June 2003 posts
Whedon
Interview Part V - Finale Installment (Spoilers S7 Btvs) --
s'kat, 21:41:52 06/27/03 Fri
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/425/425492p8.html
This is the fifth & final installment of Ken's conversation with
Joss Whedon.
Oh this sample includes all the stuff on S7 Btvs. If you want
to know about Firefly or Future plans go to the link. No real
spoilers outside of WKCS for Ats S5 in that interview. I left
that out of the sample. It explains the Xander/Anya, Dawn, Giles,
Willow/Kennedy and the whole Tara plan.
"IGNFF: I think what's interesting, especially dealing with
the potentials, is that I know going in - with the comments you
had made previous to the season - my thought was it's going to
be a rededication to the core group throughout the season. It
seemed the introduction of the potentials - and here's a dozen
potentials and new characters accompanying them - that it diluted
the core group that we care about ...
WHEDON: Yeah, I think it did, and I had to get to that ending.
The problem is it's very hard to find a bunch of people that can
suddenly come in and be important, or even just be sort of noise
in the frame while you're dealing with your characters and really
get it done. Like I said, we found really good people. But, you
know, you do want to deal with your core characters. The other
thing is, you've been dealing with your core characters for seven
years. It's kind of hard. You know their tricks, you know their
strengths and weaknesses, and you're trying to drum up a new thing
for them to go through, you know, a new thing for them to express,
and it's harder. It's just harder.
IGNFF: I know personally, looking at the characters, it's almost
like the things that happened to every one of them through those
last two seasons - right down to what happened with Xander and
Anya - it's almost like the audience was being punished for having
an investment in the characters. Can't somebody have a happy ending?
WHEDON: Well, you know, everybody had a happy ending... except,
well, not so much Anya.
IGNFF: I can understand relationships tend not to work, but couldn't
one relationship work?
WHEDON: Well, Willow and Kennedy worked. Maybe you weren't invested
in that in the last one, but they were hanging at the end ...
One of my characters will still have a girlfriend when they cancelled
the show, and it was Willow.
IGNFF: The Kennedy thing almost seemed more of a predatory relationship.
WHEDON: Kennedy is, as she herself said, a bit of a brat. What
I wanted was an anti-Tara. I wanted somebody who was as different
from Tara as possible. Tara was very reticent, and she was somebody
that Willow caused to blossom. What I wanted was somebody who
was further on down in dealing with her sexuality than Willow
ever was. Somebody who was totally confident, who was totally
not earthy-crunchy, who was a completely different person. What
I wanted to explore was the concept of Willow moving on. We did
that with the first kiss, that turned her into Warren. The first
time they had sex, the things that Willow has to deal with emotionally,
her fear of her power and stuff, and Kennedy's kind of involvement
in that. That's what Kennedy was for.
IGNFF: In execution, it almost seemed like it was a predatory,
stalker type, "I'm always here, you're going to give in to
me. You're going to give in to me - I'm in your bed!" kind
of relationship...
WHEDON: Well, it didn't seem like that to me. It was more like,
"I'm really cute. I think you're cute and let's get it on."
People are always like, "Oh, they didn't even have a relationship."
They had a long talk about, "When did you come out?"
and this whole thing at the Bronze that we had never done with
Tara, that we very deliberately saying, "Okay, they're starting
a relationship." What I was interested in was Willow's guilt,
that her life could go on, that her love life could go on after
Tara, because that's a part of living. Quite frankly, that was
not plan A. Plan A was to bring Tara back.
IGNFF: I heard there were some failed discussions about that.
WHEDON: Amber didn't want to do it. She wanted to do other things.
I had a whole - I used to tell people, "Here's what we're
going to do. We're going to have her in a couple of flashbacks,
keep her alive, and then at the end ..." I had a whole show
figured out that ended with the return of Tara. I used to cry
every time I pitched it. It was going to be Tara's her one true
love, people are going to be blown away, they'll never see it
coming - except on the Internet - and it's going to be just about
the biggest thing. Quite frankly, Amber just didn't want to do
it - which is her decision. I was like, "Okay, the thing
where I cried, and we all cried, and I told you about? That's
gone. So, instead, we're going to go out and find somebody really
hot, and we're going to make this about moving on, because that's
the only option we have. I don't want Willow stuck in typical
gay celibacy on TV. I'm interested in where her heart will go
once she's lost her true love, so let's do that instead."
So, you know, hence Kennedy.
IGNFF: On a side tangent, what was the purpose of the - I hesitate
to use the phrase - sort of clumsy storytelling with the whole
"Giles not touching things" thing...
WHEDON: It was just us having fun.
IGNFF: It didn't seem to really pan out besides making a lot of
people crazy on the Internet...
WHEDON: That was just a fun runner for the diehards, so you watch
every episode and you're like, "AH! You're right, he leaned
on it, but he didn't touch it!" It was just us having a little
mystery fun.
IGNFF: It almost reduced the intelligence level of the characters
themselves.
WHEDON: Not really. As soon as they figured out he hadn't touched
anything for a few episodes, they ran off and dealt with the problem,
and figured it out. Boom. It wasn't like they were being idiots.
Fact of the matter was, it really was just something to make people
wonder. Just to have a little fun in the sense of pulling a mystery.
You know, it was never supposed to be a huge thing. It wasn't
about Giles's character, it was just about, "Uh, we don't
know where the bad guy is, we don't know where he's coming from.
Our trusted mentor could be the bad guy." That's a nice creepy
thing to do to people, and playing the game of, "Is he touching
something? Why didn't he hug her?" You know, it was an exercise,
something to spice things up. It was not like a big, dramatic
deal. If it didn't work, then oops - but I don't think it's the
most important part of the season.
IGNFF: Are there any characters that you think got short-shrift
in season seven?
WHEDON: Yeah. You know, I had wanted to go further with Dawn's
character.
IGNFF: It seemed like that's how the season was starting out.
WHEDON: You know, it was. The problem was, again, we had so much
work to do to get to the end of the season, that everything else
kind of fell by the wayside. Unfortunately, Michelle was like,
"Never did get that boyfriend you promised me!"
IGNFF: What was the purpose of Joyce's statement to her?
WHEDON: To rattle her. To make her wonder, and then, you know,
it was just this sort of said thing. The First trying to set everybody
against each other, was all, and I guess against themselves. But
I just think Michelle's extremely talented. In season six, people
were like, "Oh, she whines so much." I sort of scratched
my head. I was like, "Excuse me, she's been abandoned by
about six parental figures. The girl has huge issues." At
the same time I was like, "You get it... we sort of run the
same note for a while, they're not wrong." We needed to make
some changes. I'd hoped to be able to do more with Dawn this year,
and the bigger picture just got so goddamn big, that it was hard.
You get into a situation that you do like to stand alone, that's
about an external character - and we already had so many with
the goddamn potentials... people don't like them. You're like,
"I'm really interested in this little aspect of Dawn's life"
- if it's not part of the bigger picture, people resent it. It's
very hard to pull that off in season seven of the giant battle
that's coming. "Dawn Goes on a Date" is not something
that people would really sit for, unless we really nailed it.
So it kind of fell by the wayside. She's not the only one, but
she's a prime example.
IGNFF: It seemed almost like the pacing of the season was odd.
WHEDON: I think these aren't questions I can really answer right
now, because I have no perspective of it. When you're talking
about something like pacing, it's like, "Which episode was
which?"
IGNFF: That's true. I can see the point... I retract the question.
WHEDON: You certainly don't have to see the point - I just don't
really have a comment. I don't have that much of an overview right
now. "
[For the rest of the interview please see the above link]
PS: I left out a section where Whedon discusses how great Tom
Lenk was. Sigh. Guess I'm in the minority in hating the actor's
portrayal of Andrew, but I also hate Adam Sandler,
JErry Lewis and embarrassing comedy...so there you go.
Enjoy!
SK
[> OK- now more resentful
than ever for lack of Dawn! -- Tchaikovsky, 15:16:38 06/28/03
Sat
[> [> There's also an
explanation for Caleb and lack of BB's from Lessons -- s'kat,
17:27:47 06/28/03 Sat
"IGNFF: In fact, it would have been nice if Caleb had shown
up earlier.
WHEDON: Yeah, I think so, too.
IGNFF: Was that naturally where that was going to be?
WHEDON: No, that was us going, "You know what? We need someone
to latch onto." Having a villain who can take the form
of anybody - and not being able to afford to hire the guest cast
- made that really fascinating, but it meant that we didn't really
have anything to push against. We needed somebody, we needed
a sidekick. Somebody physical that we can see from episode to
episode, and it took us a while to realize, which is why he came
in."
Seems casting and budget concerns really did screw them up royally
last season.
What's also interesting about this interview and a few others
I've read - is the revelation of how truly loosely plotted these
shows are. They really had no idea about Caleb until mid-season.
Every thing we think we see that foreshadows it or other things
for that matter - is either subconsciously there by the writers
or wishful thinking on our part. Just as in S6, I've read that
they had no clue where they were going with B/S when they hit
Dead Things.
Same thing with ATS - which was actually more tightly plotted
- they didn't know about Jasmine immediately either.
Interesting writing style - explains a lot. Some things plotted
way in advance, some things not plotted for at all and just happen
to pop up. Not sure if it's really effective for serialized television
though.
Jury is still out on that.
[> [> [> Re: There's
also an explanation for Caleb and lack of BB's from Lessons
-- Yellow Bear, 17:54:20 06/28/03 Sat
In his recent salon.com interview, Whedon comments that he has
major points he needs to hit throughout the season to serve as
anchors but he does not plan out the rest in detail so he can
react to what he's seeing on the show. I would link to the site
but I am total computer doof, however you can access it through
a salon.com search. Great interview.
As for Jasmine, my understanding is that she became the BB on
ATS only because CC's (loving abbreviation)pregnancy prevented
her from fulfilling that requirement so it's hard to blame them
for not seeing that far ahead. I think it turned out rather well
also as Gina Torres is a far more accomplished actor than CC,
who tended toward outright camp in her evil Cordy performance.
I think guest star issues certainly hurt BTVS over the last year.
If plans had come to fruition with Tara & Oz, we might look back
on this as one of the strongest seasons ever rather than the mild
disappointment (in my case at least) it turned out to be.
[> [> [> [> Re:
There's also an explanation for Caleb and lack of BB's from Lessons
-- Yellow Bear, 18:00:24 06/28/03 Sat
In an EW interview, the producers of 24 noted that they had not
planned to kill Jack's wife till the came to the writing of the
final episode and that the had no idea who the S1 mole would turn
out to be when they created the concept so even shows that shold
be heavily plotted out seem to leave these things a little loose.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: 24 Plot Point -- Yellow Bear, 18:31:54 06/28/03
Sat
Allow me to correct myself. '24' producers decided to make Nina
the mole half way through the first season. The article can be
accessed through EW.com under '24' news section (see post above
for my computer incompetence).
I just wanted to clarify what I said but still back up my point
that even shows tht would seem to need exceptionally tight plotting
tend to play these things loose.
[> [> Even more resentful
here for lack of Tara! -- Rob, who blames (but still loves)
Amber, 18:27:28 06/28/03 Sat
[> [> [> I was mad
at Amber for a minute as well. Sigh! -- Dariel, 18:52:21
06/28/03 Sat
[> [> [> So was I,
until I remembered some of the rumors -- s'kat, 22:44:24
06/28/03 Sat
At the time CwDP came out - we got conflicting stories regarding
Amber.
1. Amber didn't want to reprise the character as ME pitched it
- which appeared to be a version of the FE or a ghost.
2. Amber ran into problems negotiating a contract with Fox.
This was the one Whedon put forward.
Personally? I think it was #2, since I know Fox treated EC so
badly, she decided in S6 she was not interested in working on
Btvs or Angel after S7 in any capacity, but did want to work with
ME. Also Fox wouldn't budget for the Big Bads. And all the troubles
Whedon ran into with Fox on Firefly.
So my hunch, and it is just a hunch from reading interviews, is
the problems in casting, etc in S7 and S6 had more to do with
Fox than anything else. We have no idea how much money Fox got
out of the UPN deal and where that budget went. We also have no
idea what Amber wanted or needed out of the deal.
So yep, I hate the fact she didn't do it, but I'm not real sure
if some of it was beyond her control.
[> [> [> [> Re:
So was I, until I remembered some of the rumors -- Rob, 00:12:33
06/29/03 Sun
I'm beginning to think #1 is especially unlikely now...considering
that the payoff at the end was going to be Tara returning to Willow
at the end. I would think that Amber really would have wanted
to be a part of that if she could. Even if she couldn't have done
all the appearances throughout the year b/c she didn't want to
appear as The First or a ghost, thinking it would be too much
of a tease to the audience whom she felt she hurt with Tara's
death, I would assume that she would have no objection to, at
the very least, returning near the end of the season, or in the
last episode, to resurrect Tara.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
Disconnect between JW and AB -- Sophist, 11:00:00 06/30/03
Mon
Amber's public comments all mentioned her discomfort at appearing
as FE/Tara (RlaM had the same discomfort). I'm surprised she wouldn't
have mentioned the possibility of resurrection. More surprised
that she would have been unwilling to do it.
Either AB wasn't aware of JW's proposal (which would be inconsistent
with JW's comments), or she felt she couldn't mention it before
now for some reason, or both she and JW are putting a polite face
on what is actually a contract problem with Fox as s'kat suggested.
[> Andrew -- Arethusa,
19:14:34 06/28/03 Sat
I think ME's love of Andrew is part the fun of the writers projecting
themselves on their favorite fantasy, and part of Whedon's love
of subversion, to make the hero-type really be a weasel, and vice
versa. Perhaps Andrew is Jayne, not Jerry. Alienation from society
has produced a malleable, gullible man instead of a violent one,
but both are not what they seem. (Plus it was fun to watch Spike
and Andrew in contrast. If Spike is Quaismodo, Andrew is one of
the little singing gargoyles.)
[> [> Re: Andrew
-- s'kat, 21:21:40 06/28/03 Sat
"IGNFF: Oh, but what about Andrew?
WHEDON: Oh, don't get me wrong. Tom Lenk rules. I will hound him
to the grave. This man is a genius.
IGNFF: Talk about the perfect sidekick for Giles on Ripper. Talk
about an odd couple...
WHEDON: He is just a treasure... he really is a treasure. Believe
me when I say he pops up in almost everything. Certainly in all
my Aly projects. It's like, "There's Tom!" That's fine
with her.
IGNFF: Definitely one of the biggest finds of the past two years.
WHEDON: Yeah, he blew us all away, and he's a sweetheart.
IGNFF: Much to Danny's [Danny Strong, Jonathan] dismay.
WHEDON: Danny, you know - you die, you work more then. That's
our rule. No, Danny was with us since the presentation. Danny
has been with us that long."
That's what they said. Suffice it to say - I don't get it.
I honestly do not understand the appeal of Tom Lenk. He makes
me cringe. It does however go a long way towards explaining why
there's so many comedies that I can't stand in cinemas and the
videos stores at the moment though ;-)
Not sure what you meant by he's more Jayne than Jerry?
Is Jayne a Firefly reference? Because if so, sorry no just don't
see it. I loved Jayne in Firefly. I meant Andrew's like Jerry
Lewis in the Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin comedies - the guillible
malleable fool that everyone laughs at. The reason I used the
analogy was as an attempt to explain why I did not like Andrew
and others did. I can't stand Jerry Lewis. That type of comedy
is like someone scratching their nails down a chalkboard for me.
I can't watch it. Andrew reminded me of that. I find Spike funny.
I find Anya hilarous at time. Xander makes me laugh. So does Lilah
on Ats - I love her lines. And I've often laughed with Jonathan.
Giles is a riot. Andrew rarely made me laugh, cringe is a better
word. His jokes seem obvious to me and I roll my eyes. It has
to do with the delivery and the joke I suppose. The few times
I liked him had nothing to do with tom lenk and everything to
do with the actors he was paired with - notably Emma Caulfield,
ASH, Nicholas Brendon, Jonathan Levinson, and James MArsters.
It doesn't surprise that others love him - I admit that I've always
had an odd sense of humor - more black/dark wit, probably why
I'm not writing comedies and other people are.
[> [> [> In other
words . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:43:45 06/28/03 Sat
You prefer the people who give witty remarks about the situation
or other people to those who inadvertantly make fun of themselves?
Just trying to make certain I interpreted your post right (I always
get the nagging feeling I read someone's post the wrong way, especially
when they make references (like Jerry Lewis) that I don't understand).
[> [> [> [> Sorry
I didn't make it clear...a clarification -- s'kat, 22:11:03
06/28/03 Sat
You prefer the people who give witty remarks about the situation
or other people to those who inadvertantly make fun of themselves?
Uhm no actually it's the reverse. I can't stand the witty remarks
at the expense of other people. I explained this badly.
Just trying to make certain I interpreted your post right (I
always get the nagging feeling I read someone's post the wrong
way, especially when they make references (like Jerry Lewis) that
I don't understand).
Thanks for asking. You did misunderstand. But, it's my fault,
I did a bad job of explaining.
Trying again. Bear with me. It's taken me a while to put my finger
on why Andrew bugged me.
1. So to put it another way? The scene where Dawn humilates herself
in Him? I could not watch. But the scene where Buffy does macho
macho man in Witch made me smile. Why? Because Buffy is atheletic
and under a spell and the actress played it for fun. Also she
was part of the squad at the time. Dawn's is played painfully.
She's so clearly the outsider and there's no one on the scene
supporting her.
Xander and Willow come in to support Buffy and give her a way
out.
Or better yet? The scene where buffy and spike fight over the
rocket launch to me is hilarous. The scene where Dawn screws up
at cheerleading bugged me.
2. Actually I did laugh at Xander, Spike, Giles etc - but not
when they were making a witty remark about Andrew. Those remarks
made me cringe.
Andrew doesn't do physical humor - he has lots of insider joke
lines, which were delivered in a high wavering voice and it grated
on my nerves. So to me the remarks others made about him annoyed
me, just as he did. To me - it felt as if the actor were making
fun of effeminate men. Not gay men. Effeminate men - and I've
known several and am sick and tired of the Hollywood inclination
to poke fun at them - it's become cheap and cliche. JErry Lewis
made fun of mentally challenged people - which is equally offensive.
I liked Lewis best in his more serious roles. Jim Carey does the
same thing. I don't mind if you make fun of yourself - it's when
you make fun of someone else and further a stereotype in the process
- that I can't watch, it squicks me.
What amused me in those character scenes with Andrew? It wasn't
their witty remarks at his expense, those made me cringe and dislike
the characters saying them.
It's well the following examples:
Giles' line in Chosen: "I'm reduced to a wounded drawf with
the strength of a doily" - that was a witty remark about
Giles.
Spike's line in Empty Places about the flowering onion - that
speech is wonderful. That made me laugh, just because it was so
ironic coming out of Spike's mouth. I could laugh at Spike. I
wasn't laughing at Andrew. The rest of his interaction with Andrew
made me cringe. I could barely tolerate Andrew's interogation
of the priest or the Spike/Andrew games with the tapestry. It
grated.
Anya and Andrew's wheel-chair fight in End of Days. Hilarous.
And their little sharing of the booze. Andrew getting tipsey and
asking Anya to drive. I liked that scene.
Andrew telling Anya in Chosen about bunnies. And Anya's reaction.
Xander and Andrew saying the line at the same time in BoTN about
the Wonder Woman comic book.
Those were funny. The put downs? Never were in my opinion and
that's what most of the humor was. All of Storyteller
used that brand of humor. The good sections where Andrew brought
out a funny trait in another character? Were few and far between.
Does that make sense?
sk
[> [> [> [> [>
A little more -- Arethusa, 16:10:08 06/29/03 Sun
I had a similar reaction to Cassie. That voice, that martyred
air...(shudder). But I became interested in Andrew's redemption.
It was a rather pathetic, slightly sniveling little redemption,
but theoretically his soul is as important as anyone else's.
I like Chaplin and Harold Lloyd, not Lewis and Carrey. But Andrew
didn't irritate me very much, so I enjoyed watching him react
to a world as fantastic as the ones he had dreamed up and longed
to be a part of.
[> [> [> [> [>
OK, then I'm not quite understanding -- Finn Mac Cool,
17:49:48 06/29/03 Sun
You express a distaste for humor that is at the expense of others,
yet in several posts have described your sense of humor as "dark
wit". I'm just not seeing the matchup. Dark humor, by its
nature, is humor derived from ordinarily dark and serious subjects.
Violence, intolerance, corporate greed, and societal flaws are
the chief focus of dark wit/humor. What makes them dark is that
they are derived from serious and hurtful things, and surely public
embarrassment fits that billing?
On another note, I do agree about Dawn's embarrassment in "Him".
I found that painful to watch (and, in fact, when I see something
like that on TV, I usually mute it for a few seconds). However,
I don't see it as being the same sort of humor used by the likes
of Adam Sandler or Andrew. The difference lies in how they react
to the embarrassing situations:
Dawn - acts thoroughly ashamed and humiliated, is brought to tears
by the situation.
Sandler - doesn't really care about how others view him, feels
perfectly free to just be himself and only cares about hurtful
comments made by others when they hurt someone else (in such situations
he usually goes into berserker rage mode).
Andrew - totally oblivious, doesn't really realize his behavior
is considered geeky and annoying, and so isn't hurt by how he
is viewed or treated by those around him.
I can laugh at Andrew and Adam Sandler because, while they find
themselves in embarrassing situations, they don't act hurt by
them; witty remarks or the views of others just seem to bounce
right off them. I did cringe at the thing with Dawn, though, because
you could clearly see she was in pain. That is where I see the
difference.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: OK, then I'm not quite understanding -- s'kat,
18:32:59 06/29/03 Sun
Tom Lenk and Adam Sandler don't care - because that's not them
- they are making fun of a character type they have taken on and
pretended to become. They are doing impressions, while Michelle
Tractenburg has created an actual character. You see, when I watch
Andrew, I don't see a character - Andrew - I see Tom Lenk making
fun of effeminant nerdy guys. When I watch Sandler - I don't see
the character - I see Adam Sandler the actor doing an impression.
I honestly don't "feel" these actors have created a
flesh and blood character - more an impression or stereotype.
A flat character. Dawn was flesh and blood to me, not just a flat
comic relief or stereotype. It's a personal response I had to
Tom Lenk's acting style. You may see and feel it differently -
but that was my emotional response, which has not changed upon
reviewing or reading posts or interviews.
You express a distaste for humor that is at the expense of
others, yet in several posts have described your sense of humor
as "dark wit". I'm just not seeing the matchup. Dark
humor, by its nature, is humor derived from ordinarily dark and
serious subjects. Violence, intolerance, corporate greed, and
societal flaws are the chief focus of dark wit/humor. What makes
them dark is that they are derived from serious and hurtful things,
and surely public embarrassment fits that billing?
There are multiple types of dark/black humor and wit, Finn. I
can love dark humor yet aboslutely despise humor when it is directed
at a certain individual without being inconsistent or hypocritical
about it. And it's probably unwise of us to generalize about taste
in humor, since tast is a funky thing anyways.
You for instance may love the comedy of Monty Python but hate
Benny Hill or love Friends but can't stand Drew Carey -or love
Happy Days but despise Mash -why? (Not saying you do, just trying
to use examples) Friends and Drew Carey are both comedies about
personal relationships, although Drew Carey spends more time on
workplace and blue collar humor while Friends is more about young
upwardly mobile new york singles. The reason is one deals with
situations you may or can identify with and one with situations
you may not to be to or can't. Or maybe your emotions find one
brand painful and another not? Comedy at its root comes from a
painful place - some of the best comedy does, but we all react
to stimuli regarding pain differently. Some painful memories we
laugh at, some make us cringe and this is different for everyone.
While we might attempt to categorize our taste for comedy into
brands: ie dark wit, slapstick, situational - it isn't really
that helpful, since it's possible to like and/or comedies that
fit into each.
For instance: Some people found Dawn's cheerleading tryout hilarous
- others cringed is one example. Some loved the episode Him some
hated it. That does NOT say anything about those people that is
negative or positive.
Same thing about Andrew - some people found his brand of comedy,
the geeky high pitched voice, the one-liners, the pop-culture/fanboy
references to be hilarous -others experienced this comedy as someone
scratching their nails down a chalk-board and were unable to get
past that sensation long enough to see or appreciate the character.
Some saw Andrew as a flesh and blood character with a fascinating
story-arc about redemption on the screen, while others continue
to see him as a cheap flat stereotype that took time away from
more developed and more interesting characters.
I happen to like humor derived from dark and serious topics -
as seen in the comedies MASH, etc - I like it when it arises from
a situation - as in farce or is directed at an organization or
idea. I've loved Pulp Fiction, Noises OFF, Monty Python and the
Holy Grail, Cheers (early seasons), Mash - I don't like it when
it is directed at certain individuals and a lot of slapstick turns
me off - although when Mel Brooks makes fun of Hitler in The Producers,
and in To Be or Not to Be - I laugh. Yet I dislike some of his
cruder jokes and have never really enjoyed High Anxiety or Blazing
Saddles. (yep I know, I'm weird). So it depends on the individual
for me and how the comedy comes across and the comedian.
There's really no clear formula. Although my attempt to find one
seems to have only served to further your confusion.
The characters of Andrew and Wood annoyed me. Why? Numerous personal
reasons, hard to explain in a constructive manner. Lucky for me?
They are just fictional tv, I don't have to watch or comment or
post on them. I'll probably never write an essay on them. (Well
I already sort of did on Wood, but that was part of a larger work...and
came out okay and I have to some extent done it on Andrew here
- but I think I've made it clear that these are my own personal
views and have not bashed or made fun of anyone elses - if I have?
I apologize, I didn't mean to.). I don't watch Adam Sandler movies
either. Avoid them like the plague. But I'm well aware that others
love them. Several of my close friends do.
Although one friend loves Sandler and can't stand Andrew, so maybe
that wasn't the best analogy? I don't know if it's possible to
explain it. I know I won't change my mind. It's an emotional reaction
not an intellectual one - emotional reactions to art aren't things
we can logically reason out, at least not in quite the same way.
Take some viewers reactions to Kennedy and/or Spike as an example.
How much of that reaction is emotional and how much is intellectual?
I'm willing to bet over 70% of our reactions to characters on
the screen is emotional and often beyond our intellectual comprehension.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: OK, then I'm not quite understanding --
shambleau, 20:37:25 06/29/03 Sun
A little more on the Dawn thing. You seem to be dividing the reactions
up into people who found the cheerleading segment hilarious and
therefore liked it, and people who cringed because of the pain
Dawn was in and therefore hated it, assuming that it was meant
to be funny. I seem to be in a third category, because I cringed
and loved it.
When Buffy was telling Willow "I can't breathe, Will. It
feels like I can't breathe", that hurt. A lot. But I loved
that too. When Dawn was being humiliated, it made me writhe and
not just remember, but FEEL, just how humiliating high school
could be. I don't see feeling Buffy's grief as any different than
feeling Dawn's humiliation. In both cases, the writers made me
connect with characters in a way I almost never do on any other
show.
As for people who found the scene funny, there was a little humor
in it actually. Which is not incompatible with it hurting like
hell, too. In addition, maybe some of those who found it funny
didn't like Dawn and were happy to see her get a come-uppance.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Didn't mean to make a judgement call...just
using as an ex. -- s'kat, 21:00:39 06/29/03 Sun
Sorry, meant it as an example of what amuses. I'm aware there
is humor in it. Some people who had horrible experiences like
that - found it funny for that reason.
While others who had horrible experiences like that didn't.
It could also be broken down along gender lines - one of my guy
friends reacted to the scene the way you did. My mother on the
other hand, can't watch it and fast-forwards, she had to leave
the room during it. On other hand, Rob, a guy, has stated he hates
that scene and the episode. While I've seen female posters adore
it - b/c it reminds them of theri cheerleader tryouts and how
they fell on their faces - an event they find hilarous. So different
reactions. If you want we could provide an exhaustive list? ;-)
All I was attempting, albeit poorly, to point out was how we reacte
differently to comedy, and believe me there are more than three
or two or one responses. I was only limiting it to two for convience.
sk (who appears to have lost her ability to write clearly in any
form whatsoever...and will stop posting on the topic now. )
[> [> [> Defending
Andrew and Tom Lenk -- Rob, 21:50:31 06/28/03 Sat
Not sure how much sense this is going to make, because, as you
said, this is really just a gut personal feeling type thing, but
I love the innocence of Andrew, and how, in every line, no matter
how silly or funny it might be, there really is a great deal of
sadness and pain. He's one of the few comedic characters that
not only makes me laugh, but makes me almost feel bad about laughing
at him. Because beneath his pop culture references, he is really
a desparate, lonely person. In fact, I would say I usually laugh
with Andrew rather than at him. Because I get most of his
pop culture and culty references (could anyone get ALL of them?
lol! can't wait to annotate some of his lines!) and being a nerd
myself, don't feel like I'm laughing at his nerdiness, or at someone
who would make all these comic book and film references, but laughing
with them, since I sometimes refer to fiction too in everyday
life. Usually pertaining to a certain show about a slayer of Vampyres.
;o)
I agree with you. I hate Jerry Lewis. He makes my skin crawl.
But I don't see these same traits in Andrew at all, who I see
really more as this poor guy you really just want to give a proverbial
hug, and help out. He's not an over-the-top slapsticky type like
Lewis whose obnoxiousness overrides any sympathy you might have
for his supposed character. For me, Andrew is character first,
humor second, and so even when he is annoying the other characters,
he doesn't annoy me. I really feel his pain.
Rob
[> [> [> [> Re:
Defending Andrew and Tom Lenk -- s'kat, 22:36:08 06/28/03
Sat
I honestly think it's how you viewed him. And whether you get
the pop culture references. Although I got them, I just didn't
find them funny, more self-indulgent. Not my brand of comedy.
Read my response to Finn - it does a better job of explaining
how this character came across to me. I saw him that way. I realize
reading the boards that other people saw him completely different
now...which is actually fascinating b/c it explains why one person
will love a character and another hate it. We just see them completely
differently. Who knows which of us is right? Probably neither
or both?
For instance I adore Spike - but several people despise him.
PArt of the reason is we just don't see the same character when
we watch the show. Something about how we are put together biologically,
psychologically and socially - makes it impossible for us to see
the characters in the same way.
It's amazing, b/c you ask yourself how is that possible?
How is it possible for two people to see two totally different
things? Don't know. But it is.
While I can understand that that is how you saw Andrew, heck a
good friend of mine saw him the same way, it's not how I saw Andrew.
I've tried to see him the way you did, but short of a complete
personality over-haul? It's probably impossible. To me - Andrew
was like Adam Sandler or Jerry LEwis or Jim Carey - an exaggeration.
Jonathan was the nerd/fanboy to me.
Andrew seemed to be playing an exaggerated stereotype of an effeminate
boy or geek. Not a real one. The underlining gay jokes. The high
pitched voice. And I just didn't see any depth. He felt flat to
me.
I still have no idea who this character was - from what I see
on the screen - except a construct.
This is no different I'm sure than how people view popular and
divisive characters such as Spike and Cordelia.
OR even Angel and Buffy. Without realizing it, I think we somehow,
perhaps subconsciously project something of our own experiences
and own self on to what we read or see on the screen. Something
about a character reaches out and grabs us.
I've noticed for instance - that there are a couple of people
who adore Andrew but hate Spike. I'm the absolute opposite and
they don't understand. And none of the reasons they've postulated
are why. For the same reason I don't understand why they feel
the way they do and none of the reasons I've postulated fit them.
