June 2001 posts
Can I be a cudgel, or a pointy stick? -- Solitude1056,
21:13:14 06/20/01 Wed
We've seen a number of different bad guys over the past 6 seasons.
First there was the Master - and he's one who didn't need a black
hat to let you know right away that he was obviously bad. I mean,
fruit punch mouth? And we've had Spike 'n Dru, the Mayor, the
Judge, Adam, and Glory. With the exception of Glory, who was quite
cute in a cheerleader-gone-serial-killer kind of way, and the
Mayor - that paragon of miniature golf and germ warfare - the
rest of our bad guys have usually tended towards being just as
ugly on the outside as they were on the inside.
But the bad guy that got me the most, and probably always will,
was Angel. Not because he could go all grrr, but because originally
he was one of the good guys - he was one of us. When he went bad,
he took with him all the knowledge of the Scoobies' (and Buffy's)
vulnerabilities. The Master, the Mayor, the God: none of them
had any true insight into Buffy's strengths, and her crew's strengths,
except through vicarious knowledge. The Master had high school
classmates who'd gone vamp, the Mayor had Faith, and Glory had
Ben. But all of these vicarious sources of insight were in themselves
limited to what knowledge the Scoobies doled out to them, or what
glimpses they could catch when the Scoobies would stumble and
let loose potent information.
The real source of terror, for me, will always be when the murderer
is someone we all know and love - and it ain't the butler. It's
someone among us... insert drumroll here, if we're unmasking,
or that annoying dink-dink-dink music if we're still in dark hallway,
working our way down to the cellar to check the circuit breaker,
and still ignorant that we're being followed. So yeah, who's going
to be our next bad guy? Who could top a God, in terms of really
frightening the Scoobies? Who's someone the Scoobies could never
fight - not because they can't, but because they wouldn't want
to?
No points for guessing, since the message subject gave it away
if you've been paying attention. If you've not been paying attention,
you won't get a cookie.
So let's see. None of us really seem to see Willow happily going
off and dealing in spells with someone who was so clearly a potential
bad guy in this past season. On the other hand, a clearly potential
bad guy may be next season's opener, the usual Joss smokescreen
in his fine tradition of fooling us with one bad guy when the
real one is behind the curtain. So let's say Doc's the next season
bad guy, and will be such for at least the first few episodes,
or perhaps only the first one.
Now, I'm not saying my ideas would carry a whole season - in fact,
I doubt they would. And as further disclaimer, I doubt that with
Buffy returning in the season opener that we'd see my suggested
arc continue for a full season. Unless, that is, the fake-out
bad guy continues for a good length of time and manages to be
as sneaky as the Mayor, as patient as the Master, and as determined
as Glory - and as ruthless as Angelus. To top Glory, we need a
bad guy who can hold out, and has a good reason to do so. We've
got that reason already, in the form of Dawn, and her uncertain
potential as the Key. Doc might be able to do it, and for the
sake of argument, let's assume he can. (And btw, unless there's
a memo to the underworld that Glory/Ben is dead, who's to say
the Knights won't be making odd appearances here and there, when
the plot requires it?)
So given that we've generally established that the scariest is
one of our own, going bad, it's clear to me that Willow has the
most potential. For starters, Buffy made it clear that in Buffy's
opinion, Willow was the strongest of the group - in some ways,
perhaps stronger than Buffy. (I'm working on a post to explain
why this isn't true, in a magickal sense, but that won't be til
later this week.) Additionally, Buffy impressed on Willow, and
Willow herself learned through action, that Willow's got a lot
of ability to command things when Buffy's not around or isn't
willing. We're still acting under the impression that Spike is
chips ahoy, so Willow may be willing to leave Dawn's protection
to Spike, and take upon herself protection of the whole Scooby
gang in Buffy's absence. An additional note to this choice may
be Giles' withdrawal from the group in the wake of Buffy's death/return,
which means one less "top guy" to stand as buffer between
Willow and the decision making process. I posit this because the
chain of command seems pretty clear. Not the chain of action,
which runs roughly as Buffy, Spike, Xander, but the decision making,
which usually runs more as Buffy, Giles, Willow. If the first
one's been out of the picture by reason of being dead, and the
second has spent time in mourning, Willow will probably take on
the reins of running the group just as she temporarily did while
Buffy was comatose and Giles was injured.
However, we've seen in the past that when Willow's reacting to
something, she invariably goes overboard. She didn't just flip
out at finding Oz with what's-her-face, she planned to curse them
both. She didn't just get angry at Glory and vent - she pulled
up the darkest power she could and unleashed it with all she had.
And we know, from Evil Willow, that Willow's got a streak of some
pretty sadistic abilities buried in there somewhere. So in three
months' time, it's a good chance - going on these observations
- that our meek little Willow will have taken on the mantle of
running the group. So... what's wrong with that, as long as Tara
keeps her balanced?
First, Willow doesn't confide in Tara as much as she might, for
whatever reasons of her own. Look back to her attempt to help
Dawn with resurrection issues, and the fact that her actions were
done without forethought, and without consultation with Tara.
I also didn't get the impression that Tara had the clearest idea
of Willow's intent when Willow transported Glory - if I recall,
Tara seemed as shocked as the rest when Glory disappeared and
Willow fell over. Tara may have been under the impression that
the spell would have different effects, or perhaps Willow downplayed
the effort required and the risks involved, and led Tara to believe
the consequences would be minimal. I wouldn't be surprised, given
Willow's encouragement to Tara before the demon-finding spell:
"why not? come on, it'll be fun." Fun? Tara was rightfully
dubious, IMO, regardless of her own issues with demons and finding
them.
Ok, endless points aside, if Willow has spent the summer working
hard to be as strong as possible and garner as much magical power
as possible, I wouldn't be surprised. In Buffy's absence, Willow
will feel the burden twice as much and is likely to compensate.
Given that position if/when Buffy returns, I'd suggest that Willow
may feel it necessary to continue her role so as not to put Buffy
in a place again where her death is a possibility. If anyone would
make the argument of "I need to develop my power so I can
make sure you never get hurt again," it'd be Willow. She's
got the whole self-castigation action going on sometimes, and
may also secretly feel that if she were stronger, she could've
just pushed Doc off the ledge and away from Dawn, or perhaps just
levitated Dawn off the ledge and away from all danger. She's the
most likely of any of the Scoobies to overcompensate after the
fact - even more than Angel ever did. At least Angel had some
recognition of his limitations, while Willow steadfastly refuses
to acknowledge them in the face of what she considers to be pressing
reasons or bad situations.
So Buffy may end up fighting a Willow who's consuming herself
in getting as much power as possible in order to protect both
the Scoobies and a returned Buffy. And Buffy and the Scoobies
may end up fighting a Willow who's become addicted to her power,
and the self-identity she's built around being the "most
powerful" of the Scoobies. If we threaten to take away Willow's
magic, or to downplay its importance to the group, then it's a
good chance that Willow would see such as a threat to her very
self-identity at this point. After all, we've hardly seen her
at the computer except once or twice this past season, and she
hasn't been figuring out the minor mysteries like she used to
- more and more of her time has been spent relying on her ability
in magic to be her contribution. At this point, it seems to be
her sole contribution, so any intimation that it's a bad thing
may be taken as a personal affront. And that would make for a
pissed-off, powerful, Willow.
And that's how you get a bad guy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Can I be a cudgel, or a pointy stick? -- Masq, 21:31:39
06/20/01 Wed
Cool idea--right up there with Joss's evility--but how could the
situation be resolved at the end of the season
1. without being incredibly cheesy ("Oh, I was so wrong Buffy,
Tara, Xander... how can you ever forgive me!)
or 2. without killing off Willow,
or 3. without sending Willow to hell skewered on a pointy sword
with Chris-Beck-like theme music swelling up in the background?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Can I be a cudgel, or a pointy stick? -- Solitude1056,
21:57:22 06/20/01 Wed
Two things: first, the season's arc has already been identified
as "oh, grow up," and second, Angel's already working
on a paradigm of vampirism as addiction. This is another type
of addiction, and treatment is similar.
Yeah, the "oh, I love you guys" could be cheesy, I suppose.
I'm not sure how it could be resolved... but I suppose I could
follow it to its likely conclusion and see where that gets us.
Hm, a wake-up call in the form of Willow putting herself in danger
wouldn't faze Willow - that's part of her ability to ignore her
own limitations if she feels her actions are justified. This goes
into a longer arc, I suppose, if I modify the theory a bit.
What I forgot to mention in the previous post was that Willow
is also likely to feel especially protective of Tara, due to the
possibility that she still feels responsible for having left Tara
alone and vulnerable when Glory attacked. The fact that she was
the main reason for Tara's mental return from the cabbage patch
may not stop Willow from feeling pressure to ensure that the situation
is never repeated. That could put additional pressure, and arc
the Tara/Willow story gracefully into replaying Tara's upbringing
- Willow's overprotectiveness is one more form of control over
Tara, similar in intent if not practice to her family's past pressures
on her. They sought to protect her from herself, while Willow
might seek to protect her from everything else - it amounts to
the same insistence on controlling Tara and her actions. And let's
face it, another season of Tara staying in the background wouldn't
please those of us who like her character, and I hope it wouldn't
please the writers, either. At some point, that girl's gonna finally
put her foot down, and I can see some insinuations that it could
happen with Willow, depending on how much Willow insists on holding
the power in the relationship.
Combine the self-pressure, the protectiveness, the control, and
the growing magical power, and it's possible that next seasons
arc will match the Initiative arc in pacing and style. IOW, the
threat causes more fear than the actual bad guy, and Tara can
effectively somehow knock the wind right out of Willow's sails.
So we get the message of 'oh, grow up,' whilst in the undercurrents
Joss plants all the intuitions we'll need for the final season.
Ok, so few writers these days take a whole season to move us into
place for the final 22 episodes, but then again, Joss isn't most
writers these days. He's in the style of the serial radio shows
of the 30's, where each half-hour led you on to the next, and
while things happened, there was always a slow-moving undercurrent
of the main story. Those evolved into our trite soap operas, but
Joss has brought back the fine art of entertainment over the long
run. And preparing us for the final season is going to be more
than just a one or two show run-down, it seems to me, and growing
up can't just be one or two characters. Why grow up, anyway, other
than it being the next thing to do? Joss doesn't do anything because
it's just the next thing to do - he's positioning the characters
where he wants them in preparation for the final season.
In part, that's why I posit Willow as being a useful arc, because
her move towards a negative position might force Tara into a more
active role as reaction. In that sense, I'm thinking backwards.
In the final season, we need Xander to be self-confident, and
not just a scared guy with a rock. We need Anya to be inventive
and sure of herself enough to hold up despite her tendencies to
skedaddle in the face of an apocalypse. We need Tara to be as
powerful as we've suspected she can be, and we need Willow to
stop going off half-cocked at any emotional turn. We need Spike
to be the action man we know and love or alternately to get the
hell out of the way so our moral ambiguities aren't tested anymore.
We need Giles to be over his dark secret of killing Ben and ready
to bring back the Ripper, and we need Buffy to be strong and sure
of herself. And most importantly, we need Dawn to be sure of herself
and her place in the world. Some of them are there already, but
Tara and Willow aren't. Putting the two of them through an arc-long
test, while Anya and Xander go through marriage as their own season-long
test, and Dawn and Spike go through some sort of bonding as theirs,
is one way (as I see it) to bring them all into place.
That may not answer your question, and it may only serve to explain
further why I think next season may revolve around how we can
be our own worst enemies... but I think Tara's going to be next
season's key to defeating whatever-it-is. In practical application,
I think it's most likely that Willow's overgrown power may inadvertantly
trigger something which Buffy then has to fight. If Tara calls
Willow on it, there might be an intermediary showdown. Either
Willow goes completely bad (which I doubt), or she recognizes
through her hardheadedness that Tara's right and she does her
usual over-reaction by swearing off magic. Her grow-up point is
finding that balance to help Buffy with the final smokescreen
bad guy, which I'd think would be one way Joss would keep the
real fight in the undercurrents: that of Willow with her own thirst
for power, and Tara with her own issues of flight or flight.
Uh, really? I dunno. I was kinda hoping everyone else would have
some good ideas. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Can I be a cudgel, or a pointy stick? --
Malandanza, 08:05:17 06/21/01 Thu
How about this idea to bring Willow back into the fold:
In battling the Scoobies and Buffy, Willow accidentally kills
Tara with one of her spells gone awry?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Can I be a cudgel, or a pointy stick?
-- Marie, 08:28:50 06/21/01 Thu
Just my two pennorth, but I've protested before that I don't think
someone intrinsically 'good' can be a 'Big Bad', and now I have
to reiterate...No!
Willow could've gone somewhere else to College, and chose to stay
in Sunnydale to help Buffy fight the good fight. Sure, she's made
some emotion-guided wrong decisions (who hasn't?), but her intentions
were never to harm her friends, and if that happened she was always
very sorry. True, she's come a long way in the magic stakes, but
always to fight on the side of the angels!
I might believe that she could be taken over temporarily (for
a couple or so episodes) by the dark side of the Black Arts, but
I think her good is too well-grounded (and she has such strong
support from her friends) that she could suddenly become truly
evil. Also, she's just got Tara back, but she's lost Buffy, one
of her closest friends, and she knows that Dawn needs her, and
needs her protection.
I hope she's not season 6's villain!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> What's a cudgel??! -- Manoon, 08:39:01
06/21/01 Thu
But you understand that it isn't really about how good Willow
is. It's about how dark is the magic she is tapping into.
liken it to taking hard drugs, if you will. once the drugs take
over, you don't stand a chance
I agree with you Marie tho, that Willow will NOT be the season
big bad, I can only see it lasting over a few episodes.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the very act which turns Willow
dark, is her bringing Buffy back from the dead...? what do you
think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Bad magic! Bad! -- Little
One, 09:14:52 06/21/01 Thu
Interesting scenario, Sol and Manoon, that resurrecting Buffy
could lead Willow to becoming a big bad. After all, it was Willow
who encouraged and provided the info to Dawn to bring Joyce back
despite repeated admonitions from Tara that it was wrong. Tara
was seriously concerned that Dawn would attempt to resurrect Joyce
and that it would break an oath the Wiccans took to not alter
the 'fabric of life'. Yet Willow's protests at the beginning stemmed
from the fact that she didn't think it could be done. When Tara
revealed through her passionate speech that it was possible, Willow's
protests seemed weak, merely echoing Tara. Then, when all was
said, she ignored Tara's concerns to provide Dawn with the required
info. Willow's love for Joyce and for Dawn outweighed her wisdom
that Tara was right. Willow blatantly ignored right and wrong
to help Dawn. To me that spells potential to be a big bad. She
took one more step along the path towards darkness then and her
dependency upon the dark magic is pulling her the rest of the
way.
Sol, great post. Definitely fodder for thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Bad magic! Bad!
-- Solitude1056, 10:39:44 06/21/01 Thu
Actually, I don't see Willow resurrecting Buffy, nor do I see
her actions as being "bad" in a Willow scheme of things.
My point was that from Willow's perspective, she's protecting
what's left after the wreckage of Buffy's death - Tara and the
rest of the Scoobies. Willow's always had that defensive mechanism
in her on behalf of her friends, even in minor details like when
she lit into Parker for being such scum. When I said Willow might
be the Big Bad, I don't mean in the sense of "oh, now we
must put a sword through her gut while sending her to whatever
demon dimension..." Besides, that's been done already.
What hasn't been done is having a character have to face up to
the fact that they'd become their, and the Scoobies', own worst
enemy. Willow has that potential, in her thirst for power (which
she may feel is justified in the course of protecting what's left
of her loved ones and in protecting Buffy from such pain again),
in her need for control, and in her desire for knowledge and her
self-identity as based solely in the definition of "the most
powerful in the group."
A Big Bad doesn't have to be one that gets banished and defeated
- it could be that one's own shadow-self is the Big Bad, in which
case it's defeated in one sense... but assimilated (and balanced),
in another sense. Additionally, as I originally pointed out, I
don't think Willow's the only Big Bad potential for the upcoming
season. I just think a Scooby dealing with the internal issues,
and the destructiveness of control/power issues, are a more complex
level that Joss has yet to explore.
The magic Willow uses may or may not be "bad," in & of
itself. I tend to think of magic as neutral, unless you're working
in a religious framework &
believe yourself to be 'borrowing' the power from a deity of some
sort. In that case, yes, you might consider yourself as 'owing'
the Source, and paybacks can be a bitch. But if magic is neutral
then to me it's more analogous to someone who starts abusing prescription
medicine. It starts out as something that can fix a problem, but
becomes a problem in & of itself. The analogy has more potency
if we think of prescription medicines (and they are out there)
that have psychological addictive risks, but not physical ones.
I can see Willow being able to stop doing magic and not being
physically harmed by the lack of practice - but I can't see her
not being emotionally or psychically harmed, due to her own perception
that she's purposefully removing a means of defense from the Scoobie's
repetoire.
There's more than one kind of Big Bad, was all I meant, and in
suggesting that was trying to show how we could wrap "oh,
grow up" into a package with a particular Scooby resolving
some of her growing issues. Magic makes for a nice metaphor for
'addiction to power,' and I think Joss might easily use such...
though I'd call myself lucky if I come even remotely close to
predicting the arcs he actually intends. So, we'll have to wait
and see, I suppose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Bad magic!
Bad! -- Slayrunt, 11:56:31 06/21/01 Thu
Sol. great thoughts, and I agree with you completely. I can see
all the little Willow thoughts running through the little(?) Willow
brain.
Sorry, just thinking about the part in The Body where W says something
to the effect of "Why do all my clothes have little (things?)
on them, why can't I dress like an adult?. I can see a change
in wardrobe coming as well. Hopefully more leather!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Willow in
leather... *drool* -- Solitude1056, 14:58:05 06/21/01 Thu
Oops, excuse me. Just a momentary flashback to Evil Willow. Ahem.
Where were we..?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Can I be a cudgel, or a pointy stick? -- rowan,
20:37:25 06/21/01 Thu
Willow's desire to be a cudgel or a pointy stick instead of a
big gun reminds me of Xander's comment that the cavalry is a scared
guy with a rock.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. -- change, 04:51:16
06/21/01 Thu
Great analysis. I agree that next year's big bad is probably going
to be Willow. However, you missed Willow's motivation for turning
to evil: Spike. Willow and Spike had a thing going before Spike
fell for Buffy. Now that Buffy is gone, Willow and Spike can renew
their bonds. The season arc could go like this:
1. In the season premere, we find that Willow and Spike shippage
has been occurring over the summer. After some soul searching,
Willow decides to dump Tara and move into Spike's crypt. Meanwhile,
back at the ranch, Anya and Dawn come up with a way of bringing
Buffy back from the dead. When Willow arrives at the crypt, she
walks in to find Buffy and Spike tongue westling.
2. Tara, pissed off after having been dumped, finds the amulet
D'Hofferyn gave to Willow and applies for the vengence demon job.
She gets the job and starts out by changing Spike's chip so that
it goes off whenever he's feeling amorous.
3. Tara turns out to be a decoy big bad when Willow destroys her
power center.
4. Willow becomes the big bad as she fights Buffy for Spike's
affections.
5. Dru and Harmony get in on the action during sweeps month.
6. The season ends when Dawn runs off with Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> And we could change the name of the show to Vampire
Passions! -- Little One, 08:27:11 06/21/01 Thu
Great suggestions! I'd personally love to see an episode like
that but, of course, at the end of it, Willow wakes up and it's
just a Bobby Ewing in the shower moment.
You made me laugh at my computer again. My bosses are soon going
to be suspicious and think that I actually enjoy my job! Nah....
;D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Now there is a plan....except for.......................
-- Rufus, 14:41:44 06/21/01 Thu
Look at all those hair pullers in a lower post that would be fighting
for their little share of the Big Bad, he'd never make it out
of town............:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Now there is a plan....except for.......................
-- rowan, 16:39:57 06/21/01 Thu
Okay, excuse me, but am I one of these hair pullers that you're
referring to? Just so you know, I was quoting Buffy about Dawn
with that little line.
But I will defend my rights to Spike against anyone. And I am
mean, ruthless, and relentless. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Now there is a plan....except for.......................
-- Rufus, 16:52:48 06/21/01 Thu
Of course I know where you got that line from.....hairpulling
is a honored way of getting someones attention.........just one
of many tactics to use to make sure Spike doesn't get out of town......once
you have him you then get to that arguement about plastic or metal.....:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> :o) -- rowan, 18:48:42 06/21/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Forks, right? You guys are
talking about which kind of forks you prefer to eat with......right?
-- AK-UK, 19:05:45 06/21/01 Thu
I swear you can *smell* the hormones on this site.
It's just not fair.......you guys can droll all over Spike, but
what do us bad girl lovers get? Huh? Huh?
Anyone wanna help me spring Faith?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL *cough* I mean,
"Awwwww." -- Solitude1056, 19:10:29 06/21/01 Thu
Hormones work both ways, but you can have Faith. In case no one's
noticed, I'll always be partial to Evil Willow. Yeah, SMG has
tried to do a Bad Buffy here 'n there, when Joss gave her the
chance... but she's always a Good Girl as far as I'm concerned.
AH and ED just got the 'tude; hell, I adored CC's ability to steal
scenes with her slicing wit and arching eyebrows back when she
was the Bitch of Sunnydale High.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Humm...you get Dru,
Darla, Glory, sometimes-Cordy, and even Buffy and Willow at times.
-- Wiccagrrl, 19:12:26 06/21/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't confuse
"Bad" girls with "annoying" girls.... -- AK-UK,
19:42:52 06/21/01 Thu
I mean Dru, Darla and Glory.....oh boy. Just the sound of their
voices makes me want to run to the hills.
Buffy, as has been noted by someone else on this thread, just
cannot for the life of her do bad. She just can't pull it off,
poor thing.
Cordelia.......it's weird, but I just don't see her like that
anymore. That episode where she had to wear a bikini in that advert......it
just felt wrong. I just wanted her to put some clothes on.
So that just leaves.......
Vamp Willow...................
Mmmmmmmm...........shiny........*cue Homer Simpson style droolling
effects*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> To each
their own, I suppose :) -- Wiccagrrl, 19:53:49 06/21/01 Thu
I find Dru absolutely fascinating...I think Buffy, while basically
a "good girl" has a dark side, and can be a real bitca
at time (and I'm *not* saying that in a bad way, believe me.)
Cordy I'll give ya, she's changed...but there's a real part of
me that misses Queen C.
Far as I'm concerned, it's *all* good. (or bad ;))
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
To each their own, I suppose :) -- rowan, 19:55:20 06/21/01 Thu
*sighs* I miss Queen Cordy. She was such a brat. But everyone
has to grow up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Ode to Queen Cordelia -- Newbie, 14:07:32 06/22/01 Fri
Gawd but I miss Cordelia. She was my idol. Strong, saucy, sexy.
I miss Oz too. Those were the good ol' days.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Forks, right? You
guys are talking about which kind of forks you prefer to eat with......right?
-- rowan, 19:52:57 06/21/01 Thu
Okay, I'm about to commit heresy (don't tell Masq).
God, I can't stand Faith. What do people see in her? From an artistic
standpoint, I can understand what we need a Bad Slayer for, but...please.
Try lusting after Willow. She's got all sorts of deep, dark, bad
power that she doesn't even know she has.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Forks, right?
You guys are talking about which kind of forks you prefer to eat
with......right? -- Wiccagrrl, 19:58:24 06/21/01 Thu
um, ok...again, to each their own...but Faith is just...yummy.
She's wild, irreverant, smart, and somehow vulnerable and hard-as-nails
at the same time. And she comes across, at least to me, as a very
lost soul.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Forks,
right? You guys are talking about which kind of forks you prefer
to eat with......right? -- rowan, 20:01:56 06/21/01 Thu
Well, that last AtS ep with Faith did kinda get to me. Before
that I just felt she was kind of trashy. Although the whole relationship
with the Mayor was very interesting, too.
She just doesn't strike me as a long-term kind of girl for an
obsession. Points in her favor, though, for wanting to pop Spike
like a champagne cork.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Forks, right? You guys are talking about which kind of forks you
prefer to eat with......right? -- Solitude1056, 21:22:03 06/21/01
Thu
I believe the word my best friend used for Faith was "skanky."
As the dubious creditor of having introduced me to this series,
I quote him as a soul with some authority in these matters. Hah.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Forks,
right? You guys are talking about which kind of forks you prefer
to eat with......right? -- AK-UK, 20:29:14 06/21/01 Thu
Rowan, rowan *shakes head sadly*
Just on the physical side, Faith has a figure to kill for. She
has curves, which is disturbingly rare for a character in BtVS.
Plus she just OOZES sexual desire. She likes sex. Not boyfriends,
not long romantic walks in the park. Sex. Another thing that marks
her out.
Add to this her intelligence, sharp wit, cheeky smile, smouldering
eyes, that speech she gave to Spike (in Buffy's body) in "Who
are You?" and the way she danced in "5 x 5" and
you get a million reasons why Buffy should be allowed to rest
in peace.
FtVS......mmmmmm :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Forks, right? You guys are talking about which kind of forks you
prefer to eat with......right? -- rowan, 20:33:50 06/21/01 Thu
Heresy! Are you saying that Buffy isn't sexy? Ask Parker! Ask
Angel! Ask Riley! Ask Xander! Ask Spike!
Faith IMHO pretends to like sex in order to manipulate men when
they are at their weakest. Always go with an enthusiastic amateur
rather than a jaded professional.
*exits chuckling evilly*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
rowan is right, Faith does have the attitude of a pro.......:):):):)
-- Rufus, 22:32:23 06/21/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> and that's the attraction 4 me -- Emcee003, 00:40:08 06/22/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Faith - Skanky but sensitive?! -- Brian, 03:44:15
06/22/01 Fri
Ah, Faith, the "do that" girl.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I heard that...
and I'll help anyone who wants to break Faith out of jail -- Masq,
08:51:48 06/22/01 Fri
The summer of '01 needs a slayer, after all
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I heard
that... and I'll help anyone who wants to break Faith out of jail
-- rowan, 11:01:23 06/22/01 Fri
Yes, but she's on the road to redemption. Do we want another grey
character? Actually, if we busted her out, would she/should she
end up on AtS?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yup....forks and forks
only.............:):):):) -- Rufus, 22:26:27 06/21/01 Thu
I already tried to get someone to help me spring Faith from the
pen. And I was told it was wrong.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Sincerely hope not. -- Wiccagrrl, 18:57:37 06/21/01 Thu
I know that it's been speculated that Willow's magick is going
to turn her "bad". That she's likely to become the big
bad next season. I also know that there have been members of TPTB
who have mentioned that something's brewing for Willow, and that
there will be consequences/issues that will have to be dealt with
in terms of the power she's been dabbling in. I can see things
getting out of control, I can see someone (maybe even Tara, although
you know how much I love her) getting hurt and Willow having to
live with that. But what I don't want to see is them having Willow
turn "evil", especially if it's based on her magick.
And some of you may feel that my reasoning is fairly PC, but here
goes:
Bad things happen to good people. That's nothing new. I don't
expect Willow or Tara to be exempt from that. I also don't expect
them to be portrayed as perfect. But, the fact is, Joss has been
playing the "magick as a metaphor for the W/T relationship
and lesbianism in general" thing since Tara was introduced.
