28:28 06/08/03 Sun

"Anybody who actually liked that thoroughly despicable chronic whiner should get their frickin' head examined."

Well I guess I need my frickin' head examined. I liked Connor. I thought he was an intresting character and I hope he comes back next year. Personally, My interest picks up more when Conner is on screen because I know something good will happen. I think his inclusion in the cast improved the show. So get over it!
And as for him being a "thoroughly despicable chronic whiner"... well done genius. Look at what happened to him in the course of two seasons.
Now off with you before I crush you with a mighty troll hammer.

It's bad enough dealing with ridiculous unfounded statements from people who don't watch the show, but I just don't get these character bashers. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEM, THEN DON'T WATCH THE DAMN SHOW. We'll all be better off without your pointless ravings. Luckily, this board is filled with nice people, so apart from the occasional troll, we can escape this kind of thing. Others boards i've been to are enough to make you sick. I know we shouldn't even respond to these posts, but damn it, I feel like ranting.

Not even one swear. Yay for me. (Oh, c'mon. Damn and frickin' aren't swears.)

[> Are Trolls sent as punishment? Or do they just rush in to fill a void? -- mamcu (feeling horns sprouting), 19:22:56 06/08/03 Sun


[> [> They spawn in empty skulls. Surely you knew *that*. -- Honorificus (The Buxom And Beatific One), 20:55:30 06/08/03 Sun


[> Taking Conner off of Angel is a stupid idea - - Tess, 21:17:04 06/08/03 Sun

Count me in on the Conner-love. If he doesn't return in season five I for one will miss him. His story is just not finished. I love Spike and am looking forward to his presence on Angel next season but not at the expense of Cordelia or Conner. I for one am worried about this completely new direction for the fifth season, Angel's involvement with W&H can do no good. And just think of all the ways Angel's decision 'to give Conner a good life' can come back to haunt him.

Actually I wonder how much of the decision not to have Conner and Cordelia come back on the show is because the writers wrote themselves in the corner and don't immediately know how to fix the jumbled mess they've made with those two. Or maybe they are trying to start anew with a show that the 'newcomers' from the Buffy-missage will be able to follow easily.

[> [> Re: Taking Conner off of Angel is a stupid idea -- Kenny, 22:00:05 06/08/03 Sun

OK, at the expense of supporting a troll's position (and that's really not what I like to do in life), I'm in the don't-bring-Connor-back camp. And it has nothing to do with Connor himself. I really do like the character. He tore me up by the end of the season in a way no other character in the Buffyverse ever has.

But this is Angel's story. Last season was about Angel making huge sacrifices. He sacrificed his soul to try to get information from Angelus. When he took on Jasmine and ended her influence, he made a huge sacrifice (because, no matter how you slice it, he's the being responsible for ending world peace, even if it's for a greater good...that's a humongo sacrifice). And, in "Home", he sacrificed what he believed was right to give his son a better a life, and in the process sacrificed any chance for having a relationship with his son. For all we know, he once again sacrificed his own soul in the process.

Those aren't the type of sacrifices that should be reversed. Sure, it could be another way to cause Angel-angst, another way to fuck with Angel (hope I don't offend anyone with the language, but it's the only word to really describe it), but I think it's a cheap way. An important facet of the Buffyverse is that even seemingly omnipotent beings have to play by rules. That's just how the universe works. Maybe the father/son sacrificial image from western religion is too deeply entrenched in my psyche, but to me, it's one of those things that should not be broken. Angel made the sacrifice. He wrote Connor out of his life so that Connor could have a life. People have said that Angel took away Connor's choice, but I don't see that. Connor had no choices left. He was about to end himself because of that. Angel recognized that and did the hardest thing of his life. He gave Connor the ability to make choices. That's what Connor was doing in that last scene...sure, it was a relatively mundane choice, what college am I going to...but the point was that he finally had a life where he could do that.