In a way, trying to figure out why someone loves a character or
hates a character you feel the opposite about - is a bit like
trying to figure why one person likes oranges and another apples.
I try not to post on Andrew very much, because I'm not sure if
my dislike of the character adds anything. Also, I think it is
quite possible that the way the character came across to me was
not the writers/actors intent. The fact that I know loads of other
people with a similar experience, makes me feel a little better.
But it doesn't add much.
I guess, Rob - it's a bit like trying to explain why you despised
Kennedy. I had no problems with her. Actually sort of liked her.
See? Weird.
[> [> [> [> [>
Totally understand how you feel. -- Rob, 22:40:16 06/28/03
Sat
Not sure if I could put into words just why I dislike Kennedy
so much, except that she seems to be a conglomeration of about
5 or 6 similar girls who I hated in both high school and college.
Similar to your dislike of Wood because of your connection of
him with a real-life nasty. ;o)
Rob
[> [> [> [> Re:
Defending Andrew and Tom Lenk -- Malandanza, 07:45:04 06/29/03
Sun
"He's one of the few comedic characters that not only
makes me laugh, but makes me almost feel bad about laughing at
him. Because beneath his pop culture references, he is really
a desperate, lonely person."
But a desperate, lonely person who killed Jonathan, his only friend,
during one of his escapist fantasies. However, after Storyteller,
this really is not an issue any longer -- he did repent, understood
his actions were wrong, and resolved to work for good. His self-knowledge
stands in stark contrast to the lack of the same for Willow (who
has never addressed torturing and murdering Warren) and Spike
(who still wears the dead girl's coat). It's nice that Andrew
is no longer lonely at the end of the series, but it's also important
to remember how he got there.
"In fact, I would say I usually laugh with Andrew rather
than at him. Because I get most of his pop culture and culty references
(could anyone get ALL of them? lol! can't wait to annotate some
of his lines!) and being a nerd myself, don't feel like I'm laughing
at his nerdiness, or at someone who would make all these comic
book and film references, but laughing with them, since I sometimes
refer to fiction too in everyday life. Usually pertaining to a
certain show about a slayer of Vampyres. ;o)"
He also provided an avenue for the writers to show us that the
cool characters are nerds at heart. One of the funniest moments
like this (which is from Season Six but doesn't involve Andrew)
is when Buffy tells Giles and Xander that they're like her "Q",
then quickly explains "Q from Bond, not Q from Star Trek"
showing she has at least a passing familiarity with ST:TNG, in
spite of her fashionable airs. With Andrew, we frequently see
that Xander (who's cool) has very similar tastes as Andrew --
and even Spike and Andrew share their culinary nerdiness on the
motorcycle ride. Some of the acting was over-the-top, but usually
in the "funny" episodes (and we've seen some over-the-top
acting from Buffy as well when the directors wanted it -- like
when she bursts into tears about Anya/Xander being the perfect
couple, destined to be together). But overall, I can't think of
any "he just doesn't get it" characters I've seen played
so convincingly.
But I think Andrew was valuable in other areas as well, some which
were better explored than others.
As a foil for Spike (as Caleb served as a foil in later episodes)
-- early in the Season we even see Andrew strutting around time
in a leather coat. Hardly subtle. In FFL we see Spike saying
"I've always been bad" and "I had to get myself
a gang" the get flashbacks of a completely different character,
just as the fantasy sequences of Andrew and Willow in the Magic
Box show that Andrew has rewritten his past with himself as the
hero. We have Andrew tied to a chair as was Spike in Season Four
and befriending Dawn, as did Spike in Season Six.
He supports the other characters in ways that they need. Dawn
has all sorts of abandonment issues (and this season could have
been as bad as last, when Spike quite playing with her to stalk
her sister full time) -- at the start of the season, Buffy is
very active in Dawn's life, training her, going to school with
her -- then drops her when the potentials start arriving. Why
couldn't Dawn continue training with Buffy and the Potentials?
Xander may "see everything" but usually all he's interested
in seeing is Buffy. Andrew was different -- no matter what Dawn
said to him, as petty or mean as she pleased, he still thought
she was cool. I nice ego boost for her at a time when her self-esteem
was low. Anya also had a friend in Andrew. Andrew was one of the
only people interested in helping Buffy -- the big boards may
not have actually been useful, but he was trying. He also went
to get food for everyone when Sunnydale shut down and headed to
the hospital (also of his own initiative) to get medical supplies.
As one of the few people on the show who didn't just pile his
own troubles on Buffy's shoulders, he gets my respect.
Early on, he served as a constant, living reminder to Willow that
she murdered Warren. Andrew playing with the snake skin while
Willow glared daggers at him (with him oblivious, of course) was
a brilliant scene. For whatever reason, ME decided to just drop
the Willow redemption arc, but before they let their Season Seven
ADD get the better of them, Andrew was important here as well.
He is also a POV character. He is us -- inside the Scooby Gang,
watching everything and thinking how cool they are.
[> [> [> [> [>
About Willow -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:28:57 06/29/03 Sun
It's interesting: at the beginning of Season Seven, there were
some comments on this board saying that Willow's story seemed
too focused on redeeming herself and not enough on her mourning
Tara's death (Tara's name being mentioned only once in the first
three episodes). Some interpreted this as a sign of disrespect
towards Tara and called it unrealistic that Willow and the others
weren't showing any signs of mourning. Of course, this stopped
after "Help", when we got Willow visiting Tara's grave.
Then came the later part of the season (specifically "Killer
in Me"), where people complained Willow was focused entirely
on Tara and her new relationship with Kennedy and not at all on
redemption. And, while this argument has some merit, I just found
it interesting since it was the exact opposite of the reaction
at the beginning of the season.
Now, I agree that Willow trying to make up for the evil she did
was not really given a lot of focus. However, redemption is only
one of the possible post-evil phase reactions. It became heavily
popularised with Angel, so we've come to expect people who have
just comitted great wrongs to act very remorseful and try to make
amends, particularly to the people they hurt. But there are other
options. The option ME pursued in Season Seven wasn't so much
about making amends as it was making sure you don't become evil
again. While Willow and Spike didn't show as much remorse or attempts
at redemption as some people would like, they did seem very intent
on not reverting back to what they once were (moreso with Willow
than with Spike). Given that the theme of the season was "It's
about power", and power corrupts, once-evil people struggling
to remain good seems to fit very well.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Excellent point about the struggle not to be evil
-- Sophist, 11:39:00 06/29/03 Sun
Personally, I felt that Willow's missing redemption was one of
2 big issues with S7 (the other being Giles's strange behavior).
Your post explains this pretty well.
I think our expectations are governed quite a bit by what we see
of Angel. We are so used to his redemption story that we tend
to forget his years of struggle not to be evil. We expect immediate
redemption (or at least the attempt) and overlook his struggle
just to begin that process.
I do feel, though, that they let both Spike and Willow off the
hook pretty easily with the transcendence in Chosen.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Excellent point about the struggle not to be
evil -- Malandanza, 06:34:43 06/30/03 Mon
"I think our expectations are governed quite a bit by
what we see of Angel. We are so used to his redemption story that
we tend to forget his years of struggle not to be evil."
Even the "struggle not to be evil" was remarkably inconsistent.
For Willow, the struggle necessarily is all about her use of magic.
While they toned down the magic-as-addiction storyline from last
season, they did make that point a couple of times during Season
Seven that even casual use of magic (like a locator spell) gives
The First (and, presumably, other sources of dark magic) access
to Willow. Whether it is dark powers taking her over when she
zaps the Spider demon (Selfless), The First taking over
or Willow sucking power from Kennedy and Anya (BotN) there
are times when magic is dangerous and Willow must be extremely
cautious about its use. On the other hand, she had no trouble
locating the Potential in Sunnydale, summoning a vengeance demon,
casting numerous locator spells, or casting the biggest spell
ever in the history of the Buffyverse (plus there was that little
trip to LA where she ran wild -- but let's just ignore that).
So if the struggle for Willow is tied to the metaphor of using
magic (and the instances where the magic caused problems were
all responsible and necessary uses of magic), the metaphor has
her on and off the wagon depending upon the demands of the script.
Need a spell to further the plot? No problem -- Old Willow is
here and ready to go. Need her to mewl ineffectively about how
scary magic is? New Willow is up to the challenge. The big problem
with Willow/magic is encapsulated in her last magic scene (quoting
from memory, so may not be accurate):
Willow: I'm afraid to do a spell this big, Kennedy. Magic is scary.
Kennedy: C'mon, Willow. Do it for me, 'cause I'm cute and spoiled.
Or I'll pout.
Willow: But I like it when you pout.
(Kennedy pouts. Willow brightens.)
Willow: Okay, I'll do it!
They just didn't take their own metaphor seriously.
Spike didn't look much different from Season Six Spike to me.
Same unrepentant Spike, obsessed with Buffy. They kept telling
us he was different now, because of the soul -- why didn't they
show us how different he was instead of having him put the coat
back on, saying he killed lots of people's mothers, and anyway,
Nikki wanted it.
Before I can take any attempts at reform seriously, I want to
see some sort of acknowledgment of guilt -- not the "I feel
responsible" sentiment that we got from Willow, but a genuine
understanding that flaying someone alive, or killing someone's
mother (for sport) is wrong.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> I think Willow understood that flaying someone
alive is wrong. -- Rob, 08:34:13 06/30/03 Mon
What sane person wouldn't? I don't know. I just think that a character
does not have to be shown to wallow all season just to redeem
themselves. I agree more with the general message that the show
usually has, repentence by changing in the future. You can't change
the past, no matter how horrible you may feel, so there is no
point to show the character being regretful all season, every
episode. That would get incredibly repetitive and dull, IMO.
And "killing someone's mother (for sport)" opens up
a whole big controversial can of worms, since that all depends
on interpretation. For starters, he didn't kill Nikki because
she was a mother. He didn't spot a mother and son and think, "I'm
gonna make him an orphan!" He was not just killing a poor,
helpless woman. She was the Slayer. The situation is very different
there, because both of them are evenly matched. I think
Spike showed remarkable maturity in being able to accept the horrible
things he'd done as being horrible, but also not willing to be
forced to suffer for all eternity for every single victim.
There is no way he would be able to live with himself, psychologically,
with the amount of killings he'd done, if he allowed himself to
feel guilt over every death, one by one. And Nikki is one of the
few that was not just a mere killing but part of an on-going mystical
battle that has gone on since the beginning of time practically.
Vampire vs. Slayer far transcends a mere vampire/victim dynamic.
He doesn't (and shouldn't, IMO) feel guilty over Nikki's death,
because Nikki, as Slayer, had the power at any point if she didn't
want to fight, to use that preternatural Slayer strength of hers
and run away. I was very pleased with how they handled
Spike this year, because he realized by the time he reclaimed
his coat that guilt and remorse over past misdeeds do not have
to mean a loss of identity. If Spike walked around moping
all year, he wouldn't be Spike...He'd be Angel. ;o)
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: I think Willow understood that
flaying someone alive is wrong. -- Alison, 09:30:48 06/30/03
Mon
Agree on Spike dealing with his guilt. I think key factor in why
he seemed to move through grief over his victims so much faster
than Angel was that he had a reason to. He had someone he loved,
and a cause to fight for and hold on to, while Angel had no family
or friends, and until Whister showed up, no purpose. Angel had
time to brood, Spike had relationships to deal with and a coming
apocolypse.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> About the inconsistency -- Sophist, 08:50:04
06/30/03 Mon
I agree that Willow's behavior was inconsistent and arguably tied
to the needs of the script. OTOH, one could argue that a recovering
addict -- I'm picturing a smoker in this case -- would progress
by fits and starts. She quits for a week, then lapses; quits and
lapses, etc. This may be fanwankery, but it does fit an addiction
metaphor.
Before I can take any attempts at reform seriously, I want
to see some sort of acknowledgment of guilt
I agree with this. Finn's point, I think, was that we didn't get
as far as reform. Willow wasn't trying to be "good",
she was trying to be "not evil". The only analogy I
can make is to Angel drinking the dead guy in the coffee shop.
He was struggling with his conscience, not yet capable of being
good but trying (and sometimes failing) not to be evil.
Looking at it this way, perhaps we should see Willow's "cleansing"
in Chosen as a sign that the addiction is now out of her system
and she can start the process of reform. That makes more sense
than my original view that we were to see her as somehow redeemed
just by that spell alone.
I think Spike's situation is too different to try to cover in
this post.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> That's kinda the point of the final spell
-- Finn Mac Cool, 11:13:55 06/30/03 Mon
The point wasn't to impress "magic is bad". Magic didn't
symoblise the darkness within Willow, it symbolised her power
that could be used for darkness, but could also be used for light.
The spell she cast to activate all the Slayers was her finally
using magic so large that she couldn't just go a little dark then
come back: if she went dark, she'd go all the way. But she didn't.
Her personal growth mixed with the support of Kennedy was enough
for Willow to shift to the other side of the spectrum and become,
for lack of a better word, effulgent.
P.S. As far as locater spells go, the only time the First was
able to possess Willow through one of them was when she did one
to locate the First Evil. Locater spells done to find non-primordial
evils didn't have the same effect.
P.P.S. The summoning of D'Hoffryn wasn't really Willow casting
a spell. I think that anyone who knew the right chant could have
used the talisman to call on D'Hoffryn, so it really didn't tap
into Willow's magic. Just look at "Something Blue":
other than her cursing of Olaf, Anya's never shown herself to
have any magical abilities, but it was implied that she could
have summoned D'Hoffryn if she was able to remember the chant.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: About Willow-agree, well said -- sdev, 17:02:08
06/29/03 Sun
[> Re: Whedon Interview
Part V - A Question To the Crowd -- Yellow Bear, 14:10:40
06/29/03 Sun
I was wondering if anyone else out there found this part (specifically
the S7 questions) of the interview to be quite hostile. Several
of the questions strike me as delorious fanboy rants (specifically,
the very odd Kennedy-as-stalker question) and at times, the questions
are downright rude with the phrase 'clumsy storytelling' coming
to mind.
By interview's end (the S7 section), it's quite clear that Whedon
is irratated by the tone of the questions.
To be clear, I don't mind the nature of the questions just the
manner in which they are asked.
On the other hand, I did mind the interviewers lack of follow
up specifically in regards to the Tara storyline which is dropped
so he can complain to Whedon about the Giles red herring.
Am I alone in this? Are people only looking at Whedon's answers
and not the tone of the questions? Do people feel the anatagonistic
nature of the interview is justified?
[> [> Interesting. I
thought the same thing. -- Rob, 14:20:38 06/29/03 Sun
The interviewer does come on way too strong near the end, and
may have found he would have gotten better answers about his Season
7 questions had he not thrown in such an accusatory tone about
things such as "Is-the-Giles-The-First?" making the
other characters look stupid, and Kennedy being stalker-ish. He
sounded very well-balanced and knowledgable for the first portion
of the interview, but by the end, the interviewer comes across
very much like an overzealous fan finally getting to bitch to
Joss about all his problems with the last season and barely giving
Joss a chance to defend himself before plowing on to the next
problem. Because the way he piled on the complaints and the tone,
not the content, of the questions certainly would have grated
me were I Joss. Had he cooled off, not only might we have heard
more about what would have happened with Tara this year, we might
have perhaps gotten an answer as to, if Joyce was The First in
CwDP, why she appeared differently than any of the other First
visitations, and other things like that. It didn't seem like,
no matter what answer Joss gave to what, that the interviewer
was really processing any of it. Me, I'm mostly pleased with Joss'
answers, but wish that he could have expanded more on some of
them. And had the interviewer backed off a bit near the end with
the accusatory tone, being so down on the seventh season, we may
have gotten more satisfactory answers. Although the ones we did
get from Joss, IMO, were very good. He was properly defensive
over his work, sometimes making small concessions but not allowing
it to be totally ripped apart and I admire him for that.
Rob
[> [> [> Re: Interesting.
I thought the same thing. -- ponygirl, 18:46:46 06/29/03
Sun
It's such a shame too, because it had been such a detailed interview
up until the s7 part. When the interviewer finally had to retract
a question I got the sense that Joss was, understandably, getting
cranky, losing a lot of the great rapport the earlier portions
had had. I wonder what the response would have been if the Giles
question had been presented as a question of what Joss felt was
going on in Giles' mind this season - something sadly I am going
to have to continue to wonder about. And I would like to kick
the interviewer for not following up on how Joss would have brought
back Tara.
It was a real lesson in why emotions should not be allowed to
colour interview questions. Ah well, great interview otherwise,
and I'm very intrigued about Firefly.
[> [> I agree with you.
-- Sophist, 14:20:51 06/29/03 Sun
[> [> [> Glad to see
I'm not alone in this -- Yellow Bear, 20:17:06 06/29/03
Sun
I mentioned this issue at another board and the majority thought
I was some kind sycophantic Whedon fan who thought no decesion
of his should ever be questioned.
BTW, I literally screamed (a small scream) when I saw that he
didn't follow up on the possible Tara storyline. I simply couldn't
believe he drooped that so he could complain to Whedon about the
Giles-as-The-First red herring.
We won't get many opportunities to hear Whedon talk about S7 in
real detail and it was disappointing to see a prime one missed.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Glad to see I'm not alone in this -- Alison, 20:39:53 06/29/03
Sun
Not alone, and definitly not alone in your screaming- are you
referring to Whedonesque btw? Bc if not, then someone there posted
nearly identical thoughts.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Glad to see I'm not alone in this -- Yellow Bear, 22:30:45
06/29/03 Sun
I am referring to Whedonesque, actually. I use the name Unitas
over there. It was where I first read the story and just thought
I would post some thoughts about the interview style. Most people
didn't seem to have a problem with it over there.
[> [> Totally Disagreeing
-- Sara, 20:44:46 06/29/03 Sun
I thought the questions were great - to the point, and not powder
puffy. I really appreciated that the interviewer asked hard questions
but they did not come off as rude or hostile to me, just direct.
There were some really big issues with S7 and if you're not going
to address them why talk about it all? I think Whedon's answer
about the Giles red herring was very telling to how much he's
lost touch with the story telling of the show. That he clearly
saw no problem with having a character behave unnaturally for
many episodes, all for the fun of the 'reveal' or twist to the
audience, shows that the story telling is taking a back seat to
other stuff. I found that the interview really established for
me, why the season had so many problems, and those were the issues
I was most curious about.
[> [> [> Agreed
-- s'kat, 21:25:54 06/29/03 Sun
You put that very well.
I thought the questions were great - to the point, and not
powder puffy. I really appreciated that the interviewer asked
hard questions but they did not come off as rude or hostile to
me, just direct. There were some really big issues with S7 and
if you're not going to address them why talk about it all?
I felt the same way. Most of the interviews I've read with Whedon
up to this one, disappointed me -- the reviewers seemed to veer
away from asking any really interesting or direct questions. And
tended to just stroke Whedon or ask about general stuff. Several
of the interviews I've read, I wondered if the interviewer even
watched the show.
The best one's so far were on salon and NY Times. This interview
is even better than those two.
This one seemed to really get to the heart of some of the issues,
which I've wanted to hear Whedon's take on for quite some time
now. Issues such as his educational background, what his take
on film really is, where he is coming from, how he felt about
S6 and S7, how much control he has on the set, etc.
While I agree with poneygirl on the fact that the interviewer
didn't quite followup on or get to the heart of the Tara issue,
it occurs to me that he got the best answer he could out of Whedon.
I'm not sure Whedon wanted to release the whole Tara story - b/c
it was the story he had to nix and he may not have wanted to make
Amber or Fox look bad, particularly since he is still dependent
on Fox for a budget on Angel and on getting Firefly the movie
made. And I'm convinced the reason Amber did not sign has to do
with Fox and certain budgetry issues.(Fox is the backer on both
Whedon's creative enterprises (Angel and Firefly) and owns the
rights, not a good idea to piss them or WB at this point off.)
So I honestly think the interviewer got as much as he could out
of Whedon. (Actually he got more than any other interviewer ever
has on some of these issues. And is one of the few interviewers
who was gutsy enough to ask them - it was a phone interview after
all - Whedon could have hung up on him or cut him off at ANY time.)
Were the questions a bit on the direct/tough side? Sure. But
at least they were about Whedon's work and not on the personal
stuff. A rarity in most interviews. Whedon had to have appreciated
that. (Although if I was Whedon I would have gotten defensive
and snarky too - have miserable thin skin where my creative work
is concerned - which is not good. You need to have the sensitivity
of toilet seat if you want to succeed in tv, film, publishing
or anything that requires public consumption of your work.)
Another interesting thing - on the other boards where the interview
was posted - ASSB (Angel's Soul) and BC&S (Buffy Cross & Stake)
the consensus was that this was an excellent interview and the
best interviewer they'd seen. They were really impressed with
the interviewer's style and the amount of information the interviewer
elicited from Whedon, more than any other they'd seen. Have to
say, I agree with that assessment and I've read a ton of Whedon
interviews.
The next best one - was The Question and Answer one conducted
by New York Times and that really only focused on Btvs.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Agreed -- Yellow Bear, 22:45:42 06/29/03 Sun
OK, this is really weird. When I posted at Whedonesque and mentioned
some interviews with Whedon that I thought posed challenging (but
respectful) questions, I used the exact same examples (NYT & Salon)
that you did.
I too really loved the early parts of this interview dealing with
Whedon's education & experience as a showrunner. However, I think
that if the interviewer had found a way to ask his questions concerning
S7 like a journalist rather than a disillusioned fanboy, he would
have got responses that revealed even more about the direction
of the show this last season. Whedon has always been remarkably
forthcoming in his interviews (within reason as you stated) so
I can only imagine what he might have said to a journalist who
wasn't hectoring him with Kennedy-as-stalker questions (not once
but three times so I guess that pet theory was worth the follow
up).
As for hanging up, reading Whedon's response to the remarkabley
vague 'pacing' question - I'm going to lay odds that his finger
was on the disconnect button.
Very cool
guest star news for AtS:S5 (no plot spoilers, only casting)
-- Rob, 00:03:43 06/28/03 Sat
From David Fury interview at cityofangel.com--Emphases are added:
"Some people from Buffy might be coming over. I know Sarah
Michelle Gellar is going to come back to Angel for a few
episodes and I know Alyson Hannigan would gladly come back
for a couple episodes so she can be with her honey [Alexis Denisof].
Also, Mercedes McNabb as Harmony will be back. I enjoyed
writing for her a lot on Buffy and Angel."
So, for those of you keeping track, as it stands now, according
to this interview, Sarah and Mercedes are definites and Alyson
is a very good possibility. I'm happy. :o)
Rob
[> Numfar, do the dance
of joy! -- grifter, 04:39:39 06/28/03 Sat
[> Joining in the dance...
-- Kate, 09:17:19 06/28/03 Sat
I'm sorry...how awesome is it going to be when Harm and Spike
come face to face again. Oh the pure entertainment of the moment.
I am now in even more anticipation of S5. Whoo and hoo!! Also
excellent about SMG...although I would loved to be surprised on
the "when" so as not to see it coming.
[> But...but...what about
Clem and Numfar? -- Random, 09:43:04 06/28/03 Sat
[> [> Wither Spike goest,
Clem will go... -- dub ;o), 21:14:46 06/28/03 Sat
At least, I hope so.
;o)
[> [> [> I say we
convince them to use Clem by offering that tour of Burrard Inlet
if they don't....;) -- Rufus, 00:05:14 06/29/03 Sun
[> None of this is definite
(no plot spoilers, only casting) -- s'kat, 11:34:32 06/28/03
Sat
David Fury's interview took place in March but wasn't written
until May.
Since that time there have been interviews with SMG, AH, which
have indicated they may NOT come. See slayage.com.
Also Whedon has stated he's waiting for SMG's schedule.
Another thing? David Fury contradicts most of what he says in
the City of Angel interview in his Succubus Club Interview where
he states SMG is gone and doing movies.
So, this is no more definite than Amber Benson's possible resurrection
as Tara in the fall.
I wouldn't count on either actress making an appearance just yet.
The bloody
coward, at the Front (Spoilers to "Home") -- KdS,
08:59:31 06/28/03 Sat
- Where's your husband? Was he in the house?
- He's at the Front, the bloody coward.
alleged exchange between a fireman and a woman rescued from her
bombed house, London, 1943.
I must admit, I really liked Home. I've seen it described
as the Restless of AtS, and while it doesn't have that
episode's ambition, it fulfils much the same role as a placeholder,
underscoring the development of each major character, and setting
up a significant change in atmosphere for the next season. In
deference to those who want to be totally unspoiled, my speculation
for next season will follow in the next post. Those of you who
feel that you don't want to read that post because of what you
assume my reactions will be to a certain reported development,
please try. You may be surprised.
I mentioned character development above, but I can see why some
people I know feel that Angel didn't get any this season. His
actions regarding Connor seem to simply repeat his eternal pattern
of cutting himself off from people he cares about whenever the
relationship gets too potentially uncomfortable, after The
Prom, I Will Remember You, Redefinition and to a lesser and
more forgivable extent his cutting off from Wes in S3 and Connor/Cordelia
early this season. On the other hand, the new direction of this
episode holds the possibility of a break to this pattern. Possibly,
if his "public" life is placed in a more morally ambiguous
position, he may be forced to pay more attention to his "private"
life, instead of using the battle as an excuse to avoid the mess
and danger of the home front, as the woman in my epigram half-seriously
implied.
The other main criticisms regarding the episode come from the
treatment of Connor and Cordelia, and my reactions to those are
somewhat different. To be honest, Cordelia has been totally lost
as a character since the issue of her demonisation was lost in
the plot shuffle of mid-S3. Since her return from Mexico, she's
been first incredibly badly written in Double or Nothing
(although so was everyone) then unsatisfyingly caught between
her sardonic past and unformed future, then rapidly promoted,
demoted, amnesiac and possessed. Connor has been much better written
and acted, IMO, but in many ways his character devolopment has
been dominated by plot convenience to the point where he has had
no time to reflect on himself. His kidnapping and aging in S3
was probably driven by the realisation that he could not convincingly
develop a personality within the likely lifespan of a TV series,
and as a baby and toddler his plot contribution could only consist
of becoming a repeated target for threats in a manner that would
eventually bore the audience. After his return from Quortoth,
the plot of the series saw him constantly manipulated and betrayed
in a manner which would have broken anybody, and there was no
way of bringing him back at the end of S4 in a way that wouldn't
have consisted of four seasons of psychoanalysis, even if there
had been any realistic way of restraining him from doing more
damage to himself and others. Given the corner he had been written
into, rewriting his past would have been the only thing that could
be done short of killing him off, and I'm reassured by the fact
that recent interviews suggest that the writers themselves were
aware of the conflict between Angel's abstract treatment of humanity
and concrete treatment of his son. I saw Angel post-Reunion
mirrored in Connor's killing of Jasmine, and this episode he seemed
to be Angel post-Reprise, convinced of the irredeemability
of humanity and seeking only oblivion.
One sign that may be amusing or may be a warning is the extent
to which Home can be seen as a recursive dramatisation
of the problems that ME themselves faced at the end of this season.
They had a three-season arc, begun way back when Darla was first
resurrected and apparently not fully plotted in advance, which
had become so filled with complexity and chaos that the only thing
to do, if the series was not to become utterly inaccessible to
non-fanatics, was simply to rewrite and erase it. That continued
development and the survival of the series could only be achieved
by a new deal with their corporate paymasters, involving various
compromises. The way in which Angel does the deal with W&H,
disposing of much of his baggage by erasing Connor and leaving
Cordy in a coma, (if W&H could erase Connor, couldn't they have
brought Cordelia back? And why did Angel not ask them to?) might
be some kind of post-modern identification of the character with
the series that bears his name. While S3-4 was remarkable television
by any standards, despite certain flaws, that does not change
the fact that it was increasingly hard to comprehend unless you
had a clear memory of the characters' development dating back
seven years in some cases. Both continuity and anthology have
their advantages and disadvantages, but a really hard continuity
model inevitably restricts one's audience in a way that may be
sustainable on paper, but not under the economics of television.
Returning to more specific criticisms of the episode, the handling
of Wesley, Fred, Gunn and Lorne was excellent. Fred, Gunn and
Lorne all have their own temptations to bring them to heel, although
the exact nature of Gunn's remains a mystery. Wesley's case is
more intriguing. We can debate until the cows come home whether
Lilah deserves to be redeemed in the way Wesley attempted, although
I believe that a key issue is that she doesn't particularly want
to be. However, Wesley had to have made the attempt, because if
he had not, then his liaison with Lilah, which arguably led to
her death, would have merely consisted of him working out his
issues on an evil sex toy either too tough to be hurt, or too
deserving of it for it to matter. And Wesley can't let that be
true if he wants to be able to regard himself as being anyone
he wants to be.
Smaller issues:
Did anyone else find the opening scene of Lilah with the AI crew
deeply reminiscent, in characterisation and atmosphere if not
actual plot, of Lucifer handing Morpheus the key to Hell in Season
of Mists?
Nice to see Fred as the only member of AI who does feel the need
to matter-of-factly seek armament during her tour.
The scene of the whole of AI separately waiting for the limousine
was predictable but amusing.
Finally: an issue with recent Chosen analysis on the board
- a lot of people seem to have been analysing the way in which
the pendant activated, and what caused it to activate, on the
assumption that it was some mystically good and benevolent object,
forgetting that it came directly from W&H. I have my own theories,
but like much else, including my speculation on what W&H are actually
up to, it will appear in my following spoiler post.
A final word on Angel's shanshu and relations with humanity -
paraphrased from many, many retellings of the same tale:
Once upon a time there was a devout man, who dreamed that he
was before his god. His god told him to travel to a far-off land,
to tell the people there the good news. The man relied that he
feared to die alone in a foreign land, away from all his friends
and family. His god promised that he would not allow that to happen.
The man travelled overseas and began his missonary work. One day
he was travelling down a river alone in a small boat, when he
overconfidently attempted to ride some rapids. The boat overturned,
but the man managed to climb onto a rock in the middle of the
river, which was rising.
Some minutes later, a group of people passed by on the bank of
the river, carrying ropes among their gear. They called to the
man and offered to throw the rope to him and drag him safely to
the bank. The man relied "No, I may not be strong enough
to hold the rope and be swept away. And my god has promised that
he will not let me die here."
An hour later, a stronger boat passed down the river, and the
crew offered to pull the man on board. The man replied "No,
I may lose my footing between the rock and the boat and be swept
away. And my god has promised that he will not let me die here."
An hour later, a game service helicopter passed over and the pilot
spotted the man on the rock. The pilot offered to drop a rope
for the man to climb up. The man replied "No, I might fall
and die. And my god has promised that he will not let me die here."
And just as he finished his sentence, the man lost his footing,
was swept away by the water and drowned.
[> Personal speculation
and hopes for S5 (confirmed and rumoured castings) -- KdS,
09:02:48 06/28/03 Sat
Right, now that all the Spoiler Virgins have run off with virtue
fluttering...
As far as I am aware, we have the following data on AtS S5:
Regular cast: Angel, Wes, Gunn, Fred, Lorne, Spike
Possibly recurring: Cordelia, Harmony, Lilah, Buffy, Willow
Particularly interesting reports have it that VK will be doing
at most one episode, but CC may be doing five or six.
My first big caveat is that I really hope that we don't have really
big guest spots from BtVS characters. This is purely down to my
sense of satisfaction that in the last three years, AtS had developed
its own identity. Too much pandering to BtVS-only fans who want
to see post-Chosen stuff, and AtS will inevitably go down
in history as an appendage to BtVS, which would be a shame.