And I am very uncomfortable with the idea of having Willow turn
bad/be destroyed because she was "dabbling in things she
shouldn't have been". Plus- Lesbian comes out and then turns
evil? Cliche much?
I do hope there are consequences to Willow's actions- I hope she
has to struggle to deal with all the changes that happen in her
life. I even hope that there will be W/T angst at times and that
we'll continue to see that Willow is, at times, far from perfect.
But, I will be sad if they turn her "evil" or kill her
off. I'll be very disturbed at the message that sends. (Especially
since they already killed off the only other openly gay character
they'd ever introduced on Buffy- Larry)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sincerely hope not. -- Manoon, 01:27:02 06/22/01
Fri
there are so many levels which can be read into Buffy, you know..
I have never, ever related the use of magic as a metaphor to willow
and tara's lesbianism or relationship in general. And I dont really
think the point you made about willow coming out and then turning
evil follows much.. it's more a combination of willow's complex
personality dynamics and the use of bad magic (someone said that
magic is neutral, don't think I really agree with that, why is
there a dark magic book then, for example?) which will have the
negative consequences we are going to see, not the fact that Willow
is gay. Tara is also in the lesbian relationship, and she is going
to be the opposing force of light against the dark battle Willow
is going to fight.
Willow isn't dabbling with Tara relationship-wise, she's happy
and content. She's proven that in the latter episodes of series
5. But she does have personality issues which she will have to
face in the next series. It's more about how (access to) too much
power corrupts, with Willow. Not really about who she coses to
love.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Sincerely hope not. -- AK-UK, 05:48:34 06/22/01
Fri
"I have never, ever related the use of magic as a metaphor
to wiilow' and tara's lesbianism or relationship in general"
Really? I think the interlinking hands, the orgasmic flower opening
spells, the dirty secret that Tara tried to hide.....all have
been used as metaphors for the sexual aspect of the w/t relationship,
sometimes cleverly, sometimes cowardly (but I think that is a
discussion that should be had in the Official Willow Thread above).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Sincerely hope not. -- Manoon, 08:59:45
06/22/01 Fri
Magic has always been a separate entity to me. Something I wish
had been used more throughout the show, so imagine how happy I
am to see Willow develop so, and her girlfriend be Wiccan. The
magic and the lesbianism, Willow and Tara, they're all interrelated,
but they are separate too. There was Magic before willow. there
was willow before tara, there are many other magical characters
in the buffyverse other than these two. magic does not equal lesbianism,
nor vice versa.
I think what you mean is that magic may have been used to hint
at the fact that these two girls were going to end up together
(re the examples you gave). That's cool. I couldn't even remember
them admittedly.
but that's not really the same as 'metaphor' for me, so I guess
we're just miscommunicating.
The main point I wanted to make was that I don't believe Willow
being consumed by (dark) magic is to be read as representative
of social prejudices against gay people.
Enjoying the debate though, AK! have a good weekend all
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sincerely hope not. -- rowan,
11:05:02 06/22/01 Fri
Although it interesting that I thought the ep Family showed her
family's desire to demonize her as a metaphor for social prejudices
against lesbians. BtVS came out strongly against that attempt,
of course (even Spike).
Kohlberg's
stages of moral development (very long) -- dream of the consortium,
10:34:57 06/21/01 Thu
Please forgive a de-lurker an obscenely long post - when you've
been reading and keeping quiet as long as I have, lots of things
build up.
I've been thinking about Kohlberg's stages of moral development
in regards to Spike and the Buffyverse in general.
"(In the) first level of moral thinking.... people behave
according to socially acceptable norms because they are told to
do so by some authority figure (e.g., parent or teacher). This
obedience is compelled by the threat or application of punishment.
The second stage of this level is characterized by a view that
right behavior means acting in one's own best interests. ...The
first stage of this level (stage 3) is characterized by an attitude
which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others. The second
stage is one oriented to abiding by the law and responding to
the obligations of duty. The third level of moral thinking is
one that Kohlberg felt is not reached by the majority of adults.
Its first stage (stage 5) is an understanding of social mutuality
and a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The last stage
(stage 6) is based on respect for universal principle and the
demands of individual conscience."
Spike's development is roughly following these stages. Which is
to say, at first the only reason he would thwart his own desires
was out of fear of reprisals (getting staked). Stage one. When
he goes against the "conventions" of the vampire world
in forming an alliance with Buffy, he does so because he enjoys
the world the way it is ("Happy Meals with legs"). It's
the right thing to do, because it will accomplish what he wants.
Stage two. Even this level of development seems to go beyond the
development of most of the vampires we see. The majority are childlike
in their morality - they do what they want, within the limits
set for them by a authority figure, under threat of death and
torture. Only the more "advanced" vampires (the Master,
e.g.) have developed a sense that their own desires create a world
of good and bad, right and wrong. The minions themselves can't
even comprehend that level - they are stuck at an primitive level
of pain avoidance/pleasure pursuance.
And though it is in part the primitive tool of pain avoidance
(chip) that allows Spike to break though to the next level, there
are certainly indications that his connections to the world are
more intense than those of other vampires - his connections to
Dru, his fondness for the pleasures of life (smoking, drink, Sid
Vicious), even the way he has maintained his connections to the
human world of popular culture, rather than becoming completely
absorbed into timelessness of the vampire world. His connections
to the "human" world make believable his desire to be
accepted and approved of by members of it - or rather, one member
of it, Buffy. The chip has forced him into a even deeper involvement
with this world, by disconnecting him with the communal goals
of the vampire world. But it's attachment to the world, and specifically,
the intense, focussed attachment that is love, that draws him
into the third level of moral thinking. You see traces of the
third level type of moral thinking when he tries to be a proper
demon to regain Dru. Now that he is forced to be part of the human
world, he seeks approval from Buffy, enough to change himself
for her approval. Stage three. ("What does it take?")
At the end of the season, Spike exhibits stage four thinking,
fulfillment of duty. He respects the laws of Buffy's world .Though
in Spiral he would like to run away with just Buffy and Dawn,
one doesn't get the impression he resents the presence of the
other Scoobies. He has accepted that the first Scoobie law is
"never leave anyone behind." And, of course, he risks
his life to fulfill his promise to a lady.
Which leaves two seasons for Spike to develop to levels five and
six.
Does anyone else have any thoughts on this - perhaps how this
type of structuring might apply to other characters? I am particularly
interested in how one would consider the evil characters in these
terms - Glory is clearly at stage two, but what about Angelus?
Is his obsessive desire to torture rather than simply kill a perverted
version of seeking the approval of one person? Are vampires who
desire the return of a demon-controlled world merely more intelligent
and can see the greater personal benefits enough to delay gratification,
or is there some sense in which they feel connected to the entirety
of the demon world - after all, the older vampires do seem to
be the ones with the biggest plans? In other words (I'm having
troubles expressing myself here), do vampires develop along the
same sort of stages, but to an opposite end, or are they trapped
at a low level of moral development (the vampire as eternal adolescent?)
Sorry for the babbling. Very scary posting here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long) --
Solitude1056, 10:53:09 06/21/01 Thu
Sorry for the babbling. Very scary posting here.
No babbling found in your post, but don't worry, I haven't posted
yet. I'll do enough for you, me, and several other folks. Oh,
wait, no, I ramble. Well, babbling's close enough for government
work. I'll respond to your post as soon as I can remember what
all the big words mean, cause my dog ate my dictionary. (No, actually,
that's a compliment from me. I appreciate and applaud large vocabularies,
even if my spelling sucks on anything with more than 4 syllables.)
I'm just curious why you think you've any reason to be scared,
when you just pulled a post out of your hat that has me scratching
my head and wondering how this would align with Maslow's triangle
thingie of self-actualization.
I wasn't a psychology major, so go easy on me. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long)
-- Masquerade, 11:21:28 06/21/01 Thu
There have been many critiques of Kohlberg's stages of moral development,
especially the assumption that doing things to please others is
ipso facto "immature". Our desire to cooperate and compromise
with others is part of our social nature and is not always an
attempt to "get others to like me" at any cost or a
sign that the person can't reason morally in other ways.
Also, Kohlberg's "higher" stages involve an ability
to reason about morality in highly abstract, unemotional ways,
relying on abstract ethical principles rather than taking into
account the situation one is in or the other people involved and
what they might want or need. Which can be a sign of maturity
and rationality, or simply being morally inflexible and/or out
of touch with one's feelings and the feelings of others.
Bottom line, it's a theory pitted with Western cultural assumptions
about how one ought motivate their moral behavior. Keeping this
critique in mind, by all means, let's discuss the moral development
of the various characters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very
long) -- dream of the consortium, 12:14:23 06/21/01 Thu
Yikes! Like I said, scary to post here. I would actually agree
that ANY attempt to set up clear-cut stage for development of
anything as complex as morality suffers from the limitations of
Western linear thinking. I am also no expert on this particular
theory - just interested in ideas about moral development. That
said, I think there is some value to Kohlberg's structure (as
much as I know about it. I have to admit that -stammer, blush-
I had to look up the stages again, not trusting my memory from
so many years back.) For example, I like that the development
is a constant expansion outward. From your self as little more
than an animal, to the understanding of a "self", to
the understanding that those you love matter, too, and then even
ideas matter, and people you don't know and love. I think the
point is not that doing things to please others represents a low
level of moral development - of course doing things to please
others need not be based on anything other than the purest motivations
of love and kindness - it's that determining the morality of a
particular decision based on whether someone else would approve
represents a low level of moral development. This is not unheard
of - who hasn't known someone whose ideas of right and wrong are
"imported", so to speak, from someone else. You could
definitely see that type of morality in Spike's helping the victims
at the Bronze. That doesn't mean that Buffy's helping the victims
comes from the same moral thinking - the action is the same, the
reasoning is different. As for the idea that the higher levels
represent an "unemotional" response, I think morality
at its highest level can show itself by the ability to feel strongly
for abstract things, for ideals, for humanity, rather than only
feeling the self or loved ones. Now where I have troube with the
theory is in its highest levels, becasue you are absolutely right
that a focus on ideals can lead to the greatest acts of morality,
or to the worst acts of hard-headed fanaticism. That leads me
back to the vampire question - is the deepest evil a "perverted"
form of the greatest good, similar reasoning to opposite ends,
or is it simply less advanced morally?
Okay, that was enough for me for now - time to hide some more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development
(very long) -- Brian, 12:36:23 06/21/01 Thu
Now that you've revealed yourself, no more hiding! I found your
presentation very interesting. What I like about this board is
that different theories are most welcome. They stimulate "the
little grey cells." What is delightful is that Buffy and
Angel can be philosophically looked at in some many different
ways. Lots of fun. Of course, if you like cats, chocolate, and
have some Canada in your history, all the better. Welcome!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development
(very long) -- Humanitas, 13:52:22 06/21/01 Thu
So, if I understand you correctly, what you're really asking is
"What is the nature of Evil, in terms of moral development?"
Wow. That's a biggie. Here's my attempt to tease it apart.
For most vamps, Evil is simply an exageration of doing what is
in one's own best interest. They feed and kill because it keeps
them alive, and because it's fun. The demon soul supresses the
normal human feelings of revulsion towards killing, leaving the
vampire free to do whatever he wants.
Ok, that covers your average, run-of-the-mill vampires. What about
the "special" vamps we've seen? Angelus certainly operated
on the pleasure principle. He enjoyed the torture and artisticly-arranged
deaths. They gave him a rush. Knowing that he genuinely loved
Buffy caused him so much pain, that he decided to put an end to
the world to escape it. Not much moral development there in either
direction, he was simply more creative than most vampires.
The Master is more interesting. He had distinct notions of family
and community. His impulse was to build a group of vampires, working
together for a common goal. Of course, for most of the time we
saw him, that goal was to break him out of the Hellmouth, so it
might be said that he was merely using those principles to further
his own self-interest. I would argue, however, that he genuinely
believed in those principles, based on the flashback material
we saw on AtS. There, long before coming to Sunnydale, he talked
about honoring the past and building a family. So in this case,
I think it could be said that there was a certain kind of moral
development, albiet one based on vaules antithetical to human
survival.
That's my shot at it. Anyone else?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development
(very long) -- Rufus, 14:55:18 06/21/01 Thu
With Angelus we get a guy that in life was screwed up. He didn't
have the ability to love because he had been made to feel worthless
by his verbally abusive father. When he died he became a monster
acting upon all the repressed resentment and rage against families,
a situation that he had felt was confining in life. His need for
the artistic kill is very similar to the feelings he had as Liam.
Liam wanted to break from his family but felt trapped by first
his father then the love of his sister. When Darla came on the
scene she offered him an escape, which formerly came in the form
of alcohol. He traded on addiction for another. He was still in
the same "contest" with his father. He went back and
confronted then killed his father thinking he had won the contest
but Darla pointed out that dead his father could never abuse him,
but could also never approve of him. That lead to her saying...What
you once were informs all we become. The same love will infect
our hearts even if they no longer beat....simple death won't change
that." Everything Angelus did came from Liam's mind....the
demon only perverting how Angelus would act out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development
(very long) -- Masq, 16:23:23 06/21/01 Thu
Sorry if I intimidated you. You are very welcome to post any thoughts
you have here, understanding that some folks have more knowledge
in some areas than others and we like to throw our weight around
'cause being smart is actually acceptable and highly praised in
this forum. Ignore us if you choose--it's an ego thing anyway
: )
And truthfully, your knowledge of Kohlberg equals that of any
psychology major--I know, I was one. It wasn't until grad school
and my philosophy of science courses I learned there was any problem
with any of the theories I learned as an undergrad. So now I'm
showing off what I learnt there. Uh, not spelling obviously.
Your articulate response to my critique-y post was well thought
out, and it's helpful to have clear-thinking posters to hash and
rehash Buffy with. You know, when we're not drooling over characters
wearing leather or chatting about the pros and cons of cat ownership.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Morality & Community -- Solitude1056,
09:29:40 06/22/01 Fri
I'm home today, under the pretense of major housecleaning. Yeah,
right. I'm suckered into posting, and it's all y'll's fault. Now
that I've got that out of the way... *grin*
It seems that the moral development you're positing, dotc, moves
from personal to community to universal. By that I mean that one's
original moral compass is "what pleases me," then it's
"what pleases authority" (authority being equivalent
to community, I suppose), and lastly it's "what's good for
All" which seems to look past the confines of the local community/authority
to the bigger scope. Curiously, we had a series of thread a bit
ago that eventually prompted one member to suggest that Spike's
tribal membership cannot be underestimated. In that sense, wouldn't
he already be at the middle part (what pleases authority)?
At the same time, I think back to my own perception of vampires,
that they're trapped with whatever issues they had upon death.
For William, it was acceptance by his community - specifically
acceptance of his own view of himself (as poet, fighter, lover)
and not a derogatory view (as fool, coward, wimp). Respect is
a crucial part, and sometimes fear will suffice if respect isn't
forthcoming. In that sense - and diverging a bit - I'd say that
the pain of "growing up" sometimes involves losing the
fearless (and feared) Big Bad self-image. The pain and difficulty
of this part of growing up only becomes apparent when one discovers
that respect is a far more valued, and lasting, community basis
for acceptance.
I've also frequently suggested that vampires, without a soul,
and led by the demon influence, are going to be trapped in some
sort of adolescent stage. (I wonder if we need to start speaking
of the demon itself, and whether it's like the Slayers as they
relate to the Key. The original Demon is distinct, yet each separate
vamp carries an echo or an imprint of the First Demon.) In that
case, the Slayers have had difficulty moving past their primary
state (as influenced by the Source), and similarly the vampires
have difficulty doing so because the demon influence itself was
adolescent. Each Slayer responds to the Source's influence differently
according to her previous knowledge/experience, and thus shapes
her own destiny by virtue of the mix. Thus also do vampires reflect
their previous knowledge/experience, now colored by housing the
demon instead of a soul. That's all a long way to say that a more
mature person would be marginally farther along than a less mature
person, upon becoming a vampire. And that's all a longer way to
say that I'm not sure we can talk in generalizations when we're
discussing the complexities of vampires, just as we couldn't about
real people.
At the same time, there's also a question of whether the influencing
Source impacts the creature it infects - be it Vampire or Slayer.
Does the demon, given long enough on this plane, move to a higher
level of its own morality, just as the Slayers appear to? I recall
Faith seeing that vampires were holding hostages in a church -
at the very moment she was about to flee to mexico - and despite
her intentions otherwise, she was drawn back to Sunnydale to deal
with the situation. An unexpected move on her part, from my perspective,
since up til then I'd figured she was solely in it for herself
- but it appears that walking away from her Duty wasn't in her
makeup. That may be the influence of her Source working upon her,
despite her preferences otherwise. Her slayer Source exerts its
own strictures of morality, just as the demon Source exerts its
own - in which case, we need to set aside the questions of "greater
good" and "greater evil" and wonder just what the
original Demon was intending to achieve when it infected the first
human?
Once we can figure that out, then we might have a better idea
of the moral compass of vampires, separate from humans. And having
somewhat figured that out (since I doubt we'll ever pin it down
precisely!), then we'd better be able to determine where the demon
Source sits on a scale of morality. Just curious what you think,
since I'm starting to wonder if vampires aren't even more moral
than humans, if compared to their own scale of morality, and including
their tribal aspects. (Speaking of which, have we ever seen vampires
fight each other except in cases of Angel and Spike? I seem to
recall mention of Spike being especially outcast for having "killed
his own kind.")
Long, rambling, but see what you get when I should be vacuuming?
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Morality & Community -- Rufus,
13:02:09 06/22/01 Fri
Spike has killed his own kind when they worked for him. It seems
to be accepted to kill in the aquiring or keeping of a power position
in a group. It was when Spike started to kill his kind because
they replaced his former target kill that the trouble started.
So there seems to be some sort of code that allowes vampires to
kill each other but what Spike has started to do is a danger to
all vampires, I'm surprised they haven't gone after him for it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Like the Master killed his
own kind to maintain his power -- Masq, 13:52:04 06/22/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Morality & Community --
rowan, 17:44:13 06/22/01 Fri
I loved reading this whole thread within a thread. I just have
some random comments to points raised.
Spike has a chip on his shoulder as well as a chip in his head.
The chip on his shoulder is about rejection -- and gets larger
when it's sexual/romantic rejection. I like the idea that perhaps
this is because this is the moment his human development was "stuck
in" so to speak when he was vamped. Spike has suffered several
notable sexual/romantic rejections while we've known him. It's
interesting to note them and his varying responses.
1. Cecily: This drove him to despair, to undeath, then to rape,
pillage, and murder. Ultimately, it lead him to reject everything
about himself and reinvent an identity that would refute her point
that he was "beneath her" and not "like her."
Although his behavior was extreme, he appeared rational and focused
throughout.
2. Dru (with Angelus): Spike's response was to subvert Dru's will
by striking a bargain with Buffy and kidnapping Dru from Sunnydale.
He remained rational and focused throughout.
3. Dru (with Chaos Demon): Spike's response was drunkenness, despair,
and then an attempt to subvert Dru's will through magick. He eventually
gave up on that and attempted to win Dru back through persuasion.
4. Buffy: Spike's response was anger and then again an attempt
to subvert the love object's will by creating an alternate form
of her who would submit to him.
I like examining the timeline in Spike's development, too. He
was vamped in 1880. He developed the Spike name and accent in
1888. He killed his First Slayer and had sexual relations with
Dru in 1900.
The kill of the First Slayer marks Spike's entry into adulthood
of the vampire community. After Spike is vamped, he becomes part
of Angelus's "family" and starts in with the killing
and pillaging.
However, it appears he retains alot of William's diffident manner
and personality traits. We know this because we see the changes
begin in 1888. He rebels by killing often and recklessly, against
Angelus's express wishes. He brings trouble to the family with
his reckless ways (they're in hiding underground, I think, during
this scene). The women (Darla and Dru) are still clearly Angelus's
(he refers to them as such).
Spike has also begun by 1888 to differentiate his personality
from William's. He starts using the accent and speech patterns
of Spike (noted by Angelus). He starts overtly challenging Angelus
(taunting Angelus to stake him). My guess is that Dru and Spike
do not have a sexual relationship at this point. She seems to
still be Angelus's property. Oedipally, she belongs to the father
figure, not the son. I might be wrong, and if anyone who has a
better memory of eps than I do has evidence to the contrary, please
let me know. I will say that if they did have sexual relations
prior to this incident, it was not as significant as this moment.
This is the moment that Spike assumes the power in their relationship
(but he's a benevolent dictator, which should reassure Buffy to
some extent!).
By 1900, Spike kills his first Slayer. He immediately, fresh from
the kill, both feeds Dru and has sex with her, establishing himself
as provider. They confront Angelus together, Spike with a new
confidence. Angelus seems disturbed and jealous of this development.
But it's too late -- Spike is born. It only took 20 years.
I think what I've observed about the presentation of Spike is
that we don't get alot of his interior life. We know that he must
have quite alot going on in his head: we often see the results
of his perception and intelligence in the conversations he has
with others. Yet we get very little insight into his "interior
monologue." There were three Spike-centric eps last season:
Fool for Love, Crush, and Intervention. Yet even with three eps
such as these, what Spike thinks about himself remains very much
a mystery. The closest we get is FFL. That's why I asked the very
simple question, why does Spike love Buffy? I'm puzzled. I can't
see into his head (his mind truly doesn't cast a shadow).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Morality & Community
-- Rufus, 22:14:14 06/22/01 Fri
The beauty of the infecting demon is that it keeps the host personality
suppressed by killing other people. It is just like Dru described
the chip, it tells lies, you are better than them, you are stronger
therefore have a right to destroy,you don't need them. The reason
that you don't see much of the interior of Spikes emotions is
that before the chip he was busy being "seen" by vampire
society. He was so submersed in killing and living by the moment
he didn't grow much as a person. He just changed his gang. But
with his obsession with slayers you could see his need for something
more. When he made it to Buffy he thought it would be like the
last two, kill, take credit, leave. Then he saw her, he didn't
know it but he was so screwed. He started doing things that made
no sense given his last methods of killing...once he started to
talk to her it was clear the kill may not be enough. Then we saw
not much of him til season four. It took time for Spike to stop
feeling sorry for himself to actually start considering his options
as a neutered male vamp. He did some obvious stuff like trying
to kill himself. Then in OOMM he did try to get rid of the chip....leading
to his dream. Then he was aware of just how screwed he was. He
kills to get attention, the one thing that can control him is
love. He is helpless against it. But he was a dope when he first
tried to act out his love for Buffy. He had to start from early
adolecence and work his way up...remember that first halting scene
when he stuttered out that he didn't like Buffys hair anyway.
In Triangle he was doing things that he thought Buffy would like,
but as he didn't do them because it was right, she rejected him.
Does Spike love Buffy.....yes. I don't think he even understood
how much until he was forced to transform the shrine into the
Buffybot....he was able to work out the mechanics of sex with
the bot but without a mental connection he lost interest. It was
when Glory beat the unlife out of him that he finally did something
real, because it was right, he was willing to die because he couldn't
stand the prospect of Buffy suffering. That is when Spike got
to understand love for the first time. With Dru he had a love
that was convenient, but he still preferred Buffy and Dru knew
it and kicked him loose. When Spike did something that wasn't
for gain, he finally started to get just what love was about,
he could understand that the loss of Dawn would devastate Buffy
and that became more important than his sexual needs more important
than himself. He loves Buffy it's the first unselfish thing he
has ever felt. It's no longer about what he wants be it sex or
just her company, it's love that he is willing to die for. He
is just so screwed. Now without her is he also lost?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Morality & Community
(longish) -- rowan, 09:55:11 06/23/01 Sat
These threads are getting so complex that now I have to print
them, read them, and then draft a response...before I used to
just wing it right after I read it.
"The beauty of the infecting demon is that it keeps the host
personality suppressed by killing other people."
Do you think so? I'm not so sure about the choice of the word
"suppressed." I think maybe the demon perverts the personality
by exploiting the chinks in the armor or by mocking the things
that personality valued.
"The reason that you don't see much of the interior of Spikes
emotions is that before the chip he was busy being "seen"
by vampire society."
I like this idea...goes along with the vampire mind being impenetrable.
Maybe they don't even think the way humans do.
"Then he saw her, he didn't know it but he was so screwed."
LOL. God, I love this line, Rufus. So true. It reminds me of the
Monkees lyric, "And then I saw her face. Now I'm a believer."
It's hard to believe sometimes that the writers hadn't planned
on Spike sticking around from the beginning. They've done a great
job of weaving him seamlessly into the story (with the small exception
of the whole who's his sire issue). When he first went after Buffy,
he was thwarted by Joyce (axe in the head). He immediately realized
here was a Slayer of a different color -- she had family & friends
-- which culminated in Spike's speech to Buffy about that very
subject in FFL.
Then he tries, tries, tries again. And fails. But the problem
is, just as you've pointed out, "once he started to talk
to her it was clear the kill may not be enough." He started
playing with his food too much before eating it, and now the thrill
of the chase is so much greater than the thrill of victory. Even
when he tries to stay away from Buffy, she starts pursuing him.
He can't get away from her. Some say that Buffy always defeats
Spike. My personal theory is that either one could have destroyed
the other long ago, but they're both too caught up in the game
to give it up. It's hard to kill what you know.
Then suddenly - wham! He realizes he's gone from being fascinated
with his enemy to being in love with her. "With Dru he had
a love that was convenient, but he still preferred Buffy and Dru
knew it and kicked him loose." I think Spike's love for Dru
was alot of things. First, it was probably his first sexual relationship
of any consequence. Second, she was his sire (mother). Third,
she required protection, and appealed to that side of his nature.
That's all a powerful combination. In Crush, despite his actions,
I doubt he could have staked Dru. You can just tell by his speech
to her that the ties that bind are still there. But they are just
not tight enough to pull him back to her.
The moment when I knew Spike loved Buffy was in Crush when Dru
got loose and went for Buffy. Spike's instinctive response was
to rush to Buffy to protect/help her. Before that, the I thought
the attraction was primarily sexual, with some admiration thrown
in for good measure. It reminded me of Spike manuevering his wheel
chair between Dru and the Judge. He couldn't actively attack Dru
to stop Buffy (not ready to harm Dru yet), but he'd chosen. Dru's
comment that he is "so lost" that even she can't help
him was that moment when sexual attraction was revealed as love.
In other words, Spike was so screwed.
[On a side note, there's a great fanfic to be written, I think,
about Dru coming back to punish Spike into line by taking Dawn,
and then Spike really have to make a choice that's going to last
for eternity. Maybe in my free time...]
A question someone asked somewhere in this post is: should Buffy
and the SG feel safe around Spike? My answer is yes. When Spike
was moved by Buffy's tears in FFL, and didn't kill her, I saw
enough to know that he could be trusted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Morality
& Community (longish) -- Rufus, 12:52:00 06/23/01 Sat
I used the words that didn't make it from the shooting script
in "Disharmony"
Doug: "That's just the voice of your inner human, spreading
the ghostly remnants of neuroses from your past life...Ignore
it. Suppress it. Instead......"