If Angel gets his son back in some form, it cheapens the whole idea of what sacrifice is about. You don't make a sacrifice because you think it will work out for you in the end. The type of sacrifice Angel made should be total and final. I don't mind seeing VK back for one episode in a way that shows that totality of the sacrifice that Angel's made, but I'm very against a recurring role that negates it. The Angel/Connor story is, in my mind, the most beautiful story ME has told. Its ramifications should stick with Angel for a long time, but the story itself reached a great ending, and I'd much rather see it stay at that ending than diluted or negated to bring back a character.

[> [> [> Very good points, but I'm not sure I totally agree -- Scroll, 23:27:24 06/09/03 Mon

Maybe the father/son sacrificial image from western religion is too deeply entrenched in my psyche, but to me, it's one of those things that should not be broken.

I actually agree, but see the father/son sacrifice thing a little differently. Think of Abraham/Isaac, and God/Jesus. Both instances are of sacrificing the son, but both sons are ultimately spared/brought back. But I'm afraid my knowledge mostly consists of Biblical stories and those are the two big ones I'm aware of, so if you know of others please clue me in.

Angel made the sacrifice. He wrote Connor out of his life so that Connor could have a life. People have said that Angel took away Connor's choice, but I don't see that. Connor had no choices left. He was about to end himself because of that. Angel recognized that and did the hardest thing of his life. He gave Connor the ability to make choices. That's what Connor was doing in that last scene...sure, it was a relatively mundane choice, what college am I going to...but the point was that he finally had a life where he could do that.

I totally, totally agree wtih this. Sure, in real life Angel would've sent Connor to therapy. But in the Angelverse this is the best and seemingly the only choice Angel could have made. It also makes the most story-sense.

If Angel gets his son back in some form, it cheapens the whole idea of what sacrifice is about. You don't make a sacrifice because you think it will work out for you in the end.

I'm not sure that bringing back Connor will necessarily negate Angel's sacrifice. Buffy sacrificed herself in The Gift for Dawn and the world, and she was ripped out of heaven and brought back. It was a terrible thing for Buffy and caused a season's worth of pain. This did not, however, negate Buffy's sacrifice for Dawn in The Gift, IMO. Just as Connor returning wouldn't necessarily negate Angel's motivations in Home. Neither Buffy nor Angel expect(ed) things to "work out", so their choices and actions remain heroic.

True, the two instances aren't exactly parallel. For one thing, Connor with his memory returned will probably have to deal with his issues again, the issues he couldn't deal with in Home and caused him to turn to suicide. But (and I realise I'm speculating here) perhaps his new memories of a stable family and 18 years of love and safety will be enough to get him through this time around. We don't really know, and I for one am curious to find out. Not to mention, mindwipes never work out in the Buffyverse. Think of the Dawn spell, which was eventually uncovered though it remains in tact, and Willow's attempts to mindwipe Buffy and Tara. Joss seems to say that tampering with memory is a not-good thing which will be found out about and will cause much angst and consequences.

Also, while I completely understand Angel's decision in Home, his motivations and his reasoning, I don't actually think he did the right thing, morally speaking. He did what he thought he had to do, but still I don't think it was right. And I need Joss to address this. I need him to address that Angel has not only mindwiped Connor, who needed the mindwipe, but has also selectively mindwiped Wesley, Gunn, Fred, and Lorne. And possibly Cordelia. This action is nearly as bad (though not quite as selfish) as Willow's mindwipe of Buffy and Tara.

[> Um... your ex-girlfriend doesn't happen to have just started wearing a big green pendant, does she? -- Caira, 21:36:15 06/08/03 Sun


[> [> LOL -- CW, 22:07:06 06/08/03 Sun


[> Re: Completely agree, except... -- Vegeta, 10:12:13 06/09/03 Mon

I completely agree I hated his character, however he was a neccesary evil to deal with so we could have the fantastic Angel season this year. Without him they wouldn't have been able to create the byzantine plot that developed over the season.

Current board | More June 2003