Naturally, the inclusion of Spike has hints of that, but given
the things I've said about Spike in S7 BtVS, you may be surprised
to hear that I think his inclusion on AtS has possibilities. Despite
the speculation of certain well-known livejournalists, I think
that it will defeat the commercial reasons for bringing JM across
if he isn't recognisably Spike from the beginning. How that will
work, and whether he turns up as human, souled vamp, or ghostly
messenger with a big "G" stamped on his forehead, will
have far-reaching effects on how we are meant to understand the
business with the pendant. I have very strong suspicions that
it was intended to do something to Angel as part of W&H's
plans. What exactly that was, and whether that exact thing happened
to Spike, will be very interesting. The other potential point
of interest is that, although that may not have been intended
by ME, I got the impression from S7 of BtVS that Spike believes
that he is morally detached from his actions without a soul in
a way that Angel never has. If he continues to behave similarly
on AtS, it could set up a full-scale ME exploration of the issue
of Angel's actual responsibility for Angelus's actions that has
been raising questions among fans ad infinitum. Yes, again, I
know I hate Spike ;-). However, I have hopes that the Spike who
turns up on AtS next year will be a refugee from an alternate
Buffyverse in which the S7 characterisations were less melodramatic,
in the same way as Willow in Orpheus. ;-)
If VK is only doing one ep at most (and if I was him I'd be waving
his work on AtS at every film producer in the USA), then it seems
clear that Connor will not end up finding out the full truth.
We'll have to just deal with that. However, the chances of Cordelia
getting some form of coda and decent send off seem reasonable,
and I really, really hope that happens.
As far as the existing regulars go, I think that we have to wait
and see what the Senior Partners are actually up to. I personally
think that it would be most interesting and least cliched if they
were telling the exact truth about giving Angel and company a
completely free hand. It would turn the existentialist bias of
the show totally on its head if after fighting human and divine
authority for four years they had to deal with having the power
for themselves. Is the exercise of that power compatible with
their morals at all? Far more interesting than them trying to
do good and their underlings secretly working for the Partners
to corrupt them and turn their good intentions to evil. The idea
that the Partners are trying to mould Lorne, Fred, Angel, Gunn
and Wes into a new Rah-tet (and yes, that order is very deliberate)
is interesting, but a little too mythology-based for how I see
S5 as developing.
As far as individual developments go, I mentioned in my last post
that I can see Angel having to pay more attention to his personal
life now that his public life is less morally black-and-white.
I suspect we're going to get a big Frankensteinish if-we-can-do-it-should-we
thing with Fred at some point, which may be predictable or interesting.
Judging by ME's total lack of understanding of, or sympathy with,
science, I do not have high hopes. Wes depends very much on how
big a role Lilah will be playing, and whether their tortured relationship
actually does have much life left in it. Gunn is the real enigma,
I genuinely do not have a clue what is going on with him, as what
happened to him in the White Room was left so mysterious. After
what happened to Cordy this year, I hope it will be something
far more ambiguous than just possession - in fact he might even
get the plot Cordy might have got if Charisma's relations with
ME hadn't broken down so badly. The big mystery of course, is
what will remain of the relationships between the AI crew now
that Connor has been erased. Will it be quick-and-dirty with the
feelings left the same but the factual memories locked away, or
will there have been a "new" S3-4? Again, I think it
depends very much on what CC eventually decides to do.
Overall then - sadness for what was lost this season, but cautious
optimism about what is to come.
[> [> Bout the Senior
Partners' plans -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:21:30 06/28/03 Sat
I think that their ultimate goal is to corrupt Angel and Co. (they
freely admited they're evil manipulators in the past; as such,
I find it hard to believe that they'd do a favor for someone with
no strings attached). However, I don't think it will be a whole
"underlings going behind their backs" thing. I'm thinking
that the Senior Partners will be relying on the situation to corrupt
the AI gang just as it did everyone who came to work for them
before. Also, while I do think that Lilah and some others will
be acting as the voices of the Senior Partners, encouraging them
to take the most ambiguous, it will be strictly in a "devil
on the shoulder" capacity, rather than an evil backstabber
playing them like pawns.
[> [> [> The first
salvo -- Darby, 13:51:20 06/28/03 Sat
Have we been shown already that W&H are willing to let the mere
access to power corrupt?
Whose life did Connor take over? Who are those other folks jammed
into this fantasy life? After Angel agreed with him (and fought
Jasmine over) that choice was the most important thing? The good
intentions were that Connor was over the edge, that he deserved
a second chance, but wasn't the response a bit on the dark gray
side?
After the interesting choices (and a few cowardly ones) made with
Jasmine, I'm hoping that Angel's Powers-That-Be are willing
to do what they wouldn't on Buffy with Willow, with the
First, etc. - show us the true nature of Evil, and how it appears
in the acts and the hearts of the "good."
[> [> [> [> Interesting
question -- KdS, 15:26:17 06/28/03 Sat
I also wondered about the nature of Connor's new family - has
he replaced some existing human being? Unfortunately, as recent
reports suggest that VK is doing one ep at most, it may well not
be answered.
And as I misread virtually the whole of S7 through believing that
the FE actually was representing Evil, instead of just being an
everyday Big Bad, I share your hopes.
[> [> [> [> [>
The First Evil -- lunasea, 19:28:05 06/29/03 Sun
I never saw the First Evil as Evil. It is the SOURCE of evil.
It would have been interesting to explore what this meant, but
I think they are saving that for Angel's series finale. It was
key to his birth as a savior on Christmas. What exactly it is
won't be dealt with until later.
Then again, the metaphor seems pretty obvious to me, just on its
appearance in "Amends."
[> [> [> [> [>
[> I also saw it as the source of evil. -- Rob, 13:21:45
06/30/03 Mon
Even up to the end, the idea of The First Evil more as the concept
and source of evil remained. That's why it couldn't be destroyed.
Because as Joyce said, it lives in each and every one of us. Buffy
and Co. shifted the balance of power, so the First lost its main
source of evil, the Hellmouth, its army of Turok-Han, and worst,
now the world is not only protected by one Slayer but countless
ones. But still evil itself is not destroyed. The First was "squashed"
but not killed.
Basically, I saw the metaphor of the First as the concept of evil
wanting to not just be a concept anymore but to be a living, breathing
thing, a corporeal being. It wasn't content to merely live inside
every one; it wanted to be everyone. IMO, the First could
possess Caleb because he was one of the most purely evil people
it had ever encountered. Similar to how it was able to temporarily
enter another being which was once and still had the power to
be a great evil, Willow. The First can enter people who have great
potential for evil. It is drawn to and intensifies evil.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: I also saw it as the source of evil. --
Debaser, 15:05:52 06/30/03 Mon
I think you're probably right. I also think the First Evil was
really more of an 'amateur' Big Bad, it was more suited to quietly
manipulating people and perpetuating the idea of evil and when
it came to actually pulling off an apocalyptic scheme, it wasn't
too great at it.
Compare this to Wolfram & Hart who have been successfuly orchestrating
their apocalypse for thousands of years and may have just pulled
off their biggest victory yet. They are certainly not amateurs.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Wolfram & Hart varies from being unstoppable,
pervasive evil to incompetent fools -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:36:28
06/30/03 Mon
For example, throughout most of Season 3, Wolfram & Hart was really
marginalized in their evil attempts. They were totally out of
the loop when it came to the prophecies taking place. They were
constantly smacked down by Angel, Holtz, Sahjhan, and Connor.
Rivalries among employees and fear for personal safety greatly
handicapped their effectiveness. While W&H is sometimes shown
to be a mastermind of unstoppable, diabolical plotting, just as
often it's shown as a bunch of people in over their heads.
Also, you say that the Senior Partners have been successfully
orchestrating their apocalypse for thousands of years. What I
have to wonder about is the "successfully" part. Have
we ever seen W&H actively try to destroy the world? No. We've
seen them go about their evil business and talk about their grand
plans, but we've never seen them actually do anything to further
the apocalypse. As such, I think the comparison you make to the
First Evil isn't really apt, since we saw the First on the eve
of its takeover, while the apocalypse the Senior Partners are
planning is set far in the future, if they ever get around to
it at all.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Wolfram & Hart varies from being
unstoppable, pervasive evil to incompetent fools -- Debaser,
16:20:59 06/30/03 Mon
I dunno if I'd say they were being shown as 'in over their heads'.
Even though various things have claimed small victories over them,
they have still one over in the end and dispite all their mishaps
in S3 and S4 they are still around and aparantly ahead of the
game. Also, I'm refering more to the Senior Partners as opposed
to the company. I see Wolfram & Hart as just a tool for them,
as Angel Investigations is to the Powers.
As far as not seeing their planned apocalypse in action, I think
this only reflects their competence. They are making sure that
when it comes, everything they have set up will fall into place
and things will go their way. None of the other villains (with
the possible exception of The Master) put in as much preparation
and their plans were ultimately thwarted.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> The source of evil lost its source? -- Anneth,
being cheeky, 16:29:54 06/30/03 Mon
Even up to the end, the idea of The First Evil more as the
concept and source of evil remained... Buffy and Co. shifted the
balance of power, so the First lost its main source of evil, the
Hellmouth, its army of Turok-Han...
Seemed to me more like it lost its favorite toy. An evil toy.
;)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Nah, Evil still has the comfy chair. The
evil comfy chair. -- fresne - also feeling with the non sequitation,
16:42:42 06/30/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Don't forget the bidet of evil... Evil
must always have its bidet! -- Anneth, 16:53:42 06/30/03
Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Hmmm...if evil does have a bidet...
-- fresne the facetious, 17:07:48 06/30/03 Mon
Then I wonder if it's like the Japanese ones. All techy and buttons
and possibly with a mink seat or is it old school?
And are there tea cozies of evil? Anti-cozies? And do these anti-cozies
wear leather pants of EEEviiiilll.
Where does the paper weight of pure evil come into this dicussion?
If a Wolfram & Hart Lawyer, a Bringer and an Ubervamp walk into
a bar...no wait. You must hear the humorous conclusion. Where
are you going? It involves a duck and possibly the Spanish Inquisition,
which was entirely unexpected.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Evil may not have an anti-cozy...
-- Anneth, giggling furiously, 17:13:01 06/30/03 Mon
But it certainly has an anti-macascar - which, of course,
being an evil anti-macascar, is actually just a macascar. (Just
try to imagine that one! A big doilie that purposely leaves
oil-stains on one's couch! How nefarious!)
(musingly) I wonder if evil writes poems about towers, lakes,
and daisies?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nefarious indeed
-- fresne - loosing sanity as I write, 20:13:40 06/30/03 Mon
Tower, lake, daisies
What you mean,
Stands the tower needle,
Menacing silent lake,
Black daisies nod and bleed,
Smile and eat weeping cake.
Yeah, Evil always sat by itself in the lunchroom writing dark,
morose poetry that was not only evil, but bad. And possibly dangerous
to know.
The jocks would have made fun of Evil, but once they read the
poetry, like those who look upon the sleeper who lies not dead
but dreaming in Rilea, they went mad. Heh, which was really pretty
funny. Uh, I mean, sad and tragic. Ahem...
So, if an anti-macascar and a macascar were placed together, would
the universe implode? And if Evil sits on a Love seat, would the
power of the tiny couch turn Evil good? If then good, how then
shrubbery?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> huh? i thought
that was about eye makeup! -- anom, 21:42:31 06/30/03 Mon
Anti-mascara! Clumps eyelashes together, shortens them, & lightens
the color.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Oops! Yes its "favorite toys" does
work better! ;o) -- Rob, 17:24:38 06/30/03 Mon
And how fitting that the First Evil would want to bring back demons
that were around in its early days, the most ancient vamps, in
order to do its bidding. Turok-Han are the ideal vamps, since
they don't have even one shred of any lingering pesky humanity,
if they were ever human to begin with, which we still don't really
know. I tend to doubt it.
Rob
[> [> thank you....
-- Nino, 11:35:44
06/28/03 Sat
For a while there I was thinking I was the only one who cared
about Cordy getting a "decent send off." Everyone seemed
preoccupied with all of the other season 5 enigmas to take a moment
for this character who I love...so thanks for caring too!
[> [> [> For a while
we thought she was gone . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:44:09
06/28/03 Sat
The Charisma would be making precisely zero appearances in Season
5. As such, not much thought was paid to giving Cordelia a sendoff.
Now that a sendoff seems possible, attention can turn there once
more.
[> [> Re: Personal speculation
and hopes for S5 (confirmed and rumoured castings) -- lunasea,
19:23:52 06/29/03 Sun
I have very strong suspicions that it was intended to do something
to Angel as part of W&H's plans
With Sahjhan and Connor, they were trying to explore the idea
that a false prophecy could be a real prophecy and how a real
prophecy is written. Perhaps the PTB could have been using Wolfram
and Hart to see that the First was defeated. I think it is interesting
if Good could use Evil like that. Jasmine used the good intentions
of the AI gang.
I'm not sure if Wolfram and Hart knew what the pendant did. They
wouldn't want anything to happen to Angel. They won't want anything
to happen until they are convinced that he can't be corrupted.
I think what they wanted was for Angel to bring Buffy back to
Wolfram and Hart with him. Perhaps they feel he will be more corruptible
with her there or they want to take them both down. If Lilah did
take care of the curse and then send him to Sunnydale to fight
shoulder to shoulder with her, I can see her playing match maker.
She didn't realize that Buffy would get in the way (at least until
Sweeps).
If he continues to behave similarly on AtS, it could set up
a full-scale ME exploration of the issue of Angel's actual responsibility
for Angelus's actions that has been raising questions among fans
ad infinitum.
If they go with what the fans talk about, then they will have
to look at their past sexual history as well. (a side note, does
the PPC go after slash fic as well as Mary Sues? Slash tends to
tap dance on canon more) I think they will set Spike back up with
his immature morality, where everything is black and white and
now he tries real hard to be good, but doesn't quite get what
that means yet. We might finally get to explore what is good and
what is it about the soul that orients us to it. That would fit
with the compromise/corruption theme.
I don't think they will revisit Angelus again. Been there, done
that. If the fans didn't understand Orpheus, too bad. Angel still
has issues, but they won't be explored through Angelus.
I do have one thing that is completely off the wall, but would
be interesting. I would love Lurky who gave Spike his soul to
be one of the Senior Partners. I would love for them not to be
evil so much as choice itself, what Angel just fought for. Without
evil, there is nothing to chose from. Lawyers just enable us to
make choices.
What is evil, what is good, what is choice's role in everything.
Those are things I think we will see explored, especially with
Fred. Fred will have to come to terms with ending world peace
and not some scheme of global domination. Fred will be a very
central character next season. ME is going to need some consultants
in order to write the science aspect of the show.
Trust is another thing that will be explored. Can Angel ever trust
Wolfram and Hart? I too find it more interesting if they meant
what the said and Angel has complete control with no undermining
whatsoever. Instead it is having to deal with all that power and
how it affects others (should he take their choice away) that
will determine if he is corrupted.
[> [> [> Very nice
ideas about the Partners -- KdS, 02:45:46 06/30/03 Mon
I don't know about the Partners representing choice. I think that
on a lot of occassions we've seen the human members of W&H manipulating
people towards evil (what choice did Darla get about being sired
again?) so that would have to mean that all their employees didn't
get the picture. Very nice ideas about Buffy and Lurky.
And again I agree on hoping for no undermining, either literal
or by mystical curse-type things. I don't like that idea because
it makes the plot predictable - sooner or later they're going
to work it out and then it's inevitable that they'll either walk
out or have a big fight with the Partners. If they have a free
hand it leaves things so much more open.
And I think the PPC has a Bad Slash Dept. Ask HonorH or Rhysdux,
who seem to be the experts.
[> [> [> [> Thanks
and more about evil/choice -- lunasea, 09:05:25 06/30/03
Mon
I think that on a lot of occassions we've seen the human members
of W&H manipulating people towards evil (what choice did Darla
get about being sired again?) so that would have to mean that
all their employees didn't get the picture. Very nice ideas about
Buffy and Lurky.
It was something I came up with during the Jasmine arc when I
was doing all that stuff about the Catechism. Most of the Old
Testament, especially Genesis, is considered to be mythology and
metaphor by the Vatican. Per the Catechism "The account of
the Fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a
primal event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history
of man." Dealing with Jasmine this season would lead nicely
into a deeper examination of choice as a cause of evil. Then they
could examine what causes us to make choices.
The Powers really don't care about their messengers. It could
be said that the Senior Partners don't care much about the people/creatures
they use. Both have their favorites. Holland is one that gets
the big picture. Lee's disloyalty was met with a bullet to his
head, but Lindsey's wasn't, even though his was far greater.
Why did the Senior Partners even bring back Darla? Why did they
have her vamped her after Angel had reached her? Darla gave Angel
a choice. As weird as that sounds, she did. The Powers send a
vision and Angel jumps. Angel is the good little soldier. By bringing
Darla back, the Senior Partners create something powerful enough
that Angel is willing to go dark again. Angel has a strong choice
to make between strong options.
To me that is what the Senior Partners are about. They aren't
into anything as prosaic as winning. They are into keeping the
game going. When Angel steps out of the game by not even considering
the alternatives, that is when then try to bring him back. That
is what Lilah's speech and giving him the firm seems to be about.
He was dead set against it without considering the options. People
need my help? Well, I do the best I can and that is all that matters.
Buffy needs help? Nah, she can handle things herself (even though
we know that isn't the case). You can find Cordy and Connor? I'll
find them myself even if it takes a really long time and both
need to be found quickly. No compromise. I am good and you are
evil.
This season, Angel had to consider the unthinkable option, bringing
back Angelus. Until Cordelius tricked him, he wasn't remotely
considering it. Angel is on this one-tracked "I am Champion,
so here is what I MUST do" kick that to be honest got really
annoying. Buffy tends to solve things by thinking outside the
box. When have we seen Angel do that?
The human members of Wolfram and Hart are NOT the senior partners.
They don't really know what the Senior Partners are after (well
Holland did, but he is pretty high up). They are given their orders,
and from those they draw conclusions. Lilah still would love to
drop Angel into a vat of holy water. She has a completely antagonistic
relationship with him. They push each other's buttons and it does
get rather personal. Was it that way with Holland?
The Senior Partners are just creating a choice. Humans with our
human soul oriented to good have good taken care of. The Senior
Partners use their people to create evil in order to give humanity
as a whole a choice. Some may have to lose choice in order for
this to happen, but it is the big picture that the Powers and
Senior Partners are interested in.
The legal system. What an interesting thing that has become. All
men are assumed innocent until proven guilty. As such, every single
person must have the best defense they can. What would happen
if Angel were to stop taking the cases of people he considers
guilty? There is a nice dilema that Angel will have to face pretty
early. Can Angel allow the resources of his firm to be used to
help the guilty in order to keep the legal system afloat?
Shell oil is bad. It pollutes the enivornment and depletes our
resources. It also allows for me to take my kids to the doctors
in our nice car (or public transportation) when they are sick.
It is a very necessary evil. Can Angel become a necessary evil?
Still not sure what side Angel will be on during the Apocalypse.
When does compromise become corruption? It should be a very interesting
season.
[> [> [> [> [>
But Holland was very clear about the Senior Partners --
Finn Mac Cool, 10:44:11 06/30/03 Mon
During his elevator ride with Angel, didn't he say the Senior
Partners are "evil beyond imagining"? Not to mention
that the Wolfram & Hart employees freely call themselves evil.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Not that I remember. -- lunasea, 11:14:34 06/30/03
Mon
Holland: "That's really the question you should be asking
yourself, isn't it? See, for us, there is no fight. Which is why
winning doesn't enter into it. We - go on - no matter what. Our
firm has always been here. In one form or another. The Inquisition.
The Khmer Rouge. We were there when the very first cave man clubbed
his neighbor. See, we're in the hearts and minds of every single
living being. And *that* - friend - is what's making things so
difficult for you. - See, the world doesn't work in spite of evil,
Angel. - It works with us. - It works because of us."
And with that the elevator comes to a screeching halt.
The doors open and Angel looks out to see a homeless person pushing
a loaded shopping cart across the plaza in front of the Wolfram
and Hart Office building in LA.
Holland: "Welcome to the home office."
Angel: "This isn't..."
Holland: "Well, you know it is. - You know *that* better
than anyone. Things you've seen. Things you've, well - done. You
see, if there wasn't evil in every single one of them out there
(Angel watches as some people in the plaza start yelling at each
other) why, they wouldn't be people. - They'd all be angels."
(since Psyche is down, I used Buffyworld)
What choice is there between the angel and the devil if there
is no devil? Angel's entire speech to Jasmine in "Peace Out"
is meaningless without something to choose from.
Some of the people gladly refer to themselves as evil. They wear
it like Angel does "Champion." These people are pawns
and not what Wolfram and Hart are interested in. They are interested
in Angel, Lindsey and Lilah, not Lee or Linwood. Lilah doesn't
call herself evil so much as selfish. "The upside of being
in it for yourself, Wes-you always end up on the winning team."
Lilah isn't evil. That is what makes her so delicious.
Evil does exist in humans. We all have id-boy/girl in us. We also
have a higher self, in the Buffyverse our human soul. Buffy calls
Whistler not a soldier for good, but "some immortal demon
sent down to even the score between good and evil?" I would
love if Whistler actually worked for the Senior Partners. Wouldn't
that just stand things on their head? Doyle and Cordy were manipulated
by Jasmine and the rest of the Powers really don't do a whole
lot of anything. We have seen how blaise they can be as shown
by the Oracles.
Whenever good really tugs at someone, evil has to act to balance
it and vice versa. There is a lot of material that could be explored
here. I don't think that ME will just retell Buffy's story over
on AtS. It will be more than ditz to hero. I look forward to it.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Actually, she really is evil. -- Arethusa,
13:05:32 06/30/03 Mon
Lilah: Look, Angel, I know you've been out of loop for a while,
but I'm still evil. I don't do errands unless they're... (grins)
evil errands. (Ground State, also from buffyworld)
Lilah's so evil she went to Hell.
I think Manners is saying that evil is man's natural state, his
driving force. We know that's not so because Whedon says in the
Buffyverse mankind is driven to do good, although of course that
doesn't mean mankind will do good.
What exactly is the nature of Angel's choices? Is he constantly
having to choose between being good or being bad? Or is he contantly
having to choose between selfish and unselfish acts? I think Angel's
genuinely dedicted to doing good, but tends to forget that he'll
have to deal with the repercussions of his actions. So he makes
some bad choices.
I see Wolfram & Hart not so much dedicated to perpetuating evil
as committing evil in their disregard of the suffering caused
by their actions. They were a business, dedicated to controlling
the world to maintain their own perpetuity. They wanted to control
the upcoming apocalypse so that they would win and continue their
business. And when they lost, they absorped their conquerers into
their belly, ensuring that while their methods might change, their
state of existance would not. Now, the Senior partners might have
another, additional agenda. Based on the amount of power they
have, they are probably supernatural. Based on how they use that
power, they're evil. On both the Buffyverse and Pylea they maintain
orderly yet evil societies. The two divinities that tried to upset
the balance, Jasmine and The First Evil, appear to be renegades.
So what exactly are the Senior Partners? What is the relationship
between the First Evil and the Senior Partners? Is it the same
as that between Jasmine and the other Powers That Be? Is the First
Evil the embodiment of or the source of evil? Is there a tug of
war for souls in the Buffyverse, or is there an ongoing attempt
to maintain balance between the Powers, with human souls just
getting caught in the crossfire?
And how does this all affect Angel, who has his own tug-of-war
going on?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Actually, she really is evil. --
Debaser, 14:56:09 06/30/03 Mon
I think there can be no doubt of W&H being evil. I see the Senior
Partners as filling the role of Satan in the Christian Belief
system. The 'adversary' to the forces of good. The First Evil
is more to do with the idea of evil. I don't think it would have
had much of a role in the grand scheme of things until it saw
it's chance to tip the balance. That's probably why the Senior
Partners were opposed to it, it was interfering with their own
carefully planned apocalypse.
As for the company itself, Wolfram & Hart is a direct opposite
to Angel Investigations. One is a business set up to aid the forces
of good and help the innocent the other is a business whos purpose
is to give aid to evil and help the guilty. While AI recieves
'orders' from the Powers That Be, W&H takes theirs from the Partners.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Nope. She is an opportunist -- lunasea,
17:04:28 06/30/03 Mon
1. Hell and Heaven aren't merit based in the Buffyverse. Angel
went to Hell also. So did Connor. Buffy even spent some time in
a hell dimension.
2. Lilah is willing to work for evil to get her pretty diamonds
and limo rides. At the time of "Ground State" evil is
winning. When evil ceases to be the safest game in town, she is
ready to braid her hair and change her name to Pollyanna. She
has no allegiance to any sort of moral compass. She is strictly
an opportunist. To just write her off as evil takes away from
the richness of the character.
What exactly is the nature of Angel's choices?
Remove good and evil, since they have moral connotations. Instead
it is about harm. Angel's decisions are based on helping vs harm.
He does consider the ramifications. He is concerned with immediate
and long-term consequences (harm/help) that his actions have.
So what exactly are the Senior Partners? What is the relationship
between the First Evil and the Senior Partners?
The Senior Partners represent the choice to do evil. The First
Evil is what allows people make that choice. It is one thing to
have a choice. Unless something compels you to make that choice,
you won't make it. The First went overboard by trying to completely
eliminate good. In doing this, there is no longer a choice. The
Senior Partners could easily take Angel's soul and make him evil.
Instead they want him to choose evil.
Is there a tug of war for souls in the Buffyverse, or is there
an ongoing attempt to maintain balance between the Powers, with
human souls just getting caught in the crossfire?
Souls are our moral compass. There might be some sort of battle
for spirits, but souls are oriented to good. In order to discuss
Buffyverse concepts, we have to divorce ourselves from Christian
ones. I do think it is all about balance to provide humanity with
the necessary frame work to evolve in. Jasmine wanted to kick
our evolution up a few ticks. (actually it is just a framework
for Joss to tell his story in and I don't think he gets into it
this deeply) Every now and then one side makes a bold play in
order for humanity to rise to the occassion.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> I think -- KdS, 17:33:28 06/30/03
Mon
That the FE is the source of evil in the core Buffyverse dimension,
and the Partners are an external force from another dimension
trying to take over. JMO.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Why the Senior Partners don't desoul
Angel -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:43:42 06/30/03 Mon
There are prophecies which say the vampire with a soul will play
a major role in the apocalypse, but no one knows on whose side.
They don't mention Angel by name. If the Senior Partners desoul
Angel, all they've got is another vampire on their side. But,
if they corrupt him with his soul still intact, then they have
control over a key player in the apocalypse.
P.S. You define Angel's choices in terms of helping vs. harming,
rather than good vs. evil. I can only speak for myself, but I
always pictured helping being synonymous with good and harming
being synonymous with evil. But that's just me.
P.P.S. "The First went overboard by trying to completely
eliminate good." But evil, by definition, is the drive to
destroy that which is good. Thus, it is in the nature of evil
to destroy good, and thus choice. Which makes sense: choice is
a good thing, so it makes sense that evil wouldn't want there
to be choice.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Lilah and evil -- Arethusa, 19:43:55
06/30/03 Mon
1. Hell and Heaven aren't merit based in the Buffyverse. Angel
went to Hell also. So did Connor. Buffy even spent some time in
a hell dimension.
Granted. Although Lilah does say, "I'm just a messenger.
That's all. They'll be sending me straight back to hell
once I'm finished here.
But my point remains-Lilah committed evil acts knowingly and eagerly.
She did it for money, for security, because she felt she had to.
"You don't get it, do you, twinkie?," she said to Cordelia
in Calvary. "I'm what I believe in. And you think I got this
far by sticking my head in the sand?" To just write her off
as an opportunist takes away from the richness of her character.
Remove good and evil, since they have moral connotations. Instead
it is about harm. Angel's decisions are based on helping vs harm.
He does consider the ramifications. He is concerned with immediate
and long-term consequences (harm/help) that his actions have.
Deciding between helping and harming is a moral decision, so I
don't think I should throw out morality. Again, Angel has many
times chosen to commit an act that has potentially damaging consequences-releasing
Billy and Angelus, sleeping with Darla, using black magick to
tear a hole into Quar-Toth, etc.
In order to discuss Buffyverse concepts, we have to divorce
ourselves from Christian ones.
I agree. ;0)
The First Evil is what allows people make that choice. It is
one thing to have a choice. Unless something compels you to make
that choice, you won't make it. The First went overboard by trying
to completely eliminate good. In doing this, there is no longer
a choice. The Senior Partners could easily take Angel's soul and
make him evil. Instead they want him to choose evil.
I really don't think Evil such as the Senior Partners cares about
humans having the power to make choices. They did everything they
could think of to stack the deck in their favor. Only the Good
side wants people to have choices, as the three-way conversation
between Connor, Darla and Cordelia in Inside Out showed.
I do think it is all about balance to provide humanity with
the necessary frame work to evolve in. Jasmine wanted to kick
our evolution up a few ticks. (actually it is just a framework
for Joss to tell his story in and I don't think he gets into it
this deeply) Every now and then one side makes a bold play in
order for humanity to rise to the occassion.
That's my question-is it all about humanity, or are people merely
collatoral damage in the games gods play? Jasmine wanted humanity
to evolve, but the other PTB evidently weren't in any hurry. We
still don't know for sure if they have a goal for humanity at
all.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Lilah and evil-Question
-- sdev, 21:02:41 06/30/03 Mon
"Buffy even spent some time in a hell dimension."
When?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> That's lunasea's statement-
-- Arethusa, 21:14:56 06/30/03 Mon
I think she means when Buffy went to the hell dimension in "Anne."
Tara said there's lots of heavenly dimension, and I suspect there's
lots of hell dimensions too. I don't think, however, that they
are the same as, say, Quar-toth, even though it was commenly called
a hell dimension. After all, you didn't have to die to get there.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> In the heaven Buffy
described, she was incorporeal -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:13:09
06/30/03 Mon
Which makes sense, given that her body was lying dead in the real
world. However, all the hell dimensions we've seen people cross
into and out of have been physical in nature. Thus it seems pretty
likely to infer that any sort of hell people are sent to after
death is incorporeal, and so not of the same variety of Quortoth.
This raises the question, though: if there are physical and non-physical
hell dimensions, are there physical as well as non-physical heavenly
dimensions, dimensions that are utopian models just as Quortoth
and the like are dystopian models?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Actually, she really is evil. --
Miss Edith, 19:29:41 06/30/03 Mon
Lilah talks of doing evil errands sure, but what does that really
mean? She works for evil, she will carry out evil acts for her
own gain. But does that actually make her an evil person simply
because she is willing to commit evil? As a human being with a
soul she meets the criteria in the Buffyverse of someone who can
be saved. I would call her a gray character more than an evil
one. I mean even the most righteous people, such as Buffy, have
committed evil acts (stabbing Faith) without actually being evil.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> I think that, like the Existential
Scoobies, if she considers herself one, she is one. ;) --
Arethusa, 19:51:57 06/30/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Actually, she really is evil.
-- yabyumpan, 23:17:53 06/30/03 Mon
Yes, she's EVIL. She was quite happy to try to kidnapp Connor
to have him disected while still alive and when that didn't work,
tried to get Angel to eat him. She sat there smiling as she chopped
Linwood's head off and laughed along with Lindsey at the thought
of Darla and Dru 'having a massacre'. She tried to get Bethany
Chalk raped to bring out her power, had Cordelia tortured to release
Billy, knowing full well what he was and complained and showed
absolutly no compassion when she heard the security guard being
killed by the Beast in HC. She has never shown any regret or remourse
for any of the suffering she's caused unless it's effected her
personally and right up to her death mocked AI for actually trying
to make a difference, even though at the time they were giving
her shelter from the rain of fire.