I do think that the little voice that does tell the vampire what
they are doing is wrong is part of the personality that remains
with memories ect. The loss of the soul may disable the moral
compass, but there is a life full of memories that at some point
has to be made to forget...see Harmonies pick of songs "Memories"
in Disharmony. To be able to do evil you have to know the difference.
To lose your moral compass you have to understand that what you
are doing is wrong in the society you came from. When the vampire
starts out they can be just as insecure as in life. What then
happens is what happens with anyone that starts killing, you have
to consider the person you kill as less than you. You have to
consider them food or evil or worthless. Most human killers that
are prolific generally start on something like animals then work
their way up to a person. Spike saw people as "happy meals
on legs" also a means to an end, they gave him his reputation
as a vampire. Spike worked his way up to Slayers by first killing
people that were less able to fight back. There is a problem the
chip has taken the activity away from him that he based his identity
as a vampire on. Now Spike has been interacting with the "food".
It's harder to kill what you know for most people. Spike has been
a kill them quick and get outta there kinda guy. His attachement
to Buffy has made it that much harder for him. The reverse is
happening to him. All the things that helped him be the best vampire
are now gone. He has had to interact with people he would have
killed. Buffy is a slayer that had a family and friends, that
got his attention as well, he never tried to kill Joyce, he played
at being menacing when only Angel could see but he never went
after the woman who hit him on the head with an axe. The act of
killing to eat helps the vampire suppress the feeling that what
they are doing is wrong. Once you can depersonalize someone you
can find it easier to kill them. Slayers kill vampires because
they consider them soulless monsters that are only a shell of
the person that once was. Vampires kill humans because they consider
them food. They brag about the hunt. Both Buffy and Spike had
those things taken away. Spike has started to speak to people
in a way that shows he actually cares. Buffy has found out that
the vampire is uncomfortably close to the person they once were.
To efficiently kill in the numbers that the vampires and slayers
kill you have to suppress all thoughts that these are beings equal
to you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rowan, usually I love
your posts, but... -- Marie, 06:36:45 06/25/01 Mon
...this time I have some queries:
"Cecily: This drove him to despair, to undeath, then to rape,
pillage, and murder."
In which episode(s) do you actually see a vamp rape? I am an ex-victim
(I'm not angling for sympathy here [and, by the way, I wish there
was another word for 'victim', because I hate to think of myself
as one] - it was a long time ago, and although (IMO) you never
get over it, I've moved on), and as such am very aware of anything
that suggests rape. I've never seen this in a Buffy or Angel episode
(but please correct me if I'm wrong). As I'm typing this, I'm
wondering what it says about me that I'm more comfortable with
the thought of Spike eating someone than raping them! As a Gerard
Depardieu fan, I was shocked to read on a thread here that he
has taken part in gang rapes - I'll never again see him without
remembering that. I guess what I'm really saying is that I can't
stand to think of Spike doing to someone what was done to me -
I think it'd spoil the whole series for me, although I know it's
my past that's colouring these these thoughts - sorry if I've
gone on about it, but it hits close to home!
"I like examining the timeline in Spike's development, too.
He was vamped in 1880. He developed the Spike name and accent
in 1888. He killed his First Slayer and had sexual relations with
Dru in 1900."
Do you mean by this that he and Dru weren't lovers until then?
I don't agree - Dru travelled with Angelus and Darla, but THEY
were the couple, not Angelus and Drusilla, even if they did have
occasional sex - it was Angelus who told Drusilla to get herself
a companion, and she chose William. And I don't think anyone watching
them after he killed the Slayer in China would think that was
their first time together!
"The women (Darla and Dru) are still clearly Angelus's (he
refers to them as such)."
I think Angelus is proprietorial about Dru, because he sired her,
not because of sexual reasons. I always got the impression that
when he lost his soul after being with Buffy, he used Dru not
so much as a sex-partner but mostly to needle Spike, in that cat-and-mouse
way of his.
"By 1900, Spike kills his first Slayer. He immediately, fresh
from the kill, both feeds Dru and has sex with her, establishing
himself as provider. They confront Angelus together, Spike with
a new confidence. Angelus seems disturbed and jealous of this
development. But it's too late -- Spike is born. It only took
20 years."
Angelus at this point now has his soul back - as we later see,
he is killing and feeding off only murderers and rapists. I think
THAT is why he seems disturbed at Spike's killing a Slayer, not
because he's jealous.
Of course, this is just my opinion. Hope you don't mind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't think we're
disagreeing -- rowan, 09:46:37 06/25/01 Mon
Hi!
Just a few minutes of free time, but I wanted to reply to your
post.
1. "rape, pillage, murder" -- sorry, I was being intellectually
lazy and using this as shorthand for vamp mayhem, not to delineate
specific crimes. As far as I know, you're absolutely right. Sorry
if I upset you.
2. My point about the post-Slayer sex scene between Dru and Spike
is that for me it seemed hugely significant. It was a moment when
the balance of power really started to shift to Spike (as opposed
to Dru or Angelus) in the Spike/Dru relationship. I don't know
if it was their first sex or not, but I think it was the most
significant sex to date.
Plus it was also disgusting, but that was just a bonus. ;)
3. I agree that part of Angelus's proprietarial attitude comes
from the siring, but I also think there's a sexual element as
well -- i.e. who is the dominant male. Sex and siring seems all
mixed up with these vamps (no incest taboo there, I guess). That's
what makes the relationships so complex.
4. I read the Angelus being disturbed again as a balance of power
shifting thing -- could be a result of a mix of Angel's soul (kind
of "oh God, I've let Dru sire a Slayer killer) and a recognition
that Spike is out of his control (which was quite evident from
the first!).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long) --
Liquidram, 14:00:09 06/21/01 Thu
"Sorry for the babbling. Very scary posting here."
Wow. I consider your post anything but babbling. I understand
your fear :) It took a long time for me to come out of hiding
and enter the fray, but I have never once looked back.
I am not an eloquent writer, nor do I have a substantial knowledge
of philosophy at my fingertips, but that is the joy of this board.
Everyone's opinions are valued regardless of their personal writing
skills and the posts are a joy to read as well as stimulating
to the gray matter. Everyday finds me smacking my head and wondering
why I couldn't have said "it" as well.
Welcome, and please, stick around around.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I take your 'very long' and raise you a 'sickeningly self-absorbed'
-- Lurker Becoming Restless, 15:56:08 06/21/01 Thu
I too have recently (kinda) de-lurked (though with considerably
less panache than you) and I totally agree that it is scary! It's
just fortunate that the hope that it may be possible to join in
can eventually overcome the fear of doing something really stupid
(like, oh, say, dredging some long-lost post up from the archives
and landing it on top of the posting board in everyone's way).
Anyway, I digress. Now, if anyone's still reading, I'll start
to respond to the groovy post that lured me out of hiding once
again...
I would say that most vamps get to stage two on the chart but
that the stages are inter-related and overlap, making it pretty
tough to be certain. From the moment they crawl out of the earth,
most vamps are acting on their own interests and desires (survive
/ drink blood). Even when they obey authority, they do so in order
to further themselves so I take it to be stage two behaviour.
Of course, in some ways stage two is actually stage one, since
following ones desires is simply obeying oneself (or one's 'id').
I assume that the difference here is that in stage two the subject
is actually chosing to obey themselves (hey, that's not a difference,
is it?). Anyway, I'm confusing myself, so...
Doh! In vampires, it is even more complex than this because of
the conflict between the demon and the human soul (we have seen
from Spike that it never totally disappears). Surely each of these
entities bring its own views to the morality of the being as a
whole. Since the only demon objectives we know of are feeding
and survive, we can assume that only vampires in which the host's
personality is very strong (The Master, Angelus (?), Spike, Dru,
Darla, VampWillow, VampXander, etc) can progress beyond stage
two.
I would say that Angelus is at stage three. It is difficult to
see who he's trying to prove something to, but he is certainly
doing things to impress others. Perhaps it is some twisted way
of trying to make up for his time as a wastrel (in which case
he may well be doing it for his father). Here, the human soul
is clearly more powerful than the demon in some ways since a desire
for the approval of others (isn't that what drives his redemption?)
is evident in Angel too.
Another interesting case is the Master, who is arguably at stage
four. He seems to feel some sort of unholy duty to try to give
vampires power over the humans. Here I would definitely go along
with the idea that the scale seems to be inverted for evil. However,
from what I have already talked about it is difficult to discuss
the master since we have no idea what he was like as a human (if,
indeed, he ever was human).
Perhaps it is possible to say that most vamps are morally balanced
between the human personality and the demon personality, resulting
in a stage two morality. However, when one takes control over
the other different levels can be attained. In Angelus, the human
personality has a larger influence and maybe in the Master the
demon personality is more in control, giving him an in-built desire
to bring the Buffyverse closer to the demon reality (as seen in
The Wish).
But perhaps not.
Spike is much harder to deal with in these terms as the human
personality seems to have almost completely taken over. I agree
with your analysis of his progress in the last couple of seasons
and I would say that he was never on the same inverted, 'Evil,
yea' scale as the Master.
After all that, I'm not even gonna try to talk about the morality
of the Scoobies in relation to Kohlberg but not simply because
even I am growing bored of this inane drivel. Oh, no.
I think evil often comes from abstract theories like this (see
Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment). It is not impossible to
judge vamps by these standards (or maybe I've just proved that
it is...oh, this is too hard!) but the Scoobies completely defie
them, flipping between stages at all times and inventing entirely
new categories of their own. The main way in which they avoid
evil is by thinking of people as individuals and accepting them
on their own terms.
As soon as things become impersonal and too theoretical, real
people almost cease to exist. Relying on systems such as this
can lead to people actually justifying killing other people as
in Utilitariansim (which Joss HATES vehemently in my opinion).
An example: in season three of Buffy, Faith becomes totally detached
from reality and starts to live by simple little maxims provided
by her own troubled subconscious and later by the Mayor. This
allowed her to kill without ever really acknowledging that she
had taken a life (is this how vamps do it?). As soon as she consiously
realised what she had done (at the end of 'Five by Five') she
broke down completely.
Sorry about that rant - it sounded harsher than it was meant to.
I just don't see how such a hierarchical structure of morality
could be applied to characters as complex as Buffy, Xander, Willow
and Giles. However, it is great fun trying to get it to work!
If anyone has got this far, you have more patience than me! However,
I would be overjoyed if someone would tear my little arguments
to pieces (by that I mean enter into a discussion about them,
I think).
Dream of the Consortium: Fascinating idea!!! Sorry for this crappy,
rambling mess - I hope it puts the original post in perspective
and convinces you that it's way interesting enough to be here
and that you should post some more (way, way more than me).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re:Welcome! -- Nina, 16:23:24 06/21/01 Thu
Lurker Becoming Restless and Dream of the Consortium you are totally
welcomed here! (Is it just me or are handle names becoming longer
and longer?? ;)
We need new blood to keep the board alive and I need new threads
to read because I am way too lazy these days to write anything
myself! So don't be scared. Topics vary. You can talk about cheekbones
or philosophy. Your pick! :)
Chocolate for both of you!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re:Welcome! -- AK-UK, 17:34:06 06/21/01 Thu
I would also like to welcme to new intelligent posters to the
board. It's a pleasure to read such well thought out arguments.
Lurker becoming Restless, I usually am more than happy to rip
other people's posts to shreds (in a nice way), but it is a little
late in my country, and I am awfully tired. Sorry :(
I'll try to do better next time ;)
I would like to leave you with a couple of thoughts to consider.
1) It's easy to say that vampires are only interested in feeding
their own desires when it is generally the case that the only
time we are permitted to see vampires is when they are attempting
to feed their desires (i.e. when they are chasing a human or trying
to kill Buffy). If an alien came down to earth and only observed
us at meal times (particular meals with meat in them) it might
well conclude that we were an awfully selfish, greedy, and morally
dubious species.
2) Whilst Joss Whedon may not like utilitarianism, isn't Buffy's
sense of morality based on it? She ends the life of one creature
(for example, a vampire) to prevent more deaths amongst humans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Utilitarianism and Buffy -- Lurker Becoming
Restless, 09:04:17 06/22/01 Fri
Thanks for the reply!
I agree with your first point. It is true that vampires may exhibit
behaviour beyond stage two when we are not aware of it (indeed,
the few vampires we have come to know quite well have proved that
they do). We have no concrete evidence of this for weaker vamps,
but Buffy and her friends have not gone out of their way to find
any. Perhaps this is one of the things that helps Buffy to be
so ruthless with vamps, but I don't want to get bogged down discussing
whether vamps are living creatures in their own right or just
symbols of negative emotion (though I think they can be either).
I find the second idea you mentioned more interesting. Totally
contradicting what I said yesterday (that the Scoobies can't be
judged using a hierarchical system of morality), I would say that
Buffy began at stage four of the scale, killing vamps because
of her duty as a slayer and working solely on utilitarian principles.
As the series has progressed, she has tried to go beyond this
level of morality as we can see in 'The Gift'.
Though she still uses utilitarianism at times (in the teaser for
'The Gift'), with Dawn she begins to use a higher form of morality.
I think that dissatisfaction with utilitarian principles was evident
as early as 'Dopplegangland' and (having read the superb post
about Willow above) I think that Willow has been avoiding them
for a while.
In 'The Gift', Buffy could not let Dawn die. Clearly she is very
close to her sister, but I think there was more than just sisterly
love coming through here. She is becoming a true hero and is finding
it more and more difficult to kill (notice how troubled she is
when she begins to think that she is just a killer in late season
five).
Having been totally convinced by Dedalus' excellent idea that
the Key is the source of the Slayer's power I would go on to say
that it is important that the source of Buffy's power is an innocent
since that is where her power really comes from. Her power comes
from the people she is protecting and her emotional attachment
to them. This relies to a large extent on her ability to empathise
with and understand them. Now, it is (arguably) easier to empathise
with a member of your family than with anyone else, but I hope
that Buffy will empathise with more and more people as she goes
on.
Surely this is the height of morality: being able to put yourself
completely in someone else's shoes and doing what is best for
them, regardless of the price for you. Without empathy, the opposite
is achieved. If you cannot understand anyone and become completely
isolated then killing becomes justifiable because you are not
killing people anymore. At the end of season three, Faith was
the only person who existed in her twisted little world so she
wasn't killing other people.
So, I would say that a morality based on individual empathy is
preferable to one based on abstract ideas (such as utilitarianism)
and that Buffy is trying to find this. I hope we will see more
evidence to support this idea in season six!
Sorry for rambling again - I actually had a much more coherent
post written out when my computer shut itself down so this is
a little bit more messy than it should have been! However I would
still appreciate any thoughts so I can try and respond to them
a little more effectively.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I think Schopenhauer agreed with
me on this -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 10:30:55 06/23/01 Sat
I'm kind of extending on my previous post here.
I just remembered that it was Schopenhauer who said that ethics
is based on compassion and not reason and I think that this is
very evident in Buffy. Utilitarianism is very heavily based on
reason and I think that characters who rely on empathy (like Willow)
are presented as being slightly more morally developed.
Was it Schopenhauer who said this? If so, he probably explained
it better than me!
I don't know if I'm supposed to do this, but I'm gonna put a similar
post in the Willow thread (I think it is relevent).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think Schopenhauer agreed
with me on this -- rowan, 11:16:10 06/23/01 Sat
I agree, especially since the "hardened" part of Buffy
that she struggles with (the Slayerside) is exhibited when she
does not feel an empathetic connection to others (when she can't
put herself in others shoes and walk a mile so to speak).
When she is doing the "love, give, forgive" stuff, that
is the basis for empathy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> But... -- Lurker Becoming
Restless, 13:34:42 06/23/01 Sat
Yes, but what you say reminds me of the complexity of the problem...
Those with true empathy cannot harm others: in doing so they would
only be harming themselves.
Given this, how can Buffy do her job as the slayer if she achieves
the level of compassion required to be morally impeccable?
Perhaps she could only do it by differentiating between the demons
(as in those that are symbols of problems) and the living creatures
she is trying to protect but how is this possible? Is there really
a difference?
In Othello (sorry about the apparently random reference - it helps
with my argument + it's mentioned in Earshot!), Iago can be seen
as a physical manifestation of all the fear and jealousy of all
the other characters in the play. On many levels he is not a character
at all but negative qualities in the form of a living creature.
Othello on the other hand is a person with genuine qualities,
but he is de-humanised by prejudice. Buffy is full of Iagos (problems
that are so overwhelming that they become more important than
living creatures) and Othellos (people who appear to be objects
(or vamps etc) because others fail to empathise with them) and
the task of the heroine is to distinguish between the two.
This would be really hard, though. Where does Ethan Rayne fit
into this? What about Spike? Oh my God, this is way too hard!
Sorry - longer than it was supposed to be again. Hey, thanks for
replying - I was starting to have a discussion with myself there!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Wow. Great first post. Welcome! -- rowan, 19:38:14 06/21/01
Thu
I have alot of thoughts running around in my head, so I might
not sound very coherent (some might say I never do!). I think
perhaps the evil/demonic characters can exhibit these various
stages, but perverted to match their warped view of life.
Spike's Evolution:
After Spike was turned, we see in FFL that he behaves IMO very
adolescently (translated into evil vampire terms, of course) as
he goes on a tear of raping, pillaging, slashing, and burning
against humans. Dru goes along because she's crazy. Spike looks
like the leader. Angelus and Darla seem to show a little more
caution (not less evil, but they're more practical about avoiding
exposure). Spike rebels against their authority. Spike shows the
least amount of human empathy. He does random, reckless evil of
large scope with little regard for consequences to humans, himself,
or his vampire family. He's on an almost drug-induced high.
But it starts to pale a little. Then Angelus says the magick word:
Slayer. Spike then begins the transition from mass slaughter to
the pursuit of Slayers. Now he is in young adulthood, perverted
style: he is a man on a romantic quest, to pit himself against
a worthy foe. He is the Hunter of Vampire Slayers. He is a perverted
Knight of the Round Table, hunting what is good and destroying
it. He's focused, he's goal-oriented, he begins to exhibit tendencies
to plan his evil. He eventually forms a pack of minions to help
him. He leads.
He also begins to feel again the stirrings of connections to humans.
He connects to each of the two Slayers he kills (their eyes lock),
but he denies it and continues with his evil. Eventually he gets
to Sunnydale, where he meets the third Slayer and is defeated
by her in S2.
By S3, Spike begins to move into more mature adulthood. He starts
putting others ahead of himself. He gives up the quest to kill
the Slayer in favor of protecting Dru. He forms a bond with the
Slayer for mutual benefit. He connects with Buffy ('Oh my God,
he's going to kill her') in a very real way, but again, turns
his back on it -- but not to continue killing solely, but mainly
for love of Dru.
By S4 and S5, Spike is now ripe to begin feeling further connections
to humans because the chip is severing his connection to vamps
(and plus, Dru has cut the very powerful maternal/sexual bond
that held Spike for over a hundred years -- let's not underestimate
that as Spike's catalyst, more so than the chip). Joyce, Buffy,
Dawn, and yes, the other Scoobies (hey, he has feelings for Willow,
too, and has shown sensitivity to Tara's feelings as well) all
begin tugging on Spike's heartstrings in different ways and with
different intensities. Now we'll see if instead of continuing
on the evil side of the evolutionary chain, if he moves up the
good side.
Angelus:
I really think some interesting posts could arise out of examining
Angelus pre-Buffy vs. Angelus post-Buffy. The glimpses I caught
of Angelus in FFL, etc. suggest to me that the post-Buffy Angelus
was even more sick and twisted. It was almost as if that love
for Buffy was burning a hole into whatever demon soul sits inside
Angelus, motivating him to do ever greater evil as a punishment
for the love Angel holds for Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Wow. Great first post. Welcome! -- Greta, 13:15:17
06/22/01 Fri
*It was almost as if that love for Buffy was burning a hole into
whatever demon soul sits inside Angelus, motivating him to do
ever greater evil as a punishment for the love Angel holds for
Buffy.*
I, too, see a big difference between Angelus 2.0 and what we've
seen of pre-curse Angelus. None of the flashbacks suggest a desire
for the apocalypse, indeed, the "Darla" scene in the
Master's lair suggested a Spike-like desire to be out and about
among the Happy Meals with Legs, if only to torment them.
Spike even said once that "the new, improved version's not
playing with a full deck," and many fanfics work on the premise
that either the curse or loving Buffy drove the demon insane.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> What, we scary? -- ObjectsinMirror, 20:28:56 06/21/01 Thu
First, very nice post. I join with my fellow Bretheren of Buffydom
and Sisteren of Soliloquy in welcoming you to our very amiable
midst!
Second, you do not need to be concerned as to your intellectual
qualifications, your post speaks well of them. Heck, if I personally
had more than a high-school diploma, I would know that 'Sisteren'
isn't a real word!
Third, if you yearn to learn, the best way to do it is to hang
out with smart, thoughtful, friendly people who share your passion.
I know, this works for me!
Fourth, Masq only pretends to be the Second Evil, she's really
a pussycat. Or, no, wait-- that's Rufus...
Fifth, I like your NetName, I have a longish one too, but I got
too lazy to type it out all the time, so I just (d)evolved it
a bit.
Last, I have heard the name 'Kohlberg' in passing, but never knew
what he was about. See, I get to finish the day with fresh, salty
philosophical goodness, all thanks to you!
Come back soon!
OnM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Hey now. -- Solitude1056, 21:17:39 06/21/01 Thu
Masq may pretend to be the Second Evil, but we all know she's
really the First Evil. Take notes, you will be tested on it! :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I'm so *not* getting in the middle of this!
You kids fight it out amongst yourselves! ;) -- OnM, 21:20:44
06/21/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Meow............purity here....no evil
at all............really!!!!!! -- Rufus, 22:12:25 06/21/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Oh, yeah, right, Ms.-wanna-turn-me-into-a-cat...
!! -- OnM, 07:57:48 06/22/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, we are trying to turn
you to the kitty litter side.........:):):) -- Rufus, 13:21:04
06/22/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> What fight? I'm the First, Sol's the Second. We worked
this out by comparing our evils. -- Masq, 21:52:10 06/21/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Yah, I'm the Lesser of Two Evils. -- Solitude1056,
22:20:47 06/21/01 Thu
But you'll probably try the one you've not tried before, so it's
all the same in the end! (Butchering Mae West's wit, natch.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Boy, you've just been waiting to get that
one out, haven't you? -- OnM, 07:45:05 06/22/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Nope. It was an unplanned moment
of inspiration. Really. -- Solitude1056, 08:53:54 06/22/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long) --
Cynthia, 19:10:31 06/22/01 Fri
Ok, my small turn to come out of the shadows again.
Seems to me that one of the events that take place in moral development
is a moment when one can see oneself and the behaviors that one
has, as others see them. It can be a rather nasty shock, especially
if the behaviors are destructive. And it doesn't necessarily mean
change. An addict can have a moment of clarity but still not be
strong enough to end the addition at that moment. Such a truth
could even send one further into the behavior in an attempt in
denial.
I believe that Spike had such a moment in The Crush when he looked
at Dru in vamp form as she feed off of her victim. He saw that
Buffy saw and it wasn't pretty. Granted he then feed himself,
whether from blood lust, politeness, scheming to fool Dru in regard
to his plan to use her, etc.
The moment may have been buried almost as soon as it appeared
but I believe it had an effect on him. I sometimes think that
Spike scenario for the Buffybot was as much an subconcious belief
that he is too horrible for Buffy to ever accept him, that he
himself feels he's not worthy of be saved, that his punishment
is to be rejected by the person he valued the most, as it was
a need to hold on to the Big Bad image he had created.
When he states that he is a monster in The Gift, I think it was
an acknowledge of not only what he is, a vampire, but how he feels
about himself. And they say acknowledging one's behavior is the
first step in changing it. Of course, geting others to trust those
changes is another matter.
Back to the shadows again. Got to start on the huge book list
I've made since I've starting attending this great site.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long)
-- Rufus, 22:24:28 06/22/01 Fri
Spike first said to Angelus that they did the things they did
because they were "vampires" "it's what we do".
It's amazing what a little cooling off time and fraternizing with
the usual vicims will do to ones perception. In Crush Spike did
have an odd look on his face like he was reminding himself that
this is what he does....destroy. In The Gift I think he understands
that he is a monster, he is what has contributed to the worlds
suffering. He understands what Buffy must see. Now, will he do
anything about it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long)
-- rowan, 10:08:52 06/23/01 Sat
"Seems to me that one of the events that take place in moral
development is a moment when one can see oneself and the behaviors
that one has, as others see them."
Very good point. If evil arises from a basic lack of empathy,
when a moment of empathy can be struck, behavior can change.
"I believe that Spike had such a moment in The Crush when
he looked at Dru in vamp form as she feed off of her victim. He
saw that Buffy saw and it wasn't pretty. Granted he then feed
himself, whether from blood lust, politeness, scheming to fool
Dru in regard to his plan to use her, etc."
I too think this moment was huge. One interpretation I've heard
is that Spike was just afraid of activating the chip. But we've
seen alot of times when Spike has done something to activate the
chip, and we haven't seen that look on his face. I think he was
emotionally conflicted. He was recognizing that this feeding was
a step back to his vampire life and he wasn't sure that he wanted
to take it.
Of course, once he tasted the blood, he was done. Kind of like
me and pizza.
"The moment may have been buried almost as soon as it appeared
but I believe it had an effect on him. I sometimes think that
Spike scenario for the Buffybot was as much an subconcious belief
that he is too horrible for Buffy to ever accept him, that he
himself feels he's not worthy of be saved, that his punishment
is to be rejected by the person he valued the most, as it was
a need to hold on to the Big Bad image he had created."
I dreaded that whole BuffyBot for weeks before it aired. I thought
there was no way it was not the end of Spike. Then Intervention
aired and now it's one of my favorite eps. I thought when Spike
first asked Warren to build it that his attitude seemed like Revenge
Man. But then (as someone pointed out in the Cheekbones post,
I think) she turned out to be so girly. Spike wanted to interact
with the "other side" of Buffy -- the non-Slayer side.
Of course, ultimately the Bot was unsatisfying because it wasn't
real.
Makes you think about his interactions with Dawn, huh? If what
Buffy says is true and Dawn is the "real" part of her,
the Buffy part (vs. Slayer), then when Spike is interacting with
Dawn, he is in a way interacting with the true Buffy. Hmmmm...
But I digress.
"When he states that he is a monster in The Gift, I think
it was an acknowledge of not only what he is, a vampire, but how
he feels about himself. And they say acknowledging one's behavior
is the first step in changing it. Of course, geting others to
trust those changes is another matter."
This scene is an interesting contrast to one a few eps earlier
(can't recall which ep; possibly Intervention in the scene between
Spike & Xander in the crypt before Spike is beset by minions).
Spike essentially says, "I'm not a monster" and Xander
responds with "Yes, you are. They make monster movies about
things like you." Spike sometimes loses the sense that he
is a monster. But by The Gift, he acknowledges that to Buffy.
Hmmm...personal growth seen here? self-knowledge? The first step
of true internal change?