I don't see any greyness or moral ambiguity in her, or any richness
in character. She's nothing more than a witty sociopath.
But does that actually make her an evil person simply because
she is willing to commit evil? As a human being with a soul she
meets the criteria in the Buffyverse of someone who can be saved.
I would call her a gray character more than an evil one.
Would Pol Pot, Stalin, Ted Bundy, Dennis Nilsen et al be considered
just 'grey' in Buffyverse? All of them are human beings with souls.
[> [> [> Re: Personal
speculation and hopes for S5 (confirmed and rumoured castings)
-- Rina, 08:40:38 06/30/03 Mon
Spike never struck me as the type of person, whose morality was
immature. When it came to morality, he seemed a hell of a lot
more mature and frank than many of the other characters.
Another person commented that Spike seemed to believe he is morally
detached. Huh? Was this person watching the early episodes of
BtVS's Season 7? Or believe he has to do a repeat performance
of Angel's remorseful brooding? Or is that person still judging
Spike for not going into an emotional tailspin of remorse over
Nikki Wood's death? Still paying more attention to his words,
than his actions, I see.
In several essays, people have pointed out that Angel has acted
as Spike's Ogre Father - on the same level as Anakin Skywalker
was Luke Skywalker's Ogre Father. If this is true, I see Spike
being an instrument of final redemption for Angel, by the series'
end.
[> [> [> [> Not
sure the writers would agree -- lunasea, 09:32:10 06/30/03
Mon
Joss has even said that one thing the soul imparts is a more mature
morality. That is why you can have sweet adorable kitten eating
Clem.
Spike is Id-boy, like any other vampire. His id got complicated
by the chip, which was handled well in OOMM. Vampires don't have
super-egos when they are soulless. Their morality is based on
this. Spike tends to see everything very black and white. Again,
not the height of maturity in the Grey Buffyverse. He got along
so well with Dawn because they are both kids and could relate.
Not saying that Angel's was that much better when he was on BtVS.
I am weak, therefore I must die isn't exactly the height of maturity.
He, too, tended to see things very black and white. It isn't until
after "Amends" when the spin-off is being set up that
Angel actually starts to grow up. Faith was very important to
Angel's development, both in Consequences and on his own show.
Don't confuse his ability to speak his mind with maturity. "At
least I'm man enough to admit it" was not the mature thing
to say. Same with "You see, unlike you, I had a mother who
loved me back." Part of Spike's fun is in his immaturity.
He isn't even Oedipal, but pre-Oedipal.
So which actions should we look at that show a mature Spike? Sid
Vicious was not what one would consider a good role model.
[> [> [> [> [>
Your Opinion . . . Not Mine -- Rina, 10:13:56 06/30/03
Mon
I guess you and the writers would agree about Spike seeing the
world in black and white. I don't. I have my own interpretation
of Spike's characters.
Contrary to what writers may think, they should realize that a
movie/television viewer, or a reader, may have his or her own
interpretation of a character or scene, regardless of the writer's
intent.
Look at the situation regarding Spike's trip to Africa at the
end of Season 6. Many viewers are still divided over whether his
original intent was to either get rid of the chip or gain a soul.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> That's fine -- lunasea, 10:38:27 06/30/03 Mon
But season 7 is written on Spike going to get his soul, not the
chip removed. If the viewer holds tight to their own interpretation,
scenes like "Beneath You" don't make as much sense.
I was one that thought Spike went to get the chip out. When he
didn't, I figured he meant to get the chip out, but Lurky sensed
what Spike really wanted and gave him that. Joss came out point
blank (which he rarely does) and said what he meant. Since that
is what the rest of the show is written on, I will go with it.
My husband is a Quartermaster and teaches other Coasties about
navigation. His rate has just been merged/taken over by the Boswainsmates.
The BMs navigate the small boats for shorter distances. My husband
has crossed Atlantic. In Long Island Sound, a five degree course
deviation isn't that big a deal. You will get to where you are
going or damn close to it. If you are going to the Caribbean,
five degrees and you will hit another island or end up in the
middle of the Atlantic.
Spike is an emotional topic. What about some other issues in the
Buffyverse? What if people held tightly to Oz being Willow's true
love? Would season 6 make any sense whatsoever? Why is Willow
going so nuts over someone she really doesn't love?
Then there is Dawn. How many initially refused to accept her as
Buffy's sister? How much of what followed depended on that? It
is a testament to ME's writing ability that the main criticism
of Dawn is that she wasn't developed enough.
Then there is my favorite character Angel. What if we held tightly
to Angel is Buffy's true love (well he is) and she is incapable
of loving anyone else, ever? Forget Spike. Buffy being able to
move on is important to Riley. So what if he left? She didn't
really love him. It just sucks the heart out of that story.
There are a million and one things in the story that could go
either way. We come here and debate them. Sometimes something
is important enough to the story that a writer, usually Joss himself,
will make a statement about it. If the viewer holds tightly to
what they saw, they tend to go "but X doesn't make sense
now." X makes sense if we go with what the writers said.
That is why I will drop my side in such a case and go with what
the writers say. Being right isn't as important to me as the story
is. I want to make it to a specific point that the writers are
trying to take me to. We aren't crossing Long Island Sound. 7
seasons is a trans-Atlantic voyage.
When we interpret literature, we tend to have the whole thing,
so that we can make sense of these points where it could go either
way. We can interpret it in the context of the entire text. Until
recently we didn't have that opportunity. Now that we do, it is
fun to make things make sense and figure out Joss' story. Restless
is particularly fun.
That is just me. I'm sure nothing I have said has convinced you
of anything.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Personal speculation and hopes for S5 (confirmed and rumoured
castings) -- Miss Edith, 19:47:26 06/30/03 Mon
I would hate for Spike to start with the Angel brooding! Now personally
I think Spike's morality is still very fluid. I don't agree with
those saying they see no difference between Spike with a soul
or without. But I sure don't feel comfortable with Spike walking
around wearing the coat of a woman he killed. Spike is my favourite
character because I prefer the more morally flexible types, rather
than the big heroic champions. I live for episodes like Reunion
(Angel leaving the lawyers to die) and Lies My Parents Told Me,
hence a character like Spike appealing to me.
I do think Spike's morality is immature to a point. Still IMO
he has integrated his demon and human half a hell of a lot better
than Angel managed. I'm glad he doesn't rename himself or refer
to his past as if he had an evil twin he must apologise for :)
[> [> Bizarre piece of
speculation -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:53:35 06/29/03 Sun
Lorne is now in charge of the clients Wolfram & Hart has that
are part of the entertainment business. Earlier I speculated that
one of the stars of "Charmed" would be one of his clinets,
but now I have an even more bizarre thought: one of Lorne's clients
will be Andy Hallet.
I can just picture it in my head: the demon and the human are
talking over some legal issue, someone comes in and offers them
some coffee, and, in unison, they say, "Thanks, sweetcheeks".
[> [> My fondest wish
-- ponygirl, 20:04:50 06/29/03 Sun
Is a kick-ass season opening sequence showing Angel enjoying his
glam new executive lifestyle set to the Future Bible Heroes song
"I'm A Vampire."
I never age and I'll never die
Unlike all the stars in the sky
I'll be young forever and why?
Cause I'm a vampire
Dear,
For whose victims I shed no tear
I am neither sweet nor sincere
And I'd rather drink blood than beer
Cause I'm a vampire
The sun will never touch me
I abhor its filthy light
I am the mistress of the damned
And of the children of the night
I have all the love I need
It is your blood I crave
I am the bitch goddess
From beyond your grave
I can turn into a bat
I can cast the evil eye
I have ever so much money,
I'm gorgeous, and I can fly
I survived the inquisition
Been a harlot, been a queen
Survived for 700 years
And I still look seventeen
I never age and I'll never die
Unlike all the stars in the sky
I'll be young forever and why?
Cause I'm a vampire
Hon,
One from whom you really should run
I despise the light of the sun
And I kill your kind just for fun
Cause I'm a vampire
Damn,
I am what? I am what I am
And I am impossibly glam
And I am happy as a clam
Cause I'm a vampire
Now you have to picture the lyrics above as being sung as an impossibly
perky 80's synth-pop hit. To see Angel driving around in one of
his many new cars with this song in the background would make
me so very happy! There's nothing more corrupting than a catchy
song...
[> Great review -- Valheru,
23:33:46 06/28/03 Sat
Between your reviews and Tchai's Odyssey, I find that I
have very little to say of AtS that wouldn't be redundant.
So instead, I can just read, nod my head, say "that's what
I thought!", and spend all that extra time looking at porn...uh,
corn!
Did anyone else find the opening scene of Lilah with the AI crew
deeply reminiscent, in characterisation and atmosphere if not
actual plot, of Lucifer handing Morpheus the key to Hell in Season
of Mists?
Ever since Home aired, I've been trying to put my finger
on where I've seen some of those themes before. Seasons of
Mist. Of course. Thanks for stirring my addled mind.
[> [> Home sweet Home
-- ponygirl, 17:44:02 06/29/03 Sun
Ever since Home aired, I've been trying to put my finger on
where I've seen some of those themes before. Seasons of Mist.
Of course. Thanks for stirring my addled mind.
Very interesting. I wonder too if the little girl of W&H was a
shout out to the princess of Chaos in Seasons. And if Angel will
have to face the Fury - I mean Furies for spilling the blood of
his son. Come to think of it Sandman would make a good model for
AtS. The weird family, the father/son issues, the desire to connect
to humanity, the old gods and monsters, and the renewal of life
through death. Hmm.
Great review, KdS! Home is my very favourite episode of AtS. Perfect
tragedy, lovely catharsis, and tears every time.
[> Character development
and Angel -- lunasea, 18:57:10 06/29/03 Sun
His actions regarding Connor seem to simply repeat his eternal
pattern of cutting himself off from people he cares about whenever
the relationship gets too potentially uncomfortable,
But that isn't the pattern I see in Angel, or at least its not
quite that simple. David Fury in a recent interview over at City
of Angel refered to Angel as unambiguously good, even in light
of season 2. That comment causes various boards and mailing lists
to light up. Are Angel's actions or decisions always good? Not
remotely. I don't think that is what Fury is refering to. Lilah
mentions in "Calvary" (I think) that taking the soul
of a champion causes big ripple. That is the part of Angel that
is unambiguously good. Even in Angel's darkest moment, when he
wants to lose his soul, he can't. There are two Angels. Not Angelus
and Angel, but rather the "real" Angel and what Angel
thinks he is. Fury is saying that this real Angel is good. To
me the show is about Angel finding out who this "real"
Angel is and that he isn't as bad as he thinks he is.
Lately, I have been thinking a lot about the Angel we saw in "Chosen."
We didn't get a chance to see much of Angel post-Orpheus. He was
sort of busy being an action hero. It is easy to say that Angel
didn't have a whole lot of character development, UNLESS you factor
in "Chosen."
Leaving Buffy in "Prom" and "Graduation" is
explained with Harry and Doyle in "Bachelor Party."
Joss said that when he got Buffy and Angel together in "Chosen"
he would remind people why they couldn't be together yet. All
the excuses he used in "Prom" are not there. Instead
we get Cookie Dough and the impression from Angel that he is ready
to try again. Talk about some major character development.
What brought about this character development? Angel doesn't just
retreat because he is uncomfortable. Every tough decision he makes
is because he is trying to be strong. It can be debated whether
what he does IS the right thing, but Angel does think it is and
he does try to do it. Whether that is committing suicide, leaving
Buffy, not letting her see him, having time folded, helping the
helpless, Faith or Darla, killing Cordy, killing Connor, etc.
Would Angel love to lose himself in Buffy, stay with her, etc?
Damn straight. Would he love to be able to keep his son? Need
I even ask such a silly question? For Angel it is all about finding
the strength to do the right thing, which push come to shove,
he always finds.
I am working on something about what Xander being the heart means.
It deals with courage on the level of facing external things,
like demons, as well as facing internal things, such as our own
personal demons. When Angel withdraws, it is because he fears
himself and what he will do. It goes a bit beyond discomfort.
He tried to kill Wesley. On the boat in "Deep Down"
he wanted to kill Connor. After the evil shag-fest, Angel got
rather physical and smashed things. Angel is the drunk that is
scared if he falls of the wagon, he will take that wagon and run
over his friends. That is why he withdraws. When he feels he is
a danger, "I'm so sorry. I give up. I'm going to go live
in the sewer."
There are two levels of courage at work here. The first is Angel
is finding the strength to remove the danger, himself, and do
what he considers to be the right thing. On that front, he is
very brave. The other front is discovering that he isn't weak.
It takes a lot of courage for someone to change his own self-image.
THAT is what happened this season. That sort of redefinition/character
development is required in order to go to a more serial approach
the show will take next season. Angel will not longer hold himself
accountable for what he did as Angelus. He doesn't feel like he
is such a danger to those around him. This season had several
themes running through it. The past was highlighted as was the
importance of free will. Free Will is how we overcome our pasts.
Angel has done this. I wouldn't say that this season lacked character
development. We just didn't get to see too much of it demonstrated
because of the Jasmine arc. He symbolically killed his past, by
killing Connor.
I wouldn't be surprised if we find out next season that the curse
is gone. Lilah mentions "handling Buffy." Angel comes
to Sunnydale and seems to be more open to them actually having
a relationship. Their interaction in "Chosen" is more
powerful if the curse is gone.
So his guilt over Angelus is gone. His fear of hurting those around
him is gone. Even the curse may be gone. Seems like a lot of character
development to me.
[> [> Re: Character development
and Angel -- Rina, 08:44:29 06/30/03 Mon
Do you know for a fact that the curse is gone? Is a souless Angel
capable of acquiring a soul for himself, for any reason?
[> [> [> Re: Character
development and Angel -- lunasea, 10:09:26 06/30/03 Mon
Is a souless Angel capable of acquiring a soul for himself,
for any reason?
Why do people harp on this? Angel starts his whole mission with
the idea that he doesn't want to feed again. It was a masterful
ME bait and switch. Same thing with Spike and his soul. They needed
him to get it so that they could take his character further and
so they used the obsessive, possessive, creepy, stalker vamp "love"
he had to motivate him to do it. It wasn't some higher motive
that unsouled vampires are NOT capable of.
But who cares. They both have them now (well we don't know if
Spike will still have it, though he probably will). That is what
is important.
Would Angelus go and seek his soul? Two answers. First is hell
no. He is too strong a character to go against his moral compass
like that. That is what Spike did. He gets approbation from some
for going against his moral compass. Spike seeking his soul is
no different than a good character going evil. Spike can do that
because he never really followed his moral compass. He is a fool
for love and his moral compass is overriden by whatever the object
of his obsession is. That is not remotely what Angel/us is. Angel/us
is about being his own man, which means that he follows his moral
compass. A soulless being isn't going to want to go good.
But ME are great writers and I have played with the idea myself.
Darla says that what they were as human informs the vampire they
become. In Buddhism, no karma affects us as greatly as the karma
we incur at the time of our death. I think vampires are the same
way. Whatever that last thought they have as a human has the greatest
effect on their being a vampire. This is speculation but it completely
fits with the vamping of the 4 major vampires that we have seen
(Darla, Angel, Dru, Spike). Angel's last thought was probably
"My father was right. He said if I kept this up, I would
find trouble." Spike's was probably "She really understands
and likes me."
Angel's vampire is about proving his father wrong and being someone.
So should ME want Angelus to go get his soul using Bait and Switch,
just like they did on Spike, they could use this. I don't remotely
see why they would want to, but they could. If Angelus were to
understand that he is more of a somebody and in less pain with
a soul, he would go and get it. Could Angelus understand this?
It would make an interesting arc about the nature of power being
creative and not destructive. I'm sure that ME could pull it off.
Heck, if I can, they can.
Angel is capable of whatever the writers say he is, just like
Spike is capable of whatever the writers say he is. One of my
favorite writer's quotes comes from Drew (Goddard I think). "When
will Spike be able to make independent choices? Never. The writers
will control him forever." ME are talented enough that they
can make their characters do pretty much anything and it will
still fit canon. I mean, Buffy slept with a soulless vampire for
a couple of months? Could anyone see that coming back in say season
1-5? Willow tried to destroy the world. Angelus requesting his
own soul is minor compared to some of the things ME has pulled
off.
It is just all these things require some massive set up, just
like Spike did (both with OOMM and FFL) to even not want to kill
Buffy any more. That is why the PPC are kept so busy. People forget
about this set up.
[> [> [> [> Ignore
this one. sorry about the double post -- lunasea, 10:15:40
06/30/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> Re:
Character development and Angel-disagree -- sdev, 21:53:12
06/30/03 Mon
"Would Angelus go and seek his soul? Two answers. First is
hell no. He is too strong a character to go against his moral
compass like that. That is what Spike did. He gets approbation
from some for going against his moral compass. Spike seeking his
soul is no different than a good character going evil. Spike can
do that because he never really followed his moral compass. He
is a fool for love and his moral compass is overriden by whatever
the object of his obsession is. That is not remotely what Angel/us
is. Angel/us is about being his own man, which means that he follows
his moral compass. A soulless being isn't going to want to go
good."
Let me try to understand this. Angelus gets credit for having
a "moral compass" for his principled stand in refusing
to be good in any way, "he is his own man."
Spike, on the other hand has no moral compass because he refuses
to stay evil and seeks a soul for whatever motivation, which is
still up for debate.
I must not be understanding the expression moral compass. Or maybe
the expression should be immoral compass. "Spike seeking
his soul is no different than a good character going evil."
I think in the Buffyverse there is all the difference in the world
between becoming good and becoming evil. Maybe both are in all
of us but we can choose to act on either impulse. That applies
to Angel who chooses to remain souled and do good and to Spike
who chose to get a soul and do good.
I really do not understand what you are saying here. I know that
I watch AtS and BtVS because they are constantly drawing a line
between good and evil. While many characters straddle the line,
some occasionally cross back and forth, one comes to mind as always
having been on the good side (Tara), many always on the evil side,
there is always a line. And it is the line and which side of it
you are on that is the dogma of the shows.
To me it does not signify which belief system you apply, Christianity,
Buddhism, humanism, etc. because the notion of good and evil are
in all belief systems.
One more point, you say, "they used the obsessive, possessive,
creepy, stalker vamp "love" he had to motivate him to
do it. It wasn't some higher motive that unsouled vampires are
NOT capable of." I assume you mean that Vampires are not
capable of a higher motivation in the Buffyverse JW and ME created.
But as you point out, "Angel is capable of whatever the writers
say he is, just like Spike is capable of whatever the writers
say he is." So I guess Spike was capable of a higher motivation
if the writers said so. They created the rules; I guess they can
change them.
[> [> [> [> [>
I think lunasea is working under the assumption . . . --
Finn Mac Cool, 22:07:53 06/30/03 Mon
That someone's drive to do evil while a vampire is proportional
to their drive to do good when they have a soul. Going under this
theory, Angelus being very dedicated towards evil means that Angel
is very dedicated towards good. Likewise, soulless Spike being
pretty much amoral rather than truly evil means that souled Spike
is pretty much amoral rather than good. The more evil the soulless
vampire is the better the souled version is. Spike seeking a soul
even though his natural bent is towards evil doesn't bear well
for souled Spike, since it means his morals are shakier, and he
could easily cross over to the evil side again.
Of course, this is all in theory.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Pretty close -- lunasea, 06:35:41 07/01/03 Tue
There is more to it than just the soul. It isn't like Liam/Angel/us
has this Uber soul that makes him into the Uber Champion. Same
thing with Buffy. What makes them into heroes is where the story
is for me. The soul is the "star you are guided by"
(per Joss). Whether you follow that star is determined by other
things. If you are going to follow one star, when it changes,
you are going to follow the new one equally, since what causes
you to follow it doesn't change.
How strongly they follow their moral compass is mutable. It goes
a bit beyond really bad = really good or really weak = really
weak. That Amulet of Magic Scrubbing Bubbles allows Spike to feel
his soul for the first time ever. Amoral Spike (though he does
have a morality, it is just based on what the object of his obsession
want. It is more WWBD instead of feeling something himself) should
come back oriented to good. If he doesn't, it sort of invalidates
what he did.
Then again, most of what we say is just theory. I can even quote
Joss and other writers and people will say "Well that isn't
what I see."
[> [> [> [> [>
How to compare apples and oranges -- lunasea, 05:55:21
07/01/03 Tue
When we talk about most literature, movies, comic books, and so
on, we are talking about characters that have basically the same
nature. We are comparing Red Delicious and Granny Smith apples,
at most. There are differences, but their cores are the same.
We can apply one standard of morality to them.
This is not the case with the Buffyverse. As similar as vamps/demons
and humans are, they differ in a very important way, the moral
compass. The human soul orients someone to good. Without it you
either get the immature morality of Clem or the evil nature of
vamps. This is their nature and is not their fault. When comparing
the two species in terms of morality, we are looking at apples
and oranges. Since we are an apple, we tend to use the characteristics
of apples to judge them by. How fair is that? This orange isn't
as good as that one because it isn't red enough or it is too orange.
That isn't how I look at the two fruits. When I go to the fruit
bowl, I want an orange that is a nice deep orange color, with
little discoloration. When I go and get an apple, we have red
delicious now, I look for an apple that is a strong red that has
little discoloration. Both fruits can rot and lose their coloration.
An orange that begins to rot is less orange. Does that make it
more desirable? It is just like an apple that beings to rot. I
will pass both up for that nice unblemished fruit.
In the Buffyverse, we have the added layer that an orange can
become an apple. It has happened 3 times. Since the moral compass
is just a switch and how the creature acts on it is determined
by other things, all that happens is the orange that is a nice
deep orange color becomes the apple that is nice deep red color.
The orange that is sort of greenish with bruises becomes the apple
that is the same way.
I am more interested in the nature of the species and how the
character lives up to that nature. An orange that tastes like
an apple has little appeal for me and I'm not going to eat it.
I am interested in what determines whether a character is a strong
color, not what color it is. That to me is where the story is.
As for vamps being motivated by a higher nature, Joss has come
out and said that vamps are not capable of altruism. It would
alter the entire fabric of the Buffyverse and sure they can change
what they have done, but then again Buffy could have a sex change
operation.
That is how I see the show. Good and evil aren't the story, but
a vehicle to it.
[> [> [> ME can do
anything -- lunasea, 10:12:54 06/30/03 Mon
Is a souless Angel capable of acquiring a soul for himself,
for any reason?
Why do people harp on this? Angel starts his whole mission with
the idea that he doesn't want to feed again. It was a masterful
ME bait and switch. Same thing with Spike and his soul. They needed
him to get it so that they could take his character further and
so they used the obsessive, possessive, creepy, stalker vamp "love"
he had to motivate him to do it. It wasn't some higher motive
that unsouled vampires are NOT capable of.
But who cares. They both have them now (well we don't know if
Spike will still have it, though he probably will). That is what
is important.
Would Angelus go and seek his soul? Two answers. First is hell
no. He is too strong a character to go against his moral compass
like that. That is what Spike did. He gets approbation from some
for going against his moral compass. Spike seeking his soul is
no different than a good character going evil. Spike can do that
because he never really followed his moral compass. He is a fool
for love and his moral compass is overriden by whatever the object
of his obsession is. That is not remotely what Angel/us is. Angel/us
is about being his own man, which means that he follows his moral
compass. A soulless being isn't going to want to go good.
But ME are great writers and I have played with the idea myself.
Darla says that what they were as human informs the vampire they
become. In Buddhism, no karma affects us as greatly as the karma
we incur at the time of our death. I think vampires are the same
way. Whatever that last thought they have as a human has the greatest
effect on their being a vampire. This is speculation but it completely
fits with the vamping of the 4 major vampires that we have seen
(Darla, Angel, Dru, Spike). Angel's last thought was probably
"My father was right. He said if I kept this up, I would
find trouble." Spike's was probably "She really understands
and likes me."
Angel's vampire is about proving his father wrong and being someone.
So should ME want Angelus to go get his soul using Bait and Switch,
just like they did on Spike, they could use this. I don't remotely
see why they would want to, but they could. If Angelus were to
understand that he is more of a somebody and in less pain with
a soul, he would go and get it. Could Angelus understand this?
It would make an interesting arc about the nature of power being
creative and not destructive. I'm sure that ME could pull it off.
Heck, if I can, they can.
Angel is capable of whatever the writers say he is, just like
Spike is capable of whatever the writers say he is. One of my
favorite writer's quotes comes from Drew (Goddard I think). "When
will Spike be able to make independent choices? Never. The writers
will control him forever." ME are talented enough that they
can make their characters do pretty much anything and it will
still fit canon. I mean, Buffy slept with a soulless vampire for
a couple of months? Could anyone see that coming back in say season
1-5? Willow tried to destroy the world. They gave Buffy a teenaged
sister (now the criticisms of that aren't that she is even there,
but that she wasn't developed enough. Talk about pulling it off).
Angelus requesting his own soul is minor compared to some of the
things ME has pulled off.
It is just all these things require some massive set up, just
like Spike did (both with OOMM and FFL) to even not want to kill
Buffy any more. That is why the PPC are kept so busy. People forget
about this set up.
[> [> [> [> Very,
very nice -- KdS, 16:07:40 06/30/03 Mon
[> Re: The bloody coward,
at the Front (Spoilers to "Home")-nice parable --
sdev, 00:15:20 06/30/03 Mon
[> Senior Partner speculation
-- Finn Mac Cool, 15:52:20 06/30/03 Mon
What if there aren't any Senior Partners? What if Mesektet, the
White Room Girl, was actually the really head honcho of Wolfram
& Hart?
When she was killed by the Beast, Wesley said that the earthly
contingents of Wolfram & Hart were disconnected from the Senior
Partners. What if that's because there are no Senior Partners,
and Mesektet was only pretending to deliver their messages? Why
would she do that? Simple: she wanted a lot of minions to help
her carry out whatever evil plans she had, but she realized that
a single, visible bad guy makes a prime target for warriors of
good. So, instead, she claims to be simply a messeger with contacts
to vaguely defined, higher dimensional beings. She gets to rule
over Wolfram & Hart by disguising her own orders as commands from
the Senior Partners and is relatively safe from assassination
since none of the good guys believe she's anything more than a
messenger. It's really a genius plan.
This could also explain why Wolfram & Hart offered Angel Investigations
control of their LA branch. Mesektet died in "Habeas Corpses",
so Wolfram & Hart had to acquire a new messenger for the Senior
Partners, thus they rounded up the panther being we saw in "Home".
The panther, however, realizes that Mesketet was the real power
behind Wolfram & Hart, and so takes over the firm for itself.
Since W&H is (unknowingly) under new management, it stands to
reason they would take a different tact towards Angel Investigations.
In fact, the panther could have a very different agenda from Mesektet,
perhaps even a less unambigously evil one.
If this theory is true, then we must wonder about Gunn: if he
was possessed by the panther (as seems a likely possibility),
than one of Angel Investigations could now be the leader of Wolfram
& Hart in all its forms and dimensions.
Just a theory, though.
[> [> Mesektet --
Debaser, 16:25:07 06/30/03 Mon
I dunno if anyone else has pointed this out, but was the little
girl in Connor's new family played by the same actress as the
girl in the White Room?
Is In The
Dark Self-flaggelation-IWRY contd. -- sdev, 14:47:12 06/28/03
Sat
I wanted to ask some questions and address some of your points.
"I don't think the theme is that for the good of the world
and in order to help others he must put himself out there. I think
that is how Doyle got him to do it. What the PTB are making is
an Uber-Champion that will be needed in a paricular apocalypse
that has been prophecied."
How does this relate to this early episode of AtS? That theme
is an anachronism. The Uber-Champion part did not yet exist in
In the Dark. And Angel had no idea of it yet.
"He does it because he doesn't have enough faith in himself
that he will continue to help the helpless if he keeps the Gem.
Angel believes that he was brought back for a reason."
I don't understand this. Why? What about having the ring would
change his agenda? Why wouldn't having the ring give him added
ability to "help the helpless"?
"In "In the Dark" he doesn't smash the ring to
keep punishing himself. He does it because he doesn't have enough
faith in himself that he will continue to help the helpless if
he keeps the Gem."
And if you are correct isn't it fair to fault him for this weakness
when a couple of episodes later he is returning his humanity for
power to enable him to save the world?
"Is it selfish for him to go with this reason? Not how one
typically thinks of the word."
I acknowledged my unusual perspective. Nevertheless when his whole
focus is on himself, which you confirmed by saying his reasons
for smashing the ring was because he lacked faith in himself,
to the exclusion of the added benefit the ring would bring to
the world (my addition), that is selfish. Maybe his judgment of
his own weakness is correct and he needs to act in that way to
protect himself from himself. Still selfish, not yet the stuff
that saves the world from the apocalypse. He cannot for whatever
reason, his own weakness perhaps, think outside himself of the
larger picture. Maybe the ring should have been returned to Buffy.
Call it the conservationist in me, I hate to see that ring, another
tool, another instrument of power, destroyed. Buffy felt the same
way, so if I am in anyone else's POV I suspect it is hers. Certainly
not Spike's at this point in time. Buffy uses whatever outside
aid, instruments she can get- a quick incomplete survey- Troll
Hammer, Dagosphere, Scythe, Amulet. I wince when I see him destroy
that ring.
"How does Rachel fit your observations?"
I did not mean to suggest that Angel does no good or is not struggling
to do good. Clearly he is trying, but he has severe internal limitations.
Isn't that the point? He does not take his own advice to Rachel
in In the Dark, "You're at a crossroads, I know. It's either
go for the easy fix and wait for the consequences, or take the
hard road and go with faith." For him I guess the hard road
would be to keep the ring extant and have some faith in himself.
I also wanted to address something from an earlier post. You said,
"Buffy didn't die season 5 to save the world. She did it
to save Dawn."
I don't believe this is accurate. Buffy could have taken Dawn
down from the tower and not jumped, done nothing. But she opted
to save the world. To save the world from being engulfed by the
hell dimension she had only one of two choices -1) sacrifice Dawn
or 2) sacrifice herself.
Some info
about Spike and Dawn in season 7 from Jane E. -- ECH, 15:59:41
06/28/03 Sat
One thing that has been annoying me in recient days is that Jane
E. said at the past convention in the UK that Dawn never forgave
Spike for the AR because she didn't know about the nature of their
relationship, (the no means yes and the violence and abuse) and
all she knew was that Spike and Buffy were together and he tried
to rape her, but Buffy was well aware of the factors that helped
to cause it and that she knew that he didn't mean to hurt her
which was why she forgave him. This pissed me off because Buffy
knew that Spike and Dawn were good friends, then why didn't she
tell her sister that it wasn't black and white and try to explain
to her an edited version of what happened between herself and
Spike. Because, all Dawn and Xander know of Spuffy was that they
had sex and he tried to rape her. Was Buffy too embarrassed to
tell her sister or anyone else anything about her sex life?
[> Dawn knew rough sex was
happening -- Miss Edith, 16:25:51 06/28/03 Sat
In Him when complaining about not being as cool as her big sister
she talks of Buffy having had rough sex. But Buffy always tended
to talk of the things Spike did to her/the things he made her
do hence Dawn still thinking badly of Spike.
Besides isn't that just an easy excuse from the writers? I heard
that in a commentry Marti and David Fury said Dawn and Spike were
seperated after Bargaining because the actors had to much chemistry
when working together, and they didn't want the audience to latch
on to it. The friendship wasn't even concluded properly, I felt
insulted in SR when Dawn asks Spike why he stopped coming around
and the writers at the time said the audience should just imagine
that S/D still had interaction. The friendship was dropped as
quickly as possible after season 5 from what I could see.
[> [> Re: Dawn knew rough
sex was happening -- ECH, 17:00:44 06/28/03 Sat
From the origional script of Him, Anya was the one that was supposed
to have told Dawn about rough Spike sex, but that part of the
script was cut, while the rest was left in. So, Dawn according
to the origional scriped learned about the rough sex from Anya.
[> [> [> Dawn Never
Forgave Spike? -- Rina, 08:21:58 06/30/03 Mon
I am aware that the Spike/Dawn friendship died sometime during
Seasons 6 and 7, and that Dawn was angry at Spike for the attempted
rape.
But I find it hard to believe that she never forgave him. Her
defense of Spike, while talking to Andrew in "Showtime",
her crack about his smoking in "Storyteller" and her
concern for him in "Lies My Parents Told Me", seemed
to hint otherwise. I think she did forgive him, but their close
friendship simply never resumed.
[> [> Re: Dawn knew rough
sex was happening -- Miss Edith, 19:36:40 06/28/03 Sat
Whoops I meant in SR that Dawn asks Spike if he will stop coming
around, not as I orginally typed why he doesn't come around any
more. Hence my feeling shortchanged as no S/D interaction had
occured on-screen and the writers expected us to simply fill in
the blanks, and believe a meaningful friendship was still occuring
right up until the AR. Lazy.
[> Could it be... SHAME?
-- Q, 16:49:06 06/28/03 Sat
>>because Buffy knew that Spike and Dawn were good friends,
then why didn't she tell her sister that it wasn't black and white
and try to explain to her an edited version of what happened between
herself and Spike<<
Maybe because every weak, weak, woman who has ever stood up to
excuse her rapist or domestic abuser has used this EXACT argument!!
Why not tell Dawn it was her fault? She shouldn't dress the way
she does-- she shouldn't lead him on-- she shouldn't get him angry
or "crazy"-- She shouldn't have said no when she ends
up "doing" yes in the past?
Or tell Dawn it wasn't Spikes fault? He'd been drinking, he wasn't
sure what he was doing-- He was emotionally confused and damaged--
she had led him on too much for him to know the difference between
no and yes-- etc.
The fact is, that EVERY excuse Spike apologists use on line to
defend him, is used by rapists and wife-beaters in courts of law
every day. And often by battered women who stand by their men.
Spike's situation may be more complex than "black or white"--
and so are most rape and battery situations in real life-- it
doesn't make it remotely stomachable, and hardly forgivable.
Maybe Buffy doesn't tell anybody because she knows he shouldn't
be forgiven! If the new soul isn't enough for people, then nothing
should be, because that is the ONLY thing saving him from being
a sexual criminal.
[> [> Re: Could it be...
SHAME? -- ECH, 17:15:37 06/28/03 Sat
Ummmm, I just said that Jane E. said that Buffy knew Spike didn't
mean to hurt her and that it wasn't black and white based on their
past history of sexual violence and no meaning yes, which was
why according to Jane E. that Buffy was able to forgive him. Jane
E. also thought that soul or no soul that Buffy thought of Spike
as the same person that attacked her, (and this jibes with the
line in Touched about him always having a problem with the word
no), but according to Jane E. she forgave him because she knew
about her part in the whole thing and she knew he didn't really
want to hurt her or have sex with her without her consent. Joss
has said the same thing, that Spike wasn't planning to have sex
with Buffy without her consent and really didn't understand the
boundries between rape and their violent sex games.
Now, I would have been happy if Buffy had only told Dawn a very
limited and edited version of the events like that Spike didn't
really want to hurt me and things got violent and out of control
between both of us. The fact that all Dawn knows of B/S is that
they had violent sex and he tried to rape her (and Spike likes
rough sex from a deleted script scene with Anya) annoys me.
[> [> [> Protecting
Dawn is more important -- Dariel, 17:55:45 06/28/03 Sat
I just can't imagine Dawn and Buffy having this conversation.
I think Buffy wanted to protect Dawn, virginal Dawn who's never
even had a boyfriend, from the darker aspects of sex. What Spike
and Buffy had went beyond "rough sex"; it was mutually
abusive and unhealthy. Dawn is just too young to hear about this
from the person who is essentially her mother figure.
Also, in Him, Buffy does defend Spike a bit; she tells
Dawn that Spike knew that he had done something wrong, that that's
why he went to get the soul. In the next episode, Buffy takes
Spike into her house, and a few episodes later, rescues him from
the FE. Buffy shows Dawn that she has forgiven Spike. That should
be enough.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Protecting Dawn is more important -- ECH, 18:11:12 06/28/03
Sat
I never said that she would have to get into the darker aspects
of her relationship in a conversation with Dawn. All I said was
she could give her a highly edited version PG version of what
happened and basically just tell her that things between me and
Spike got violent and out of control and he never really wanted
to hurt me. And, I disagree that was enough because as Jane E.
said Buffy could forgive Dawn because she knew it wasn't his intent
to hurt her, but Dawn never knew that so she could never forgive
him.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Kinda agree with Dariel -- Artemis, 18:25:29 06/28/03
Sat
I tend to agree that the conversation in "Him" is enough.I
guess we would need more if we saw Dawn after this point being
cruel or mean to Spike, but that's not the case. We don't see
anything really after this point that can tell the audience what
there relationship is like. All we can say is that we are not
shown anything. The relationship is not bad or good just not seen.
JMHO
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Kinda agree with Dariel -- ECH, 18:38:14 06/28/03
Sat
My point was the Jane E. said that Dawn couldn't forgive Spike
because she didn't know that Spike didn't really want to hurt
her, but Buffy was aware of that fact and it was why she could
forgive him. I know that we never saw Dawn and Spike talk to each
other after BY. My point was that one of the writers has said
that Dawn couldn't forgive him because of what she didn't know.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Writers -- Artemis, 19:08:10 06/28/03
Sat
Sorry, ECH
I can see why you might want and need this exchange between Dawn
and Buffy if basing it on Janes comments. Yet over the years I
have come to think of some of the writers comments, especially
if they are not discussing over-all themes, as being just opinions
and not fact.If every episode this season was written by just
Jane then I would have to accept that what she says about Dawns'
feelings is fact. But right now it just seems like her opinion.
If it was the shows intent to show that Dawn had not forgiven
Spike I don't think they did a very good job. What I think they
did well is to leave it open to interpretation.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Writers -- Miss Edith, 19:47:18
06/28/03 Sat
To me Dawn came across as someone who doesn't hate or like Spike,
she just seemed pretty much indifferent towards him. Other than
her threat in BY to keep away from Buffy, she seemed to treat
Spike as a casual aquiantance on the rare occasions they did interact.
He came across as simply her older sister's boyfriend who she
is unsure of based on his rep, but doesn't really know much about.
Whether that jibes with Spike supposedly spending an entire summer
helping to care for Dawn is debatable.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> The problem with Dawn -- s'kat,
21:42:21 06/28/03 Sat
I think the difficulty is that the writers did not have enough
time to deal with Dawn and Dawn's relationships and still do the
whole SIT plot and Buffy's story and it was after all the Buffy
show.
Here's what Whedon said in his recent interview regarding Dawn,
which by the way echoes the salon interview and others, on how
he wished they could spend more time on the actress but just did
not have the time to do so. There are after all only 43 min in
each episode, 22 in all, with six regular characters so it can
be tricky.
"IGNFF: Are there any characters that you think got short-shrift
in season seven?
WHEDON: Yeah. You know, I had wanted to go further with Dawn's
character.
IGNFF: It seemed like that's how the season was starting out.
WHEDON: You know, it was. The problem was, again, we had so much
work to do to get to the end of the season, that everything else
kind of fell by the wayside. Unfortunately, Michelle was like,
"Never did get that boyfriend you promised me!"
IGNFF: What was the purpose of Joyce's statement to her?
WHEDON: To rattle her. To make her wonder, and then, you know,
it was just this sort of said thing. The First trying to set everybody
against each other, was all, and I guess against themselves. But
I just think Michelle's extremely talented. In season six, people
were like, "Oh, she whines so much." I sort of scratched
my head. I was like, "Excuse me, she's been abandoned by
about six parental figures. The girl has huge issues." At
the same time I was like, "You get it... we sort of run the
same note for a while, they're not wrong." We needed to make
some changes. I'd hoped to be able to do more with Dawn this year,
and the bigger picture just got so goddamn big, that it was hard.
You get into a situation that you do like to stand alone, that's
about an external character - and we already had so many with
the goddamn potentials... people don't like them. You're like,
"I'm really interested in this little aspect of Dawn's life"
- if it's not part of the bigger picture, people resent it. It's
very hard to pull that off in season seven of the giant battle
that's coming. "Dawn Goes on a Date" is not something
that people would really sit for, unless we really nailed it.
So it kind of fell by the wayside. She's not the only one, but
she's a prime example."
This echoes Martis comments regarding S6 as well. They'd wanted
to explore her but couldn't. And they also didn't want to do too
much with Dawn and Spike - partly b/c of the threat of repeating
the Buffy/Angel storyline and partly b/c of the fact that it didn't
add to the theme they were focusing on which was alienation and
not taking responsibility - a separate theme from S5. S5 really
leant itself to the Spike/Dawn friendship - b/c focus of that
season was a) on Dawn, b) on family, and c) on the idea of Buffy's
platonic famial relationships and love. Buffy's love that year
was Dawn - so they in a way had Buffy and Spike connect through
Dawn as opposed to each other - b/c it fit the theme. In S6, Buffy
and Spike are in an abusive sexual relationship and no one is
connecting - it's all about disconnection and alienation and lust
and the struggle. So Dawn's role was to be the alienated teen
who is begging for attention and not getting any. For Spike to
have shown her much in S6 - wouldn't have leant to that theme
or made sense. S7 is about Buffy feeling powerful, but alone,
it's about trying to rebuild connections, but Dawn at this point
is too old for Spike to play babysitter for or trusted confidant.
Also Spike with a soul - would stay away from Dawn, he's feel
guilty and not want to taint her. HE hates himself. Dawn also
would stay away from Spike - particularly after the whole trigger
mess. She's not going to feel comfortable around him for numerous
reasons, the attack on Buffy, the leaving of Sunnydale, the being
nuts in the basement, the trigger, heck the one time she does
come within shooting distance of him after Him, he almost kills
her - LMPTM. If I was Dawn? I'd stay the heck away from Spike.
Also remember Dawn/Xander/Buffy bonded over the summer. So she
shifted from being dependant on Spike to Xander - which also makes
sense after the events of Grave. Logically having the Dawn/Spike
scene, while I personally would have loved it, didn't work towards
S7's theme or further their plot-arc or really make sense for
the two characters in the situation they were in. IF the writers
had more time and an eight season - than yeah, we might have seen
something.
Just my ten cents for what it's worth.
sk
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Plus, prior to "Seeing Red",
Dawn could best be described as a Spike Redemptionist -- Finn
Mac Cool, 21:49:41 06/28/03 Sat
Spike getting a soul didn't mean as much to Dawn as it did to
Buffy, because Dawn belived that Spike was good without a soul,
so the addition of one didn't seem important to her. This makes
coming to be OK with Spike after he tried to rape Buffy harder
for her than for others.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Agreed...what about Willow/Dawn??
-- s'kat, 23:38:54 06/28/03 Sat
Dawn actually explains her views regarding Spike very well in
HIM, where she states - that Xander hurt Anya with a soul, Warren
killed Tara with a soul, Willow almost destroyed the world with
a soul...
Dawn is confused. Lord who wouldn't be? Considering what she's
been through. And in S5 she went through a period wondering if
she was good or had a soul. (Although some people do wonder if
teens have souls ;-) which may have been a metapohor.)
No, Dawn sees the world in blacks and whites. You hurt someone
- I don't forgive you unless you give me a REALLY
good reason too. Xander - saved the world in Grave and regained
her trust. Willow regains it (probably off-screen)
between STSP - CwDP. Actually I'm more upset about not getting
a Dawn/Willow scene come to think of it. Forget Spike - Willow
tried to kill Dawn, how come Dawn forgave her and didn't throw
a protest??? Huh? That's one plot hole that ME left open that
still nags at me.
Spike - let's face it just threatened to sexually violate Buffy
(hmmm not like he's never done that before - season 2? And she
threw him off no problem.) Willow threatened to turn Dawn back
into a glowly ball of energy and end life as Dawn knew it. Plus
Willow comes back and takes over Dawn's role shoving her out of
the research for almost five episodes??
Yep, the Dawn/Willow thing bugged me. I understood the Spike thing.
I couldn't imagine Spike speaking to or trying to explain himself
to Dawn. And what Buffy did in HIM?
That made sense. More? Naw. But I did expect more on Dawn/Willow.
I think Willow's storyline was the one that got resolved too quickly.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Would *very* much
have liked more Willow/Dawn. -- HonorH, 01:03:42 06/29/03
Sun
And again, I think that's something that got the short shrift
due to time constraints. Willow did have the good fortune of being
a longer-term friend than Spike, and her going evil had a specific
cause, and I think that helped, but we really could've used a
few eps to explore them being jumpy around each other and finally
coming to terms.
I think we needed another season is what I think.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreed
-- Miss Edith, 06:46:23 06/29/03 Sun
I was surprised that Buffy even had Willow and Dawn sharing a
house as at the end of season 6 I was convinced Willow would be
living with Xander. Yes Willow was high on magic, but she still
made some hurtful comments about being sick of Dawn's whining
over her dead mother and sister. Dawn should had more of a problem
with that.
When people return form rehab they generally have to work their
asses off at making amends to the people they hurt. Yet as Amy
says Willow tried to destory the world and it was no big deal,
everyone still loved her. Willow deserved a much more interesting
story arc than that.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Plus, prior to "Seeing
Red", Dawn could best be described as a Spike Redemptionist
-- ECH, 23:40:09 06/28/03 Sat
Well the AR wasn't caused by Spike's evilness, I mean I doubt
that the female writer whose attack on her boyfriend the scene
was based on is a inharently evil or even a bad person. There
are more then one kind of AR, Spike could have tried to rape her
as an act of hate to hurt or dominate her which would have been
an evil act. Or, he could have done it just because he wanted
sex and just didn't give a sh*t if she wanted it or not. But,
the AR in SR was different according to both Joss and Jane E.
in that Spike never meant to force sex on Buffy without her consent.
Joss said that Spike because of his lack of a soul couldn't tell
the difference between their S & M games and outright rape. Jane
E. stance was a little different in that she implied the AR was
caused by the nature of their relationship, ie. the violent sex
and the no means yes crap was what lead to his lack of comprehension
that Buffy didn't want sex from him anymore.
I agree with you Finn Mac Cool that Dawn belived that Spike was
good without a soul, and that the addition of one didn't seem
important to her. The point I was trying to make is that there
are many different kinds of attempted rape. There is the really
evil kind where one does it to hurt or dominate someone. There
is the sick vile scumbag kind where a guy wants sex and doesn't
give a sh*t if the girl is consenting or not. And, there is actually
are some rare cases where the lines of consent become confused
and one partner actually trys to force sex on the other partner
without truely understanding that their significant other doesn't
want it. This is the situation that Buffy and Spike were in according
to Joss and Jane E.. In this situation both partners end up hurt
and damaged by the AR in that the partner that almost raped his
or her significant other may feel terrible about what happened.
And, the partner that was almost raped may feel violated and terrible
that things came to this. There is no truely evil or inharently
bad member of the third type of AR, they both end up victims.
Jane E. seems to think they were victims of their own relationship
(like I said before the violent sex and the no means yes) and
Joss seems to think or at least has said that they were victims
of Spike's lack of a soul, which according to him prevented Spike
from understanding that Buffy really didn't want sex from him
in SR.
My point in bringing this up is that Dawn knows that Spike tried
to rape Buffy, but in no way knew which one of the three the AR
fell under. I am willing to bet that she thought it was the second
one, that Spike just was horny and didn't give a s*it that Buffy
didn't want it. But, Dawn just as easily could have thought it
was the first situation, where Spike was pissed off with Buffy
for dumping him and wanted to hurt her/dominate her. That is the
main reason why I would have liked Buffy to clairify things with
Dawn a bit more. She didn't have to get into the sorted details,
just simply explain to her that Spike didn't really want to hurt
her and felt horrible about it. I have personally been a sort
of victim of the third case rare as it may be, and I can't say
I held it against the person or that it affected me emotionally
much at all, there aren't that many people out there that are
into really violent sex without any rules, all I want to say about
it is that it can really bite you on the ass if you aren't careful
in a violent relationship and you don't set down some kind of
guidelines with your partner. One thing I do know is that unless
you are in this kind of situation it would be very hard to relate
to it.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Plus, prior to
"Seeing Red", Dawn could best be described as a Spike
Redemptionist -- HonorH, 01:00:14 06/29/03 Sun
While I understand what you're saying, the problem is: did Buffy
even fully understand why Spike did what he did, and if so, could
Dawn sort it out in her mind? That's not easy at my age, let alone
15-16. Furthermore, Buffy *does* say in "Him" something
very similar to what you said--that Spike knew what he did was
wrong, and that's why he got the soul. So she does explain, but
only once time and distance have made it easier for her.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Plus, prior
to "Seeing Red", Dawn could best be described as a Spike
Redemptionist -- s'kat, 10:19:03 06/29/03 Sun
did Buffy even fully understand why Spike did what he did,
and if so, could Dawn sort it out in her mind? That's not easy
at my age, let alone 15-16. Furthermore, Buffy *does* say in "Him"
something very similar to what you said--that Spike knew what
he did was wrong, and that's why he got the soul. So she does
explain, but only once time and distance have made it easier for
her.
I think she did after the events of HIM. HIM in an odd way made
her a little more aware of her own behavior the previous year
- note what happens in the episode that takes place immediately
after HIM and how Buffy's dealings with Spike seem to change.
So what happened in HIM that changed her views? Well under a lust
spell - Buffy and her friends do rather violent and evil things
to get someone. They can't see past their own desires. Buffy's
actions are amongst the worst of the bunch.
She forces herself on the guy - not that he's complaining, but
in the scene Xander walks in on, RJ is lying somewhat bewildered
on a table with Buffy on top of him. Then later, she decides to
try and kill Wood for RJ. Spike barely stops her. Her last comment
to Dawn is in effect -"if you think this is nuts and embarrasing,
imagine how you'd feel if it wasn't a spell..." This is in
the same episode where she tells Dawn that Spike realized he shouldn't
have tried to force himself on her - by leaving and getting a
moral compass/soul. The lust spell could be seen as a metaphor
for soulless love from four angles.
Next episode - CWDP. In this episode, Buffy confides to Holden
her mixed feelings about spike and their relationship. Admitting
her confusion about it. And her own
shame at what she did to and with Spike. "I behaved like
a monster...yet by the same token, I almost let him take me over.
And the joke of it is, he loved me, in his own sick soulless way
he really did care. But I didn't want to be loved...I wanted to
be punished." I think this line of dialogue shows us that
she has realized that her desire to be punished last year and
her sexual relationship with Spike and his soulless state/love
for and obsession with her, lead to what happened in Seeing Red.
Perhaps her own experience under the RJ love spell - gave her
added insight into Spike?
This whole topic was an incredibly risky and ambitious one for
ME to explore - since the majority of the population probably
has no experience with it (ie. S&M sex games)
or if they do, doesn't want to deal with it. Also most of the
viewers are a little too young to concieve of let alone understand
a relationship like this one. So in some ways, I think Dawn may
be a stand-in for those viewers. IF that is the case? I think
they copped out - in not exploring Dawn's reactions to it more.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Unfortunately,
the series wasn't All About Dawn. -- HonorH, 10:54:08 06/29/03
Sun
Which is I think the root of this discussion. We're all to some
degree left unsatisfied by Dawn's relationships this season, and
the reason for that is that she wasn't the focus a great deal
of the time. I'm honestly not sure how they could've crammed in
all of Dawn's reactions to everything that happened--they were
too busy being in Buffy's pov.
Anyway, that's what fanfic is for, one supposes. Out, darn bunnies,
out!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dawn
the Mundane Key -- fresne, 23:04:42 06/29/03 Sun
Alas and alack yes.
It's occurred to me in the midst of all this discussion that what
I really would have liked to have seen is Dawn's reaction to Kennedy.
Or rather, in my head, to have Dawn stand for the W/T contingent
in the audience longing for past days.
Dawn was close to Tara. Shared shaped pancakes and talks and sat
over her dead body in the dark. No abandonment. All connection.
Willow so grieved for Tara that she almost cracked the world.
Went mad. Went bad. Went evil. Okay, it's a phase. Dawn deals
because it is linked to the loss of this wonderful loving woman.
It would be a Shakespearian tragedy, if only there were iambs.
In a black and white teenage world, Willow's grief should be unending.
What then when it wasn't. And even more when Kennedy is included
in planning sessions, where Dawn is not. Is a Potential, which
Dawn is not. Gets to train other Potentials, while Dawn is pushed
aside to watch.
It might have been interesting to see Ted or DMP from the other
side of the Joyce mirror. And then that gradual widening into
a more adult world view. Or not. Maybe just a flash as Dawn sees
moments of genuine affection between the budding couple that have
nothing to do with sorrow or gain.
I can see it in my head. Live journal entries starting with Dawn's
list of the top 100 things she hates about Kennedy. 1-50, she's
not Tara. Then on and on. Complaints. Slights. Then over time,
random moments of connection. We connect or we divide.
You know, I can't think of a single season that has so filled
my head with possibilities. Negative space. Yes, where can I order
my two season's worth of episodes in S7?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
What a great idea! -- HonorH, 23:39:36 06/29/03 Sun
Please write it up, fresne. I'll be sitting here waiting.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Negative space indeed -- s'kat, 10:27:52 06/30/03 Mon
You know, I can't think of a single season that has so filled
my head with possibilities. Negative space. Yes, where can I order
my two season's worth of episodes in S7?
I think you just touched on why Btvs left me...feeling less than
satisfied and very obsessed in seasons 6-7, while in S1-5, I didn't
feel that way.
This is a bit controversial...so hopefully I won't start a huge
flurry of posts, or it's so far off the board, no one will notice
it...In any case, I'll start with the caveat - that what follows
is in NO way meant to be a condemnation of fanfic writing or the
medium. (I don't think it reads that way, but you never know how
your words will be interpreted). IT is merely an explanation of
why writing fanfic or reading it does not help me with this feeling
of negative space and the suggestion to write it as a means of
filling the blanks is beginning to get on my nerves. (Partially
because I have a huge writers block as it is and am trying to
deal with it.
One brought on by a sudden loss in confidence regarding my own
writing ability.)Anyways - again with the caveat - PLEASE do not
take any of the below as a condemnation of any fanfic or fanfic
writing.
************************************
I know, lots of posters see this as a brilliant opportunity to
write and share fanfic and that's a wonderfully positive way of
looking at it. (PArticularly if you love fanfic, most fanfic unfortunately
leaves me cold or just aching for more of the actual story from
the original creators. I have the same problem with published
novelizations like Nancy Holder's Chosen - so it's not just fans.
I read fanfic, but not to fill in gaps. It never works for me,
it just well emphasizes what I wish I saw on the screen. Instead
of watching an episode devoted to whiny SIT's or Andrew's storytelling,
could I have had one on Dawn and Willow and Buffy??) It's sort
of like the feeling you get when you had a wonderful meal at a
restaurant but you're still craving something, you're still hungry.
Or you order that wonderful dessert, but it lacks something...but
you don't quite know what.
I've felt this way before of course. Elizabeth PEters novels about
Vicki Bliss really left me with that feeling.
So has Star Wars. It's not that I want to know everything, but
I'd like to at least get a sense of where all the characters are
coming from or how it's wrapped up. And I didn't get that in S6-7.
Not really. I saw more negative from certain characters than positive.
For instance, I loved all the characters dearly in S1-5, not one
I disliked, I saw both sides of things. I loved Dawn in S5.
But in S6-7, I struggled - which may have been part of the reason
I wrote over 40 essays - it was part of my attempt to fill in
gaps and figure the characters out and see them in a positive
way. Just like others wrote fanfic. And don't get me wrong - I
adore ambiguity and gaps in fiction - I like filling them in.
BUT - when the gaps get so wide that it would take another whole
season of episodes to fill them in? Something is wrong. Also,
somewhere along the way I ached for the gaps to be filled in so
I could start liking and caring about certain characters again.
I found it tough to like Dawn or Buffy in S6-7. Anya who was one
of my all time favorite characters - became increasingly annoying
in S7. And the list goes on. At the end of S6, I figured these
gaps would be filled in S7, but they weren't, they just seemed
to get bigger and more characters fell by the wayside to make
room for new flatter characters.
While I like fanfic...it doesn't really fill in those gaps.
And for that reason? I'm not sure I can say S7 or S6 really lived
up to their potential. In a way, I wonder if they would have if
the writers had more time and Whedon had been less tired of the
enterprise. Don't know. But it is something I'll definitely keep
in mind while working on my own writing - the necessity of wrapping
up plot-threads, not losing characters, and not inserting so many
characters that others do get lost.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> The Pros and Cons of Fanficcing -- cjl (with apologies
to Roger Waters), 11:25:29 06/30/03 Mon
"I read fanfic, but not to fill in gaps. It never works for
me, it just well emphasizes what I wish I saw on the screen...
It's sort of like the feeling you get when you had a wonderful
meal at a restaurant but you're still craving something, you're
still hungry. Or you order that wonderful dessert, but it lacks
something...but you don't quite know what."
Can't blame you for that reaction, 'kat. Fanfic may have the imprimatur
of the creator of the series, but it will always feel like a second-class
citizen, a stepchild of the original creation. Timothy Zahn's
STAR WARS novels might be a better extension of George Lucas'
univere than Lucas' own prequels--but with Episode III looming
large, legions of Jedi geeks aren't burning up the 'net breathlessly
discussing Zahn's next foray into SW territory.
When you have Joss Whedon throwing out choice plot tidbits during
story meetings, or George Lucas behind the camera in Tunisia,
you know you're getting your daily dose of modern mythology from
the source. Anything else is either a fan's or a hired gun's approximation
of what that mythology should be, reflected through the previously
aired episodes or films. It's twice-removed from the fountainhead--a
xerox of a xerox.
[Similarly, I've noticed that when the original creator/executive
producer leaves a TV series, I sometimes get the same "xerox
of a xerox" impression I get from fanfic or professional
novelizations: the characters are there on the page or on the
screen, but something of their essence has been lost. When Diane
English left Murphy Brown after five or six seasons, the new production
staff completely lost all the characters, and they devolved from
vibrant exaggerations of genuine mass media personality types
into total cartoons.]
OTOH....
Sometimes, the holes in the mythology get to you. Fresne's "negative
space" envelops you, and you have to fight back any way you
know how. The best fanfic doesn't rehash the old romances; it
picks up ideas left unexplored by the series, and either ties
them together with other neglected ideas so that the fictional
universe is given a new sense of cohesiveness, or it sends these
ideas off in entirely new directions.
I don't write fanfic too often. It takes a lot to get me off my
butt and commit to writing something I don't own. Personally,
I came out of Season 7 thinking about the opportunities missed
with Anya, and I. Just. Snapped. I had to write down what she
was doing or thinking during those months of waiting around for
the apocalypse, because I wasn't getting it from Joss. It's good
to vent your frustrations in a constructive fashion. But more
than that, the act of writing itself is never pointless. Even
if your fanfic doesn't change what happened in the actual Buffyverse
one iota, at least you're working through your issues, pondering
the ideas Joss put into your head, polishing your craft.
Just don't turn into "Baby"....
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> That isn't why I write -- lunasea, 11:53:14
06/30/03 Mon
To be honest, I prefer Zahn's stuff to the pablum that Lucas has
been pedeling. When I am rooting for Amidela to die just so the
movie will be over (even though I know she won't die), there are
some serious problems. The commercials for ILM that episodes 1
and 2 have been have done nothing to remotely spur my imagination.
ILM did a great job with "The Mummy," but they remembered
that as Joss says, "the story is god." Can we stick
in another special effect shot is no basis for a movie. I can
say the same thing about the travesty that they had the gaul to
continue the Matrix franchise with. I'm not particularly looking
forward to either sequel any more (and I'm hoping that they lose
the damn blue filter in Return of the King). I am looking forward
to more of Zahn's books.
There was a lot of good stuff in Season 7, mainly from Goddard.
He brought a fan's enthusiasm to the show and really did give
us things that we have been dying to see, because he had been
dying to see them. His episodes were basically incredibly well
written fan fic.
Even though Joss has total approval of things, not every episode
is a Joss episode and some aren't much better than fan fic. I
have seen some fics that are better than some episodes.
I don't write fan fic to fill gaps. I try to find a gap in order
to stay in canon, but that isn't what causes me to write. I write
for the same reason ME does, to explore something. Currently it
is how fear affects us. I used Joss' universe and characters because
at this point I am not ready to make my own. It is also good for
me to be forced to keep the characters in proper voice. It is
really easy to get sloppy with your own characters and just write
a Mary Sue.
That is just me. Most gaps I just tend to say, so. That wasn't
part of the story that Joss wanted to tell. Is it really that
important? I like reading what others do to fill those gaps, but
so many of those read like RPGs instead of the tighly constructed
episodes that revolve around a central theme/emotion. What would
happen if? I prefer how ME used Joyce's death to really explore
loss and neediness, rather than just write about each character's
reaction. That kept the episodes neat and tight.
Probably the biggest mistake that people make (outside of what
the PPC deal with) is they don't learn from what ME does. They
don't use the undercutting that ME has mastered. They don't revolve
their stories around one thing while still existing on multiple
levels. They are either mythic or literal, but rarely both. This
makes the plots interesting, but it lacks what ME brings.
Just me
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The problem with Dawn
-- Alison, 11:36:43 06/29/03 Sun
I remember someone (cjl?) on the board remarking that Spike and
Xander were being paralled as the heart in S7- but Spike, to me,
represents the supernatural side of that metaphor, whereas Xander
is the human side. In season 5, and some of season 6, Dawn was
dealing with the supernatural side of herself and her keyness.
In the later part of S6 and S7 she was coming to terms with herself
as a regular girl, so the descision to show her interacting with
Xander more makes sense. Early S5 when she thinks of herself as
a normal teenager, she spends time with him, she moves towards
Spike when she has to confront her mystical origins, and back
to Xander as she accepts her place in humanity.
That said, I still would have liked more Dawn/Spike interaction-
I understand why the writers felt they shouldn't go there- but
to me, the relationship was one of the sweetest on the show.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Yeah, Spike spent a summer caring for
Dawn-- -- HonorH, 23:19:43 06/28/03 Sat
--and then dropped her like a hot rock after Buffy came back.
Part of Dawn's arc in S6 was feeling like none of the adults who
supposedly loved her seemed to even want to be around her. While
Buffy, Xander, Willow, and Tara all eventually made the effort,
Spike doesn't appear to have done so. Why he didn't is up for
debate. By the time SR rolled around and Dawn knew about Buffy's
relationship with him, all she could do was sadly ask him *why*
he hurt Buffy. She didn't even know him anymore. After the AR,
she wasn't interested in knowing him. And I don't blame her. If
a guy who I liked and looked up to did that to my sister, I'd
want to kill him, no matter what their relationship had been like.