Willow:
1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Isabel, 21:35:35 06/21/01
Thu
Willow, our Favorite Red-headed, Bisexual Witch
Ah, labels, what a good way to start out. Perhaps I should explain
myself. I hesitate to use 'Wiccan' to describe Willow because
Wicca is a religion, albeit one I don't know a lot about. For
a while I had thought Willow had converted to Wicca, but in Listening
to Fear she said:
"Oh, I feel just like Santa Claus. Except thinner, and younger,
and female, and well, Jewish."
So I'm still considering her Jewish, since people traditionally
only have one religion at a time. I did some surfing on the Web
and learned that Wiccans consider themselves witches, not all
witches are Wiccan. I am not fond of BtVS' using it interchangeably
with 'witch.' Perhaps the show is trying to soften the term so
it is easier to think of Willow and Tara as good witches, but
any 5 year old who's seen Glinda, the Witch of the North in The
Wizard of Oz is familiar with the concept of a good witch.
"Hello, gay now!" to Anya in Triangle.
Bisexual should be obvious, and we did discuss it at some length
a few months back. The dictionary definition reads "sexually
attracted to both sexes." (Wordsworth Concise English Dictionary,
c1994) She had a life-long crush on Xander. She dated and loved
Oz. She is dating and loves Tara, very much. That quote is also
factual. She's in a lesbian relationship, now. Willow isn't thinking
of future lovers, because, for her, each relationship is her last.
"You care about someone, you care about them. You can't change
that by..." to Buffy about Angel. (I'm 95% sure the line
is from Angel. I can't find a quote list or script that lists
it. I copied it down one night while watching 1st season episodes
and forgot to note which episode. Duh.)
One of the things I like best about Willow is her loving nature.
She doesn't hold back in case she gets hurt or come into the relationship
with preconceptions. If she and Tara break up, Joss forbid, there
is no set definition of whoever she'll fall for next. I think
Willow falls in love with the person she falls for, and doesn't
care about whatever else they may be: male/female, werewolf/witch,
human/demon. Bearing that in mind, I've noticed that there are
similarities between Oz and Tara. Both are quiet, Oz is habitually
taciturn and Tara is quiet and insecure around people she doesn't
know. Both are talented, Oz is a musician and Tara is a natural
witch. And both thought Willow was terrific before they got involved.
(Always a good thing.) There's one more thing that Tara and Oz
have in common, but I'm mentioning that later.
An aspect of the show I really like is that not one of our heroes
is a paragon of virtue. Everyone has their negative human aspects.
Giles is pedantic with a hidden violent streak, Xander can be
the jealousy-ridden slacker clown, and Buffy tried not to be the
slayer, ran away, lied to her friends about Angel, ... you get
the picture... Willow, she tends to be the most kind-hearted and
forgiving of the Scooby Gang, but not always. She was the first
Scooby to accept that Angel might be a good vampire (Angel;) because
Buffy asked for it, she got Angel's soul back while she was in
a hospital bed (Becoming, Pt.2;) and she was the first to accept
Angel back after he returned from Hell despite the fact he had
almost killed her as Angelus. (Revelations, and after.) She argued
against killing Hus, the Vengeance Spirit because he had a right
to be angry about his people's extermination (Pangs.) She kept
Spike from staking himself, when Xander wanted to lend a hand,
also despite the fact that he had almost killed her, twice (Doomed.)
But she drew the line at Faith. Before I started researching for
this essay, I had forgotten that Willow really didn't like Faith
at all. In fact, compare Willow's and Xander's attitudes towards
Angel and Faith. They're mirror images of each other. Xander was
jealous of Angel because he had Buffy, romantically, and he was
an almost physical equal to Buffy. Willow was jealous of Faith
because she had Xander, sexually, the same number of times Angel
had Buffy, and she was a physical equal to Buffy. Plus, Faith
took Willow's place as Buffy's girl buddy. In Bad Girls, Buffy
was ditching Willow to go slaying with Faith and Willow wasn't
allowed to tag along, even though she had gone in the past, because
she might get hurt.
I've already mentioned that Willow was the first, after Buffy,
to forgive Angel for Angelus. When Faith started unraveling in
Consequences, Xander was one of the ones who tried to reach out
to her. It didn't work. She almost strangled him. Then, a year
later, when she woke up from her Buffy-induced coma, Xander still
thought at first she might be able to be rehabilitated. Willow,
on the other hand, argued 'No, she's a killer. She should go to
jail.' Or Buffy should at least beat her up.
If I counted correctly, Faith had only killed 2 humans at that
point, at least on screen. The Deputy Mayor, in Bad Girls, (an
accident) and the Geology Professor, in Graduation Day, pt. 1
(definitely NOT an accident.) Plus she had tried to kill Angel,
hurt Buffy, and helped the Mayor in his plans to eat the town.
Angelus, on the other hand, murdered Jenny, a teacher Willow liked,
as well as at least 120 other people in Sunnydale (on and off
screen) before Buffy sent him to Hell. (Assuming 1 person/day
to feed, if he became evil in Mid-January and was sucked into
Acathla at the end of May. Not counting the roughly 53,000 people
he ate in the 145 years before he got his soul back the first
time.) Perhaps she rationalizes that Angel and Angelus are 2 separate
people, one who is a good guy, and one who belongs in Hell. But
what's her rationale for Spike? Yes, he's helpless now, or at
least until we see if his chip was damaged in that fall, but he's
still an unrepentant vampire who joyously killed for 119 years.
That's roughly 43,500 people, if you do the math.
I'm not bashing Willow, or Angel and Spike for that matter. All
I want to do is point out that our girl has quite a blind spot.
At this point, Buffy may even have a higher human body count than
Faith does after she took out the dozen or so Knights of Byzantium.
Of course Buffy was defending everyone's lives, so it wasn't simply
murder.
"I'm not your sidekick!" to Buffy in Fear, Itself.
Willow has changed a lot from the girl we saw drinking water from
the fountain in Welcome to the Hellmouth. She was an intelligent,
shy, dowdy, naive schoolgirl, in her brown jumper that her mom
picked out for her. She only had a few friends and she was ignored
and/or picked on by all the cool kids in school. In extraordinary
circumstances, she was the last to lose her faith in normality.
Even after finding out that it was vampires who had taken their
friend Jesse, she wondered why they weren't calling the police.
To her credit she adjusted quickly, "Buffy, I'm not anxious
to go into a dark place full of monsters, but I do want to help.
I need to." (The Harvest)
Willow quickly put her brains and computer ability towards helping
her new best friend save the world. From Xander's comment about
her hacking into City Hall's files, "Somebody's been naughty."
I figured that he hadn't even known about it. From then on, when
Buffy needed information, Willow found ways to get it, cracking
encrypted files, reading coroner's reports, getting city plans.
I always felt that Willow's hacking was a rebellion against her
innocent exterior. "I'm very seldom naughty." To Buffy
in Restless. Her subconscious must not count being a hacker as
'naughty.'
Then she discovered magic. Finally something she could do to really
contribute to Buffy's slaying. She started out slow with a potion
in The Witch, but by the middle of the 2nd season she was casting
minor spells, like Angelus' disinvites. I think her first major
spell was the re-soulification of Angel, but she did get some
help from somewhere so it wasn't entirely on her own.
Soon, Giles and everyone started encouraging Willow to slow down
a bit and be more careful. Some spells had gone awry so people
were starting to be concerned about magic being performed. Willow
found ways around this, from finding Giles' hidden spell books
in his locked office to just not telling people about all the
magic she was performing.
Xander: Is that a spell book? Willow: No, no, no! Chemistry book.
X: Wait a minute. This is love spell stuff. You doing a love spell?
W: No, of course not! This is a purely scientific... de-lusting
spell... for us. I thought it would go better if you didn't know.
X: Are you nuts? Or have you forgotten I tend to have bad luck
with these sorts of spells? ..... W: This whole "us"
thing is... bleach! X: So, do you really need to resort to the
black arts to keep our hormones in check? (Lover's Walk)
I had planned on doing a statistical analysis of success and failure
of her spells and determine whether she's irresponsible or misunderstood
by her friends. Right now I've got the potion in the Witch, Success;
the Resoulification of Angel-Success (but she had help); The 'My
will be done' spell in Something Blue-Failure, 3x a failure, almost
killing Xander & Anya, Blinding Giles, then Spike and Buffy trying
to suck out each other's tonsils, plus the De-ratting and Re-ratting
of Amy cancel each other out; The 'find the demons in Sunnydale'
spell-failure, but Tara sabotaged it; The 'get the petals off
the rose' spell, also with Tara-technically a success, but I think
I'll count as a failure because they burned off when the rose
became a floral ballistic missile; The 'metaphor for sex' spell
when Tara had to anchor Willow so she could travel to the astral
plane to see who was in Buffy's body- Success; The multiple mentioned
attempts to De-rat Amy-Failures; The 'ball of sunshine' spell-failure,
so far, and Olaf was 'No ball of sunshine'; Causing pain to Glory-Success;
Shielding the group from intruders-Success; Sucking Tara back-
Success (But was it complete?); Getting Buffy to 'Snap out of
it'-Success; Tossing minions out of Spike's way-Success; The 'Find
my way' spell in Fear, Itself-Success, but when it turned on her,
failure.
Time is passing, so I can't do a thorough enough job. As it is
that's 9 Successes, 8 Failures including 1 sabotage. And that's
just off the top of my head. It's definitely not all the magic
that Willow's done. Just this sample comes out to roughly a 53%
success rate. With the power that Willow is obviously wielding
at the present time, is that a good enough percentage to shrug
off all criticism? Granted, Willow's had a large number of successes
recently, but is that because she's turned to using Dark Magic
and/or working with the controlling influence of Tara?
Now Willow has a level of power. In The Gift, Buffy tells Willow
she's their big gun because she's the most powerful of them all.
This seems to startle her, even though she was the only one who
had hurt Glory, at that point. I laughed when she said no, she'd
rather be a cudgel or a pointy stick, because a pointy stick in
the hands of a Slayer is a powerful weapon.
I've come back to Tara and Oz. The two people who love and know
Willow the best, and the last thing I noticed they had in common
was they both told Willow that they were worried about her use
of magic. In Fear, Itself Willow calls Oz 'Brutus' because he
admitted he had concerns about what magic she was doing. Later
in the crazy house, when she did her conjuration to find the exit,
it turned on her because she did something wrong and/or she lacked
the control for the spell.
Willow and Tara's only fight so far has been when Tara told her
how frightened she was by Willow's progress in Tough Love.
TARA: --Oh but you're way beyond me there. In just a few -- I
mean it frightens me how powerful you're getting.
WILLOW: That's a weird word.
TARA: (knows damn well) "Getting"?
WILLOW: It frightens you? I frighten you?
TARA: That's so not what I mean. I meant impresses, impressive...
WILLOW: Well I took Psyche 101 -- I mean, I took it from an evil
government scientist who was skewered by her Frankenstein-like
creation right before the final -- but I know what a Freudian
slip is. (beat) Don't you trust me?
TARA: With my life!
WILLOW: That's not what I mean. .... TARA: It's not that. I worry.
Sometimes... You're changing so much, so fast, I don't know...
where you're heading...
WILLOW: Where I'm heading?
TARA: I'm saying everything wrong.
This wasn't the first time that Willow and Tara had ideological
differences over magic. When Dawn wanted to do the resurrection
spell to get Joyce back, Tara insisted right off that it couldn't
be done. Willow argued that it could, but it wasn't a good idea.
Then Tara clarified that it was something that Wiccans took vows
not to mess with because it was wrong. It was after Tara left
the room that Willow slid the book out for Dawn to find the information
she had wanted about the resurrection spell. And afterward, Willow
did not tell Tara she was the one who led Dawn to the book.
Willow doesn't like limitations on her magic. When Anya was trying
to stop her from doing magic in the shop when Giles was out of
town, Willow made fun of her and kept on doing it, ignoring the
facts that some spells weren't going right and maybe Anya had
a point. I don't think she considers herself responsible for the
destruction of the Magic Box or the Bronze and all of the people's
injuries from Olaf's rampage.
I also found it interesting that after Glory brainsucked Tara,
Willow knew exactly where to look to find Giles' hidden dark magic
books. I'm pretty sure that they weren't ones that he'd just let
her use, so she must have searched and found them on her own previously.
An alarming thing I noticed when Willow cast her dark spells,
her eyes went completely black, like Doc's did when Dawn went
to him for the resurrection spell, and like Catherine Madison's
did in The Witch when she cast her curse at Buffy that ended with
Catherine trapped in the trophy. I'm pretty sure that's not just
an indication of power level because when Willow re-souled Angel,
her eyes didn't change at all.
A karmic principle that I found on some Wicca web sites was 'The
Rule of Three.' Basically, it means that any magic power you use,
the repercussions come back to you three times. If you cast a
benevolent spell, you get benevolent repercussions, if you cast
a malevolent spell, you get malevolent repercussions. Willow freely
used dark magics to hurt Glory and save her friends, so by that
philosophy, she's written several blank checks on her powers to
the powers of Darkness. Will she have to pay up and how will that
effect her?
Ever since Hush, Willow and Tara together have been a powerful
magical combination, from moving the soda machine to flinging
hoards of minions. Tara was raised in the use of natural magic
and she is comfortable in accepting what witches can and can't
do with magic. As long as Willow stays working with Tara, she'll
have a calming influence and an ethical guide as well as an incredible
power boost. Perhaps next year, she'll learn some of the witchcraft
rights and wrongs and be one of the ones to 'Grow Up.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> It's here, it's here! Hip, hip, hooray! -- rowan, 21:42:30
06/21/01 Thu
This looks great. I'll have to wait for tomorrow to do it justice
(it's almost 1:00a here) because I'm too sleepy right now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Just under the wire... -- Isabel, 22:00:55 06/21/01 Thu
Thanks to the marvels of time zones. ;)
It's a little rough in parts, but it says what I wanted it to
say. I'm posting from the Eastern Time Zone, so it was 12:35 AM
on Friday when I sent it out.
I'm still a little frazzled, partly because I found out 2 days
ago that I had an interview for a promotion on Thursday. (yesterday)
But I made it through. I did ok in my interview and Willow is
posted. I think I'm going to bed before my head explodes.
'Night
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Just under the wire... (o/t) -- rowan, 22:04:05
06/21/01 Thu
Good luck with the promotion opportunity!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> It's great! Hope the postage didn't interfere with
your interview... -- Masq, 12:38:26 06/22/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Slayrunt,
03:50:16 06/22/01 Fri
He he he, it pays to be a night owl.
Isabel, great job. I'm glad you brought up the bisexuality. I
wasn't hear a few months ago so as I was thinking about Willow
(which I do a lot) I was running "Triangle" through
my head and the scene in "The Gift" and it hit me. Darn
your sinister collective brainpower.
There are similarities between Oz and Tara. They act as a support
system and a grounding force for her. Unless Tara becomes a little
more forceful in explaining the dangers of the dark magic, Willow
could, and IMO, will be in trouble.
Willow has alway held things inside, I think she is afraid of
being rebuked for things, for her sexuality or her quest for magic.
She is strong when and/or if she needs to be, but the majority
of the time, she remains the little shy girl. IMO Willow is the
one main Scoobie that needs to "Oh, grow up"
Karma, well, yeh. Wil is in for it. As been discussed else where
on this site far better then I could, Willow is in for trouble.
The (a) new Big Bad is in town and she's one mightily pi$$ed off
witch.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Marie,
06:02:03 06/22/01 Fri
I'm loving these posts!
I really LIKE Willow. I'd love to sit and chat with her! I know
she's made some foolish choices with her spells, and consequences
have been..well, not good! But I truly believe she's meant no
real harm and is sorry for her acts where they've hurt the people
she loves, even when it's them that have made her mad in the first
place.
(Having said that, I sometimes find the way she speaks occasionally
irritating - a little too childlike and naive. She's fought the
good fight for a few years now, and needs to face the fact that
she's an adult - which I assume Joss is going to address in S6).
I like the comparison between Oz and Tara - they both speak little
(Oz = 'cool', Tara = shy), so that when they do speak, what they
say has impact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Rob,
07:14:56 06/22/01 Fri
There is no way I can write as mammoth a post as you have...It's
so overwhelming to me at the moment! But I do have to say that
you did an excellent job.
What I find most interesting about Willow's character is her double
nature. On the one hand, she is shy, kind, and forgiving. On the
other, she can conjure up great forces of dark magic, and many
times recklessly (and against the requests of her friends). I'm
not sure exactly what that says about her character, but it does
definitely make her more human and three-dimensional. (That is,
by the way, what I think is so great about all of Joss' characters.
They are never cardboard characters. Every one, even when you
think you have them pegged, has a secret layer or an unusual quality
that you did not realize before. This is what makes them human.)
I think it would be interesting if an episode was ever done, similar
to "The Replacement," but instead of 2 Xanders, 2 Willows...one
the quiet, gawky girl we first grew to love, the other the powerful
(and sometimes) reckless witch.
One thing I have noticed is that Willow's darker spells usually
come at a time when either she or her friends are in emotional
turmoil. She is not a Slayer. She does not have superpowers. But
finally now through her magic she can be as strong...or even stronger...than
Buffy (something she had never thought possible before). Willow
alone had the power to hurt Glory, not the Slayer! She harnesses
her power out of anguish over loss. The last most notable time
she used such dark magic was in "Something Blue," when
she was heartbroken over the loss of Oz. That turned out to be
a disaster. She has, however, I believe, matured a great deal
since then. Yes, she uses very dark powers to avenge Glory's brainsucking
of Tara, and yes she could have been killed...but she did not
through this magic cause harm to her friends, as she had in "SB".
She only hurt the enemy. And this newfound knowledge that she
could indeed hurt Glory contributed a great deal to the final
battle strategy. In fact, had Willow not done a "reverse
brainsuck" on Glory, weakening her, Buffy may not have been
able to finish Glory off herself with the troll hammer.
I think that the thing about Willow is that she had never before
had much self-confidence or self-worth, and now she finally has
a venue through which to be strong herself. Sometimes she gets
carried away with it, but in the end, she is still a very kind,
sweet person, who, fortunately, is now capable of fiercely defending
her friends. She truly did go through hell itself when her love,
Tara, was left mentally ill. But she brought Tara out of the prison
of her mind, and she did that herself. Buffy was not able to figure
out a way to restore Tara's mind. Willow figured out a way to
do that and fight Glory simultaneously.
Above all, Willow is an extremely loyal person. She loves her
friends a great deal and would do anything in her power to protect
them. What I find most touching about her relationship with Buffy
is that Willow's gayness is not an issue. Buffy or Willow can
tell each other, "I love you," and mean it with all
their hearts (but just not in the same way that Willow and Tara
mean it), and neither of them are awkward about it now. (As a
side note, I thought Buffy's reaction to Willow when she first
came out was perfectly played...She was very "weirded out,"
but never made Willow feel as if she had to change. Instead, Buffy
changed her conception of Willow and grew to love Tara as a friend
also.) Willow and Xander also have a similar relationship, although
they have known each other longer. Their friendship in a way is
even closer than a brother and sister. They probably know each
other more perfectly than any other two people on the show. I
found it very interesting that one of Willow's messed up spells
this year was a result over a fight with Anya, basically over
who was more important to Xander.
Well, I wrote a lot more than I thought I would after all...(That
seems to happen all the time, doesn't it?) and I'm not exactly
sure where I'm going with all this, so I'll just wrap it by saying
that Willow has always been one of my favorite characters on the
show, although I care so much about every one, that I would say
that every character is my favorite character. Let me rephrase
that: I love Willow's character very much. I love her strength,
and I love her quiet nature. Everyone should have a friend as
good as her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The Strength Of Emotions -- Kerri, 18:21:15 06/22/01
Fri
Just picking up on a very small point here:
"Willow alone had the power to hurt Glory, not the Slayer!
She harnesses her power out of anguish over loss."
I think it is a very significant point that Willow can hurt Glory
because of her emotions in "Tough Love". At this point
Buffy cannot touch Glory. It is not until "The Gift"
when Dawn is in danger that Buffy poses a threat to Glory. Buffy
clearly draws a great deal of strength from her emotions and her
love from Dawn. In "Blood Ties" Spike can't even lift
the troll hammer, while in "the Gift" Buffy easily picks
it up and swings it repeatedly. While it does seem that Buffy
is stronger then vampires it never seemed that she was that much
stronger then them.
So what gave her this power? It seems to me that the power came
from her love from Dawn. This goes back to what Buffy tells Kendra
in "What's my line" about her emotions being her assets.
Buffy has learned to use her emotions to foster her power and
build her strength. Willow in the past has not seemed to be able
to harness her emotions. ex-in "Doppelgangland" Willow
is floating a pencil, and when she becomes upset the pencil spins
out of control with great force. We see the force of Willow's
emotions, but her inability to harness them. This changes in "Tough
Love" -instead of letting her emotions overwhelm her Willow
uses them for her power.
It seems clear that emotions can be the strongest wepon. I think
Willow learning to harness her emotions as a source of strength
will allow her powers to grow. It will be very intesting to see
if she can handle how strong her emotions are when the manifest
themselves.
Sorry for the rant and for going off on a tangent.
~Kerri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Strength Of Emotions -- Rufus, 21:49:12
06/22/01 Fri
Very good point about the emotions. Specially in respect to Buffy.
When it comes to Willow it's when she gets angry that I worry
the most about her. Being natually a loving person Willow isn't
used to dealing with rage. When she almost went after Veruca and
Oz she did manage to stop herself, when she went after Glory she
was lucky Buffy intervened. Willow is strong but her weakness
is her inablility to deal with negative emotions. Her next area
of problem is best intentions. That was seen the best in Forever
when she lead Dawn to the book to raise Joyce. Grief is hard and
I can understand Willow wanting to make Dawn feel better....fast.
The results could have been far more traumatic had Dawn not ripped
up the picture before the figure that shuffled up to the door
could be seen. Willow is getting sloppy, she is using magic like
a recipe you cook with, she isn't thinking about the ethics associated
with her craft. I do have the feeling that she now will find out
that you don't call upon darkest magic to solve a problem and
not expect the power to cost....something.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The Strength Of Emotions -- rowan,
21:59:18 06/22/01 Fri
"When it comes to Willow it's when she gets angry that I
worry the most about her."
Very good point. Sometimes with reserved people who are great
givers to others, their own deepest needs become submerged and
remain unfulfilled. This could be serving as the source for some
of her darker emotions and power IMO.
"Her next area of problem is best intentions."
I see this as another manifestation of her desire to please and
take care of others. She takes risks in order to be the caretaker.
I remember the SAT episode, where Willow was so stressed out that
she didn't have higher scores (even though hers were astronomical).
That rang true with me, because I was somewhat like that in high
school myself. I wondered if the way Willow's parents (and pre-SG
friends) had interacted with her made her believe that her self-worth
was tied up in her intelligence and what she could do for other
people, leading to some self-doubt (which again would provide
fuel for her witchy fire).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Strength Of Emotions -- FanMan, 00:19:45
06/23/01 Sat
Kerri
I agree with your entire post with one exception.
My theory on the Troll hammer is it makes the user stronger(Triangle)
However it is probably aspected in WHO/what can use it;if Trolls
have a racial enemy species that species would probably not be
able to use it, also maby any form of undead(vampires) cannot
use it.
When I say cannot use it I mean more than simply not getting the
strength benefit of the hammer; I mean whoever is not permitted
to use it will have the hammer become heavier ONLY for them(still
same mundane mass and weight...)
I will give examples of two other(theoretical only...grin) weapons
and effects they could have.
Holy Sword of Angels
1. Enchantment to cause double or triple damage to any evil entity.
2. Light or glowing radiance and a "feel of goodness"
similar to how you can "feel" the aura/pressance of
a powerfull or very VERY good person...hopefully you get what
I mean here! 3. Bane for any evil entity; if any evil entity even
touches this weapon it will be burned by holy fire, therefore
demons could not disarm an angel and then use his own sword against
him...
Soul Eater Sword
1. Only evil entities can use this without getting hurt similar
to the bane on the angels sword, but reversed. 2. Anyone hit by
this sword will have to resist an effect similar to vampirism;
the sword drains lifeforce instead of blood! and gives the life
to the sword bearer. 3. Requirement of evil; the sword will resist
any use of it that DOES NOT cause suffering or is not motivated
by evil by becoming heavier and making the user clumsy with a
temperary curse(sort of a curse, also this would be valid for
the other sword, but requirement for GOOD instead!)
The rest of your post was cool with me(grin)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> the troll hammer and Buffy: The nature
of Slayerhood? -- squireboy, 13:26:17 06/26/01 Tue
I'm sorry if I've missed someone's post referring to it, but I
think it is significant that Buffy can lift the hammer when no
one else, including Spike, can (although that does beg the question
of how the hammer got so neatly arranged for display :).
Olaf was a god. He could lift the hammer. Spike is a demon, he
could not lift the hammer. Buffy can lift the hammer. Is there
something being said by Joss about the nature of the Slayer's
power? (referencing Thor's hammer only being liftable by him/other
gods?)
Yes, it sure is convenient that the hammer was around so Buffy
could use it against Glory, but Joss doesn't write like that --
everything is significant.
Hmmmm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> woah woah woah -- Solitude1056,
18:36:01 06/26/01 Tue
Olaf was a god. He could lift the hammer. Spike is a demon, he
could not lift the hammer. Buffy can lift the hammer. Is there
something being said by Joss about the nature of the Slayer's
power? (referencing Thor's hammer only being liftable by him/other
gods?)
I noticed that, and it bugged me, but very quietly. (I've been
busy.) In the Gift, when Anya said, "if you want to beat
a god, use the weapon of a god - Olaf the Troll God's hammer"
etc. When did Olaf become a Troll God? Olaf was just some big
doofus dating Anya back when people were living in small huts
and thinking a fire in the middle was good heating & a hole in
the roof was proper ventilation. we're not talking the most advanced,
yet Anya turned him into a troll... but at what point did she
turn him into a Troll God?
And if Olaf was a God - regardless of what kind - why was Buffy
so shocked when she was told that Glory was a God? And why could
Olaf be beaten so easily, if he had somehow reached God status?
Or are we to believe that Joss now can't keep his pet names for
bad guys straight, any better than he can do his math? It just
seems odd to me, to use the expression "troll god,"
because that opens up a boatload o' plotholes IMO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> And I thought this was a post
about horsies......... -- Rufus, 18:52:13 06/26/01 Tue
Anya did say something about weapon of a god, I do find it hard
that a girl could turn a cheating boyfriend into a god. Given
Olaf's size and troll strength I just assumed that he had the
strength of a god without being a Glory type.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: woah woah woah -- squireboy,
20:25:49 06/26/01 Tue
I'll have to review the original ep again, but it doesn't seem
too weird to me that Anyanka would be dating a lesser deity (?)
like a troll god and think nothing of it. (I'm thinking of Dru
and her slime demon (um, ick).
Good point, though. Does or should Olaf being a god (even a mini-god)
diminish the effect of Glory being a Hellgod? Probably not, different
orders of magnitude after all, and Olaf is in Sunnydale by mistake
(not even his own), Glory is not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: woah woah woah --
Solitude1056, 21:39:33 06/26/01 Tue
I'll have to review the original ep again, but it doesn't seem
too weird to me that Anyanka would be dating a lesser deity (?)
like a troll god and think nothing of it. (I'm thinking of Dru
and her slime demon (um, ick).