Come to think of it, even if Buffy had been my sister and had
tried to explain things, I'd still have hated the guy. I love
my sister more in any case. If some guy hurt her, no matter the
reason, no matter what my relationship to him was, I'd want to
kill him.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yeah, Spike spent a summer
caring for Dawn-- -- ECH, 00:16:47 06/29/03 Sun
Well, that is just how you feel, personally I would feel different
if someone hurt my sister depending on the situation of course.
For the most part I would feel sad for the person because my sister
makes me look like a nice guy, and I am one of the top wrestlers
in the country. But, in all seriousness it would depend on the
situation as all things do and as I tried to say in my last post.
If my sister felt that the guy didn't mean to hurt her and was
sorry about it, I could easily forgive him.
It really depends on the situation and the person. Like I said
above there are different kinds of AR's. I would never forgive
a guy that tried to rape my sister because he was in lust and
didn't care that she didn't want it, I would probably end up sending
him to the emergency room. And, I would probably kill man with
my bare hands that tried to rape my sister because he wanted to
hurt her or dominate her. But, I could easily see myself forgiving
a guy that really loved my sister and attempted to rape her if
I knew they were in a violent and confusing relationship and he
tried to have sex with her and truely didn't understand that she
didn't want it. Maybe, that is because I can relate to the situation
except the girl in my situation was trying to force sex on me
(and I really didn't hold it against her because I knew she really
didn't know I didn't want sex from her anymore), but I can say
that the situation is very hard to relate to because very few
people get into really violent relationships with no rules whatsoever.
Some people wish the world was black and white because it would
make things easier to deal with, but it simply isn't, even when
it comes to something truely horrible like AR.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yeah, Spike spent a
summer caring for Dawn-- -- HonorH, 00:55:39 06/29/03 Sun
Some people wish the world was black and white because it would
make things easier to deal with, but it simply isn't, even when
it comes to something truely horrible like AR.
That, I'll agree with. In Dawn's case, though, she really wants
to believe the best about Buffy. After all, who else does she
have? Dad's not in the picture, Mom's dead, Tara's dead, Willow's
gone off the deep end, Giles is trying to hold Willow together--there
just aren't that many people who Dawn can count on. By S7, Dawn's
as fiercely protective of Buffy as Buffy is of her. It's easier
for her to simplify the situation in her mind and just believe
Spike's the bad guy. I think that's where she's coming from.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmm...two interesting
posts. -- s'kat, 09:51:03 06/29/03 Sun
I find myself agreeing with both of you b/c what it does is provide
a) Buffy's view which is the adult view and b)Dawn's which is
the child's view.
Some people wish the world was black and white because it would
make things easier to deal with, but it simply isn't, even when
it comes to something truely horrible like AR.
That, I'll agree with. In Dawn's case, though, she really wants
to believe the best about Buffy.
Agreed. We have to remember how old Dawn is. She's just turned
16. She is still innocent when it comes to sex. And her views
are somewhat romanticized. Remember what Buffy, Xander and Willow
were like in S2/S1? How they reacted to the notion of Giles with
Jenny and how long it took Buffy to forgive Jenny for betraying
her? And that wasn't necessarily all that huge. Or Buffy's reactions
to Ted?
Or to Giles sleeping with her Mom?
This is a sixteen year old who has lost both her parents.
Found out she was constructed by monks to house a key a mere two
years ago. And has had a crush on both Xander and Spike at different
times.
Teenagers (not all admittedly, but the majority) tend to see the
world simplistically and with loads of drama. The tv series did
a good job of exploring that view in S1-3 - showing how things
were more black and white and more melodramatic - the reason that
came across on screen was we were in the teen pov.
Now with Dawn - we are in the adult pov looking at the teen.
In other words instead of being in Buffy's pov looking at Joyce's
relationships, we are in Joyce's. This does tend to flip the story
a little. And I think the writers did a good job of contrasting
the child's/adolescent's pov with the young adult's. The world
looks different after you've lived a bit and we tend to forget
what it looked like when we were inexperienced and everything
was more or less new.
So yes, an adolescent will tend to look at the world more in blacks
and whites - they haven't had enough experience yet to understand
the concept of gray.
If Dawn had treated Spike any differently - I'd have had problems.
I think the writers did try to explore Dawn's emotional response
to redemption through Andrew - using Andrew as the prism to explore
her feelings towards Spike and Willow. PErsonally I see this as
a cop out on the writers part, instead of attempting the difficult
route of exploring Dawn's relationships with established characters
- they chose an un-established character to do it with.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yeah, Spike spent a summer
caring for Dawn-- -- Miss Edith, 06:28:34 06/29/03 Sun
But that's the thing. The writers didn't make it explicit that
Spike dropped Dawn in favour of Buffy. The actors were seperated
for behind the scens reasons (Michelle maturing and the writers
concerned about sexual chemistry being generated betwen Spike
and Dawn). Yet in interviews during season 6 we were told we should
imagine the relationship was still on-going, in SR Dawn asks if
Spike is going to stop coming around inferrring that he does still
visit.
The S/D friendship could have been logically concluded with Buffy
wanting to keep Dawn away from Spike once she became sexually
involved with Spike. We see her discomfort when he does associate
with her friends (OAFA, Normal Again). I just can't imagine Spike
still being used as Dawn's babysitter, in AYW he tells Buffy he
can't exactly go in her house when they are talking. So if the
friendship had ended for those reasons, or even because all Spike
wanted was Buffy, then I could buy that. But it wasn't until the
AR where Dawn is singing Spike's praises, Xander lets her in on
the truth, and voila the writers have a good excuse for saying
the two are no longer friends. But in season 6 we were supposed
to believe the friendship had not ended at all so really it was
the AR that was the problem. I would therefore have expected more
emotion from Dawn in season 7. A sense of anger and betrayel possibly?
Aside from the threat in BY, like I said Dawn doesn't seem concerned
with Spike at all other than him being her sister's bad boyfriend.
The past relationship was totally ignored. That I find inconsistent
personally.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Y'know, I don't think it
was so much inconsistent as ignored. -- HonorH, 10:49:30
06/29/03 Sun
We weren't in Dawn's pov except for a few times, so we only saw
a few instances of her interacting with Spike. I can only think
of a handful after BY--Dawn volunteering to check on him after
he'd been thrown through the ceiling in GiD and snarking at him
about smoking in the house in "Storyteller," and Spike
expressing concern for her after accidentally hurting her in LMPTM.
As you said about S6, we just don't know what happened between
them. That wasn't the story that was being told this season.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> They would always
have a certain bond -- Ray, 03:39:16 06/30/03 Mon
Besides caring for her that summer, Spike was the only one who
showed Dawn respect. He helped her discover the truth about the
key when everyone else lied to her to protect her. He helped her
with the resurrection spell. And, besides Buffy, he was the one
up on that tower to save her from Glory.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Protecting Dawn is more important -- Dariel, 18:43:13
06/28/03 Sat
And I'm saying that there is no PG version of "things between
me and Spike got violent and out of control." Anything Buffy
said would be disturbing to Dawn.
I think that there was no easy way to fix Spike and Dawn's relationship.
Dawn knew that he tried to hurt Buffy; I doubt whether Spike's
intent would matter much to her.
[> This thread has made
me desperate to read the shooting script to Him... -- Alison,
20:41:31 06/28/03 Sat
but Pysche seems to be down..does anyone have access to it?
[> I don't see how Dawn
could've been friends with Spike again. -- HonorH, 23:07:16
06/28/03 Sat
We know only a few things:
1. Dawn knew Buffy and Spike had "a relationship."
2. Buffy never told Dawn about the AR; Dawn found out from Xander.
Buffy didn't *want* Dawn to know about it.
3. Dawn threatened Spike with a fiery death if he ever hurt Buffy
again.
We don't know exactly what Buffy told Dawn about her relationship
with Spike. It's possible nothing was said; that Buffy wanted
to put the whole thing behind her, and Dawn never pushed for details.
After all, Spike was gone--for all they knew, forever. Why bring
it up?
Furthermore, how *could* Buffy explain the whole thing with Spike
to Dawn? How much would Dawn have understood? Teenagers have a
very black-and-white worldview. Spike hurt Buffy; therefore, Spike
must die a painful death if he ever tries it again. How could
Buffy find the right words to tell Dawn what the relationship
was like?
"Dawn, I felt like I deserved it . . ."
"Well, see, we used to have rough sex . . ."
(Which, btw, Dawn seems to know from her, "You're older and
hotter, and you have sex that's rough and kill things . . ."
in "Him.")
"I'm sure he didn't *mean* it . . ."
Really, what is there to say? Buffy didn't intentionally turn
Dawn against Spike. If she'd wanted to, she'd have told Dawn about
the AR to begin with. But once Dawn knew--how was Buffy supposed
to explain everything? And, for that matter, did Buffy even realize
just how much animosity Dawn came to bear toward Spike?
What matters to me is that Buffy did defend Spike once he had
his soul--even to Dawn. Unfortunately, by then, Dawn could no
longer feel the way about Spike she had before. He lost her friendship
through a program of neglecting Dawn after Buffy's resurrection
and hurting emotionally/physically attacking Buffy. It's too bad
they couldn't repair their friendship before the end.
Dreamer Easy
in the Chair That Really Fits You - Thoughts on *End of Days*
& *Chosen* - Part VI -- OnM, 20:14:40 06/28/03 Sat
~ ~ ~ ( Continued from Part V ) ~ ~ ~
*******
Fire, make your body cold / For I will give you mine to hold
............ Leonard Cohen, from Joan of Arc
*******
The Slayers aren't the only ones who are newly re-energized as
Buffy resurrects herself. Spike's amulet
kicks in big-time as he falls back against the rear wall of the
cavern next to the Seal opening. The jewel in
the amulet glows brightly as a another burst of intense energy
blasts through the top of the cavern and the
school floors and ceilings above, channeling a column of midday
sunlight down through the newly created
openings. Amazingly, the shaft of sunlight doesn't dust Spike
immediately. The mystical energy the amulet
invokes apparently is protecting him somehow and instead collects
and redirects the sunlight into a
focussed, laser-beam-like fashion out into the cavern main area.
As the beams sweep out into the main part
of the cavern and intersect the hoard of Turok-hans, the beasts
dust instantly on contact with the light, and
the light even starts breaking down the cavern walls themselves.
All hell(mouth) breaks loose, literally. And
what did Buffy say back in Showtime? "The Hellmouth
will swallow me-- and it'll choke on me."
Coming right up...
The ground above begins to shudder and shake, and the school building
begins to fall apart as it does. The
newly minted Slayer team correctly decides that it ain't all over
until the blond vamp stings, which he tells
Buffy that it does-- his soul, that is-- after she rushes over
to him as the light sabre sunlight continues to
work at collapsing the Hellmouth. Everyone else makes like shepherds
before the storm, running back to
the Seal and then frantically working their way out of the rapidly
toppling building above. Looking at Spike
and the massive amount of sun energy surrounding him, Buffy quickly
intuits that Spike needs to bug out
now, or it's curtains. She insists that he's done enough, and
he needs to get out while there is still a chance,
but Spike refuses to leave-- he insists that Buffy did her part,
and now he has to 'clean things up'. Buffy
realizes that a) he's right, and b) dammit. The look in her eyes
as she returns his own determined stare is
indescribable.
OK, taking a moment here. ( pause - breathe - pause again -
begin moment )
There have been a lot of truly unforgettable images that have
been imprinted in my mind over the last
passel of years that I have willingly obsessed over this program.
In fact the sheer plentitude of them is quiet
testimony to the staggering collective brilliance that is The
Art of Buffy. I know, I know-- there are
those niggling plotholes, the missed opportunities, some occasional
out-of-character issues, and plenty of
other all-too-human what-the-hell-were-they-smoking? moments,
but I don't really care all that
much, truly I do not. Because, as we all know-- or we wouldn't
be here in the first place-- when this show
is on, really on, it just flat-out rocks. The Bard
of Avon would be, like, "dude!"
And of all the many wonderful, transcendent moments that I've
witnessed, the perfectly realized shot of
Buffy clasping hands with the doomed Spike, and the flame that
unexpectedly spills out around the
touching palms is just-- I can't decribe it, words fail, other
than to quote The Ebert and his inspiringly apt
phrase that I took away from some forgotten film review long ago:
A perfect moment of cinema.
She wanted the fire back, and here it is, at last. And not only
is the moment of the handclasp and the
appearance of the fire stunning enough from a purely visual perspective,
the two actors crank the moment
into overdrive with the intensity of their shared looks-- Spike,
knowing that he has been transformed, that
all of the pain has been worth it, and that he could not have
achieved this transcendence without Buffy.
Buffy, who first seems in pain as the flame curls around her hand,
but seconds later looks like she is a
willing captive in a moment of spiritual ecstacy. The world has
been saved, and a soul has been saved, and
it's all connected. You have no idea-- who you are, what you
will become. The prophecy has been
fulfilled.
And then there are the words, spare and perfect like the moment
itself:
Buffy: I love you.
( A brief moment passes. He smiles kindly. )
Spike: No you don't. But thanks for saying it.
( A big quake rocks them. Spike pushes her away. )
Spike: Now go!
And she does. As Buffy races to the roof of the school-- the only
remaining way out of the crumbling
building-- the force of the light finally begins to burn Spike
from the inside. He is strangely laughing as he
turns to ashes, then the blinding shaft of light vanishes as the
amulet falls to the floor of the cavern.
A yellow school bus containing the survivors of the battle is
speeding away from the site as fast as Wood
can drive it. Dawn is seated in the very back of the bus, frantically
looking out the rear window for any
sign of Buffy. We cut back to a shot of Buffy, running across
rooftops, Scythe in hand, leaping from one
building to the next as the buildings and ground collapse just
behind and below her feet. Finally, she
catches up with the bus (almost) and makes a wild, impossible
leap onto the roof of the bus, right in front
of the Sunnydale Sun movie theater. Buffy then hangs on to the
bus roof for dear life as Sunnydale is
literally being swallowed up right behind it. The camera POV shifts
to an aerial shot showing the expanding
formation of a giant crater where the town once was and the tiny
image of the fleeing bus moving at its
rim. We cut back to inside the bus, where Faith calls out for
Wood to stop, that "we're clear." Wood slams
on the brakes, and then slumps over, exhausted from running on
adrenaline as his life is bleeding away.
Buffy jumps down off the top of the bus, and Dawn emerges from
the back door and warmly embraces her
sister, hugging her tightly for a long period of time. Giles steps
out also, and peering in astonishment at the
huge crater before him wonders aloud what could have done this.
Not looking back, Buffy simply answers
"Spike"as she walks slowly over towards the edge of
the abyss. It's the last word that she says aloud in the
show.
Xander emerges from the bus, and finds Andrew, who is still trying
to figure out why he is still alive.
Xander wants to know what happened. At first Andrew demurrs that
he was scared and didn't see, but
then realizes that Xander is asking about Anya. Andrew tells Xander
that Anya "was incredible, and she
gave her life to save me". Xander nods, obviously still shell-shocked
from everything, and quips "That's
my girl-- always doing the stupid thing." Andrew nods, agreeing.
We return to Faith and Wood, still in the driver's area of the
bus. Wood looks bad, like he is moments
from death. Faith looks at Wood's wound and tries to be as reassuring
as she can, knowing full well how
badly Wood has been hurt, but hiding it for his sake.
Faith: It's not that bad... you just sit here. I'll get
someone to --
( She turns away to get help. )
Wood: Did we make it?
( She turns back, hunches down before him, looks at him kindly.
)
Faith: We made it. We won.
( He smiles a little... and then he is just staring. And still.
Faith takes a moment as emotion courses through
her, then moves to cover his eyes. Suddenly, he coughs, spasming
back to life, and she draws back her
hand, as startled as he. )
Wood: (whispers) Surprise.
( Faith smiles broadly, almost laughs. Vi comes up to them and
begins to treat Robin's injuries. Faith
stands up, still smiling, and heads for the outside where the
others are gathering. For once, her touch
brought something other than pain or death -- that was
quite a surprise. )
By now, everyone who can get up and move around is gathered at
the crater edge, just staring at it. The
camera begins a long pull in towards Buffy, so slowly that I didn't
even notice it the first time around. The
gang breaks into their familiar drama/comedy mode as the reality
sinks in-- they've done it yet again, Buffy
Team 7, Apocalypses 0:
Faith: Looks like the Hellmouth is officially closed for
business.
Giles: There is another one in Cleveland. (off some looks)
Not to spoil the moment...
Xander: We saved the world.
Willow: We changed the world! I can feel them, Buffy.
All over. There are Slayers
awakening everywhere.
Dawn: We'll have to find them.
Willow: We will.
Giles: Yes, because the mall was actually in Sunnydale,
so no hope of going there tomorrow...
Dawn: We destroyed the Mall? I fought on the wrong side...
Xander: All those stores gone... The Gap, Starbucks, Toys
R Us... who will remember these
landmarks unless we tell the world of them?
Giles: We have a lot of work ahead of us...
Faith: Can I push him in?
Willow: You got my vote.
Faith: I just wanna sleep, yo. For like a week.
Dawn: I guess we all could. If we wanted to.
Willow: Yeah, the First is scrunched, so... What do you
think we should do, Buffy?
Faith: Yeah, you're not the one and only chosen anymore.
Just gotta live like a person. How's that
feel?
( The realization hits home, but still Buffy doesn't speak. )
Dawn: Buffy? What are we gonna do now?
Buffy looks at them, looks back at the crater, and by now that
camera has moved in to a full close-up on
Buffy's face as she considers an answer. A small, enigmatic smile
slowly appears on her lips. We linger just
for the briefest of moments on that smile, and then we cut to
black.
*******
The metaphor starts with Buffy herself. As Faith realizes when
she says to Riley, "I'm Buffy, I have to
do this," being Buffy is not a physical or historical
event applicable to one person only, but rather a
psychological realization that anyone can achieve. It's not unlike
Buddha consciousness. We are all Buffy,
but haven't recognized it yet.
............ manwitch
*******
Eve has always been one of my heroes because she ate the apple.
Self-awareness, consciousness of the
world around us, the ability to perceive, analyze, and express
thoughts, imagination, creativity, humor -
many of the things that make life worth living to me would not
exist without her original choice. The
saying has it that curiosity killed the cat, but I don't buy it.
Curiosity is perhaps the original spark of what I
see as the true essence of humanity: the need to know what's out
there in the world is closely related to the
need to know what's inside ourselves; to find everything we are
curious about in the world is a way of
finding and of fulfilling ourselves - of literally doing what
that word says: fully filling ourselves, with the
world and everything in it. Likewise, curiosity is a must if we
are to have empathy for our fellow humans:
without curiosity, we can't wonder what it would be like to walk
in someone else's shoes, and if we can't
imagine what that would be like, then we can't ever truly feel
empathy for them, nor engage in the many
generous acts that require empathy. (...)
One of the remarkable achievements of the last half-dozen episodes
of this season was the way in which
essential aspects of [Buffy's] character arc dating back to the
beginning of the show were resolved. Among
these: her reluctance to wield power, always in conflict with
her enjoyment of it; her belief that the use of
her power must isolate her; her feelings of self-doubt and occasionally
of self-loathing; and her insistence
on thinking for herself, on not taking anyone's word as final
until she chooses for herself. One of the
satisfactions of the show's resolution was the way that all of
these characteristics tied together. By refusing
to settle for received wisdom, by insisting on thinking for herself
and thereby coming up with new solutions
to old problems, Buffy hit upon the idea of sharing the Slayer's
power. By sharing the Slayer's power, she
refuted the assumption, voiced most recently by Angel, Spike,
and Wood, that Slayers must be alone. And
by overcoming adversity in this way - through community, not isolation;
through cooperation, not decree -
she achieved the hope and confidence she needed to vanquish the
self-doubt that has been the small voice
whispering to her that she must fail.
............ wwolfe
*******
And they fought.
In the end, that's really all you can do. Poets can talk of love
and peace, but really mankind is made for
fighting. They fight for and against love. They fight their enemies
and friends. Some fight to live; some
fight to die. It may be a sad thing, this need for humans to fight,
but it is what makes us humans. For
seven seasons, they've fought, beyond all capacity, and we watched.
There are defining moments in every person's life. Sometimes they
are big and immediate, such as the first
time I saw my daughter, or the first time I had a real kiss, or
the first time I saw an actual dead body.
Oftentimes, I think, they are small, and you just don't notice
them until much later, such as the first time I
read a Stephen King story in 1979 (and positioned three flashlights
outside of my closet), or when I heard
my first Springsteen song in 1983. I didn't think in March of
1997, one of my defining moments would
involve me turning on my television and watching a show called
Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Although I'm mostly a book guy, I've never had the snobbishness
toward television many readers have. Of
course, while I have enjoyed television, it's not very often that
a TV show could involve me the same way
a book could (and seems even less possible as time goes on and
shows get worse). Much of this changed
when I started watching Buffy. What struck me most about Buffy
wasn't the humor or the high-school
romance or the action. It was the realism. Despite the vampires
and witches and werewolves, these were
real people trying to live real lives in an extraordinary situation.
Much of what they went through I had
gone through or was going through. When they felt pain, I felt
pain, because I could remember when that
had happened to me. Although the story was mostly about this girl,
I saw in Xander a version of me, and it
was good to be able to live his fears and strengths and triumphs
and disappointments with him.
The greatest statement when it comes to storytelling is not "once
upon a time" or "the end" or, for pete's
sake, "it was a dark and stormy night." I think the
greatest statement in regards to storytelling is this:
and then what happened? Joss did that to me. I thought
I was ready for the story to end, but now
I want to know. What will Buffy do? What will Dawn do? How will
Xander move on? What will happen
with Faith and Wood? Is Vi going to be as kick-ass as I think
she is? What happens next?
............ beast916
*******
Outside the street's on fire in a real death waltz
Between what's flesh and what's fantasy
And the poets down here don't write nothin' at all
They just stand back and let it all be
And in the quick of the night
They reach for their moment
And try to make an honest stand
............ Bruce Springsteen, from Jungleland
*******
Now let's take a closer look at the law of cause and effect because
it is central to understanding the
Buddha's insight. This law is sometimes called karma, a term that
does not mean fate or destiny. It actually
means "action" or "deed," and it refers to
the way in which our lives are shaped by our own actions. In
general, however, the law of cause and effect means that all phenomena
appear and disappear as a result of
actions and their consequences. Everything that exists, from people
to planets to subatomic particles to
states of mind are the effects of previous causes and will in
turn generate the causes that will bring about
future effects. When we become aware of this process, we also
realize that nothing exists independently of
its causes and conditions and that nothing possesses any kind
of permanent existence. Everything that
exists, exists as a momentary and mutually supportive element
in the dynamic process of cause and effect.
This also means that when we try to grasp onto anything within
this process it invariably slips away and
fails to provide us with the lasting self-satisfaction that we
are seeking.
Let's take a grape as an example of this. A few years ago, while
driving past some wineries, I was struck
by the fact that each grape was a transformation of soil, rainwater,
sunlight and the initial seed, none of
which even resemble a grape. In terms of cause and effect, the
seed is the cause and the grape is the effect
which bears within it the seeds which are the causes for future
grapes. In terms of causes and conditions,
once again the seed is the cause while the soil, rainwater and
sunlight are the conditions or contributing
causes. Furthermore, each of those grapes was destined to disappear
into the wine making process, thereby
becoming a cause for something else which would eventually become
a part of a human being.
Alternatively, a grape could also rot on the vine and then contribute
once more to the soil, or it could be
dried into a raisin or simply eaten to become a source of nutrition.
I happened to use the example of a
grape, but the law of cause and effect is universal and applies
to all phenomena. The process of cause and
effect is integral to all things, and all things are momentary
events in the transformation of causes and
effects.
We are not exempt from this process either; and are as much a
part of it as anything else. However, unlike
inanimate objects and those living things which are not self-conscious,
we ourselves make the causes that
will determine the kinds of lives that we will have to suffer
or enjoy. The Buddha taught that what we are
today is a result of what we have thought and done in the past,
and what we shall be in the future is a result
of what we think and do in the present.
............ Ryuei, from "The Law of Cause and Effect",
posted at ATPo June 24th, 2000
*******
Straight light moving and removing
Sharpness of the colour sun shine
Straight light searching all the meanings of the song
Long last treatment of the telling that
Relates to all the words sung
Dreamer easy in the chair that really fits you
............ Yes, from Fragile
*******
Thank you all, every last one, for being connected.
............ OnM
*******
[> ***Spoilers*** much like
the last ones. Tomorrow: Part VII - The S7 Coda - *Out of the
Chair* -- OnM, 20:20:44 06/28/03 Sat
[> Brilliant summary, OnM.
Thanks. -- Sophist, 20:25:46 06/28/03 Sat
[> [> A review better
than the ep reviewed -- skpe, 07:18:38 06/29/03 Sun
[> [> [> Great, OnM,
but I wouldn't go that far, "Chosen" being my all-time
2nd favorite "Buffy" episode. ;o) -- Rob, 07:34:30
06/29/03 Sun
[> [> [> [> Faint
praise, Rob: everyone knows that you have 143 all-time first favorite
"Buffy" episodes! -- d'Herblay, 09:36:12 06/29/03
Sun
[> [> [> [> [>
Or really strong praise, since I love each ep with the same,
unbridled passion. ;o) -- Rob, 18:15:15 06/29/03 Sun
[> Oh Goody.........
-- Rufus, 23:51:46 06/28/03 Sat
At the end of the series I posted a quote.....
"By our interactions with each
other we redeem us all." ML Von Franz
Your post reminds me just how many different ways we have to saying
the same thing. From As You Were s6.....
RILEY: Wheel never stops turning, Buffy. You're up,
you're down ... it doesn't change what you are. And you are a
hell of a woman.
For those who couldn't understand or hated the season finale it
could be cause we only saw just one more turn of the wheel, the
story isn't over and it never will be. There will always be Slayers
and there will always be an apocalypse to fight, on Buffy metaphorically,
in real life the every day the big and small stuff we do just
by connecting with each other. Cause and effect...that wheel just
keeps going, keeps turning, and there will never be the "big
finish" like some expected in Chosen. It was never just about
the best abs, the best or most favored character, it has been
about what happens when people connect....cause and effect.
Great job OnM....I've already sized you up for some fish-net stockings....meaning
you're on the Trollop Board.
[> [> As long as they're
the classy fishnets, and not the tacky kind! ;-) -- OnM, 05:17:47
06/29/03 Sun
As always, kind thanks for the reposting chores-- you even kept
the formatting and stuff intact, jeepers!
One question, though-- did you miss Part V by any chance, or did
the Trollup Board software hiccup? The following part...
~ This leaves Spike and Buffy, who very interestingly are now
seperated and alone with their own thoughts, in stark contrast
to the couplings/groupings of the other characters. Buffy is standing
outside on the porch, again staring out at the moon, which is
very bright, and bathes her in its cool luminosity. Spike is in
the basement, sitting on his cot, staring intensely at the crystal
amulet that Buffy gave him earlier, the one that Angel brought
from L.A. The lovely metaphor behind this beautifully framed and
composed scene didn't occur to me until later viewings, because
initially I had no idea of what kind of power the amulet was going
to provide to Spike. Once we discover that the amulet channels
the energy of the sun through the wearer, meanings start to drop
into place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*******
Fire, make your body cold / For I will give you mine to hold
............ Leonard Cohen, from Joan of Arc
*******
... should have had Part V in between the '>>>>' marks.
I know beast has had some posts inadvertantly attenuated by the
board workings, so perhaps that is what happened here, although
Part VI is intact. Odd.
But whatever, thanks again, glad you enjoyed. In part VII, I plan
to chat a bit about the season as a whole, and mention a few other
tidbits on the closing episodes and such. Hopefully, that should
be up tonight sometime.
-- OnM
[> [> [> Re: As long
as they're the classy fishnets, and not the tacky kind! ;-)
-- Rufus, 16:45:20
06/29/03 Sun
Cause I sent the whole darn thing in one document I left out some
of the part stuff....could you send me the whole darn thing and
I'll repost it in it's "intact" glory.
And as for the hosiery.....I only give away "virtuous"
fish net stockings....;)
[> [> [> [> Okey
dokie, but it'll have to be tomorrow night. Mail you then.
-- OnM, 20:29:57 06/29/03 Sun
I haven't cut'n'pasted it yet myself, it's six seperate docs in
my ATPo/WP folder. Once I do that, I'll mail it off.
Thanks!
:-)
[> Beautiful review, perfect
quotes -- mamcu, 10:16:18 06/29/03 Sun
I think your description of the final moment with Spike and Buffy
is a great retelling, and casts it in the proper light. I always
love the care you put into choosing quotes, but this one is a
special masterpiece. Leonard Cohen, Springsteen, and Ryuei--excellent.
And then I also thank you for letting us make the connections
between the quotes and what you're saying. I'd love to know what
your own thoughts were, but I really like the chance to think
it out for myself.
[> [> Thank you. As to
the quotes... -- OnM, 20:49:26 06/29/03 Sun
... there were more in there originally, including some from jenoff
and the other 'pro' reviewers, but I pared them down because in
particular I wanted to quote people close to our own little corner
of the Buffy universe.
The Cohen quite was added at the last minute, just about-- it
wasn't there in the first draft. I suddenly thought of ME twisting
things around so that Spike was Joan of Arc, and I loved
how outrageous that was, but that it also fits if you think of
his spiritual relationship to 'Buffy the Sun Goddess'.
As to the Ryuei material, the old-timers here at the board will
have already made the secondary connection, but for the newbie
folk, migrate over to the ES site at:
http://www.atpobtvs.com/existentialscoobies/scoobies/on1.shtml
You'll see that this lovely work has a special significance to
your humble scribe. (Who, by the way, is 49 now, not 47 like it
says, with the big half-C not too far away... accckkk!!)
;-)
[> [> [> Thanks!
-- mamcu, 12:17:21 06/30/03 Mon
But you're still a young one--some of us have only fond memories
of 49!
[> [> O/T to OnM and
dub: Canada invades Brooklyn! Tribute to Leonard Cohen in Prospect
Park (6/28/03) -- cjl, 13:21:44 06/30/03 Mon
Now the flames they followed Joan of Arc
as she came riding through the dark;
no moon to keep her armour bright,
no man to get her through this very smoky night.
She said, "I'm tired of the war,
I want the kind of work I had before,
a wedding dress or something white
to wear upon my swollen appetite."
Well, I'm glad to hear you talk this way,
you know I've watched you riding every day
and something in me yearns to win
such a cold and lonesome heroine.
"And who are you?" she sternly spoke
to the one beneath the smoke.
"Why, I'm fire," he replied,
"And I love your solitude, I love your pride."
"Then fire, make your body cold,
I'm going to give you mine to hold,"
saying this she climbed inside
to be his one, to be his only bride.
And deep into his fiery heart
he took the dust of Joan of Arc,
and high above the wedding guests
he hung the ashes of her wedding dress.
It was deep into his fiery heart
he took the dust of Joan of Arc,
and then she clearly understood
if he was fire, oh then she must be wood.
I saw her wince, I saw her cry,
I saw the glory in her eye.
Myself I long for love and light,
but must it come so cruel, and oh so bright?
--"Joan of Arc" from the album SONGS OF LOVE AND HATE
They didn't do this one. They didn't do "First We Take Manhattan."
(Pissed me off a little.) They did almost everything else.