Sure, but he wasn't mister big 'n hairy til after she dumped him...
and his transformation into big 'n hairy was her way of a little
goodbye. That's how she got her job as a vengeance demon, after
all. Oh, there's another eye candy for you: everyone's reactions
(and Anya's, too), when Olaf reveals that Anya(anka) was his ex-girlfriend.
LOL!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Joss' background
-- Brian, 03:06:19 06/27/01 Wed
Joss is heavy into comic books. Perhaps the troll god hammer was
a homage to Marvel's Thor who carried the hammer of the gods.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Joss'
background -- Rufus, 03:11:06 06/27/01 Wed
That was the first thing I thought of when I saw the hammer was
Thor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Joss' background -- rowan, 05:35:37 06/27/01 Wed
I still think it was a eensy weensy bit of a slip (suddenly calling
him a god). However, in my brain, I translated it to "supernatural
being" primarily because it had already been established
that he was strong (in Triangle) and that the hammer was very,
very heavy as well as the source of the troll power. After all,
we have seen big things slow Glory down (like the tractor trailer
momentarily in Spiral and of course the wrecking ball in The Gift).
So I assumed that big magickal hammer plus Buffy could do alot
of damage (especially since Spike couldn't lift the thing). I
mean, it's hardly a time to get dainty. The girl has Slayer strength.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
C'mon, guys - remember 'willing suspension of disbelief'? -- Marie,
06:35:08 06/27/01 Wed
I sometimes think that if JW et al ever read these posts, sometimes
they'll want to tear their hair (hairs??) out! I know some things
don't add up to everyone's satisfaction, and maybe they never
will. Maybe Anya should've said 'troll hammer' not 'god hammer',
and no-one picked up on it at the time it was filmed, and the
scene was too expensive to re-shoot or they didn't have the time
to re-shoot, or something like that!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: C'mon, guys - remember 'willing suspension of disbelief'?
-- rowan, 07:43:50 06/27/01 Wed
As I said, although I do think it's a small continuity error,
it really didn't register much with me as a problem. Since the
whole concept of using the hammer worked, I ignored it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: C'mon, guys - remember 'willing suspension of disbelief'?
-- squireboy, 10:08:21 06/27/01 Wed
Well, we are talking about a show with gods and vampires and superBuffies,
I think we suspend disbelief pretty well. The writing usually
does an extraordinary job of making everything count and getting
it all right, that when something like this sticks out, it gives
us all something to gnaw on. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: C'mon, guys - remember 'willing suspension of
disbelief'? -- AK-UK, 11:00:24 06/27/01 Wed
The shooting script has Anya calling Olaf a troll god.
It just looks like Joss screwed up. I'll willing suspend my belief
with regards to magic, vampires etc, but I don't think it should
cover writer errors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: the troll hammer and Buffy:
The nature of Slayerhood? -- Andy, 07:50:07 06/27/01 Wed
I think it's a bit tricky to call Olaf a god. Was he actually
a god, or did he simply become like unto a god so long as he wielded
the magic hammer? I think it works better, and I think it's more
implied by Triangle, if we accept Olaf as a mere troll who somehow
acquired the "weapon of a god" and whose power was greatly
increased by it (he seemed to be at least as strong as Glory when
he was batting stuff around the neighborhood with it). On the
newsgroup a good point was made that if we accept the Thor comparison,
one of the things about Norse myth is those guys liked to fight.
So when Buffy defeated Olaf in combat, it made her worthy of lifting
the hammer and using it to hurt Glory, whereas someone like Spike,
who didn't defeat Olaf, was incapable of budging the thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Olaf is a troll. He has the
Hammer of the Troll God. That doesn't make him the God -- Wisewoman,
09:05:46 06/27/01 Wed
Okay, maybe I've forgotten a bit of dialogue that mentions specifically
that Olaf *is* the Troll God, but I don't have a problem with
the whole issue. Maybe he stole the hammer *from* the Troll God?
Maybe having the hammer is what makes him the Troll God?
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Olaf is a troll.
He has the Hammer of the Troll God. That doesn't make him the
God -- rowan, 09:14:25 06/27/01 Wed
Oh. I thought when Anya became all Vengeance Demony and trolled
him, the hammer came with the curse. I'd better go back and read
a transcript before I make a bigger fool of myself.
Do you see what we're reduced to discussing? We need a new ep
-- or at least for the repeats to start from S1 (that way we can
go back in time and it will almost be like the board was here
from Day One).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We're displaying
the equivalent of Cabin Fever...I need eps NOW!!! -- Wisewoman,
09:22:29 06/27/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You got
that right! :-) -- Solitude1056, 09:31:45 06/27/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I
may be forced to post two 1st Anniversary Fun Postings per week
to get us through. -- rowan, 09:37:54 06/27/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hummm...
the board seems busier than it's ever been to me! -- OnM, 10:08:32
06/27/01 Wed
I'm having trouble keeping up with everything, although part of
that is because I'm also downloading/printing S4 scripts from
Rayne's site to help with my Riley writeup, and viewing both S4
& S5 sequentially for reason same, not to mention I'd do it anyway,
I picked up all sorts of little goodies I missed before from the
original viewings. You know, a lot of people have stated dislike
for S4, but so far I'm finding it holds up even better than I
thought previously, and I've been on record as saying I thought
it was a great season.
How can any Buffyphile be bored, with so many riches to explore?
Or fanfic to write? Or websites to design? Or conversation with
our esteemed selves?
Huh? Huh? I ask ya!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Hummm... the board seems busier than it's ever been to me! --
rowan, 10:27:52 06/27/01 Wed
But don't you think this flurry of activity is partially arising
from the fact that...we have nothing new to dissect? We're natually
trying to distract ourselves from the pain of withdrawal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
You know you've got DTs when you get the "no posting more
than once a minute" page... FIVE TIMES. -- Solitude1056,
13:11:05 06/27/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Digital Trepidations??? ;) -- OnM, 14:36:45 06/27/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: You know you've got DTs when... -- rowan, 15:06:49 06/27/01
Wed
*small voice* God, I thought that only happened to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Pain is the mind-killer. Pain is the little death... no, wait,
that's *Fear*. Sorry! ;) -- OnM, 14:33:59 06/27/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree
with EPS NOW! but hey . . . -- squireboy, 11:19:05 06/27/01 Wed
We have several months to go (ack!) and we might as well have
fun with it. :) Anya specifically calls him "Olaf the Troll
God" in The Gift, and says something like, if you are going
to fight a god, you might as well use the weapon of a god. Which
is what got me going on this whole, how come Buffy can lift the
trollgodhammer, and Spike can't, thing. There aren't any specific
references to Olaf being a troll god in Triangle, but lots to
the magic or enchanted hammer. Besides, here's a whole thread
that isn't entirely about cheekbones! Oops, I guess now it is.
Sigh. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- LadyStarlight,
07:21:24 06/22/01 Fri
I definitely think that part of the "oh, grow up" arc
will be learning that actions have consequences. The "Rule
of Three", when I've read about it, usually applies to spells
cast against people. Perhaps this is why there have been no consequences
against Willow (yet). A prime example of this is Tara's spell
in Family--she was exposed as potentially doing harm to the Scooby's,
she was punched in the nose, and she thought she would lose Willow's
love by her actions. Of course (of Joss?) everything worked out.
However, I could still see Willow descending deeper into dark
magicks, rationalizing all the way. Power has a price and Willow
is probably going to find that out.
Sort of O/T--I REALLY want to watch Anya planning her wedding.
I'm thinking much fun here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party
-- Nina, 19:07:41 06/22/01 Fri
Absolutely love the post! One thing that I find fascinating about
"The Gift" is that without one of Willow's mistake (Bringing
Olaf back to life in Triangle) Buffy could never have beaten Glory.
The hammer was the key to defeating the god, to weaken her. No
Olaf, no hammer, no way to stop Glory. I think the choice of JW
to make a prodigious mistake become the only element allowing
victory is all in favor of Willow. In "Spiral" it was
written in the script that Willow should be bleeding from her
nose after she cast the protection spell. It was actually written
off when they shot the episode. It's an indicator to me that even
though Willow is growing more powerful they are not leading her
to be a big bad. She saved the day in many ways and she is truly
a hero now. Even more so because she won't acknowledge it herself!
:) She's still walking on thin ice and learning to balance her
emotions (like she said in BvsD) but I believe that there are
good chances for her to stay on the good path.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Willow: 1st Anniversary Character Posting
Party -- Cynthia, 19:29:45 06/22/01 Fri
One can cause great destruction all in the name of good intentions.
I think Willow, especially because of her natural talent, needs
a mentor, someone who can remain emotionally objective and not
hestitate to dress Willow down if necessary. Somethings I'm not
sure Tara would be able to do because of her emotional involvement
with Willow as well as her own insecurities.
Humm, perhaps be someone for Giles too :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Willow: 1st Anniversary Character Posting
Party -- Wiccagrrl, 19:30:03 06/22/01 Fri
I tend to agree. While I do think Willow will have to learn to
use her power carefully and wisely, I don't think they're setting
her up to "turn evil".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Great post! -- mundusmundi, 15:44:45 06/22/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Isabel--I'd be interested in hearing... -- Masquerade, 16:32:03
06/22/01 Fri
...your interpretation of Willow's dream in Restless. What it
says about her, what it said about her future that seems to have
come true, what it says about her future that hasn't so far. It
seems to indicate she has issues with her former nerd self that
was her big thing in Season 4, but is she past that now?
Is she the powerful witch/scooby leader now? Or are there lingering
issues for her?
And for her friend's attitude towards her?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Posting Idea -- rowan, 17:11:49 06/22/01 Fri
You know, I was thinking that one of anniversary posts before
next season should have to do with looking once again at Restless,
re-interpreting it for every character, and checking for precisely
what you're asking -- what's come true and what hasn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Restless Willow -- Isabel, 22:14:08 06/24/01 Sun
Restless, the episode that wouldn't die.
I had to dig it out and watch it again to refresh my memory about
what happened. Every time I watch it, and it's been like 10 times
now, I notice and interpret something else. I should be getting
sick of it by now, but I'm not. The mark of a good episode, plus
I love puzzles and symbolism.
The first thing I want to mention is the Cheese Man. Joss has
said in multiple interviews that "The Cheese Man Has NO Meaning!"
I don't argue with him, he wrote the episode, but I swear the
Cheese Man is saying things that actually relate to the characters.
(At least to me.) 1) To Willow, "I made a spot for the cheese
slices." He's off to the side, out of the action, with the
cheese neatly laid out on a little table, organized. Willow likes
to have the different parts of her life separated. Tara is separate
from the Scoobies. (At the time she is not a Scooby.) They are
both separate from her home. She is academic Willow, computer
Willow, and magical Willow. She very rarely mixes them. In fact,
earlier in the season, she explains to Tara that she doesn't want
to share her with her friends just yet. (This Year's Girl, I think)
2) Xander, "These will not protect you." Xander had
been having trouble with life. He hated his parents. He tried
to see the country and that blew up in his face. He couldn't hold
a job or even get a decent one. When the Scoobies were broken
up by Spike, Xander retreated from the world to his bed. The cheese
meant (to me) that he has to face his problems, there is no hiding.
3) Giles, "I wear the cheese, it does not wear me."
A huge chunk of Giles' prior identity was being Buffy's Watcher.
In 4th season, he dealt with unemployment and Buffy's new independence.
He now wears the persona of the Watcher, but Giles is, and has
become, so much more than that. 4) Buffy, She is arguing with
the First Slayer about what she is and the Cheese Man waves the
pieces of cheese in her face with that little smile. At one point,
Willow had told Riley that Buffy liked cheese. Cheese Man seems
to be saying, 'Listen to the First Slayer and I'll give you cheese.'
Maybe I'm reaching. Maybe it's because I'm loopy, it's late and
I'm wired. ;)
As for the rest of Willow's dream, some bits will always be a
mystery. I have no clear idea for the first part, where she's
writing in Greek on Tara's back. I noticed this last time that
Tara seemed to be naked except for the strategically draped blanket.
Does that mean that Tara has let down all of her barriers to Willow?
(Willow already knows Tara's true name.) And by letting Willow
write on her, she's given herself physically to her. (No surprise
there) Tara is not touching Willow and Willow is still dressed.
Does that mean that maybe Willow doesn't have the same level of
commitment? Or maybe Tara is the dominant one in their relationship
and Willow works to please her. (She refers to finishing homework
as she writes on Tara's back.) Or maybe Willow is dressed simply
because she's got to leave the safe place and go to drama class.
(face the world.)
The next scene is the school hallway where Willow talks to Oz
and Xander as she goes through the motions of opening her locker.
She barely looks at them and talks to them in passing. Oz mentions
that he's been there forever when Willow asks if he's taken drama.
I think drama class is a metaphor for her hiding what she is inside.
Oz is very controlled in real life, even Willow never knew what
he was really thinking. I think it's significant that Oz and Xander
are her two previous loves and they are standing behind her when
she tries twice to unlock her locker (her heart or theirs?) but
it won't open and then the bell rings, time is up and she moves
on to class. (She left them behind and moved on with her life.)
Xander is very juvenile acting perhaps because he was her puppy
love or maybe because Willow feels that he's too fixated on sex
and he needs to grow up. His 'spells'=sex and masturbation comments
are so funny.
The drama class performance seems to be Willow's life and the
audience is the world. Giles says that 'everyone that Willow's
ever met is out there tonight including all of us...it's all about
hiding. The audience wants to find you, strip you naked and eat
you alive, so hide.' Buffy and Harmony comment that Willow is
already in costume for the play that Willow didn't know they were
putting on. I think it means that Willow's everyday clothes are
part of a persona, an armor, that she puts forth to the world
for her own protection. Buffy congratulates her that no one will
ever know about her. Oz and Xander are not in the performance,
perhaps that means that Willow has never performed for or hidden
her true self from them. Everyone in the play seems to be very
superficial. Riley is all excited that he showed up on time so
he got to be 'Cowboy Guy.' Is that Willow thinking that any guy
who showed up in Buffy's life at the right time would get to be
'Cowboy Guy?' Harmony is dressed sweet and innocent, but is only
pseudo nice (big surprise.) She tries to vamp-bite Giles and even
when she answers a question correctly, she is not taken seriously
at all. Harmony isn't really a scary vampire so she's easy to
ignore. Buffy is the vampy drama queen who over acts about everything.
Does Willow think of Buffy as a star of the show, (;)) a center
stage hog? Harmony and Riley are doing a scene and Buffy's sitting
there in the middle of the stage, playing with her hair, not really
part of their conversation.
When Willow talks to Tara in the red curtains, it looks a bit
like their safe place. The play is going on in the back ground.
Everyone else is going on with their lives (in the outside world)
and her interactions with Tara aren't part of that world. Perhaps
Willow's subconscious is telling her she's safe when she's with
Tara, because as soon as Tara vanishes, Willow is attacked.
Willow is rescued by Buffy and led into the empty classroom Buffy
wanted to know what Willow did (to get attacked) and Willow said
"I never do anything. I'm very rarely naughty." Is that
Willow insisting that she never really does anything wrong or
that she's never allowed to do anything (constructive for the
group.)? Buffy asks her why she's still in costume, because the
play is over, and Willow tries to explain it's not a costume,
it's her everyday clothes. Buffy rolls her eyes, "Everybody
already knows, take it off." Willow is insecure, "No,
I need it." Buffy then rips her clothes off and goes to sit
down in the suddenly filled class room. (Is this a consequence
to the audience wants to strip you naked and eat you alive?) Schoolgirl
Willow is left standing at the front of the room with her book
report. She's dressed almost exactly the same way as she was in
the first scenes of the pilot, the ugly brown jumper, her long
straight hair and no makeup. The class, which includes Buffy,
Xander, Oz, Tara, Anya, and Harmony, is amused by her and is apathetic
to her book report. When she is attacked and is screaming on the
floor, no one lifts a finger to save her.
I think Willow's clothing/costume issues mean that she considers
Schoolgirl Willow to be her true self, deep inside. And she isn't
proud of it. Schoolgirl Willow is dowdy, insecure, shy, innocent
and plain. She tries to cover it up with her glossy makeup, her
haircuts and her college type clothes. If her closest friends
knew how she was deep inside, they would not want to be her friends.
(Xander, "Oh, who cares?" Tara and Oz flirting with
each other.) It was Buffy who 'stripped her naked' saying it was
"much more realistic." Is Willow feeling that Buffy
wants to reveal her weaknesses and keep her back (magically and
therefore she's not competition), while Buffy sits with the cool
kids and laughs. (Willow looks angry, not scared when Buffy ripped
her clothes off.) I think the book report on "The Lion, the
Witch and the Wardrobe" reflects Willow's feelings of being
kept back. That's not a book a high school student does a report
on, especially one as smart as Willow. (I read it for school in
fifth grade.) Or it could refer to Willow's immature behavior
when she can get away with it.
The scene ends with the First Slayer sucking out her spirit. Is
that a hint that if Willow messes with a dark primal force, she
could lose her soul? I don't think the Slayer's 'kiss' or the
Narnia book report refer to her homosexuality because, at that
point, she's 'out.'
Is Willow the leader of the Scoobies? I think she can fill that
role for a while. She is the one who sent Spike to protect Dawn.
She didn't ask anyone else about it, or even let them in on it.
Now that Buffy's out of the picture, for a while, there is no
one who is competition in the 'power to kick evil's butt' category.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Greek writing -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 03:51:32
06/26/01 Tue
Two brief points:
I totally agree about the cheese guy! He demonstrates the meaning
each character gives to a meaningless symbol.
The greek writing on Tara's back is a Sapphic love poem - I think
there may be a link to a translation of it in 'A Restless Exegesis'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> A Restless Exegesis -- Solitude1056, 11:37:19
06/27/01 Wed
Where do I find a copy of this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: A Restless Exegesis -- Lurker
Becoming Restless, 13:53:44 06/27/01 Wed
The address is: http://home.earthlink.net/~leadtogold/exegesis/exegesis.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Great post! -- rowan, 17:24:21 06/22/01 Fri
This was so great to read. Various thoughts occurred to me as
I read it and everyone's responses.
Willow and Spike are probably the two characters who I identify
most closely with because I share character traits with them (except
the murdering part). Willow is truly someone about whom could
be said: "Still waters run deep." As you've all rightly
pointed out, she is such a sweet and loyal friend (with some blind
spots!), yet she also has all that hidden power down deep inside
of her. She has almost struck me through the years as someone
who is not just introverted, but almost repressed. She seems to
sublimate her own needs to those of her friends and lovers. This
is of course the essence of being a caretaker. But I wonder if
some of her own needs are being pushed down in some dark corner
within her, feeding that power. Her witchy powers seem to explode
with emotional force at times as was mentioned in this post. Truly,
I agree with everyone who has said that Willow may be one of the
ones who will be learning the "oh, grow up" lessons
the most.
Because she does seem to repress her own self at times, I worry
about her in relationships. Hers with Oz seemed doomed from the
start to me. I accept that they cared for each other deeply, but
Oz's own inner demons were just doomed to suck up all of Willow,
leaving no time for her. The "affair" with Xander preceding
Oz's with Veruca just demonstrated that Willow wasn't getting
what she needed from him, but wasn't able to tell him.
Willow as a character will wear well over time, too. She will
always have that grave gladness, loving nature, and curious mind.
If I were choosing friends, Willow would be at the top of my list.
"How many loved your moments of glad grce, And loved your
beauty with love false or true; But one man loved the pilgrim
sould in you, And loved the sorrows of your changing face."
"When You Are Old" William Butler Yeats
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Great post! -- AK-UK, 20:50:12 06/22/01 Fri
rowan, it's 4:30 am here in th UK, and I've just got back from
some seriously hard partying, so I am in NO fit state to post
here. If I were, I would take you to task for the things you said
about Oz and the Willow/Oz relationship.
I honestly think they were the most believable, most realistic,
most loving couple on the show. And I don't think Oz's "inner
demons" sucked up Willow. The guy was more than able to deal
with them himself. I don't think it's coincidence that Willow
became more confident, more willing to explore magic, during the
time she was with Oz.
Wow, this post actually looks like it might make some sort of
sense! HA, even when drunk, I can still string a sentence together!
Beat that Aristotle! Yeah, I'll have a pint of what Socrates is
drinking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Great post! -- rowan, 21:17:26 06/22/01
Fri
Well, I don't really recall saying that Willow didn't grow during
the relationship or that it wasn't a good relationship in some
ways. What I think I said was that I thought it was doomed from
the start because of the baggage Oz was bringing. And I stand
by that. Because Willow is such a caretaker at heart, despite
Oz's best intentions, eventually his baggage would dominate her
world.
There must have been something lacking in the relationship or
they both wouldn't have cheated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Great post! -- Wiccagrrl, 21:42:42
06/22/01 Fri
I think there were a lot of issues that played into this relationship
ending. Oz had plenty of things he needed to deal with, not the
least of which...werewolf.
I also tend to think that, this being Willow's first big relationship
had an impact. I think she still had a lot of growing and self-discovery
to do. And, I think there was a dynamic when it came to W/O, since
he was the older and "more experienced" one, that he
tended to set the pace of the relationship. He decided when they
were ready to have sex, he decided to take some time off after
both the W/X and O/V situations (against Willow's wishes to try
and work things through)- and decided when he was ready to come
back and try again. Which is fine, except, by the time he came
back in NMR, he was too late. Willow couldn't live waiting to
see when and if he might come back to her. She moved on.
I also think (and I'm not really blaming Willow for this, but
I think it's true) that part of Willow's attraction to Oz was
a status thing. "My boyfriend's in the band" But Willow
even admits in Earshot that she never knows what Oz is thinking.
There's a line from a Mary Chapin Carpenter song that goes
"You got the kind of mind I love to read"
Well, that can be exciting for a while, but exhausting and hard
on a relationship in the long run. I liked W/O, but I guess I
tend to see Willow and Tara as being more on the same wavelength,
having more in common, being on more equal footing. I think they've
got a firm friendship, which I wasn't always sure was the case
with W/O, despite strong feelings for one another. And, at least
in my book, that's a very strong basis for a lasting relationship.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Very perceptive! -- rowan, 22:00:37
06/22/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Great post! -- Isabel, 00:58:20
06/23/01 Sat
"I also think (and I'm not really blaming Willow for this,
but I think it's true) that part of Willow's attraction to Oz
was a status thing"
Thank you for saying that! I thought it was just me. I was going
to use 'inherent coolness' as part of Willow's attraction to Oz
(and Tara) but I couldn't come up with anything more solid than
her saying "I haven't been a nerd for quite some time. Hello!
Dating a guitarist! Well, I was." (Paraphrased from Doomed)
and her "Hello! Gay now." and "Preaching to the
choir" (Blood Ties) comments.
I figured I was going to get flamed, and I didn't want that to
happen for something that was mostly a gut feeling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Great post! -- LadyStarlight,
05:56:33 06/23/01 Sat
Having been a semi-outcast in Jr. High, I can definately see where
part of Willow's attraction to Oz would be status. Probably a
very small part, but it's a valid theory nonetheless. (especially
after watching Welcome to the Hellmouth & figuring out the pecking
order. High school really sucks most of the time.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Great post! -- rowan,
08:19:47 06/23/01 Sat
I think it's a good thing to remember that these are high school
(now college) kids, after all (at least at that point). Although
exceptional, they do still exhibit some of the hallmarks of their
age. I think I may have even dated a person or two for status
way, way, back...it my high school, it was drummers who were cool.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Great post! -- AK-uk, 22:10:14 06/22/01
Fri
Argh! I'm still awake, and I'm sobering up :(
rowan, I'm slightly confused here; what baggage did Oz bring to
the relationship and how did it swamp Willow? Oz was a remarkably
well-adjusted teenager, able to deal calmly with everything that
life threw at him (look how calm he was when he discovered he
was a werewolf). He was popular, intelligent, and in a cool band.
Willow, on the other hand, was (throughout season 3) dealing with
feeling like an outsider, unpopular, "geeky" and "nerdy",
a dull sidekick, underappreciated, overlooked, etc etc. Surely
if anyone was bringing baggage to the relationship, it was Willow.
As for why they both cheated on each other.........well, we do
have some pretty unique circumstances here. Oz's werewolf emotions
were clearly at play when he slept with Veruca. The werewolf attraction
to a female of it's own species must have been phenomenally strong
(and imagine how strong the desire of such a primal creature must
be), and, like Oz's hearing and enhanced smelling abilities, the
wolf attraction "leaked" into Oz.
As for Willow.......well she had always fancied Xander, and she
hadn't been going out with Oz for that long. So, when she and
Xander were looking all sexy in their homecoming outfits, their
teenage hormones got the better of them. They were able to have
their cakes and eat them, until Oz and Cordy found out, at which
point Willow realised how much she loved Oz and dropped Xander.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Great post! -- rowan, 08:21:11
06/23/01 Sat
The baggage was the werewolf stuff (which allow contained by Oz,
was not really handled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Baggage -- Malandanza,
12:12:15 06/23/01 Sat
I have to agree with AK-UK on this one -- the baggage in the relationship
belonged to Willow. Perhaps the Oz/Willow romance was doomed from
the start -- after all (as noted by Oz in Innocence) the relationship
began as an attempt by Willow to make Xander jealous. The relationship
was one-sided from the beginning and continued to be so as long
as Wilow and Oz were together. Willow was always Oz's primary
concern -- Willlow often had better things to do than to be with
Oz.
I think Oz was handling lycanthropy quite nicely -- certainly
he accepted being a werewolf more quickly than Buffy accepted
being the slayer. To say he was responsible for what happened
with Veruca would be like saying Angel was responsible for the
deaths caused by Angelus.
OT, a bit, but I found an interesting Willow quote in Dopplegangland:
Willow: (To Anya -- after failing to bring back Anya's amulet)
I believe these chicken feet are mine. Look, m-magic is dangerous,
Anya, i-it's, it's not to be toyed with. Now, if you'll excuse
me, I have someone else's homework to do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Baggage -- Wiccagrrl,
13:07:53 06/23/01 Sat
This has come up before, but I just don't buy that Oz was totally
free of responsibility for the Veruca situation. Certain acts
happened when he was wolfing out, but there was plenty of deception
and bad judgement that had nothing to do with the fact that he
was a werewolf. And again, Willow wanted to try and work things
out. Oz left. By the time he felt he was in a position to work
things out, Willow had made the painful, but inevitable decision
that she needed to move on. He did leave because of his own baggage,
cause he knew he *didn't* have things very well under control
when it came to the wolf issue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Baggage --
Malandanza, 15:15:12 06/24/01 Sun
"This has come up before, but I just don't buy that Oz was
totally free of responsibility for the Veruca situation. Certain
acts happened when he was wolfing out, but there was plenty of
deception and bad judgment that had nothing to do with the fact
that he was a werewolf. And again, Willow wanted to try and work
things out. Oz left. By the time he felt he was in a position
to work things out, Willow had made the painful, but inevitable
decision that she needed to move on. He did leave because of his
own baggage, cause he knew he *didn't* have things very well under
control when it came to the wolf issue."
I think you'll agree that the first night with Veruca was not
Oz's fault -- and I agree that the second day could have been
handled better. But let's look at the first day first:
Willow left Oz unattended to go to a College Wiccan initiation.
Furthermore, she didn't check in the following day to see how
he was doing (otherwise she would have noticed he was missing
and the cage door broken). I see two possibilities for this behavior:
1. Willow is self-absorbed. The risk of turning lose a werewolf
on an unsuspecting populace takes precedence over any inconvenience
Willow or one of her friends would have faced. She either should
have skipped the meeting or found someone else to wolf-sit. 2.
Oz's monthly transformations had become so routine that no one
felt it was really necessary to have a watcher for him. (Note,
that when he initially became a werewolf, a Slayer kept watch
over him -- to his profound discomfort). I favor the second choice
(although I think Willow IS self-involved). Up to this point,
Oz did have the wolf under sufficient control that there were
no "werewolf issues" in the relationship. Oz was not
responsible for the cage breaking (at least we saw no evidence
that human-Oz sabotaged the cage before sundown) and he is not
responsible for his actions while a wolf.
The second day: After Oz makes his way back home, he meets up
with Willow, who becomes upset when he resists her suggestion
that they have sex. So why doesn't Oz take this opportunity to
tell her about Veruca? I would suggest that if Willow is that
upset about something so trivial, she would have been even angrier
with a full confession. Oz, I believe, was very insecure about
their relationship -- he never got over the Xander/Willow betrayal
(and as I write this, I realize that a good deal of the emotional
baggage was Oz's :) as is indicated when he brings the incident
up later. Willow doesn't have the same issues -- Oz isn't the
love of her life (obviously), he's the cool boyfriend that makes
her cool ("I haven't been a nerd for a very long time! Hello
dating a guitarist" -- Fear, Itself) and that her mother
wouldn't approve of (in "Gingerbread" she's mad at her
mother so she mentions that she's dating a musician). He had the
opportunity to tell Buffy when she found him fixing his cage.
Again, he could have said something, but did not. There did seem
to be a little intimidation in her tone -- just the hint of a
threat. He may have been worried for Veruca or for himself (if
Buffy finds out, Willow will find out...) -- I suspect a little
of both. He did seem genuinely concerned for Veruca and wanted
to help her. There was a connection between them that had to do
more with pheromones than thought processes (remember that Highlander
moment in "Fear, Itself" when Veruca and Oz look at
each other as they pass by?)
Finally, let's look at Willow's reaction -- the spell. Suppose
your boyfriend/girlfriend walked into a room with you after a
fight holding a shotgun, aimed it at you, then decided that they
couldn't pull the trigger. This is how I view Willow's curse.
She was ready to curse Oz and Veruca forever and came very close
to "pulling the trigger." How anxious would you have
been in such a circumstance to renew the relationship? Add to
that the fact that Oz killed Veruca -- alot to deal with. There
was far more than just being a werewolf that led to Oz's departure.
Personally, I believe that at the time he felt as though he had
forever destroyed his relationship with Willow -- that she would
never forgive him.
Maybe I haven't convinced you, but I've convinced myself -- Oz
had the bulk of the baggage in the relationship :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Baggage
-- AK-UK, 16:36:38 06/24/01 Sun
Oz had the bulk of the emotional baggage???? Once again I ask,
what is this baggage? I think the idea that Oz never got over
Willow kissing Xander doesn't hold up to scrutiny. He brought
it up in "Wild At Heart" because it was relevant to
the situation. Willow was saddling him with a lot of guilt, and
he merely reminded her that he too knew what it was like to be
hurt by the one you loved. Oz was clearly ok with Willow and Xander
continuing to be close friends (something many boyfriends would
have had a problem with); hell, he and Xander were buddies too.
And since when has it been obvious that Oz was just the cool boyfriend
Willow dated to make herself feel less of a nerd??? Seriously,
I'm confused here. Did I miss some episodes? Willow clearly loves
Oz. The romantic moments they shared on screen showed a couple
clearly in love with each other. Willow's devastation when he
left, and her heart breaking confusion when he returned also leave
no room to doubt her feelings (she even acknowledges that she
will always love him, and will probably end up with him again,
but "now is not that time").
As for the reasons for Oz's departure, I think the writers really
spelt it out clearly. He was scared of the werewolf within him;
scared that some day that cage might not be enough to hold him,
that he would kill again, possibly killing someone he loved (Willow).
So he leaves, immediately, to seek out a way to contain the creature.
Willow begged him to stay, telling him they should deal with it
together, but Oz couldn't bear to put her in danger, so he drove
off.
You know, all this talk of emotional baggage is, I think, a bit
unnecessary. It's like we are lawyers arguing in a divorce, trying
to assign guilt to one party, when no-one is to blame. They loved
each other truly and deeply, but a situation neither of them could
control got the better of them.
Who'd be a teenager in love, in Sunnydale?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Baggage -- Malandanza, 18:39:44 06/25/01 Mon
I do try to back up my opinions with support from the scripts
when I think that I say something that departs from the doctrinaire
interpretations.
"I think the idea that Oz never got over Willow kissing Xander
doesn't hold up to scrutiny. He brought it up in "Wild At
Heart" because it was relevant to the situation. Willow was
saddling him with a lot of guilt, and he merely reminded her that
he too knew what it was like to be hurt by the one you loved.
Oz was clearly ok with Willow and Xander continuing to be close
friends (something many boyfriends would have had a problem with);
hell, he and Xander were buddies too."
I don't think that Oz was "ok with Willow and Xander."
Suppose for a moment that the Xander/Willow friendship did bother
Oz -- what could he do about it? Demand that Willow choose between
him as a boyfriend or Xander for a friend? Who would Willow have
chosen in such a circumstance? No -- I think he continued to be
bothered by the betrayal but being with Willow was important to
him than indulging his petty jealousies. But don't take my word
for it -- here's Xander in "Gingerbread":
***Xander: But I'm talking about the future guilt. Look, everyone
expects me to mess up again. Like Oz. I see how he is around me.
You know, that steely gaze... that pointed silence. ***Buffy:
'Cause he's usually such a chatterbox. ***Xander: No, but it's
different now. It's more a verbal nonverbal. He speaks volumes
with his eyes.***
A big part of Xander's impression of Oz is probably guilt, but
there was an awkward meeting between Willow, Oz and Xander in
the cafeteria just before this conversation that gives credence
to Xander's fears.
"And since when has it been obvious that Oz was just the
cool boyfriend Willow dated to make herself feel less of a nerd???
Seriously, I'm confused here. Did I miss some episodes? Willow
clearly loves Oz. The romantic moments they shared on screen showed
a couple clearly in love with each other. Willow's devastation
when he left, and her heart breaking confusion when he returned
also leave no room to doubt her feelings (she even acknowledges
that she will always love him, and will probably end up with him
again, but "now is not that time")."
I did not say that the only reason that Willow was dating Oz was
because he was cool -- but I do believe that there was a coolness
factor. The quote from "Fear, Itself" ("I haven't
been a nerd for a very long time! Hello dating a guitarist")
supports this notion. I do not believe it would be atypical for
a teen-age girl to want a boyfriend that might not be approved
of by her parents (look at the Ripper and Spike and compare them
to Riley...). Certainly, in "Gingerbread" Willow uses
Oz the Guitarist as a means of angering her mother. Another significant
factor: since the first episode, Willow has wanted a real boyfriend
(it almost gets her killed in "Welcome to the Hellmouth"
and "I Robot... You Jane). In "Surprise", while
Oz is thrilled that he has a date with Willow, Willow is just
thrilled that she has a date ( ***Willow: (to herself) I said
'date'.***) This attitude is further illustrated in "Phases"
in this illuminating conversation with Buffy (about how far --
physically -- the relationship has progressed):
***Willow: Nowhere. I mean, he said he was gonna wait until I
was ready, but I'm ready. Honest. I'm good to go here. ***Buffy:
Well, I think it's nice that he's not just being an animal. **Willow:
It is nice. He's great. We have a lot of fun. But I want smoochies!
***Buffy: Have you dropped any hints? ***Willow: I've dropped
anvils. ***Buffy: Ah, he'll come around. What guy could resist
your wily Willow charms? ***Willow: At last count, all of them.
Maybe more. ***Buffy: Well, none of them know a thing. They all
get an 'F' in Willow. ***Willow: But I want Oz to get an 'A',
and, oh, one of those gold stars. ***Buffy: He will. ***Willow:
Well, he better hurry. I don't want to be the only girl in school
without a real boyfriend.
As the conversation continues, we find that even though Willow
was just talking about how much she wishes Oz would speed up the
physical side of their romance, her heart still belongs to Xander:
***Buffy: But I would do a lot better if you and Xander and I
could do that 'sharing our misery' thing tonight. ***Willow: Great.
I'll give Xander a call. What's his number? Oh, yeah, 1-800-I'm-Dating-A-Skanky-Ho.
(rolls her eyes) ***Buffy: (surprised) Meow!
Not really fair to Oz. In the same episode he stoically endures
the pressure of his peers regarding Willow:
***Larry: So, Oz, man, what's up with that? Dating a junior? Uh,
let me guess. That little innocent schoolgirl thing is just, uh,
just an act, right? ***Oz: Yeah. Yeah, she's actually an evil
mastermind. It's fun. ***Larry: I mean, she's gotta be putting
out, or what's the point? What are you gonna do, talk? (laughs)
Come on, fess up. How far have you gotten?
I agree that there were plenty of romantic moments between Willow
and Oz-- but to me, it appeared that Oz initiated the romance
and Willow accepted his praise with returning it. As for being
devastated by his departure, remember that Buffy was devastated
by Parker's abandonment of her as well -- and she moped about
him about as long as Willow moped about Oz. Wallowing in self-pity
does not mean that the relationship was one of mutual respect,
caring and love. I see Oz as having been very much in love with
Willow -- a sincere, deep and abiding love. For Willow, I see
the relationship being based on jealousy (of Xander and Cordelia,
then Xander and Faith, and now Xander and Anya), curiousity (about
sex), status (having a boyfriend in Highschool is important for
young women, whether it should be or not), guilt (after "Lover's
Walk") and... oh yeah, a little affection, as well. For Oz's
sake, I hope he and Willow never meet again -- I doubt that they
are destined to end up together, but Willow may be destined to
run him through the emotional meat-grinder a few more times before
they die.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Baggage -- AK-UK, 23:50:20 06/25/01 Mon
Ok, dealing with your points in order.
1) I still can't see the evidence that Oz never got over xander
kissing Willow. You quote Xander's opinion from "Gingerbread"
(an opinion you yourself admit is hugely affected by feelings
of guilt), but what you fail to take into account is that the
amount of time that passes between the events in "Lovers
Walk" and "Gingerbread". Look at the episode order:
Lovers Walk - in which Xander and Willow aree caught kissing The
Wish Amends - In which Oz and Willow get back together Gingerbread
- from which you quote Xander.
So, as "Gingerbread" begins, Oz has only been back with
Willow for a very small space of time. So it's gonna be awkward
for Oz, Willow and Xander, but that's only natural. Even so, by
the end of the episode Oz and Xander are working together to save
Willow, Amy and Buffy from being burned at the stake. And after
that we are shown no evidence of any real bitterness by Oz towards
Xander or Willow. Hell, Oz and Xander are chatting away and eexchanging
jokes in "The Zeppo" which is the second episode after
"Gingerbread". And as to what Oz could have done, well,
Oz could have made Willow feel guilty, he could have pressurised
her into having less contact with Xander, (something Willow herself
suggested she would do in "The Wish" ) but he doesn't!
He forgives, and he moves on.
2) Good to see you say that Oz's coolness is just one of the factors
that attracted Willow to Oz. I agree. But I find your extensive
quoting of "Phases" puzzling. Firstly, this episode
takes place VERY early on in the Willow/Oz relationship, and secondly,
the quotes really don't seem to back up your points. Willow's
comments about Xander dating a "Skanky Ho" are, surely,
more do to with the fact that Willow HATES Cordelia, a hatred
that existed LONG before Xander ever got involved with her. Cordelia
was a nasty piece of work, who constantly put Willow down, so
obviously she is going to say nasty things about her! She calls
Veruca (the werewolf) a "Twenty dollar ho" in "Wild
At Heart", so I think we can see a pattern hear (Woman who
piss Willow of are Ho's.....man, isn't Willow sexist!).
3) And we reach your final point, which is that Oz loved Willow,
but Willow was with Oz due to seeking status, guilt, jealousy
of Xander (whom she is still attracted to), curiousity with regards
to sex, "and... oh yeah, a liitle affection"
I really don't know how to tackle this one. I mean, the evidence
that Willow loved Oz is so overwhelming, that to pick out little
scenes here and there just seems pointless. If two seasons of
BtVS can't convince you, how can a few quotes? Plus it's REALLy
late in here in the UK, so I can't trawl through all the past
episodes, looking for quotes. When Willow wonders why she can't
think straight when it comes to Oz, Xander (whose opinion you
seem to like) tells her why:
Xander : Love. It's a logic blocker (Wild At Heart)
Buffy is no doubt as to Willow feelings for Oz, taken from "New
Moon Rising"
Riley : It's a little weird [for Willow] to date someone who tries
to eat you one a month [Oz] Buffy : Yeah, well love isn't logical
(She is also equating Willow's love for Oz with her love for Angel
in this scene)
but I think Willow describes her relationship with Oz best when
Riley seeks her help in asking out Buffy. In a few words, Willow
shows us her what she felt with Oz, and how her feelings developed
over time:
Willow : You spend time together, feelings grow deeper and one
day, without even realising it, you find you're in love. Time
stops. And it feels like the whole world's made for you two, and
you two alone.... (The Iniaitive)
Willow's words, Willow's thoughts, Willow's feelings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Baggage in High School -- Solitude1056, 18:54:41 06/26/01
Tue
Reading your posts... I think you both have good points, and illustrate
- more than anything else - that Joss has a fine knack of creating
truly complex characters that in turn have truly complex relationships.
Neither Oz nor Willow is free of being immature (which is only
accurate, given they were in HS), and each has issues of some
sort or another.
The part that strikes me as curious, though, is Willow slowly
got over Oz's departure, but she wasn't as in the forefront about
it. It doesn't surprise me that this would be one more thing Willow
would repress in the interest of continuing her contributions
to the group as a whole, and her internal sadness might be seen
by Willow as detracting from her ability to contribute. And to
be fair, half of that grieving may be genuine but half may also
(sometimes) be just the "missing someone who used to always
be here" gap. You can go back as far as Some Kind of Wonderful
for a good HS-derived quote: "I'd rather be with someone
than be right." The fear of being alone has kept a lot of
people in relationships that keep them even more miserable than
they'd be alone, and this is a part of growing up.
Also, I have to note that Willow didn't promptly go & replay her
experiences, just with new people, as so many freshly out of a
relationship tend to do. She didn't revert back to the lone nerd
existence, nor did she try to find another Oz and repeat the pattern.
(Parker, to me, seemed to be Buffy's attempt to repeat a pattern,
when he appeared to be "into" Buffy as the Sensitive
Guy.) Instead, Willow encouraged Tara's friendship and sought
it out, and thus she & Tara were friends (and possibly lovers)
long before Willow ever introduced Tara to the Scoobies, let alone
mentioned her. If I recall, Tara first shows up back in the Oz/Veruca
episode(s), but isn't introduced to the gang until well into the
following season. This time around, Willow wanted something to
herself, something private, without the difficult introduction
of a new person into some old and complex relationships. I don't
know if doing this has solidified her relationship with Tara more
than it would have otherwise, but it's possible that introducing
Tara only after they were a couple was a way to stave off the
Xander jealousy from the get-go. And it may also have been to
allow herself the pleasure of a one-on-one friend, like she saw
that Buffy had (for awhile, at least) with Faith.
That could be viewed as baggage in some ways (control, privacy,
repression), but it could also be viewed as a young person's attempt
to deal with her own issues in a new way, having learnt already
that the previous ways didn't work very well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> First appearance of Tara -- Humanitas, 07:57:15 06/27/01
Wed
Great post, Sol. I think your assessment of the "baggage"
issue is spot-on. I do have to make one little correction, though.
Tara first appeared in Willow's Wicca group in "Hush,"
several episodes after the Veruca episode. Still, you're absolutely
right about Willow holding on to Tara for a while. She didn't
introduce her to the group until "Who Are You."
Sorry to nit-pick. I plead Summer re-runs, and boredom at work!
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: First appearance of Tara -- Solitude1056,
10:40:35 06/27/01 Wed
Thanks for making that clear - I'm still fuzzy on that season,
since I moved to an area that didn't have the WB in the cable
system... yes, it was a long four months while I waited for the
WB to be added, so I only caught them in out-of-order reruns over
the summer. Gack!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Moral Willow? -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 10:43:57 06/23/01
Sat
Groovy Willow analysis!
I agree with pretty much all of what you've said but I just thought
I'd mention something that occurred to me from the Kohlberg thread
below.
I think that Willow has a great deal of compassion and this makes
her the most morally advanced of the Scoobies in many ways (I'm
pretty sure that Schopenhauer said that compassion was the basis
of ethics). The only times she becomes a bit more ambiguous is
when her emotions get the better of her (as you say).
(Hey, am I adding anything new here? If not, sorry.)
So I think that in a morality based on empathy, Willow tends to
make the right choices more often than her friends. For this reason
I doubt very much that she will become the Big Bad for season
six. The only way this could happen is if she became so neurotic
and self-obsessed that it blinded her to the problems of other
people (for evidence of Joss thinking that it is important to
be able to understand and empathise with others see Earshot!).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Moral Willow? -- rowan, 11:14:17 06/23/01 Sat
"So I think that in a morality based on empathy, Willow tends
to make the right choices more often than her friends. For this
reason I doubt very much that she will become the Big Bad for
season six."
You've expressed what I've been feeling so much better than I
have been able to. This is why I'm struggling with Willow as Big
Bad. She's just too empathetic and able to connect with everyone
else. I could see her having to deal with consequences from magick,
but I have a harder time seeing her go bad. The only ways I've
been able to imagine it is if she is somehow tricked or seduced
into some type of empathetic connection with something evil.
But then, Joss & Co have made me believe alot of things I didn't
think I'd be able to...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Moral Willow? -- mundusmundi, 11:41:48 06/23/01
Sat
What's that saying? "Nobody commits evil for evil's sake;
we do it because we mistake it for the good we seek."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I believe that's a paraphrase of Socrates,
but I'm not sure. -- Rosenberg, 15:54:03 06/23/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Does sound Socrates-ish, but I just
found it attributed to Mary Wollstonecraft -- mundusmundi, 11:53:07
06/24/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Moral Willow? -- Darrick, 11:52:54 06/23/01
Sat
While I agree with you in some ways rowan, I question just how
far Willow's empathy extends. In "Triangle", for instance,
she bore most of the responsible for all of those people getting
injured. Yet I don't recall her acting particularly contrite.
Someone could easily have been killed. While she is hypersensitive
to the needs of her friends, when it comes to the exercise of
her magic and her own desires her empathy seems to fail her.
If she does become the Big Bad( or even the little bad), it would
probably happen as a result of a fatal miscalculation on her part.
Perhaps she kills someone, and then either has to cover it up
or deal with the consequences of discovery by her friends and
Tara. This could force her to become isolated from her friends
and vulnerable to feelings of resentment. Someone as insecure
as Willow has been may be particularly likely to fall victim to
these kinds of emotions. Of course this is a lot like what happened
with Faith, so perhaps ME won't want to go this route again.
I suspect that rather than becoming a Big Bad, Willow's use of
magic and the consequences that follow will only be a major plot
point. Maybe she'll be the one to summon the true villain of the
season in some way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Moral Willow? -- Lurker Becoming Restless,
01:09:31 06/25/01 Mon
I think Willow has a greater capacity for empathy than anyone
else but her emotions can get in the way.
I'd say that, from what we have seen of Buffy so far, it would
be more likely that they would bring in a double for Willow (a
figure like Faith) rather than make Willow herself go bad. But
then, maybe Willow will become more like Tara's double. Doh!
I do like the idea of Willow summoning the Big Bad, though. It
would be a logical progression from Something Blue and Triangle...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Paradoxical Willow? -- verdantheart, 08:10:21
06/25/01 Mon
Willow is very interesting in that she embodies potential both
for great empathy and forgiveness and for vengeance. Usually,
we see her empathy and forgiveness, but when she is badly hurt,
the vengeant streak comes out. On one hand she (to hilarious effect)
comforts Spike upon his inability to bite her; on the other, D'Hoffryn
tries to recruit her as a vengeance demon because of the intensity
of her pain and desire to lash out as a result. She sometimes
acts (out of pain or even curiosity) without considering the consequences.
When we look at the potential power that she may be able to harness,
she might well cause great greif before she realizes what she
is doing.
Paradoxical? She's not the only one ...
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Paradoxical Willow? -- Eva, 06:42:13
06/27/01 Wed
"She sometimes acts (out of pain or even curiosity) without
considering the consequences. "
Sounds like Dawn as well.
Those two have much in common.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Moral Willow? -- dream of the consortium,
10:57:18 06/26/01 Tue
I tend to agree. Willow seems to have a problem with limitations
on her power. Her reluctance to deal with that issue, in my mind,
leaves her ripe for an old-fashioned Greek-style tragedy - hubris
rewarded with pain and loss and overwhelming regret. That's different
than having her become the "Big Bad"; she wouldn't be
a villian, but a tragic figure, albeit one who might create the
problems that the Scoobies have to solve, tragedy crossing over
into adventure. The problem with introducing tragedy into this
form - a long-running television show - is that it can be very
difficult to watch. Tragedy replicates the very worst emotions
of human experience. Watching a character on stage suffer the
torments of grief and regret can be hard, but cathartic. Watching
a character that we have developed a deep attachment to over several
years undergo that sort of suffering might be too much. Of course,
after "The Body", we know that Joss is not one to coddle
his viewers. So it is possible that he could create a tragic scenario
in which, for example, some sort of magical overreaching on Willow's
part results in the death of Tara (I know that that is unlikely
based on contracts with actors, etc., but just as an example.)
I can imagine that story, though it would be painful to watch.
What I can't imagine is letting Willow "go bad" in the
aftermath, but not because it would be out of character. I think
the writers could build a slow alienation of Willow from the group
based on aspects of her character we already know and then use
a tragic event as a final catalyst for a turn toward evil. What
stands in the way of "evil Willow" is that the viewers,
quite fairly, want to protect their affections. I've been trying
to think of a television series in which a sympathetic character
has "turned bad" permanently. The only thing I can think
of, (Spoiler alert) and it certainly represents a use of the tragic
form, is Twin Peaks. In the final episode Dale, who has been the
hero of the series, becomes possessed by the demon he has been
fighting, seemingly as a consequence of refusing to accept his
own limitations in fighting evil. Everyone I know HATED that ending,
desperately hated it. Personally, I just decided to pretend it
didn't exist. When Laura Palmer's killer was found, that was the
end of the show. What I found strange was that I had to make that
sort of formulation mentally, because the effect otherwise was
far too disturbing. A truly evil Willow, one we could believe,
would produce similar results.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Jewish or Jewish? -- Rosenberg, 15:44:50 06/23/01 Sat
Actually, saying your Jewish does not mean you believe in the
Judaic beliefs (monotheist god, divine inspiration in Tanakh,
etc), it merely states that you are descended from a Jewish parent.
Unlike Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist, for instance, a Jew is
a socio-ethnic designation as well as a religious one. So there's
no contridiction in being a Jewish Wiccan any more than Einstein
being a Jewish pantheist or Woody Allen a Jewish atheist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Jewish or Jewish? -- Isabel, 21:44:27 06/23/01
Sat
You do have a point, and I'll admit since I am neither Jewish
or Wiccan I felt inadequate delving too far into religion.
A Wicca web site I looked at, which I didn't make a print out
of so I can't give an address, did mention that you could be a
witch and be a different religion. (Pagan, Wiccan, Christian,
Jewish...) But that was a site that also differentiated between
witch and Wiccan.
As for being Jewish, the way it has been explained to me by my
Reformed and Conservative Jewish friends, being Jewish is passed
through the mother and only through the mother. (A male Jewish
friend just had a baby with his non-Jewish wife. According to
him, his family and other mutual Jewish friends, that baby is
not Jewish.) The flip side is that once you're born Jewish, you're
Jewish even if you choose another religion. And if you're female,
any child you have is Jewish even if you raise them in the other
religion.
Again I'm not an expert. But that is exactly why I felt that I
needed to explain what I meant. I do feel that BtVS is not consistant
in the Wicca/Witch area. At one point in Family, Xander and Buffy
are talking about Willow 'Swinging with the Wiccan lifestyle'
that seems (to me, at least) to equate Wiccan with lesbian. Since
you don't need to be lesbian, or even female, to be Wiccan, that's
way inaccurate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Jewish or Jewish? -- Rosenberg, 20:47:49
06/24/01 Sun
Oh, maternal descent of Jewish ancestory isn't accepted by Reform
Jews, and it's mostly and Orthodox belief. Personally I accept
that anyone with a Jewish parent or grandparent is a Jewish. Also,
I'm sorry, but Alyson Hannigan is not the person to cast as a
Jew. She just looks so obviously Irish. It seems as if Joss through
the "Jewish thing" on as an afterthought, as it also
appears that her heritage has had no effect on her. Her magic
has no Kabbalistic influences, but she never talks about her beliefs
so we can't know for sure whether she's been influenced by Judaism
(or even Wicca, for that matter). Sorry for rambling, but this
always bugged me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Jewish or Jewish? -- Rob, 09:30:25
06/26/01 Tue
Sorry to butt in here, but I'm Jewish too, spent the first 9 years
of my schooling in an all-day Hebrew school, and I've never heard
of Judaism being passed on through the mother as being only an
Orthodox thing. Whether some Reform Jews choose to ignore it is
one thing, but that happens to be one of the most important rules
of Judaism. If it was not, then each sect would have a different
definition of whether someone was Jewish or not, and that would
get far too confusing. The rule is: If your mother is Jewish,
you are Jewish. If every single family member in your family is
Jewish except for your mother, you are not Jewish. If your mother
is Jewish and you decide to convert to another religion, you are
still considered Jewish by this rule. If you are not Jewish and
decide to convert, you are still not truly Jewish. Therefore,
no matter what Willow does--whether she followed Judaism but still
practiced Wiccan, or if she "converted" to Wiccanism--she
was born a Jew, has a Jewish mother, and will, therefore, always
be a Jew. As far as the Alyson looking Irish, I don't agree that
this means she can't be Jewish. Sometimes different genetics get
mixed in (Perhaps one of her female ancestors married an Irish
man)...I know a lot of Jewish girls and boys who you would swear
were Irish.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Jewish or Jewish? -- Rosenberg,
09:52:16 06/26/01 Tue
Being a Jew by maternal descent is certainly not one of the most
important elements of Judaism (ever hear of the Ten Commandments,
kindness to strangers, charity, etc). And as for conversion, ask
a Rabbi: Abraham was not born a Jew. I didn't say that you can't
be Irish and Jewish, I was only saying that Willow seems to have
been made randomly Jewish.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> lesbian wicca -- vampire hunter D, 10:57:32
06/25/01 Mon
In response to your last paragraph, while I agree that the show's
writers do tend to confuse witch and wiccan, at no time do they
ever equate witchhood and lesbianism. What they tend to do is
use Willow and Tara's wiccanpractices as metaphores for teir relationship,
since there are still plenty of Standards and Practices boards
that are still uncomfortable with that subject matter. You weren't
wrong in realizing Buffy and Xander were refering to lesbians
when they said Wicca, but they didn't say it to imply that wicca
are gay.
btw, is it spelled lezbian or lesbian?