For those of you not on the East Coast or not familiar with Leonard
Cohen, there was an all-star tribute to the Canadian singer/songwriter/poet
in Brooklyn last Saturday. Some of the finest singers from Canada
and England assembled at the Prospect Park Bandshell (about 9
blocks away from my apartment) to party like a non-stop Wiemar
cabaret, treating devoted Cohen acolytes to his songs of drinking,
betrayal, hopeless love, Jesus and cheap hotel rooms. Trying to
reproduce the play list from memory is hopeless, so let me give
you a general rundown:
Opened with: I'm Your Man, w/Nick Cave on lead vocals.
Rufus Wainwright - Hallelujah, Chelsea Hotel #2, Everybody Knows
("fagged up"--that's Rufus' quote!--for the occasion)
Martha Wainwright - Tower of Song (redone as a rockabilly rave-up),
The Traitor
Nick Cave - Diamonds in the Mine, Suzanne (w/Leonard's back up
singers, Julie Christensen and Perla Battalia)
Julie (solo) - The Guests
Perla (solo) - Bird on a Wire (astoundingly heartfelt and passionate,
but a little too "Broadway diva" for my taste)
Julie and Perla - Anthem
House Band - Tacoma Trailer (instrumental)
Linda Thompson - Alexandra Leaving, Story of Isaac
Teddy Thompson - The Future (rocked HARD)
Handsome Family - Famous Blue Raincoat, Heart with No Companion
(done Johnny Cash-style!), Ballad of an Absent Mare
Chocalate Genius - Dress Rehearsal Rag (wow)
If It Be Your Will - Laurie Anderson
I Came So Far for Beauty - Kate and Anna MacGarrigle
All-Star Finale: Don't Go Home with Your Hard-On -- Rufus Wainwright
and Nick Cave, lead vocals (shambling wreck of a performance,
but seemed appropriate, given the song)
I might have missed a song or two, but that's most of it. An amazing
house band assembled by producer Hal Willner, led by Tom Waits'
favorite guitarist, Marc Ribot.
My thanks to the Canadian Consulate for putting this together.
(Next year at the Park: a tribute to Neil Young? How about it?)
[> [> [> And a happy
Canada Day tomorrow! -- ponygirl, eh, 16:48:21 06/30/03
Mon
Ohhh Nick Cave and Rufus Wainwright? My heart's a-flutter!
[> [> [> We invaded
Brooklyn?? Did we win? ;) -- LadyStarlight, 17:16:49 06/30/03
Mon
That sounds like it would've been amazing! Too bad my favorite
Cohen song (Closin' Time) wasn't played.
[> [> [> AAAAAAhhhhhhhh!
Oh, I'm really sorry I read this... -- dub ;o), 19:52:49
06/30/03 Mon
It happened. I wasn't there. My life will now never be complete...
**sob**
BTW, was the man himself there?
;o)
[> [> [> [> Nope.
That would have made everybody's life complete.... -- cjl,
07:06:42 07/01/03 Tue
[> [> [> i saw pt.
2 (canada, that is, not cohen) the next day in central park
-- anom, wearing my maple leaf necklace!, 08:57:36 07/01/03
Tue
Rufus (& Martha, natch) Wainwright, Daniel Lanois, the Dears,
& Sarah Slean--not in that order. Rufus sang "Everybody Knows"
again, introducing it w/something like "we're all gay today,"
which drew a big cheer from the crowd, many of whom had come from
the Gay Pride Parade earlier (there were almost as many rainbow
as Canadian flags & accessories visible). cjl, did he sing the
song dedicated to his father (didn't catch the title) on Sat.?
The lyrics sounded very Connor/Angel.
And I thought these Dears lyrics were very Buffy-appropriate:
"Let's just keep fighting the end of the World. We will hold
hands and we will make plans--for life." Or at least shopping.
That's from No Cities Left--sounds like Sunnydale, doesn't it?
[> [> [> [> Ah,
those Wainwrights. Two generations of fun, fun, fun.... --
cjl, 10:19:38 07/01/03 Tue
Loudon has always been one of my faves. In the dedication to Dad,
I suppose Rufus sang either one of the LWIII songs he's done in
the past, either "One Man Guy" (off of "Poses")
or "School Days" ("In Delware, when I was younger...")
from the "MacGarrigle Hour" CD.
Seeing Rufus the previous night and catching the Poses tour the
last time around, I wasn't into braving the Central Park crush
for a repeat performance. I do regret missing Daniel Lanois, who
I've heard has accumulated an excellent song catalogue of his
own between superstar producing gigs...
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Lanois.... -- dub ;o), 10:26:12 07/01/03 Tue
AFAIK, he's just released his second CD. The first one is brilliant.
I adore it. The new one is unlistenable. YMMV.
Anybody catch him in Laurel Canyon (movie with Frances
McDormand)? He's become addicted to wearing a wool tocque...bizarre.
dub ;o)
[> [> [> [> [>
no, i think it was one of his own... -- anom, 12:54:41
07/01/03 Tue
...although he did sing "One-Man Guy." The one I was
referring to had lyrics about things like wanting to "knock
you down, see what you're made of"--very conflictual, although
the tune was slow & sounded quite sorrowful. Hence my Connor/Angel
thought...if LittleBit ever makes a video about their relationship,
she could use this song!
[> Dude! -- ponygirl,
17:46:23 06/29/03 Sun
[> [> Post above is actually
Sauron using ponygirl as a nom de plume -- Sophist, 18:35:35
06/29/03 Sun
[> [> [> I have my
Eye on you, Sophist! -- pony(big honkin EVIL overlord of Mordor)girl,
18:51:05 06/29/03 Sun
[> [> [> [> You
must have Beljoxa's eye too. Only took you 16 minutes. --
Sophist, 20:37:38 06/29/03 Sun
[> Oh god - if OnM's review
is over - that means Buffy is really over! -- dream, 07:44:04
06/30/03 Mon
[> [> I can't hear you!
-- Alison, covering her ears and laughing maniacally, 09:40:15
06/30/03 Mon
[> [> Not over! Pt. VII
yet to come! Not over till it's over! -- mamcu, 13:50:09
06/30/03 Mon
[> [> [> Uhmm, Part
VII-- *Out of the Chair* -- is currently residing in archive 2...
-- OnM, 18:20:32 06/30/03 Mon
... courtesy of the ever dutiful Voynak. So, ye may check it out
there, if ye wishest.
(Figures, the Saturday post (Part VI) is still up, but the Sunday
one (Part VII) gets archived. Mysterious are the ways.)
[> [> [> [> but..but...that
post said there was a part two to Part VII- *please*..say theres
a part two! -- Alison, 18:43:30 06/30/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
There's another train / There always is -- OnM, 05:44:56
07/01/03 Tue
The 7.22 Endless Review and its view askew will continue.
Look for more tonight or more likely Wednesday.
:-)
[> Re: Dreamer Easy in the
Chair That Really Fits You - Thoughts on *End of Days* & *Chosen*
- Part VI -- aliera, 15:44:18 06/30/03 Mon
The greatest statement when it comes to storytelling is not
"once upon a time" or "the end" or, for pete's
sake, "it was a dark and stormy night." I think the
greatest statement in regards to storytelling is this:
and then what happened? Joss did that to me. b916
...names are funny things; I never found any of the Beast's reviews
beastly unless it was beastly funny. And I remember initially
thinking that your name meant either Omniscient for how often
you nailed it or OM for the way you always left one feeling so
balanced and somehow better after reading... as you did again.
Thanks, OnM.
OMWF
-- moqui, 17:08:01 06/29/03 Sun
With fx recently showing OMWF (so hard to watch- chopped up and
all) I pulled out my OMWF song book and was rereading about David
Fury "taking it upon himself to videotape the entire developmental
process". He says that he edited it (35-40 hours of video)
together and produced a companion documentary for the musical.
Has anyone seen this? Is it out there on the shelves somewhere
and I missed it? Any info would be appreciated.
thanks
[> Re: OMWF -- Dead
Soul, 17:34:28 06/29/03 Sun
It's one of the extras on the recent UK S6 DVD release. I imagine
it will be on the US DVDs when they come out here.
p.s. It's very, very good.
[> [> thanks...more to
look forward to! -- moqui, 17:48:02 06/29/03 Sun
Lilah vs
Clem -- JBone,
20:15:13 06/29/03 Sun
vote
here
http://www.geocities.com/road2apocalypse/showtime.html
giles
results
harmony
results
I've added the Rules
page. Hopefully this answers your questions, but I know it won't
answer every question. So hit me.
Just for those who are wondering, in the final four, the Slayer
Region winner will take on the Demon Region winner, and the Wiccan
Region winner will take on the Vampire Region winner. I wanted
to build an overall bracket, but it hasn't worked out.
[> Tiebreaker schedules
-- Jay,
20:21:02 06/29/03 Sun
I'm not really understanding whether MOLOJ intends to participate
in the tiebreaker or not. You seem to embrace it and scorn it
at the same time.
Rob, Dub and d'Herblay are all still on duty this week, and I'd
like to stretch their first term through Tuesday, July 8. Don't
worry about the fourth, there won't be a matchup that day. And
on Wednesday, July 9 through Wednesday July 18, I will be taking
a short vacation.
Beginning again on Thursday, July 19, I'm looking at a council
of Rob, Dub and deeva. They will be on duty through July 25, for
a total of six matches.
Starting on July 28, for a two week period, it's looking like
Dub, d'H, and Masq for a total of 8 matches. This term will end
August 8, when there should be 2 more weeks left of the first
round.
At this point, I'll either have more volunteers or I'll be leaning
even more on some of the original Triumvirate. Either way, a new
schedule will have to come out then. Is it ironic that I'm currently
watching Caesar on TNT right now?
Feel free to trade weeks. Just keep the info in a post that I've
posted in or email me. And if you do email, I'd like it if both
trading partners email me, rather than just one of you. A new
schedule will have to come out for the remainder of August, regardless.
[> [> JBone, can cats
vote in this? -- Rochefort, 20:46:38 06/29/03 Sun
Cause if cats can vote, my household gives two more votes to Lilah.
Come on people, let's get out the cat vote!
[> [> [> Okay, Roch,
fess up...have you been rallying the cat vote? -- shadowkat,
10:35:11 06/30/03 Mon
And here I thought I was the only "kat" voting in this
thing. Of course I voted for Lilah, would a cat vote for Clem?
Come on!
So how many cats have joined now, eh? And if cats are banned,
where does that leave me? ;-)
[> [> Go Clem! Gooooooooooo
CLEM!!! -- dub ;o), 21:09:48 06/29/03 Sun
You need not ask how I voted on this one. As the Official Adoptive
Parent of Clem (the Loose-Skinned Demon), the Official Keeper
of Clem's Kittens, and the Owner and Operator of Clem's Homestead,
it was truly no contest!
Long Live Clem and All the Kittens He Has SAVED!!!! (And I've
got the pictures to prove it.)
**mmmmmmrow** ;o)
[> Where are the Lilah fans??
Come on! Clem's whomping her! -- s'kat, 20:52:13 06/29/03
Sun
[> [> I did my duty,
c'mon guys! Vote early and often. -- LadyStarlight, 21:01:47
06/29/03 Sun
[> Come on, everybody! It's
a ballot-box stuffin' party! Let's do it! -- Random, veteran
of the 2000 election in the States, 21:23:47 06/29/03 Sun
[> Clem Fans BEWARE!!
-- dub ;o), 08:47:16 06/30/03 Mon
Those dastardly Lilah rooters have been multi-voting! Our boy
was well ahead until the ballot stuffing started. If you love
Clem, vote all day!!
dub ;o)
[> [> Even though I vote
for Lilah, I agree. We have a problem here.... -- cjl, 08:56:23
06/30/03 Mon
What is this? Florida, 2000? Chicago, 1968?
Come ON, people! The principle is: one sentient being, one vote.
I thought we wouldn't have any problems with this principle--not
on this board.
Jay, you might have to clean the slate and start all over.
[> [> [> Hey...I only
voted once. Are people really stuffing ballots? -- s'kat,
09:00:27 06/30/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> The
tally on Lilah vs. Clem is now 539 votes. Previous rounds averaged
50. -- cjl, 09:14:53 06/30/03 Mon
Unless Jay's vote tabulator has messed up big time, there's definitely
something fishy going on here.
[> [> [> [> [>
Not fishy, catty. Methinks cats may actually be voting in this
round. -- s'kat, 09:33:52 06/30/03 Mon
Okay...fess up, who is logging votes for each of their cats?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Don't even try to stop the cats- they're almost as dangerous
as bunnies -- Alison, 09:47:49 06/30/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Did Congress pass a KittyKat Voting Rights Act
of 2003 while I was watching Mets v. Yankees? -- cjl (confused),
09:55:56 06/30/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> You clearly are confused if you watch the
Mets. -- Sophist, 10:49:15 06/30/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> I know. How do you spend $120m on payroll
and wind up fielding a AAA team? -- cjl, 12:00:12 06/30/03
Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> They must have paid by the pound.
At least in Mo's case. -- Sophist, 12:46:59 06/30/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> MOLOJ denies any connection
to KUTSKE (kitties united to stop kitty eating) -- Rochefort,
12:49:43 06/30/03 Mon
[> [> [> If Clem and
Lilah cause this much passion, I hate to think what'll happen
in the S***e rounds... -- KdS, 15:58:28 06/30/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> It
galvanizes two types of Buffy fans... -- Rochefort, 16:32:54
06/30/03 Mon
Those who like cats, and those who don't.
No, I'm kidding, but I do think it galvanizes two types of fans.
I'm just not sure what the two types are.
[> [> [> [> [>
Cutists and angstists? -- KdS, 17:31:09 06/30/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Could be. But it takes a particular type of person to
find Clem "cute". -- Rochefort, 17:49:44 06/30/03
Mon
I mean, to me, it takes more than just eating "bugles"
to be called cute.
But I'm willing to accept the angstist label for the rest of us.
[> [> [> [> Kitties
don't have strong feelings about S***e -- mamcu, 17:14:09
06/30/03 Mon
[> [> Re: Clem Fans BEWARE!!
-- CW, 09:56:17 06/30/03 Mon
Just like last year, it's turned into a fraud contest. I won't
participate any more. Why bother if someone's going to cheat as
soon they don't get their way?
PS I voted for Clem exactly once!
[> [> [> Statement
from MOLOJ in support of Road to the Apocolypse -- Rochefort,
14:25:18 06/30/03 Mon
When Road to Apocolypse was attacked by renegade vote tampering
last night, we were ALL attacked.
Don't go bailing on JBone and this contest. Cheating is the BASIS
of the American political system, and so a few of our American
voters might not understand the way the system works here. I'm
confident that we can make ourselves a model of a democratic system
once again.
MOLOJ again denies any connection to the recent vote tampering.
We have plenty of our OWN underground plots going on. Even though
a few members of KUTSKE may also be in MOLOJ, MOLOJ denounces
the recent actions of KUTSKE (while supporting their motives)
and pledges its support to JBone in sorting out this mess. Allegations
that MOLOJ may be hiding some of the KUTSKE leaders, including
dictator for life Miss Kitty Fantastico, are highly exaggerated.
A few bowls of milk outside my door hardly count as hiding and
are merely ME sanctioned Kittytarian aid. Now let's get this mess
sorted out and get it back up and running!
[> [> It's Ruben vs.
Clay all over again! -- HonorH, 13:45:27 06/30/03 Mon
*Ow!* Stop throwing things at me for using American Idol comparisons.
Is that nice?
[> [> Weird. I only voted
once, but if you Google... -- Scroll, 22:53:08 06/30/03
Mon
and type in "vote" and "Lilah", you easily
get the ATPo board and JBone's Sweet Sixteen from last year. So
maybe we're just getting some random Lilah fans who are joining
in the contest?
[> Should have been Clem
vs. Miss Kitty Fantastico -- mamcu, 13:47:50 06/30/03 Mon
[> Question for those who
visit other boards -- Jay, 15:32:24 06/30/03 Mon
I'm wondering if the Road to the Apocalypse is being posted on
like, ten other boards? If that's the case, I welcome all Buffy
fans. If not, I'm gonna need new polling software. I might need
it anyway. If you have any suggestions, I'm open to them as long
as it's free. That's my budget, free webspace, free software.
I peeked in on the voting this morning as I was headed out the
door to work, and thought "were did all these votes come
from?" This wasn't a matchup that I thought that I would
have to worry about ballot box stuffing. That is, if that is what
this is. I'm gonna hold off on posting the results right away
and see if the 11x the normal vote amounts hold up.
Bottom line, I'm not sure what to make of this yet.
[> [> It is DEFINITELY
ballot box stuffing!! -- dub ;o), 18:37:16 06/30/03 Mon
I know, because I tried to even things up last night and voted
about 20 times for Clem and saw every vote recorded. Alas, it
was too little, and far too late so I gave up in disgust.
My sympathies to you on the software issue Jay. I'll poke around
and see if I can find any alternatives...
;o)
[> 566 votes? Can this be
right? Ho, boy. -- deeva, 15:52:01 06/30/03 Mon
[> Uh, guys? When I said
"vote often", I was *kidding*! ;) -- LadyStarlight,
17:13:14 06/30/03 Mon
[> Did A.J. Ayer really
visit my board? -- Masq, 17:43:21 06/30/03 Mon
And isn't he dead?
[> [> Just because you
died, it doesn't mean you're dead -- Alison, 18:26:08 06/30/03
Mon
[> [> loved his comment
-- JBone, 19:29:06 06/30/03 Mon
*Out of the
Chair* - Coda for Season Seven (a.k.a. "The Endless 7.22
Review") ... Part I -- OnM, 20:20:08 06/29/03 Sun
The sound of footsteps climbing rickety cellar stairs are heard
as we find ourselves in OnM's living room. The
cellar door opens, and The Third Evil appears and starts to head
for the kitchen. He glances over at his
father/brother who is watching a Buffy episode on the TV set.
A sudden snort of disgust disturbs OnM from his
video reverie. He looks back somewhat indifferently at his wayward
child.
OnM: Mmmm? Whazzup?
Evil Clone: Don't tell me you're still working on that
damn thing!! Enough already! Oh wait, that's
Lessons you're watching, sorry. Does that mean you've finally
worked through all your grief over the
series finale and you're ready to move on?
OnM: Didn't you read the part I wrote early on where I
said that it didn't bother me that the show was
finally ending, that the time really seemed right? Or any of the
other times that I posted that exact same thought
earlier in the year?
EC: Oh, c'mon now, you're as heartbroken as the rest of
us. Admit it. (effects whiny voice) I miss
my Buffyyyy... waahh... this mortal wound's all itchy! ... waahhh...
OnM: (grits teeth, then remembers dentist said not
to do that) Not heartbroken. Angel will continue in
the fall, Marsters will be on it and maybe some guest shots from
others in the Buffy cast. Firefly will be
released on DVD, and so will the remaining Buffy and Angel seasons.
In fact, I noticed that the little folder Fox
included in the end pocket of the S4 DVD set said "Buffy
Season 5 in 2003", not "Winter 2003" or any specific
season. Maybe they'll accelerate the release schedule now that
the series has ended.
EC: Doubt it, still gotta syndicate the last season and
milk those dollars from the franchise every which
possible way. Thus spake the marketplace. (pauses, grins) I saw
that on C-SPAN!
OnM: (yeah, right) Well, whatever. Even if they stay on
the current 6 month schedule, it's only 1.5 years
until all seven box sets will be resting nice and comfy on my
library shelves.
EC: Not 1.4 years? Or maybe1.65? Kill us both, Spock!
(beat) Well, not me...
OnM: Wiseass.
EC: Genetic engineering at its finest-- even my tuchis
passed its SAT's!
OnM: Yeah, well, mine is tired from sitting in front of
the keyboard-- I needed a break before I fire up
the 'Coda-- Part VII' part that will finish the review, or more
accurately sum up the season and all.
EC: I thought the review was done, yet you're still Coda-ing?
OnM: It won't be as long as the main review. There are
a few things that I wanted to touch on in the ep
reviews that just didn't fit in with the flow of the writing.
EC: And a mighty slow flow it was. How many weeks have
you been milking this poor cow?
OnM: There was no big rush. I didn't even get started on
End of Days before Chosen
aired. Besides, it is the end. I had to try my best to
make my last BtVS review memorable-- my fans
would expect no less.
EC: All 15 or 16 of them, huh? I must admit, I thought
I'd never see that day come. You got lucky.
OnM: Oh ye of little faith.
EC: Hey, that was one of your bigtime predictions that
didn't work out, guess you're pissed about that
one! Hee-hee...
OnM: Which prediction? Oh, yeah, the Dawn = Buffy+Faith
equation. No, and anyway, by the time the
last few eps of the year were making with the past tense, I was
already pretty sure that they weren't going to go
in that direction. On the other hand, they didn't resolve quite
a number of issues, or maybe it's fairer to say
potential plotlines. But that's cool. I'm really looking forward
to the movie franchise.
EC: You sure he's gonna go that route? I heard that he
wants to do a Firefly feature first. Hey I
alliterated! Can I write a review now?
OnM: I'm pretty sure there will be Buffy flicks, but Joss
needs to get some distance from the series first,
and that'll also give the characters time to grow a bit older
before they reappear. Some distance is important
there, also. Personally, I think my idea for the alternate universe
of Normal Again would make a great
first cinematic outing. I wish they accepted outside ideas, but
it's very unlikely.
EC: You mean the one you never finished the fanfic for,
from last summer? Maybe if you'd actually
finish a script, they'd look it over. Perhaps you could
do that right after you don't finish the CMotW
re-codings for Lady Starlight.
OnM: I do want to finish the story sometime, but now I
have to decide whether to keep it within the S6
to S7 summer time frame, or rewite it to be post-S7.
EC: Twice nothing is still nothing, you taught me that.
Write, already, and stop yer whining.
OnM: Whining? Who the hell is whining? I'm not whining!
(pauses, irked) Don't you have a nice juicy
alcoholic stupor or something to keep yourself occupied with this
afternoon?
EC: I'm in one right now. Can't you tell?
OnM: (looks carefully at Evil Clone) Amazing. You've exceeded
your design parameters yet again.
EC: Damn straight! Or, looped, really. (giggles slightly)
Hee-hee...
OnM: (changing the subject, as Lessons ends on the
big evil morph-athon and Buffy does the
"It's about power riff) Also amazing, how many hints
and outright foreshadowings this ep dropped as to
what would happen in the season-enders. I haven't rewatched Lessons
again since last fall, it's really
cool. For example, now we know that Wood knows that Buffy
is the Slayer, and that it wasn't just
chance that he hired her as the school 'counselor'. Dawn's really
cool too, even this early in the season. She's so
delightfully feisty and self-confident. I love that "I'm
taller than you" quip.
EC: Jailbait. Just sayin'. (suddenly rapidly stands up,
pauses several seconds, sits down just as abruptly)
Whoo... head rush there. Sudden blood pressure changes are so
nifty.
OnM: (cradles head in hands, mutters) So much for exceeding
design parameters...
EC: (yells Townshend-like) Yeeeeeeaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
OnM: (startled, jumps) Huh?! What? What the hell???
EC: No sleeping! (sings) So one of us is.... sleee--ee-pinggg...
OnM: (gets up off the couch, heads over to the computer
desk) Break time's over-- (sighs) back on my
head.
EC: (normal again, sort of-- moves over close enough to
see the monitor screen) So whatcha writin'?
OnM: Be careful not to dent the stair treads if you accidently
fall down the steps while heading to your
room.
EC: Oh, c'mon... you know you want to talk about it.
OnM: Write, not talk. Beer in the fridge, chips in the
cupboard. Go away.
EC: So, Dawn isn't Buffy plus Faith. You win some, you
lose some.
OnM: (opening word processor to new document) They didn't
do or say anything that makes my theory
incorrect, either. I could still be completely right, so
there.
EC: Ya, that's true, gotta admit. They were really high
on the ambiguity this last year. Didja read that
post that Finn Mac Cool wrote on the 'year of the fakeout'? He's
right, ya know.
OnM: (idly tapping a few keys) Yes, that was a very insightful
post. Finn's getting to be very observant.
I confess I didn't really notice the trend to the degree that
it actually existed. (starts entering the post title in the
header block)
EC: "Out of the Chair". Oooo, clever.
OnM: Well, while the events of End of Days and Chosen
were pivotal moments in the
life of Buffy and her friends, life goes on after them and they
will have to also. Heaven knows she's earned the
right to sit in the chair and dream for a while, but then there
are going to be new roads to travel down.
EC: I think they oughta go to England. Restart the Watcher's
Council, but this time with Buffy as the
head honcho. Or honcha. Faith can be the drill sergeant training
all the new Slayers, unless they need to call
somebody 'maggot'. Faith's all nice now, she wouldn't do that.
OnM: That was one of the more satisfying arc conclusions
for the series. Some months ago, I saw some
posts on another board where some disgruntled Faithians were bitching
that Faith was acting out of character on
her BtVS eps this year, based on spoiler scripts, of course. On
the contrary, I can't think of a single real mis-step
ME made with her along the way. I was fascinated to see how the
prickly relationship between her and Buffy
would be resolved, and they did it beautifully.
EC: Yeah, Buffy is such a pushover. One little punch and
a few unhappy glares and it's all peachy-keen
between her and her naughty alter-ego.
OnM: If she can forgive Spike for the attempted rape, she
should be able to forgive Faith for a similar
trespass. In fact, the 'old' Faith did rape Buffy psychologically,
one could reasonably venture. Buffy claimed that
Faith was the only one to truly 'victimize' her.
EC: Just think, if Joss had decided to make Buffy gay instead
of Willow, that could have been Faith
instead of Spike in Smashed.
OnM: I'm sure there's a fanfic somewhere that covers that
contingency.
EC: We never did get that 'all naked, all gay' Buffy ep
we were promised. I think I'll take legal action.
OnM: I'll call Alan Dershowitz in the morning.
EC: You will?? Cool! I... oh, wait... You schmuck... get
my hopes all up like that, and then 'poof'. Bah.
OnM: "Read porn, and bitch about movies". Thus
be the internet.
EC: You should write porn. No one would ever need Valium
again.
OnM: Are we going to talk about the show here or not?
EC: I was talking about the show. Wouldn't you like to
see Joss do porn? Metaphors and The Wacky,
the brain trembles. And maybe the genitals, with any luck. I bet
Shakespeare did porn, but those stuffy old
literary scholar guys kept it all to themselves, hidden away like
the Scythe, just waiting for the right person to
wrest it from the sacred rock.
OnM: You know, the Brewer's Outlet has a really great sale
going on non-alcoholic beers right now.
Maybe I should stock up.
EC: (deflates) You're just a stuck up tight-ass with no
sense of fun, aren'tcha?
OnM: I'm a very tired Buffy scholar with a treatise to
write, and you aren't helping. Look at this--
(points to screen) Oooo, a whole title already! Wow, guess I can
call it a day!
EC: Awright, awright, awright. Jeez... So tell me, Most
Scholaricious One, what were the high points of
the show for you this season? I will listen politely and not interrupt.
(beat, then makes snorting muffled laugh
exactly like Buffy in Chosen after the bisect-ual Caleb
shot)
OnM: (starts to type) Ahhh. There are so many. I really
did love this season, and I'm so delighted that
the show went out on top.
~ ~ ~ ( To be continued ) ~ ~ ~
[> *Spoiler Alert* - Contains
WKCS for Angel S5 and high wackiness quotient. You have been warned.
-- OnM, 20:23:57 06/29/03 Sun
[> Tease! ;o) -- Rob,
20:38:55 06/29/03 Sun
[> Hey, EC, look my way!
-- Honorificus (The Anti-Sue), 23:37:35 06/29/03 Sun
How's it going, guyfriend? Whenever you get finished playing with
your Insipid Clone, you should head on over to my place. A bunch
of us Evils are throwing a party. We've got it all: sacrificial
virgins (okay, some of 'em not so much, but close), Sterno cocktails,
kittens by the dozen, minions for all and sundry, and my head
chef made some truly wicked ferret kabobs! Plus, we've got a whole
troupe of Pylean dancers for the entertainment. Wouldn't be the
same without you, dollface! Call me!
[> Re: Thanks, OnM --
aliera, 04:40:16 06/30/03 Mon
Anyone else
think Nicholas Brendon and Alexis Denisoff are treated unfairly?
-- Ray, 03:29:01 06/30/03 Mon
By the promotional departments I mean. All ads for Angel showed
it as David Boreanaz and Charisma Carpenter, Buffy ads played
up SMG and Allyson Hannigan.
Anyone who's watched the shows know right away that the Xander/Wesley
characters are important to the show. I think it's a shame these
two great actors get disregarded so often.
Book Melee:
The Stars My Destination (spoilers for the book , natch) --
Cactus Watcher, 12:26:01 06/30/03 Mon
What? No one else read it?
This is one of those books I didn't read back in high school,
when I was reading a lot of sci-fi because the title was too cheesy...
(Actually, I think I did read the first chapter or so at some
point, it seems very familiar). It's also a more risque brand
of fiction than my parents would have wanted me to read in those
days. Ah, the innocent days of yore!
By and large I enjoyed reading it now. But, I have to say it was
difficult to swallow the reasons Gulley Foyle changed during the
book. Basically he got a little money and started hanging around
with rich folk. Jiz was in the prison largely because she didn't
agree with the way women were being cooped up by society. That's
understandable, but very little of the lessons she gave Gulley
seemed to make any impression on him, until he was stinking rich
and beginning to lose interest in getting vorga. Robin
didn't seem to be a particularly great role model, but it's after
Gulley forces her to be his companion that he really starts to
mellow.
It begs comparison with the story "Flowers for Algernon"
by Daniel Keyes, which was published three years after TSMD
(filmed as "Charlie" for which Cliff Robertson won an
oscar I believe). In that story, you can see that as Charlie grows
more and more intelligent his concerns change along with his attitudes.
He's the same sort of human being in both states, but his understanding
of his surroundings goes hand and hand with becoming smarter.
In TSMD Gulley is just a lucky brute, he's clever, but
self-centered. Being self-centered keeps him alive even at the
end of the book where he supposedly has changed. All that's really
happened is that his personal sense of right and wrong seems to
have dulled, the more he understands how society works.
Well, maybe that will at least start an argument. ;o)
[> Preserving the thread...I
have 20 pages left to read! I'll probably respond later tonight.
-- Rob, 12:51:02 06/30/03 Mon
...but so far, I didn't enjoy the book as much as I thought I
would, or wanted to, even. I liked it, very much in places, but
didn't love it, and I really thought I'd love it. I'll withhold
final judgment until the end, to see if it brings it all together
for me and elevates what happened before.
Rob
[> Manners and Morals
-- mamcu, 13:45:13 06/30/03 Mon
I could see where he got the education--that's what he and Jiz
did by talking with the Whisper Line while they were in Gouffre
Martel. So he changed his accent, learned everything, developed
a new style just by whispering? OK, maybe it's not realistic,
but it's an explanation.
What seems so strange to me is the shift in his morals. He was
so amoral that he would leave Jiz to die, as well as many others,
but what changes him, makes him no longer amoral is love of Olivia
Presteign, the woman who betrayed him in the first place by ordering
the Vorga to leave him adrift? That's the part I really can't
follow. Any explanations? Is is that love is transforming, no
matter what or who you love?
But I have to say that aside from the insufficient causes, I did
like his moral/spiritual journey, and loved the author's imagination.
Especially loved the Four Mile Circus.
The very last part, the travels to the stars, reminded me of the
end of 2001.
[> Re: Book Melee: The Stars
My Destination (spoilers for the book , natch) -- ponygirl,
14:03:04 06/30/03 Mon
We do seem to have a lot of anti-heroes in our book club selections!
I liked the book, but I think I viewed it a bit quaintly - that
whiff of the '50's that seemed to float off every page. As Neil
Gaiman said in the introduction nothing dates faster than ideas
of the future. But I find it's not so much the technology that
dates sci-fi but the attitudes. I remember taking a science fiction
course in university and one of the things we discussed was cultural
assumptions - the things that the author doesn't even consider
that could change no matter how many years in the future the book
is set. Usually it's attitudes about women, here I'd also add
ideas of class. It was interesting that Bester also seemed to
assume that class is very important to one's personal evolution.
Foyle doesn't truly begin to change until he sheds the speech
and manners of the working class. Enlightment seems to require
social graces ;)
I don't think I really got jaunting though. I could see not being
able to jaunte into an unknown location but why couldn't you jaunte
out?
[> [> Re: Whiff of the
fifties -- CW, 15:12:18 06/30/03 Mon
I know what you mean. Besides the tech level, there is sort of
a bounding along quality that pervades action scenes in sci-fi
of the 30's through the 50's. We bound here, do this, then bound
there, and do that. Very little subtle ever seems to happen.
Actually I'm not sure whether Bester's class consciousness is
more socialist inspired or snob inspired. Can't really tell if
he's saying Gully was a lout because he was low class, or because
he didn't have the benefit of the economic security and education
he gets during the book. Clearly Bester protrays the industrialists
uniformly as bad guys which sounds militantly 'pro-union' for
the 1950's. (Actually being socialist in those days was a big
no-no!) But, as you said, it's learning to fit in their upper
class circle, that seems to change him.
[> [> [> I thought
this book was much lighterscented than most '50's sci-fi.
-- WickedBuffy, 17:54:53 06/30/03 Mon
In fact, I had to recheck the publication date after I read it
to see when it had been written. I guess I was impressed with
the technological characterizations - they seemed so solid and
not all googly like some other old sci-fi stuff.
(Gotta love the covers of those really old paperbacks, though!)
[> [> Re: Book Melee:
The Stars My Destination (spoilers for the book , natch) --
Rob, 17:18:26 06/30/03 Mon
I'm not sure how much sense this makes, but I think that the reason
you couldn't jaunte out of somewhere that you didn't know is that
you have to able to conceive in your head exactly where you are
in juxtaposition to where you want to be. So if you don't know
where you're coming from exactly, you won't be able to properly
conceptualize the journey. What I wondered, though is why jaunting
actually did take people all across the planet. Wouldn't each
person have to visit every single country and every single possible
jaunting place the slow way before they could jaunte all over
the Earth? Seems like preparing to have the ability to jaunte
anywhere you want is a lot of trouble, and would be rather costly.
Rob
[> [> [> Remember
you can jaunte somewhere you do know, and *then* physically go
somewhere you don't -- KdS, 17:30:06 06/30/03 Mon
[> [> [> Non-science
fiction: Jaunting and ansibles and McCarthy -- mamcu, 17:35:58
06/30/03 Mon
The "scientific" devices in this story seemed to me
to be pretty much magical. Ursula Leguin has the same kind of
thing with her FTL drive and the ansible communicator--just a
gizmo that works, not a way that it works. Which is a little different
to my addled brain anyway from something like the shields and
beams of Startrek--for those, we have a sort of pseudo-scientific
idea of molecules being scrambled and reassembled, but for PyrE
and ansibles, no clue.
Which means to me that these are novels about a psychological
or sociological future, and really perhaps, like Gulliver's Travels
and Candide, really about the world the author lived in. So what
is Bester saying about the bomb of his own time, the people of
his own world? 1956--not a nice time. Just finished with McCarthyism.
Is Bester writing about the average American with his desire for
revenge at any cost?
[> [> [> They could
just memorize photos's from National Geographic magazines. :>
-- WickedBuffy, 17:59:07 06/30/03 Mon
I loved the Jaunting angle, and the subsequent affect it had on
society. It was like watching a cultural Pachinko game.
It reminded me of the tv show "Sliders" ::sob:: where
one change in something tilted life and people into a whole different
direction than the one we are accustomed to now.
[> [> [> Agree Rob.
It's not about the destination, it's about the journey. --
Tchaikovsky, 04:46:50 07/01/03 Tue
[> Can't talk now, but I'll
be back later tonight -- Sara,feeding Graffiti-rotten kid-does
he really need dinner?, 14:21:01 06/30/03 Mon
[> [> If you feed them,
they grow. Think about it. -- mamcu, 18:54:05 06/30/03
Mon
Sorry, Graffiti. But life is easier when parents outweigh children.
[> Re: Book Melee: did we
all read the same book? -- Rendyl, 15:05:57 06/30/03 Mon
Okay, before any in-depth discussion on my part I must get this
out of my system.
Ewwwwww! Just..ewwwww.
I feel much better now.
I know we are throwing around the anti-hero label but frankly
Gully is just another bad guy. He survived. Oh hurrah.
I think I get where the author was going but in my view he never
gets there. Even back in 1956 it was not 'heroic' to rape and
beat women. And the whole 'you treat us like dirt but we love
you anyway' thing is just sick. Gully didn't need the scars on
his face as a representation of his inner nature. He wasn't shy
about expressing it.
My main problem with the book was I had no investment other than
time in it. I didn't (and honestly couldn't) care about him so
it made the book much harder to wade through.
I even hunted down 'Oddy and Id' and an old copy of 'The Deceivers'
to see if maybe it was just Bester's writing style. (TD is no
great shakes and reads like a 1950's pulp but it was easier to
read than TSMD)
I am feeling a little lost about the whole thing. All the reviews
I searched out have nothing but praise for the book while I found
it painful to read and difficult to finish.
Ren
[> [> Re: Book Melee:
did we all read the same book? -- ponygirl, 16:27:25 06/30/03
Mon
I think that we were meant to see Foyle as little more than an
animal for much of the book - the tattoos on his face an illustration
of the beast inside. In some ways I think that Foyle represented
humanity's journey from instinct and rage-driven beasts to beings
able to cross the galaxy with the power of their minds. I liked
how Bester showed that science wasn't the civilizing factor -
the scientific colony had turned into a superstitious tribe within
a few generations - there was a spiritual element to it. Whether
Bester was successful in showing Foyle's evolution or if Foyle's
earlier behaviour was too repugnant to allow for redemption is
up for debate. I don't think he was successful - I'll admit though
I was kind of intrigued by how nasty Bester made Foyle, I had
been expecting some sort of square-jawed spaceman hero, a prejudice
I guess I have against '50's sci-fi.
[> [> [> Gully at
the end -- mamcu, 16:43:02 06/30/03 Mon
I think he was clearly meant to represent an abhorrent character--he
even talks about how horrible he is to Robin and Jiz. But clearly
he's someplace different at the end. And it's more than just his
outer style. So how is Bester accounting for the change?
[> [> [> Re: Book
Melee: did we all read the same book? -- Rendyl, 17:52:14
06/30/03 Mon
Nods. I find it hard to get past how awful he was for a good portion
of the book. I can hang in for resolution of a story but I need
some aspect of the character I can care about to enjoy it.
I also lose much of what Bester was probably intending because
I can't seem to understand what any of the women see in him. I
am a big fan of Mike Hammer and on the surface he and Gully share
some similarities but while Mike sometimes can make me cry Gully
is just...mean.
Ack...must run..mosre later..sorry
Ren
[> [> I hear you, Ren
-- dub ;o), 18:29:43 06/30/03 Mon
I felt like I had to deliberately repress most of the major cultural
advances of my life in order to finish reading it.
I'll admit that I did enjoy it overall because it was an intriguing
story, but the human interactions were universally abysmal. Gully
came into contact with four women and formed "relationships"
with all four; he raped Robin and yet she subsequently became
his mentor; he abandoned Jiz, left her to die exactly as he had
been left, and yet she did not dedicate the remainder of her life
to hunting him down and killing him; he came besotted with the
Presteign woman after seeing her once and declared his undying
love despite the fact that she was responsible for the seething
hatred that caused him to rebuild his life in the first place;
and he ends up with his arranged bride who seems quite content
with him.
The women are pretty scary too. I mean, Jiz and Gully fall in
love on the basis of their whispered conversations in the darkness
and it's only after they've escaped and consummated their love
that Jiz sees Gully's tattooed face and, presumably, is horrified.
Gee, shallow much? The Presteign babe (wish I could remember her
name) is even worse, possibly sociopathic.
All in all, an interesting tale but woo-hoo, these people would
have been less than human even by 50s standards.
dub ;o)
(Who has a car now and knows that the above post makes very little
sense, but what the heck, it has air-conditioning!!)
[> Was there any R-e-d-e-m-p-t-i-o-n?
and damn, I wish I could jaunt. -- WickedBuffy, 18:36:23
06/30/03 Mon
(I just put that "redemption" thing in the subject
line because I know it's like handing big sticks to people standing
knee-deep in pony cadavers. But the only redemption I saw was
in Jiz. Anyone see anymore going on?)
I agree with you and also as mamcu and others pointed out - the
reversal in Gully because of the love of a maiden ::koff:: felt
sudden and contrived. And just didn't ring true with how he had
been progressing.
Perhaps it was just the authors literary shortcomings - or maybe
Besters editor demanded some of that ever-popular "love tames
the savage beast" stuff to be thrown in for a wider appeal.
Olivia Presteign as the object of this self-revolutionizing love?
Made no sense whatsoever to me. I felt like I was suddenly reading
something with Fabio preening barechested on the cover.
Since Flowers for Algernon is a personal metaphor for me - I was
interested in your comparison of the two books. I hadn't gotten
that from the transformation, though. But then again, maybe Keyes
pulled it off 100% and Bester presented the point at a poor 25%.
I still liked the book - but not if I look as deeply at it as
I would Flowers for Algernon - or even a Kodak commercial. The
first 2/3rds of the novel really entertained me. I was enthralled
by Jaunting and all its different apsects and influences on society.
The different people he met and their little mores. Or big ones.
Liked the tattoo surprise and that crazy little asteroid.
But that last third of the book seemed almost as if Bester had
had a very, very long idle period between chapters. Gullys character
started doing things that didn't seem Gullyish. (Maybe Bester
had hidden multiple personality subtext going on, I dunno.)
Up until the change, I would have loved seeing Gullys character
in some Buffy episodes. Or maybe parts of him added into Adam,
to give the old corpse some more depth and quirks.
At least Besters character wasn't as inconsistant as Joss's. The
First Evil. I'm still smoldering on that one.
[> [> "Pony cadavers"?
Hello to the imagery! -- ponygirl, 19:14:21 06/30/03 Mon
[> [> [> I was SO
hoping you wouldn't see that. My aponolgies to your senses.
-- WickedBuffy ===:O, 19:24:22 06/30/03 Mon
[> Back now, work is done,
kid is fed -- Sara, 20:19:35 06/30/03 Mon
Just to start - I don't really think spoiler labels should be
necessary on the book discussion posts - I don't see how you can
talk about a specific book without, well, talking about it. To
any who disagree - there will be spoilers that follow!
Didn't really love this book, I just didn't feel like I got some
of it.
So to start - things I didn't get:
1. Why was Jiz so angry when she saw Gully's face? He didn' deceive
or take advantage of her, repulsed I could understand, but she
was very angry.
2. Why didn't Robin jaunte out of her home as soon as she felt
any danger from Gully?
3. I also agree with that Gully's transformation wasn't really
well explained. I didn't really understand why his whole attitude
changed.
Things I didn't like:
1. Robin and Jiz finding true love - it just felt somewhat forced
and did not match the tone of the book.
2. The place of women in this society. It's the same gripe I have
with Firefly, only even more so. Why is it that anyone would think
that as a society would grow in complexity, a women's role would
shrink and become more marginalized? Especially to this extreme
- it appears that women have no other role than sex and procreation.
There has never been a time in history where that has been true.
There have certainly been times where choices have been constrained,
and many individual women have had limited exposure to the world,
but never has an entire society locked up all it's women in a
closet to keep them "safe and sound." No society has
ever been in a position to be able to afford to write off that
many people's contributions. I couldn't buy into the world Bester
built right off the bat.
3. The payoff, giving the whole world pyrE. Is there any reality
in which that choice would not end the world within a week? Do
you really give every madman the tools to destroy the world so
that the sane people can make their own choices? The choices of
the rational become kind of meaningless if the irrational can
wipe out the world with a single thought. Seemed kind of silly
idealism to me.
There was only one thing I liked which is a single quote, but
it is beautiful: "Faith in faith...It isn't necessary
to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe
that somewhere there's something worthy of belief." That
one quote made the whole book worth reading for me. Reminds me
of the central theme in one of my favorite plays, "Beckett"
- the honor of God being worth protection even when your own honor
is not.
By the way, also loved "Flowers for Algernon" - maybe
we should try that on another melee!
- Sara
[> Tiger Tiger -- Vickie,
23:39:49 06/30/03 Mon
Just a few thoughts. First, I absolutely agree with Ren and WW
and several others: Gully Foyle is not a nice guy. He's a thug.
I think that's partly the point.
Remember that the original title of the book was Tiger Tiger
and that the first stanza of William Blake's poem is the epigraph.
Not to put too fine a point on it, I think Foyle is the tiger.
Tiger, tiger, burning bright,
In the forest of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
Blake's poem is part of Songs of Innocence and Songs of Experience,
wherein he postulates a spiritual reality a bit more eastern than
traditionally western. (And where's Rahael when you really need
her? Here I am, attempting to interpret poetry over here!)
Instead of an opposition between good and evil per se, there is
an opposition between positive and negative energies as perceived
in this life of ours. But both are necessary for spiritual
advancement.
The tiger is beautiful and strong and awesome, but it's not good
from our perspective. From it's own, it's just hungry, or angry,
or bored. But from ours it is dangerous regardless. And you can
take a tiger out of the jungle and make it jump through hoops
in the circus, but it's still a tiger. Foyle was still a strong
dangerous beast, no matter what beautiful period costume he wore
to the New Year's parties.
Several boardizens have asked about Foyle's "redemption"
and criticized his development in the latter parts of the book.
I agree. Bester, if he was trying to show Foyle evolving from
being a beast, failed. But what if he wasn't?
What if Bester was trying to show Everyman as a beast? As an amiable,
unambitious smuck who, if pushed too hard, can become capable
of absorbing great amounts of culture and knowledge, of transforming
his outer self with improved grammar and clothing, not to achieve
some noble goal but for his own vicious ends: revenge?
Giving PyrE to humankind is not necessarily "good" in
this scenario. Indeed, it is handing a baby (or a thug) a lighted
match in a room full of open gas cans (insert your own highly
inflammable scenario here). However, it may be the right sort
of opposition for humankind's spiritual growth.
In another sense, Foyle may have a connection to Prometheus. The
giver of fire. The second stanza of the same Blake poem:
In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare sieze the fire?
Fire is also beautiful, powerful, and deadly. It is itself, neither
good nor bad intrinsically. It is also powerfully dangerous.
Just to be nice to those who like Blake, and because I don't really
have a conclusion, here is the rest of the poem:
And what shoulder, and what art,
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
When they heart began to beat,
What dread hand forged thy dread feet?
What the hammer? What the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? What dread grasp
Dared its deadly terrors clasp?
When the stars thew down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears,
Did He smile his work to see?
Did He who made the lamb make thee?
Tiger, tiger, burning bright,
In the forest of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
(as always, ymmv. Hoping for at least some contention over here!)
[> [> No contention here!
-- Rahael, 05:06:39 07/01/03 Tue
Actually I haven't finished Stars. I got derailed by Harry Potter
and then I came home and have to get my own copy, rather than
reading d'H's copy. But what I read of it so far, tallies with
your take, Vickie. I thought Gully seemed a monster but I wasn't
repelled (of course, I haven't got to the parts where he keeps
mistreating women etc).
Am in fact drawn by the fact that it appears Foyle isn't redeemed
noticeably throughout the novel.
Thank you for a great post btw. Will be keeping your thoughts
in mind when I buy a copy and finish reading it.
The First
Evil is the SOURCE of evil - an example -- Walking Turtle,
13:36:06 06/30/03 Mon
In Lunasea's Post 19:28:05 06/29/03 Sun we have:
* I never saw the First Evil as Evil. It is the SOURCE of evil.
It would have been interesting to explore what this meant, but
I think they are saving that for Angel's series finale. It was
key to his birth as a savior on Christmas. What exactly it is
won't be dealt with until later. *
Here's a fanfic view of how the First Evil works as the SOURCE
of evil that I found interestingly done; in some ways a clearer
description than was done by the writers during the 7th season
see N W H E P C A T
C:\Webstuff\Buffy\F I C by N W H E P C A T\_F I C by N W H E P
C A T.htm
Has some NC17 Stuff but the
Auld Acquaintance Series is by comparision tame when compared
to most NC17 fanfic
Here are the stories urls
SUNNYDALE CALLING -- http://www.echonyc.com/~stax/Buffy/nwhepcat/calling.html
FIVE CONVERSATIONS -- http://www.echonyc.com/~stax/Buffy/nwhepcat/five.html
THREE FIGHTS -------- http://www.echonyc.com/~stax/Buffy/nwhepcat/three.html
Five by Three ------- http://www.echonyc.com/~stax/Buffy/nwhepcat/fiveby.html
[> The First Evil seemed
to be the temptation, not the source. -- WickedBuffy, 17:31:52
06/30/03 Mon
in regards to Season 7 BTVS. Tempting people, even "coaching"
them to bring out what was already inside them.
So was it both? Or is that two different "things"? It
seemed a paradox to me - conflicting characterizations where the
FE is called the source - but is inside all of us, yet was able
to be seen and obviously had intelligence, premeditiation, etc.
Everything that is humanlike. But then it's only power is in manipulation
and temptation and some power exchanges. It's incorpreal, yet
it could become one with Caleb and suddenly have incredible strength
and death-rebound talents. Did the FE "talk" Caleb into
having those powers?
The FE was supposed to be one of the biggest villians but it was
also one of the most inconsistantly presented ones. And that makes
it really difficult to discuss.
In regards to Christianity - would the FE be the snake or the
apple in the Garden of Eden? Was it the tempter? or was it the
knowledge of what temptation was?
I'm still disappointed with how the "character". It's
writing was unstable and continuity more confusion. blick. Why
didn't they just bring the Mayor back to finish off the show?
;>
[> [> The First Evil
was never a character -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:47:45 06/30/03
Mon
Rather, it is an accumultion of characters. As it said in "Touched",
while it is the First Evil, it is also the people it takes the
form of. When they die, they become part of the First, are connected
to it. That's part of why the First is so inconsistent: depending
on its form, it's a different character.
[> [> [> you say tomato,
I say characto -- WickedBuffy, 19:21:08 06/30/03 Mon
Yes, I think you are right on target and understand completely
about why the FE acted differently - that was based on the form
it was presently taking.
The inconsistancy I'm referring to is in the actual writing of
the FE. What the ME writers created. That to me, wasn't as congruent
as all the other characters they had developed. Character writing
flaws? Maybe that's a better term.
Was that big demon we saw jumping into Caleb another already dead
form it had taken on?
This is what confuses me - "When they die, they become part
of the First, are connected to it" yet we were also told
that it's already in all of us. It's as if Buffy's sweater color
changes from one camera angle to the next - that kind of not making
sense.
How is it decided who becomes part of the FE and who doesn't?
From that, it almost sounds like the FE is a metaphor for Christian
Hell and other places people believe in. But it takes anyones
shape, even Buffy and the lil suthern SIT - does that mean we
all become part of the FE?
But then one of it's goals seemed to be to "more" in
all of us?
[> [> [> [> The
First -- BMF (expert lurker - don't run away), 20:25:10
06/30/03 Mon
Just a thought: I assumed all along that the First was neither
cause nor effect but pure form, a conscious energy. In other words,
the First is the very definition of evil. In life, it is part
of us because we create it through having the potential for evil,
which creates evil energy that is in turn manifested as the First.
Becoming a part of the First is possible by letting its consciousness
replace your own. This, IMHO, is what Caleb did. That the First
had power that could be transferred to its minions could be explained
by the First tapping into the evil energies that give it form
and transferring them to its followers. Thus, being more "in
us" would equal more of it.
[> [> [> [> [>
Is the FE the chicken or the egg? ;> -- WickedBuffy,
21:02:59 06/30/03 Mon
"In life, it is part of us because we create it through having
the potential for evil, which creates evil energy that is in turn
manifested as the First"
Not real clear on what you meant? It was stated that The First
Evil was here way before us, humans. (big boom, blahblah)
So we couldn't have originally created it. It's prehuman, according
to Buffyverse. Are we recreating it?
So, we had it in us first? Or as we "became", we held
the potential within us for this energy outside of us to come
into us? Or since it was already in the fabric of "here"
when we came onto the scene, was it part of what was built into
us?
If it is a conscious energy, then is is a separate conscious energy?
It would be difficult to be our conscious energy, since it predates
us.
Buffyverse states that FE was before we came onto the scene, that
it is in us, that it wanted to be completely within us (like it
was in Caleb), that it is separate from us, that it can take dead
peoples forms but then also takes on parts of that persons personna.
don't run away :>
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Before there was humanity . . . -- Finn Mac Cool,
21:59:03 06/30/03 Mon
There were demons, the Old Ones, and they certainly had evil in
them for the First Evil to draw on. Who's to say that the First
is only the embodiment of human evil? There are lots of other
beings out there who contain evil.
Also, please keep "Amends" in mind; just because a big
evil claims something doesn't mean it's true.
[> [> [> [> The
First as a Form -- BMF (expert lurker - don't run away), 20:26:13
06/30/03 Mon
Just a thought: I assumed all along that the First was neither
cause nor effect but pure form, a conscious energy. In other words,
the First is the very definition of evil. In life, it is part
of us because we create it through having the potential for evil,
which creates evil energy that is in turn manifested as the First.
Becoming a part of the First is possible by letting its consciousness
replace your own. This, IMHO, is what Caleb did. That the First
had power that could be transferred to its minions could be explained
by the First tapping into the evil energies that give it form
and transferring them to its followers. Thus, being more "in
us" would equal more of it.
[> [> [> [> Ignore
First Post - Sent In Error (NT) -- BMF, 20:29:32 06/30/03
Mon
Completely
OT (and from a lurker even) But it is kitties! -- moqui, 16:21:07
06/30/03 Mon
Because I know there are a few people on this board who will appreciate
my good news, I just couldn't resist sharing.
It's been a hard 10 months. I've had to put 3 beloved family pets
to sleep. Thankfully, they were all old-age related illnesses
- no trauma, emergency room situations-and we had had a wonderful
15 years with our Dalmatian, and two cats. Last August, after
we lost our Dalmatian, we adopted an Austrailian Shepherd puppy.
The two older cats tolerated his bouncy ways with typical cat-ness.
If cats could roll their eyes... Then last November, our oldest
cat developed cancer and we lost her. At the beginning of June,
our remaining cat had to be put down because of diabetes.
OK-now to the good news-we've adopted two new kittens. They are
12 week old domestic shorthairs. Not related, but with similar
markings. From the beginning Hobbes (not orange-nor a philosopher)
was the adventurous one, exploring the house-running thru the
Aussie's legs. Merlin stayed hidden for a week, and I was beginning
to worry. We called him "inviso-kitty", and my husband
didn't believe we actually had TWO cats. But Merlin has come out
of hiding, and decided that cuddling and talking are his favorite
pastimes. He chirps and trills as he rubs his face against yours.
Hobbes has decided that the 13mo. old male Aussie is his mother-and
will try to nurse. Now, if dogs could roll their eyes...
My house feels complete again "with two cats in the yard"
Thanks for letting me share.
[> Awww... -- Anneth,
16:25:31 06/30/03 Mon
[> We were wondering if
Hobbes and Merlin wanted to join KUTSKE -- M.K.F., 16:45:36
06/30/03 Mon
[> [> They'd be proud
to join. (After all, they are kitties) -- moqui, 18:10:41
06/30/03 Mon
[> Congratulations!
-- dub ;o), 17:28:16 06/30/03 Mon
Wow, very similar story here...our Dalmation passed away last
September and we got a poodle puppy last month. And we have the
requisite two cats, although one is extremely elderly now. The
other, however, we've had less than a year.
I can relate so much to what you say about not feeling complete
without the proper combination of "fur people" around.
They become such an integral part of our lives.
Oh, and I believe I actually have seen our long-suffering cat
roll her eyes heavenward whilst being sniffed in inappropiate
places by a cold puppy nose--not sure if it was mortification
or bliss, LOL!
;o) dub
[> Re: Completely OT (and
from a lurker even) But it is kitties! -- JM, 19:27:10
06/30/03 Mon
They always do seem to go away together. Almost as if they don't
quite want to stay here without their four-footed compatriots.
The face-to-face contact is their way of telling you that you're
a cat too. Though it's slightly unnerving the first time THEY
pet you.
Is Wes His
Dad -- JM,
19:20:18 06/30/03 Mon
Haven't posted in a while. Not that I was ever a regular, and
doubt anyone noticed, but I feel more than a bit presumptuous
starting a thread, when I haven't participated in a discussion
since nearly October. The board has been very interesting, and
I have visited often, but I got seduced by live journal interaction
with fanfic authors. Plus I was emotionally shell-shocked by the
cancellation of Firefly, conflicted in my response to the last
season of Buffy, and entirely overwhelmed by Angel. It's not very
relevant, but I feel the need to excuse the temerity of posting
carte-blanche when I haven't even contributed my paltry bit to
the fascinating discussions of the past year.
I ought hold my tongue, and won't be insulted if the Voy demon
eats this responseless, but a post on TWOP piqued (sp.?) my curiosity.
Did anyone else ever see this, this season? Some one posted about
Wes, his dad, and how much tougher he is lately, and I though,
why not? So cross post, ignore at your leisure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Wow, has he ever changed. Very interesting though that the toughness,
machismo is not entirely shown to be coming from an admirable
place. Wes has gotten in touch with a nasty, not just dark, part
in himself. Earlier this season, his interactions with AI reflected
not just a justified, at least to him, hurt and anger, but a deliberate
caustic sarcasm. A calculated provocation to Charles, a manipulative
goading toward Fred's vengeful tendencies. Choosing the haughtiest
and most hurtful way to deliver the news about Connor and Cordy.
I think in "Billy" the parallel between Wes and his
father was barely subtextual. The "lying" convo with
Fred echoing the rhythm of the phone call in "Belonging;"
his breakdown at the end. I was thrilled with dark Wes, but around
STBthlm I started wondering how similar Wesley and his father
might really be. Wes seemed to me to be trying to live a moral
life on the theoretical level, choosing the mission over W&H's
bribe, but being as cruel, cold, and hostile to actual humans
as possible, whether they be his former co-workers, his current
co-workers, or his lover. Attempts to maintain dominance play
a huge role in his relationship with Lilah right to the break-up.
He's apparently morally incorruptible and emotionally indominatable,
but a deeply unpleasant person, rather than a good one. It made
me wonder if English Sr. might be a similar person. Starting out
with Wes's almost romantic cosmological moral code, but so conscious
of being wronged by life, so concerned with protecting his vulnerabilities,
that he would see a child more as an option for dominance and
control, than an opportunity for love and connection. This realization
squicked me more than "Billy" and closet-Justine had.
I had fanwanked Wes's dad into a monster, it had never occurred
to me before that Wes has every capacity, and some inclination,
to be a monster himself.
I wonder if the torture in "Release" wasn't supposed
to be a parallel of "Bad Girls." Faith's "What
are you doing" to Buffy's "What did you do." Wes
didn't have to echo "No, you don't understand, I don't care,"
to get a similar point across. Though his reconciliation with
Angel seems to have grounded him somewhat, I wonder if he struggles
to appropriately channel what power he has, not nearly of Slayer
capacity certainly, but of intellect, training, skill, and detachment,
to appropriate, decent ends. Especially as his moral limits and
his tastes seem to be somewhat outliers from societal norms.
(Don't be mislead, I adore Wes beyond believing, and suspect AD
is a god. But still. . . )
[> This is excellent, and
welcome back, JM! -- Scroll, 22:49:05 06/30/03 Mon
I noticed you posting last year, and I'm glad you're back. I am
way beyond tired from a BBQ tonight so I can't think of anything
intelligent to say about Wes right now except that you're probably
on the right track. Will hopefully have something for you tomorrow!
[> I've missed your posts
-- Rahael, 03:31:53 07/01/03 Tue
In fact I was wondering whether your absence was due to a dislike
of either S7 or S4.
I too adore the character of Wes while seeing him as dark, very
dark. Capable of plumbing the depths.
To go a little off tangent, I am wondering about the images of
the season we see at the beginning, through the prism of Home.
Most particularly, we see Angel 'sink' as a character because
of what he does for love. I must say that while I think Angel
is wrong for what he does in Home, I do not think it is the crime
of selfishness or crime of wanting to have an easier life. It
is a reminder that love can be dark. I pretty much regarded Jasmine
as metaphor made flesh. Indeed, we are constantly pointed to the
fact that the flesh she wears is an illusion. Concept wearing
the blood of innocents. The darker side of Love, the darker side
of self sacrifice. Feeding your former friend, now enemy with
your own blood to revive him etc.
By the way, do you have an LJ? The AtS discussions were what drew
me into that whole side of things - it's a fascinating and different
world!
HAPPY CANADA
DAY!! Kittens and chocolates for all! -- Scroll, 22:54:26
06/30/03 Mon
[> Best regards to our Canadian
friends from your southern neighbors! -- CW, 06:37:03 07/01/03
Tue
[> So what are you doing
this Canada Day? -- Doug, 08:18:06 07/01/03 Tue
I'm going to be in downtown Ottawa near parliament hill to watch
the fireworks.
[> [> All sort of fun
stuff, I hope. -- AurraSing, 08:40:17 07/01/03 Tue
There is a 4 hour party for kids (dunk tank,giant bouncing castle
ride,etc) set up in the biggest kids park this afternoon then
tonight there is a free swim at the aquatic center with a live
outdoor concert on the lawn outside capped by fireworks at dusk.
Cake and all sort of eats plus the sun is shining so it looks
to be a wonderful day here in the Rockies.
Yeah Canada!!
[> [> Hopefully napping
at some point.... -- LadyStarlight, 08:57:52 07/01/03 Tue
but the spawn want to see what's going on around town.
[> [> Driving around
in my new car -- dub ;o), 10:01:01 07/01/03 Tue
Which is only new to me, but that's okay. And did I mention it
has air conditioning? Oh, joy! No one can appreciate air conditioning
like a 50 year old woman can appreciate air conditioning, LOL!
Happy Canada Day!
dub ;o)
[> [> [> So what did
you get? -- mamcu, 18:07:58 07/01/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> I went
with the Neon -- dub ;o), 18:38:50 07/01/03 Tue
Various reviews were about 5 to 2 in favour of the Neon, I got
a really good three-year warranty on just about every part of
it (including the notorious head gasket), and the price was definitely
right.
So far, I'm in heaven!
;o)
[> [> BBQ and picnic
-- Scroll, 19:12:40 07/01/03 Tue
I had a BBQ at a friend's house last night, and a picnic with
my extended family today. Was lots of fun, lots of food, lots
of jokes and bad karaoke(!), and I haven't been eaten alive by
bugs so I'm happy. We kinda got lost on the way to the picnic
grounds up north though, but fortunately my sister has a better
sense of direction than my dad and she got us on the right road
again :)
Hope everyone else is having fun today!
[> Belated Happy C Day.
Hard to ask for a better neighbor. -- JM, 19:42:39 07/01/03
Tue
Current board
| July 2003