And I would just like to close this post with a quote from the
great philosopher Howard Stern: "Lesbians, Lesbians, I love
lesbians!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Jewish or Jewish? -- Solitude1056, 20:43:39
06/27/01 Wed
As for being Jewish, the way it has been explained to me by my
Reformed and Conservative Jewish friends, being Jewish is passed
through the mother and only through the mother. (A male Jewish
friend just had a baby with his non-Jewish wife. According to
him, his family and other mutual Jewish friends, that baby is
not Jewish.) The flip side is that once you're born Jewish, you're
Jewish even if you choose another religion. And if you're female,
any child you have is Jewish even if you raise them in the other
religion.
Let's see, from my recollections of studying Judaism with a Rabbi.
No, maybe, yes, maybe. The tradition of the jewish faith/socioeconomic
participation being determined by the mother is not an original
element of judaism - in fact, it dates from the Inquisition. Between
the Spainards, seeking proof that a child was jewish (and therefore
within their province as a human to be evicted), and the Jews
themselves, seeking proof that a child was jewish (since many
jewish women were raped by marauding soldiers etc), each seemed
to determine that if the mother is jewish, the child is jewish.
After all (as the Rabbi explained to us), you can't know for certain
who the father is, but you always know who the mother is. In this
case, though, the Judaic response - to measure a child's inclusion
by the mother's background - became the accepted attitude.
When the reformed jewish branch broke away, this was one of the
tenets that was challenged (among others). But it's a habit that's
been around for what, five hundred years now? That's a hard one
to break, and you'll meet folks who say one way, and some who
say the other. But my understanding is that the common attitude
now, amongst reformed Jews, is that either parent's lineage causes
the child to be Jewish, and that those who convert to Judaism
carry equal weight with those born & raised in it (remembering
that conversion to Judaism is a years-long act, not a one-day
act).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Willow's Thirst For Knowledge -- Little One, 13:07:50 06/26/01
Tue
I have posted earlier my belief that it Willow has great potential
to become seduced by the dark side. However, after much reflection
(let's just say work is very very slow right now) I believe that
it will be her lust for knowledge that will lead her down this
path, not her emotions. Throughout Willow's academic career, she
has always been a top student. This, I believe stems from her
intelligence and insight. Perhaps the attention she received (Xander
asking her for homework help) from her grades fanned this burgeoning
thirst for knowledge. As well, we have all be spectators in her
wiccan pursuits, beginning with mere dabbling which, as she sees
the power and potential in this magic, grows in power until Willow
becomes Buffy's "big gun".
Of course, her emotions do lead her towards the dark magic, but
I believe it is her thirst for knowledge that will have her continue
to delve into this dark power. It is like a narcotic for her,
the more she knows, the more she wants to know. In Forever, she
had followed Tara's example in dissuading Tara from resurrecting
Joyce until Tara revealed that such a spell was possible. At this
point, Willow's protests begin to sound feeble as she ponders
the possibility of resurrection, a realm of magic she hadn't considered.
She ignored Tara and aided Dawn mostly out of her desire to help
but also because she didn't believe that knowledge was dangerous.
A good example of Willow's lust for knowledge is shown in S2's
Ted. These quotes are taken from the Buffy Shooting Script site
and they occur near the end of the episode where Buffy, Willow
and Xander are discussing Ted.
WILLOW And the sad thing is, the real Ted must have been a genius.
There were design features in that robot that predate-- BUFFY
Willow. Tell me you didn't keep any parts. WILLOW (guilty) Not
any big ones... BUFFY Oh, Will, you're supposed to use your powers
for good! WILLOW I just wanna learn stuff.
Perhaps this is a precursor to S6. Willow ignores her friends
and her own common sense and dives into dark and powerful magic
all because she wanted to "learn stuff".
Just a thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow's Thirst For Knowledge -- Solitude1056,
21:42:46 06/26/01 Tue
That's essentially the gist of what I've been arguing, although
Willow's emotions IMO play a big role (especially the protective
element, which may fuel her desire for more knowledge). However,
you said it in a lot less words & far more concisely than I -
kudos! :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Willow's Thirst For Knowledge -- Little
One, 08:01:29 06/27/01 Wed
Thanks *blushing *, but you were quite eloquent in your arguments
as well. I agree with your point of Willow's protectiveness being
a key element in her thirst for knowledge. I think that is what
initially propelled her towards the dark magic, but it will be
her wanting to learn more and more that will keep her momentum
going. She has an insatiable lust to know all and seems to berate
herself when she doesn't have the answers or when her spells fail.
I'm a bit afraid that she will become a Dr. Frankenstein of sorts,
that her thirst for knowledge will inadvertently create great
evil.
By the way, I looked up Kudos (being a bit on the curious side
myself) and it means glory. Hmm..how did you know that was my
alter ego?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow's Thirst For Knowledge -- Eva, 23:10:43
06/26/01 Tue
I see this as a quality that Dawn has as well.
Both Dawn and Willow are very curious about the world around them.
Both are active readers.
Buffy really never went in for that reading thing much.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow's Thirst For Knowledge -- verdantheart,
07:11:03 06/27/01 Wed
Boris Karloff intonation: "There are some things Man should
not know ..."
Paraphrase of many old horror/sci fi movies. I always tended to
groan ... must be the mad scientist in me ... he he he HA HA HA
... ahem, where was I? ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> ah, but what about women? *evil wink* -- Little
One, 07:58:59 06/27/01 Wed
Love the Boris Karloff intonation (LOL). Afterall, Bella Lugosi's
dead (sorry, having a BauHaus moment...feeling much better now)
Hmm..mad scientist, huh? So do you go around mutting "It's
alive! it's alive!" as well? It does wonders in the sack.
(oh, deary-me, I've got an awfully filthy mind...) It's ALIVE!
(Trying desperately to keep this a family show) ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> *Canadianificus terribilis* makes an encore
appearance...lol -- Wisewoman, 09:15:06 06/27/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> No evil here, just shy coy little
ol' moi...roflol -- Canadianificus terribilis..oops, I mean Little
One, 10:47:41 06/27/01 Wed
Canadianificus terribilis, I love it! Now i want a name-plaque
for my desk that says that so I can switch it with my real plaque
when I'm feeling a wee bit naughty. It could act like a warning,
like caution: there be dragons!
You guys keep making me burst into laughter at work! My bosses
all think I'm looney! (well, they wouldn't be completely wrong)
;-)
Buffy and Xander (spoilers
from episodes from every season) (longish) -- Jarrod Harmier,
12:00:21 06/22/01 Fri
*There be spoilers here*
This was supposed to be a response to a message in a previous
thread. However, it seems that thread that seems to have been
deleted. Now I have changed the intent of this message in order
to rally support behind Buffy and Xander entering into a relationship.
Wait! Don't go. I know some people don't want to see this happen.
However, I do have evidence from past episodes that it could out
work between them. If you can find these episodes, the interaction
between them is cute and sweet without being sugary.
On the topic of episodes I don't have: Other people have said
that "Passion" and "Amends" have some great
B/X momments, but I don't have "Passions" on tape and
I'm missing part of "Amends" (and I haven't had time
to check the part that I do have)
First Season: "Teacher's Pet: I don't have the full episode,
so this may be incorrect. Buffy is very shocked when she learns
that Xander is a virgin. If the missing part of the episode has
Xander saying he isn't a virgin or something like that, that would
explain it. The interesting thing is that she made an assumption
that he had already had sex. This leads to the conclusion that
hse had given some thought to Xander's sex life. Why? Maybe She
viewed Xander as someone she could have her first time with. I
know someone whose first time was with a friend. She asked him
to be her first because he was a friend. They had a certain level
of trust and a certain bond that had been created.
"Prophecy Girl": As Buffy revives she says Xander's
name, not Angel's.
Second Season: "When She Was Bad": Not sure about this
episode. The sexy dance was hot, but Buffy's intent was to make
Angel jealous. But it also could be because Buffy chose Xander.
Angel could only be jealous if he perceived Xander to be a real
threat. Xander would only be a real threat to Angel if Buffy had
some romantic feelings for Xander.
"Inca Mummy Girl": The final scene is a conversation
between Buffy and Xander. Based on the long look (too long to
be considered to be just "friendly") and the fact that
when they broke the look Buffy gave a content smile, part of Buffy
does view that being with Xander would be very nice.
"Phases": In the mortuary, the embrace between Xander
and Buffy as Xander tries to comfort her lasts a little too long
and they do look into each other's eyes.
"Go Fish": The scene at the pool. Xander says he's going
"under cover." Buffy responds that "Your not under
much." I'm not sure if this counts, but Freud (I think) said
that humor (or was it laughter) was one way humans deal with subjects
they find uncomfortable. Based on what I have seen in this episode
and others, Buffy finds the subject of actually dating Xander
uncomfortable even though she does have some desire to.
Season Three: "Earshot": When Xander runs from the library,
Buffy has slight smile. It seems to me that she doesn't mind that
he thinks about sex all the time...as long as she can tease him
about it. This reminds me of "Never Kill a Boy On The First
Date" and something that happened to me. In "Never Kill
a Boy On the First Date" Xander tells Buffy that she should
find someone who already knows her darkest secrets and still wants
to date her. On to me. A little less than two years ago I started
to hang out with a friend of mine. I thought she was beautiful
and cool and started to fall for her. At one point I secretly
tested our compatibility by telling a somewhat coloful joke in
the form of a one-liner in reference to Cinemax and its late-night
programming. After I said the joke, in a slightly teasing voice,
she said, "You man." (Now she's my girlfriend. Yay for
me.)
Season Four: "Beer Bad": Buffy is VERY attracted to
Xander. She sniffs him and says, "Boy smell nice." In
a way this mirrors, what happened to Xander in "The Pack".
In "The Pack" what happened was that the hyena spirit
twisted Xander's attraction and caring into something that was
very dangerous. Based on that, we have evidence even though they
don't show those types feelings for each other, Buffy and Xander
definitely have a shared attraction to each other.
"Restless": Possibly. Xander's dream has Xander watching
over Buffyon they playground. She calls him "big brother",
but this may not be a reference to her loving him like a brother
but a reference to Xander always willing to protect her physically
or emotionally. If it is, it may be a roundabout reference to
"Killed By Death", in which Angelus called Xander "white
knight" and then stated that Xander still loved Buffy.
Season Five: "I Was Made To Love You": Buffy hugs "puffy
Xander" (Xander in the puffy suit). Xander says something
that suggests he still has romantic feelings for Buffy. Probably
feelings that outweigh anything that he has had with Anya, even
if he won't admit it himself. Also the very content sihs Buffy
communicates suggest that the previous barriers she put up to
a romantic relationship with Xander are breaking down and that
she is starting to see that it could be a real option.
The reference at the beginning is a reference to old maps. In
the distant past, cartographers would designate uncharted areas
of the world with the phrase "There me monsters here".
I was making it as an interesting way to indicate that my post
contained spoilers, but I realize that a relationship between
Buffy and Xander is certainly uncharted territory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and Xander (spoilers from episodes from every
season) (longish) -- mundusmundi, 15:42:38 06/22/01 Fri
Great post. Interesting you mentioned it, since for a while this
season I wondered if the writers were going down that road, e.g.,
from some of the examples you mentioned, and a few others. Way
I see it, all the characters love each other, and virtually all
are attracted to each other in some degree. One of the funniest
examples of this was last season, when Willow, Tara and Anya stumbled
on Giles singing "Behind Blue Eyes," an experience Wils
deemed, "Weirdly sexy."
The hitch is, as Spike noted to poor Riley: "(Buffy) needs
a monster in her man." Xander hasn't that quality. Of course
Spike could be wrong, but I sense that the Xander/Buffy relationship
will remain platonic for that reason....unless she returns from
the grave wanting to shag every man in sight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy and Xander (spoilers from episodes from
every season) (longish) -- Jarrod Harmier, 18:37:50 06/22/01 Fri
I think Spike was incorrect in his initial assessment of what
Buffy needed when he told Riley that the man she was with had
to have a monster within. I even think Spike knows this now. In
"The Gift", Spike tells Buffy, "I know I'm a monster,
but you treat me like a man." I think he knows now that what
Buffy really wants and needs is a man who is normal (read:no monster
within). The most normal (read: same) in Sunnydale that Buffy
seems to fancy on some level is Xander. However, what would cause
her to start admitting to herself that she has feelings for Xander
that are romantic in nature as wall as friendly in nature?
In "Intervention", Buffy asks the First Slayer if she
is losing the ability to love and the First Slayer responds, "Only
if you reject it. Love is pain, and the Slayer forges strength
from pain. Give. Forgive. Risk the pain. It is your nature. Love
will bring you to your gift." Removing the part about love
bringing her to her gift (since she has already utilized her gift),
we are left with advice that is generally good: do not reject
love. This interesting, because in the episodes I mentioned in
my original post (and possibly other episodes), Buffy seems to
have rejected her romantic feelings for Xander. If Buffy takes
this advice to its logical conclusion, she should recognize that
these feelings are a part of her and should be recognized as an
essential part of her and then fully embraced. Once she embraces
them, she will be a more balanced person. If this type of transformation
happens, she will become like Xander in a way. Before "The
Replacement", Xander was plaqued with periods of self-doubt.
Once he realized that he was actually a good carpenter because
of the events of "The Replacement", he has began the
process of integrating his strongest and weakest qualities so
that he will become a more balanced individual. (In a previous
thread about Xander's destiny, I went into more detail about this
subject. Please read it. You might be impressed. You might disagree.
If you do read it, please try to respond. I like responses.)
Of course, she will feel pain because Xander is dating Anya, but
she will also be happy for him. She will even have hope that day
he will love her like he loved her before.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Oops -- Jarrod Harmier, 18:43:29 06/22/01
Fri
The last line of that post is supposed to say: She will even have
hope that one day he will love her like he loved her before.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy and Xander (spoilers from episodes
from every season) (longish) -- Cynthia, 19:20:17 06/22/01 Fri
Well, when I heard the First Slayer's words I automatic thought
it meant Spike. Whether or not Buffy needs a "bit of monster"
in her men, I always gotten that the impression that she sees
and needs to have Xander as a brother rather than a lover. This
type of relationship should not be undervalued, it is a source
of great strength and comfort. And while it not impossible the
relationship to have a sexual aspect, I don't see it having a
dynamics of a couple.
Of course, the writers could prove me wrong LOL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Xander (spoilers from episodes
from every season) (longish) -- Nina, 20:23:48 06/22/01 Fri
You know it will sound strange coming from me, but if the writers
did bring Buffy and Xander together and it made sense I'd say:
"go for it". I'm not obtuse and I don't only want a
B/S relationship because this is the only thing that can happen.
I just have difficulty to see how it could work now. Joss said
that he gave Willow what she most desired when she couldn't have
it anymore (meaning that she had Xander's affection shortly in
season 3). To go there again when Xander is involved with Anya
is poorly reflecting on Xander. What would it say about him? That
he ditches the girl he is with to go with someone else when he
has a chance?. I wouldn't love that Xander. If Anya had died in
season 5 maybe they could have gone that way. Grieving Xander
could attract a new risen Buffy. But angst just for angst I surely
wouldn't want to see anything between Buffy ad Xander while Xander
is still with Anya.
Logically I have always said that Xander is the only male choice
for Buffy. The only normal guy who accepts her for who she is
and who would let her slay without feeling a lesser man. But love
is not something you can command. Buffy loves Xander. I just don't
think that there's anything sexual on her part.
I love people to be happy. If Spike doesn't make Buffy happy,
if really she doesn't like him, I hope the writers will ditch
that story line as soon as possible and not drag it for 2 years.
Let's put her with Xander if she's going to be happy there. But
the thing is that I do believe that Buffy is attracted to Spike
(notice the big conflict here!)...and I am sorry as I am turning
this thread to be a S/B thread! For god sakes it's nice to hear
other opinions. We haven't had a B/X thread in a long while! Yay!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Xander (spoilers from
episodes from every season) (longish) -- rowan, 21:54:13 06/22/01
Fri
"Love, love, love...love, love, love...love, love, love...There's
nothing you can know that isn't known. Nothing you can see that
isn't shown. Nowhere you can be, that isn't where you're meant
to be. It's easy."
All You Need is Love, The Beatles
Have I ever told you that I think all the wisdom of the world
resides in the lyrics of Beatles songs? These are just my off
the top of my head thoughts. I haven't really been getting any
Buffy/Xander vibe recently. I suspect it could be problematic
if he went back to Buffy post-Cordelia, post-Willow, post-Faith,
post-Anya. I'm definitely feeling that he is settled with Anya
and that the "oh grow up" theme would naturally fit
them if they married and started contemplating a family.
Now on Buffy's side...someone with a role like Buffy's may never
have love (in the sense of a committed relationship). That may
be the sad sacrifice that she has to make for her destiny. Her
work demands so much of her. There may never be room for more.
I think perhaps, in Rufus's immortal words, we need to get the
girl breathing again before we set her up on a date (love that
line!). Seriously though, I think Buffy could use some alone time
to come to terms with the "you're full of love" idea
and how to balance woman/Slayer.
A B/S ship doesn't offend me, but I'm not pushing it, either.
Frankly, I want Spike to stick around, and a B/S ship might guarantee
a quick expiration date for him. I'd rather see Joss explore Spike's
character through his big brother/little sister relationship with
Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Xander (spoilers from
episodes from every season) (longish) -- Jarrod Harmier, 07:03:45
06/23/01 Sat
I am also wouldn't want to see anything between Buffy and Xander
while Xander is still with Anya. I just think that Buffy and Xander
seems to make more sense than Anya and Xander. Anya and Xander
are cute, though. I'll give them that.
I do know if I were writing a storyline about the growing romantic
relationship between Buffy and Xander, I know I wouldn't make
the tone overtly sexual. The tone of their relationship would
have to reflect the tone of the friendship. The same qualities
that are found in friends can also be found in people in romantic
relationships. It would actually be rather easy to build a Buffy/Xander
storyline. The interaction between them would be arise from their
friendship, but it would be more intimate and there would be a
cute akwardness between them. This cute akwardness would come
from needing each other as both friends and lovers, but not wanting
to royally screw things up. The build-up of the relationship would
be similar to the slow build-up that Mulder and Scully had on
"The X-Files". As the seasons continued EVERYONE knew
that Mulder and Scully loved each other. This love was based on
mutually earned trust and respect. The whole relationship was
very chaste. But at the same time, it was hot as hell! If a slow
build-up is used, a Buffy/Xander romance could conceivably be
one of the most romanctic and fulfilling relationships on television.
One episode could have Xander literally following his beloved
into Hell, even though she has told him not to. She wants to protect
him. Her chanches of returing are slim. Buffy's "white knight"
just looks into her eyes and answers, "I would rather die
with you than die alone."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Xander (spoilers
from episodes from every season) (longish) -- AK-UK, 17:32:38
06/24/01 Sun
It is really nice to hear that someone is fighting the good fight
for Xander. This character really could do with some TLC, and
it's good to read a post which tries to give him a some greater
destiny in the show.
But I don't think you're right.
Sorry, but I honestly think the writers have dropped the ball
when it comes to Xander. After "The Zeppo" I thought
to myself "Wow, this character has loads of potential.....and,
WOW Nicholas Brendon really can do more than a Jim Carrey-lite
act". The way he walked away from Cordelia without replying
to her jibes was just too cool.......finally, Xander was going
to grow up, his new found confidence would allow him to shine.
So, what happened? Yep, you know what happened. The very next
episode, things went right back to normal. Xander is as dopey
as ever, still a dogsbody, still trying to come up with witty
come-backs to Cordelia, and failing at it.........what a pity.
Ever since then it seems the writers just don't know what to do
with Xander. They seem content to occasionally throw him a important
line out of guilt ("I know, lets have him accidently suggest
the SuperBuffy meld thing"). I mean, look at this season's
finale. Joss Whedon was so desperate to have Xander do something
to help that he had Xander swinging a wrecking ball, for crying
out loud!
I fear that any B/X relationship, if it was going to happen, would
have happened in season 4. Buffy is newly split from Angel, looking
for a normal guy, all the ingredients were there, but we got Riley.
Now we have a really dynamic going on between Buffy and Spike,
and Xander is happily tied up in a (rushed and contrived, but
still kinda sweet) relationship, nay engagement, to Anya so I
wouldn't get my hopes up for season 6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Xander
(spoilers from episodes from every season) (longish) -- Jarrod
Harmier, 23:31:00 06/24/01 Sun
Buffy did find "normal" guy. Do you remember Parker
(a.k.a Poop-head, a.k.a Id boy)? I had forgotten about this until
I read a piece of Buffy/Xander fanfiction today, but when I first
saw Parker ("Living Conditions"), I thought, "Why
does he look so familiar?" It took me quite a bit of thought,
but when it hit me I thought, "Oh hell! He looks like Xander!"
Just some food for thought.
On the subject of how much good Xander has done: I posted Xander
and Destiny to to one of the other forums (www.voy.com/13746)
on this website. It covers just season four and part of season
five right now, but I think that it ia very illuminating. I'll
email it to you, but you may want to read the responses on that
forum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Xander
(spoilers from episodes from every season) (longish) -- Andy,
06:57:06 06/25/01 Mon
I don't feel that Buffy could have taken up with Xander in season
4. I think Xander had so many problems with his life and self
esteem that season that Buffy could only regard him as pathetic.
Like in Fear, Itself when she believes he's run off and spits
out, "God, this is so typical of him!" She simply didn't
have enough respect for him to consider any kind of truly deep
relationship.
Season 5, however, I think Xander's made a great deal of progress
and is arguably the most mature of the Scoobies. Now he's not
just a goofball who gets into trouble all the time, he's a well-adjusted
guy whose point of view is respected and taken seriously (I think
it's telling that Xander is the one who accompanies Buffy to meet
the Knights in Spiral, and he's the one who keeps the situation
from degenerating into chaos). The result of the progress he's
made is, I believe, a level of comfort between him and Buffy that
has never existed before. While I agree that other circumstances
will prevent Buffy and Xander from hooking up, I think there's
at least a groundwork finally laid there that, if circumstances
permitted, could lead to something that was previously out of
the question.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and
Xander (spoilers from episodes from every season) (longish) --
mundusmundi, 15:08:10 06/25/01 Mon
""I don't feel that Buffy could have taken up with Xander
in season 4. I think Xander had so many problems with his life
and self esteem that season that Buffy could only regard him as
pathetic."
Yeah, I always wondered if they missed an opportunity with Xander
in B4. You have a guy who's through with school, who's struggling
to find his identity, who used to have army training (from "Halloween"
before he lost his powers)....and then you've got this new Initiative
in town. Throwing Xander in with Maggie, Adam and the gang might've
created some interesting tension and combustion with the SG. Guess
they saved that for Riley.
"Season 5, however, I think Xander's made a great deal of
progress and is arguably the most mature of the Scoobies. Now
he's not just a goofball who gets into trouble all the time, he's
a well-adjusted guy whose point of view is respected and taken
seriously (I think it's telling that Xander is the one who accompanies
Buffy to meet the Knights in Spiral, and he's the one who keeps
the situation from degenerating into chaos)."
Nice example. (I'd also mention that he was the first to pick
up on the bad Buffy/Riley vibes.) He hasn't had much in the way
of action lately, but he's been very good at *reacting* to problems
and dealing with them fairly well. He's more comfortable with
himself, and that's why he and Buffy have such a nice, relaxed
atmosphere now in their scenes together, as you said.
Nervously posting, and me with not a philosophical
thing to say -- sollig, 16:22:06 06/22/01 Fri
I've been lurking for a few months, posting only a couple times,
but just wanted to express how impressed I am with the intelligence
and humor of the posts here. Thank goodness I landed on this board
while stumbling from site to site filled with posts considering
the possiblity of the witches from Charmed or the aliens from
Roswell bringing Buffy back, countless declarations of "Angel+Buffy
4ever," and random ramblings about all things not philisophical
and not even Buffy. I consider myself reasonably intelligent,
but you all are so thoughtful and have in turn given this ex-editor,
current stay-at-home mom lots to think about; a little excercise
for the brain, as it were. Thanks!
To Liquidram: Am I to understand that you designed the images
on the website mentioned in the t-shirt discussion? If so, very
striking! Me likey!
Okay, I now retreat back to the shadows, but I'll be watching.
And maybe if I have something to share that matches the caliber
of the regulars' posts, I'll surface again. Farewell!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'd like to welcome you to come post or comment on posts
anytime! -- Masquerade, 16:24:28 06/22/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Thank you very much and please, stick around awhile! --
Liquidram, 17:01:27 06/22/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Nervously posting, and me with not a philosophical thing
to say -- LadyStarlight, 20:38:37 06/22/01 Fri
As an ex-librarian and currant SAHM myself, isn't it great to
talk to grownups occasionally?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Welcome! -- rowan, 21:13:19 06/22/01 Fri
Hey, if I can do it, anyone can. Welcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> We need a speical thread for all lurkers to delurk
onto?? (This will do) :) -- Emcee003, 23:08:56 06/22/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Thanks for the nice welcome all! I think I will
stick around! NT -- sollig, 08:15:43 06/23/01 Sat
Classic Movie of the Week - June
22nd 2001 -- OnM, 21:44:56 06/22/01 Fri
*******
In the instance of this project, I wanted to investigate the notion,
being someone who admires Shakespeare as the great storyteller,
and the question we wanted to answer was, how would Shakespeare
make a movie, if he was making a movie?
Now, we do not know a lot about Shakespeare, in truth, but we
do know that he was an actor at the Globe Theatre, and his audience
was basically three thousand drunken, screaming punters, and his
competition was bear-baiting and prostitution. So, as a storyteller,
he was a relentless entertainer. There was no sense of being a
'precious artist' so much, but someone who would savagely and
cleverly use every possible asset he could lay his hands on to
execute a storytelling that would affect his audience.
So we went on a very meticulous year of research, to research
the truth about the Elizabethan stage from which Shakespeare told
his stories. Then we set about converting that information into
a cinematic language, and into elements that we would use to tell
our story.
______________ Baz Luhrmann
*******
Ah, everybody loves The Bard, do they not? Well, not everybody.
The common wisdom is, Old Bill wrote quite a lot of plays, and
after lo these many centuries we still consider them to be some
of the finest examples of the writer's gift. Dutiful descendants
that we are, we seek to pass this literary and poetic excellence
on to the next generation, usually sometime in junior high school.
Which is where, not surprisingly, you will find lots of inquiring
young minds who if they had their druthers, would druther not
be studying Shakespeare.
Consider their point of view in this dislike, I prithee. Pick
a play, any play. They're full to the brim of oddly cadenced,
very old, difficult to decipher English speech, obscure Elizabethan
social and political references, and of course, those puns which
delight scholars of ancient British witticisms, but give most
20th century readers the 'huh?' expression, assuming they're awake
in the first place.
Of course, that was the way it was when I was in junior high school,
which was waaaaayyyyyy back in the dark ages of the 1960's. Things
are surely different now, kids are so much more sophisticated,
they have, movies, TV, even access to the Internet where you can
log on to Shakepeare.com and get the full skinny de-obscured for
their own personal junior-highish literary enlightenment.
Nahhh. Who're we kidding? When you're 13 or 14 years old, The
Bard doesn't mean much. And why should he? Crazy old fart, writing
stuff to entertain the bourgeoisie that certainly must have been
over the heads of the common rabble of the day. Who else would
go to these high-falutin' affairs of the mind?
Uhh, what do you mean, his audience *was* the common masses? Oh
yes, on occasion a member of the social elite, perhaps even the
rare prince or queen might attend, but that was the exception,
you say? Impossible! If this was the entertainment of the proletariat--
the tinkers, tailors, barkeeps and stablehands-- then that would
make it equivalent to, well, today's popular music culture, or
TV, or... or... movies, fer cryin' out loud! That'll never do,
we know darn well the teachers and school administrators only
try to introduce this stuff to us at this tender age to quickly
separate the run-of-the-mill slackers and losers from the future
intelligentsia, so as to quickly ascertain who is truly worthy
of being garlanded with the future burdens of wealth and power!
What an incredibly radical thought it would be to think that Shakespeare
was an.. an *entertainer*!
Naahhh. If that was possible, then who knows what's possible,
anything goes! Here, today, some doofus TV writer could come up
with some patently idiotic idea like, say, a hero's journey involving
some tiny teenage Valley-girl-esque blond chick from California
who, say, fights vampires. Only it's all thematically layered
and uses clever, obscure language styles, social and political
references, and of course, puns.
Why, if *that* happened, then the next thing would be somebody
feeling perfectly free to take the exact words from the entire
play *Romeo & Juliet*, those beautiful, social-elite-serving iambic
pentameters and set them into a 20th century alternate universe
scenario and make a *movie* out of it! Good god, they might even
cast teen idols like Claire Danes and Leonardo DiCaprio in it!!
And... and... have Mercutio dressed up like a drag queen and be
singing and dancing!!! Oh, the horror, the horror...
Which brings us to this week's Classic Movie, *William Shakespeare's
Romeo &
Juliet*, by Australian director Baz Luhrmann, who has managed
to both piss off and absolutely delight numerous film and literary
critics with, well, Shakespeare for the Masses, and young masses
at that. This is a film that shows many of the stunning stylistic
features of Luhrmann's current work, *Moulin Rouge*, a film which
at the end of last week's column, I heartily encouraged, nay,
bade thee go see posthaste, it being a certain contender for best
film of 2001, in the humble opin of this modest scribe. If you
have seen *Moulin Rouge*, and liked it, and you haven't yet seen
*William Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet*, now is your chance to
do so.
This film is so visually unique, don't expect to pick up everything
on the first viewing. Like the Bard, it can be very dense and
layered and intimidating, but it never fails to entertain. Stay
with it past the opening sequences, where it is unquestionably
jarring to hear the spoken words of centuries past melded to an
obviously contemporary sensibility. Have faith-- things unfold
in due time, and you will find yourself drawn in and involved.
You don't even really need to know anything much about Old Bill
and his plays, since Luhrmann is such a visual storyteller, the
words and the soundtrack could be deleted, and you could still
clearly follow what's transpiring-- the timeless story of two
star-crossed lovers, and their inevitable tragic fate.
What could be truly tragic would be for you to not see this innovative
and original re-working of a classic tale, and get a glimpse into
the mind of one of the Bards of the current millennium. They are
all around us, blessing us, rabble and elite alike, with their
keen artistry, and you need only see it for yourself to see that
it is so.
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Neo-Elizabethan Technical Compendium:
*William Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet* is available on DVD. The
review copy was on laserdisc, and contains, in addition to the
film itself, several extras. These are: Full length audio commentary
with director, writer and producer Baz Luhrmann, production designer
Catherine Martin, editor Jill Bilcock, director of photography
Don McAlpine and co-producer Martin Brown, and a 20 minute video,
*Inventing a Way of Doing It*, that contrasts original sites and
production team 'walk-throughs' to the finished scenes. I do not
have information as to special features on the DVD version, but
they are probably similar, or perhaps even more extensive. (The
quote from Baz that opens the column this week was excerpted from
the laserdisc commentary track).
In addition to lead actors Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes,
the film stars Brian Dennehy, John Leguizamo, Christina Pickles,
Pete Postlethwaite, Paul Sorvino, Diane Venora, Harold Perrineau,
Vondie Curtis-Hall, M. Emmet Walsh and Jesse Bradford.
The year of release was 1996. Running time is 2 hours. Aspect
ratio is 2.35:1, but even if you have a smallish TV, try to see
the film in the original widescreen version. Luhrmann uses the
entire frame nearly all the time, you will see a basically completely
different film in the pan & scan (1.33:1/standard TV) version.
Sound is Dolby Digital 5.1 and THX.
*******
OK, time to go now, hope you enjoy this weeks selection, but before
exiting stage right, I'll take the suggestion of several respondents
to my recent summary of flicks and requests for how to make this
column better, by asking a question that might conjure up discussion.
If you have seen *WS's R&J*, you will quite possibly have
noticed that there is a lot of water imagery in the film. For
example, when we first meet Juliet (Claire Danes), she has her
head underwater, her hair swirling mermaid-like all about her.
Shortly afterward, when she meets Romeo (L. DiCaprio) for the
first time, Luhrmann utilizes an incredible looking sequence involving
a fishtank. There is the ocean, there is rain, there are fountains.
What's it all about? I doubt there was this much water in the
Globe Theatre, so what is Luhrmann trying to say to us?
Please mark any responses to this question with a *SPOILER* denotation
if you reveal any significant details about the film in your post,
and don't put spoilers in the thread title, of course.
Thanks again, see you next time!
*******
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 22nd 2001 -- rowan,
22:09:31 06/22/01 Fri
*sigh* Now I know I don't have any taste. I liked the Zeffirelli
version with Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey. They kind of had
a Spike and Dawn quality about them (alot of acting via the eyes
-- keep your thoughts clean, everyone. Evil to him who thinks
evil). But then, I liked Branagh's Henry V better than Olivier's,
so obviously my problems have a very old root.
Although I heartily endorse viewing as much Shakespeare as possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 22nd 2001 --
Rufus, 22:18:35 06/22/01 Fri
I saw this one too.....I read all my Shakespeare in my early to
mid teens.....now I've forgotten it all. I do remember some basic
plot stuff. My favorite was King Lear. I didn't like Romeo and
Juliette because I thought they were too impulsive for my taste.
The movie was fun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The Zeffirelli version was fine, it's just more conventional.
-- OnM, 22:44:07 06/22/01 Fri
Could make for an interesting double feature, eh wot?
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Zeffirelli version was fine, it's just
more conventional. -- rowan, 08:14:28 06/23/01 Sat
Exactly! I think I'm one of these people who doesn't like my Shakespeare
too unconventional (personal taste issue, not an artistic critique).
Although I did like the Richard III with Ian McKellan that was
done several years ago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> That's because Branagh's Henry V *was* better! ;o)
-- Wisewoman, 20:22:57 06/24/01 Sun
And Derek Jacobi's Hamlet was better than Olivier's too, IMHO!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: That's because Branagh's Henry V *was* better!
;o) -- Rahael, 02:02:14 06/25/01 Mon
Exactly! As for Olivier's "We few, we happy few" speech"
- tingles running down my spine. Not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The anwser is (H2ooo) -- Emcee003, 23:43:54 06/22/01 Fri
** WARNING SEXUAL REFERENCES **
Now this is where we get into my expertise, film (and sociology),
the water is to do with the sexual development of Juliet (and
kind of Romeo). As you pointed out the first time we see Juliet
its morning, as she's in a night dress and she has to get dressed.
Her own head is obviously a metaphor for masturbation in the morning
by Juliet. The fish tank scene is all about the metaphor for sexual
attraction and barriers, as the water is contained. The fountain
is where Romeo 'cums in' (I'll not explain that one as I can only
get so liberal). The water motive ends with Romeo and Juliet falling
into the pool. Swimming in the water and being in the 'moment'.
Although this is from memory I think that's what its all about
(I had to do my film coursework on the themes in this film).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: R & J to the Buffyverse with possbile spoilers
-- Brian, 05:12:03 06/23/01 Sat
When I was a teacher, I used to tell my students that if Shakespeare
were alive today, he would be working with Steven Spielberg and
George Lucas.
Romeo and Juliet were the Buffy and Angel of their world. Being
from two different, rival families, their love was forbidden.
But, like water, their passion for each other could not be contained
or thwarted. When they kissed, their worlds merged and were consumed
and destroyed by their passion.
This film imspired me to write two poems as a reaction to its
power and beauty:
ROMEO
With sorrow, I reject the descending stars. Their truth now bitter
falsehood, And their promise, only deceiving starfire. Here, in
this forbidden tomb I embrace my lost love this last time, And
drink a sweet cordial to the cold wave of eternity. May it carry
us to the fire beyond the betraying stars.
JULIET
Sweet Juliet breathes the sour, festering air: She knows how to
separate night from day, day from light. She sees the shadow of
her lover's kiss In the spreading contagion of betraying sunlight.
She turns from those dark eyes Her mind accepts her dark fate.
She severs her soul, ending her life, With his still, still, too
warm knife.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 22nd 2001 -- Andy,
05:50:50 06/23/01 Sat
> Nahhh. Who're we kidding? When you're 13 or 14 years old,
The Bard doesn't mean much. And why should he? Crazy old fart,
writing stuff to entertain the bourgeoisie that certainly must
have been over the heads of the common rabble of the day. Who
else would go to these high-falutin' affairs of the mind?
Heh. Nothing like high school to take classic storytelling and
completely neuter it :) I always liked reading Shakespeare when
I was that age because I realized pretty quickly that it was full
of sex and violence, which to an adolescent mind always equals
fun no matter how poetic the language is. Actually discussing
it in school, however, was a complete drag because the teachers
all had very dogmatic interpretations of it and wouldn't let you
stray from that. So I and other students were constantly being
told "No, you're wrong" if we had ideas that didn't
mesh with the teacher's. Of course, when I got to college, the
professors' lines changed to "Hey, that's interesting"
and honest discussion could follow. Main difference between high
school and college: high school tries to crush your spirit into
dust while college encourages you to think :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 22nd 2001 --
Nina, 11:21:34 06/23/01 Sat
OnM I have seen that movie! Yay! A total of 2 or 3 I think! (I
have a better movie culture with French movies!) It is always
fun to see modern adaptations of classics. I used to be a very
classic lady. I know my French classics by heart and would scream
everytime they tried to give the play a modern twist. Moliere,
Racine (my personal favorite) and Shakespeare are very alike for
that reason. They were entertainers. If we want to feel what people
felt at the time we have to modernize the presentation. But whatever
happens in the future there will always be a battle between the
purists and the moderns. It has always been that way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Racine Adaptation -- Brian, 15:36:57 06/23/01
Sat
Hey, Nina, did you ever see Jules Dassin's adaptation of Phaedre?
Cool movie. Very risque for its time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Racine Adaptation -- Nina, 15:49:13
06/23/01 Sat
No, actually I didn't. Phaedre is my mother's role of predilection.
I should tell her about that. She played it, teached it, analysed
it. I'll check that out! Thanks very much. I have never seen movie
adapations from Racine's plays. Maybe he's tough to adapt for
the screen. French theater in the 17 century had four rules to
respect (rule of time - the action had to be condensed in 24 hours,
rule of space - they only had one set, and I don't remember the
last two) I guess it's hard to adapt and keep it less static.
Shakespeare at least could play with time and space as he pleased!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Racine Adaptation - The Unities
-- Brian, 16:13:21 06/23/01 Sat
Unity of time, place and action:
The action does have to take place in 24 hours. Makes a play like
El Cid rather action pack. To compress this action, each main
character usally had a companion that their conversations with
helped compress the time factor of the exposition.
There is one set that the actors speak in front of.
There are no subplots. All the action is focused on the main story.
The Racine adaptation, being a movie, takes place over a long
period of time, with many changes in location.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Racine Lovin' -- Aquitaine, 20:13:04 06/23/01
Sat
I knew we were kindred before, Nina, but now I have confirmation:)
I *love* Racine - pure, unadulterated drama and divinely inspired
wordplay. *sigh*
- Aquitaine (I just got back from a one-week vacation and I can't
believe how many new - and clever - posts I have to catch up on!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> This sounds interesting... could one of
you give some brief background info... -- OnM, 20:34:43 06/23/01
Sat
...on what you are talking about?
Brian, is the film you mentioned available on vid?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Phaedra availability -- Brian,
21:28:38 06/23/01 Sat
After searching the web, I couldn't find it.
It was made in 1962 by Jules Dassin, starring Melina Mercouri
and Tony Perkins. It is set in modern times, and is just a terific
film. I believe it was made in Europe and the effect of Psycho
on Perkins' career hadn't reached that far. I originally saw the
film in grad school, and got my copy off an A & E presentation
back in the 80's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Phaedra availability --
fresne, 23:30:52 06/23/01 Sat
Yeah, I'm guessing Racine exposure is (at least in the US) mostly
a college level, "so you want to study French literature"
sort of thing.
Oddly enough during the discussion of the finale, I kept thinking
of Iphigénie en Aulide, and the substitution of one sister
for another as a suitable blood sacrifice. However, I really couldn't
think of a way to work it in, beyond hey, Iphigenie. Huh, interesting
not actual mythological parallel.
Oh, and here's an appeal to the group mind. Baz Luhrman apparently
sees Simply Ballroom, Romeo+Juliet, and Moulin Rouge as a trilogy
retelling ancient stories. SB=David and Goliath. RJ=well, Romeo
and Juliet. MR=Orpheus. I get the first two, but any idea on how
Moulin Rouge, which was a brilliant movie, is Orpheus?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Racine Lovin' -- Nina, 20:38:47 06/23/01
Sat
Thanks Brian! I've studied this stuff for years and yet managed
to forget the right terms. I'm pretty sure there was a fourth
rule though. Hmmmm... I'll check my old books. I sound like Giles
suddenly! ;)
Welcome back Aquitaine. I feared you went away again! Glad to
see you back! :) My favorite Racine play is "Berenice".
A very underlooked play which is the apotheose of love for me.
And guess what? The poor Anthiocus, the unrequited lover (sound
familiar?) is the one I always root for! Buffy being shot in English,
Shakespeare quotes make lots of sense. If it had been in French,
Racine would have been the best choice.
Unfortunatelly, I am not sure Racine is as well know to other
cultures as Shakespeare is to us. Probably hard as hell to translate!
Ye Olde 7-3-0 and Miss Muffet
Debate -- Ms. Pointy, 23:18:17 06/22/01 Fri
Just late night musings here, but what if the whole "counting
down from 7-3-0" thing refers to the number of Scoobies supporting
the Buffster?
At the end of last season, there were 7 Scoobies: Giles, Willow,
Tara, Xander, Anya, Dawn & Spike. I have _no_ ideas (that are
not just too horrible to contemplate) about how to "count
them down" to three and then to 0.
One of the problems with this theory is of course that there are
not _always_ seven Scoobies. Why start counting arbitrarily from
the end of this season?
I also had a Miss Muffet theory, but it sort of dried up and blew
away with the season finale. (In a nutshell: Glory=Miss Muffet,
Dawn or brain sucking victims=Curds and Whey, Buffy=Spider) It
seems like there would have been more overt reference to Miss
Muffet in the season finale if I had been close, but then, Joss
moves in mysterious ways. (And that's why I love him!)
I'm sure this topic has been beaten to death here many times over,
but why not give it another try?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Ye Olde 7-3-0 and Miss Muffet Debate -- Lucifer_Sponge,
11:05:13 06/23/01 Sat
Well, look at it this way...
7 = the number of Scoobies
3 = the number of original Scoobies (the ones that were there
from the start)
0 = the number of slayers in the group
I don't really like this theory, m'self, but it's fun to think
about.
~Sponge
Buffy's Blood, Buffy's
Sacrifice -- Rahael, 16:47:34 06/23/01 Sat
I wasn't able to post a reply to Dedalus's earlier post to my
first one, so I've put it in as a new topic.
Well done for spotting the connection between the Gift and the
Lion, Witch and Wardrobe. I scrolled down and read your earlier
post on the subject, and completly agree. Its such a big point
! Can't believe that people havn't made more of it. I forgot about
Willow's book report in 'Restless'. The whole sacrifice aspect
of Buffy's death seems to rely heavily on Christian imagery -
someone else pointed out that Buffy, diving toward her death makes
like Christ on the cross. The solution to the sacrifice demanded
by the 'White witch' is so beautiful and simple, and I hope Josh
comes up with something as satisfying as that for next season.
However, I think that he also like playing around with allusions,
and maybe its not exactly what's going to happen. There's a lot
I don't like about the Narnia books (THe Calormen - ancient, cruel
and alien race of people all of whom wear turbans hmm...) and
girls not being allowed to fight!
Going completely off subject, have you read the 'dark materials'
trilogy by Philip Pullman? Mindblowing riposte to CS Lewis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy's Blood, Buffy's Sacrifice -- AK-UK, 17:07:31
06/23/01 Sat
Oooo, the "His Dark Materials" trilogy, yeah! I've read
the first two, (really must get my copy of "The Amber Spyglass"
back off my friend) and loved them. Strong female characters,
magic, witches, parallel realities (sound familiar?), and a storyline
that.....er, well I don't want to spoil it for anyone. Suffice
to say that C.S. Lewis would NOT have approved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Philip Pullman -- voyageofbeagle, 19:00:52 06/23/01
Sat
"His Dark Materials" rock- for the same reason that
BtVS rocks- there are so many levels to enjoy it on. "His
Dark Materials" is billed as a young adult fantasy trilogy,
yet draws heavily on "Paradise Lost" and has many complicated
and contoversial messages on humanity, religion, etc.
Philip Pullman has many uncomplimentary things to say about the
writings of CS Lewis and religion in general. My favorite quote
of his:
"We don't need lists of rights and wrongs, tables of do's
and don'ts. We need books, time, and silence. Thou shalt not is
soon forgotten, but Once upon a time lasts forever."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Philip Pullman -- Rahael, 19:55:15 06/23/01
Sat
That's a great quote, which I hadn't seen before. What I like
about his work is that it is critical of the Judeo-Christian tradition,
but still has a robust morality at its centre. Isn't it strange,
the theme of sacrifice enters into 'dark materials' as well -
only Lyra doesn't sacrifice herself - she sacrifices her friend.
There's a lot of great writing being done for children (and its
not Harry Potter !!). I like Margaret Mahy and Diana Wynne Jones.
They all deal with serious problems in a truly magical way. Giles
could come straight out of a DWJ book.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Just picked up "The Golden Compass."
Looking forward to reading it. -- mundusmundi, 11:59:07 06/24/01
Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy's Blood, Buffy's Sacrifice (maybe OT) --
LadyStarlight, 20:21:25 06/23/01 Sat
I first read the Narnia chronicles, oh, before I was 6 or 7. They
were my first intro to fantasy and I was captivated. I still go
back & reread them at least every other year. I've read the Pullman
trilogy but I don't know whether they will have that pull (oohh,
awful unwitting pun) on me. Now, their attraction may just be
that when I reread them I tap into that first reading and experience
again the feeling of new worlds opening up, but it's still valid.
Watching BTVS and reading/writing *good* fanfiction does the same
thing. It takes me to *there* when sometimes *here* sucks desperately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy's Blood, Buffy's Sacrifice (maybe
OT) -- Wisewoman, 20:00:24 06/24/01 Sun
I was 12, I think. No image from literature has stayed with me
more strongly over the years than that of Lucy first pushing her
way through the old fur coats at the back of the wardrobe and
seeing the streetlamp in the snow. I later tried to read the other
Narnia books, but none of them ever measured up to TLTWaTW, IMO.
I've read the first two books of His Dark Materials by Pullman
and enjoyed them both, and now I have the whole trilogy in a single
large hardcover, I think I'll go back and read those first two
before going on to The Amber Spyglass.
BTW, anyone else find they don't seem to have as much time for
reading fiction as they did before they started posting to this
board? Sheeesh, it's taken me a week to finish a paperback potboiler
that I used to polish off in an afternoon! ATPoBtVS gives a whole
new meaning to the phrase, "Reading for Pleasure!" ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Time for reading... -- OnM, 06:36:39 06/25/01
Mon
I didn't have time for reading fiction *before* I found this place!
Needless to say (but say it anyway) I have even less time now.
I have stacks of books that I bought over the last several years
that I either started and didn't finish, or didn't get started
at all. (~sighs~)
I try not to let it bother me, it's mostly a work-takes-up-nearly-all-my-time
& energy thing, so there isn't much I can do about it. Also, I've
been watching movies as opposed to reading far more in the last
4 or 5 years than I did previously, thanks first to laserdiscs
and now DVD's. (Not a big fan of VHS or pan'n'scan TV versions).
On the other hand, the intermittent, interactive nature of the
board here is often more enjoyable than simply reading a book
over the course of a few afternoons, so at the moment I give that
some priority each day.
As you've noticed, no doubt!
;)
You're like a serial killer
in prison (OT) -- voyageofbeagle, 23:11:11 06/23/01 Sat
Nothing resonated harder for me than Buffy's words in Crush (quoted
in subject line).
Is anyone thinking (as I am) someone please help this guy! Spike
needs a push, a glimmer, a spark, anything. Hopefully in S6 one
of the scoobies will see his change as something to encourage,
not mock. I understand that they have huge reservations, but,
please, someone take the leap of faith for this gray-area vampire
and give him some encouragement.
Working (through a literacy program) in prisons, I have worked
with people who have murdered.
Our project last Christmas was to have the inmates (it's a women's
prison) record themselves reading a book, and then the recording
and book would be delivered to their children, and the kids can
listen to their mom reading to them, as they look at the book.
My student, whom I have tutoring for close to a year, has 3 children
being cared for by various cousins while she completes a sentence
of 20+ years for murdering another person during a drug deal gone
horribly bad.
We worked on "Goodnight Moon" for 6 weeks before the
final recording was made. As I was gathering up my stuff to leave,
she said "I wish I could really be there on Christmas. I
wish I hadn't done what I done." Wow. This woman has at least
15 years to ponder that thought.
Bottom line: Redemption is possible for anyone. We don't define
it, they do. We don't judge what suffering is enough, what guilt
they should carry. We don't define the penance. They do. Many
people who are still in prison are redeemed. Many who are let
out are not.
Back to BtVS- I hope the writers carry on with the difficult and
confusing theme of redemption. Spike's a violent bad-ass, compensating
for a weak and mediocre William. Our prisons are full of them.
Off topic (and super preachy): This is a great board. I'm not
a huge internet reader/poster, but this board (although I haven't
visited many) has impressed me with the quality and civility of
thoughts posted. In another thread, many of you were posting about
being somewhat alone/dissatisfied with society. I hope that anyone
that feels that way would consider working in volunteering some
time to the problem of illiteracy. Or any problem. Tying myself
tightly to this great mess of humanity is one of the most fulfilling
things I have ever done.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: You're like a serial killer in prison (OT) -- FanMan,
23:35:23 06/23/01 Sat
voyageofbeagle
What does your name mean? Cool post and I agree with all of it!
Sounds like you are a good person...we need more like you in this
confusing world!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> FanMan's like a serial killer before prison :) --
Sssaaammm, 05:25:55 06/24/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: FanMan's like a serial killer before prison
:) -- FanMan, 08:17:33 06/24/01 Sun
AM NOT!!!
And I am insulted!
I am so pissed I will come find YOU!
(just joking...or am I? UH yes I am joking)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: You're like a serial killer in prison (OT) --
verdantheart, 09:20:20 06/25/01 Mon
I don't see your answer, voyageofbeagle, but let me guess. It
has something to do with a voyage of discovery, like that of the
Beagle (Darwin's voyage)?
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Screen name -- voyageofbeagle, 19:06:15
06/25/01 Mon
You got it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Hummm.. here I thought it might be a Snoopy
reference. -- OnM, 21:09:27 06/25/01 Mon
But then, I tend to bow down most humbly before all things Schultzian,
so I am predisposed to see Snoopyisms everywhere!
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hummm.. here I thought it might
be a Snoopy reference. -- voyageofbeagle, 21:22:07 06/25/01 Mon
Would it help if I also added that I have 2 beagles? My fascination
with all things Darwin led me to this breed of dog...what a great
choice it turned out to be...Nixon and Carter rock. I blush to
admit that I wanted to name Carter "Spike", and was
only dissuaded when my boyfriend declared that if I named our
dog Spike, our next pet would be christened "Gina Gershon".
So, I continued with our theme of misunderstood presidents...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I think Buffy took a leap of faith when....... -- Rufus,
00:28:33 06/24/01 Sun
Some of the things I have worked at in my life allowed me to see
the results of lives gone wrong first hand. I dealt with the victims
of people who were angry, or stoned, or just didn't care enough
to do anything but hurt others. The waste I saw was heart breaking.
I'm not fond of criminals and I've made no bones about it. I've
seen smart sociopaths cheat others of money, self respect, their
lives. The bigger question was what to do about it. A good start
is in a literacy program in prison, it may not solve the overall
problem of crime but it can give the people who want to change
their lives the chance to do it. It's up to them, to redeem themselves.
My first thoughts will always be to help the victims of crime,
but I realize that most prisoners will get out of jail at some
point. If we set them free in exactly the same condition they
came in, then we only get an older version of the same troubled
persons.
Buffy had to change the way she felt about Spike, the man who
spent time trying to kill her for a greater reputation. I'm not
surprised that it took Buffy awhile to trust Spike, he had to
change the way he acted, and felt. At first he was only interested
in the possession of the girl, not what she was about. His process
of learning may have been painful but was needed. Spike called
himself a monster and he is.....the amount of bodies that are
piled up proves that. His protection of Buffy and Dawn were the
first true signs that he was really beginning to empathize with
how Buffy felt, not just what he might get for his actions. Redemption
is up to Spike, Buffy can't grant it to him, it won't be easy,
people won't always be kind to him or trust him. Spike and only
Spike can prove that he has changed. Buffy showed that she was
beginning to trust Spike when she had him come along in Spiral.
In The Gift she trusted him enough to come into her home again.
Spike earned it, only his actions will keep it that way or will
lose it for him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I think Buffy took a leap of faith when.......
-- FanMan, 03:39:03 06/24/01 Sun
I agree that something needs to be available for prisoners. IF
they want to become better people it is good for society, however
if all experiances in prison are negative it is very likely they
will get out of prison with a BAD attitude...or WORSE!. One other
thing, too many people in prison for MINOR drug offenses become
hardened cynical people after their 5 or ten year sentance is
up...
Not any easy solutions(at least not moral ones!)
Regarding Spike, he has an invite from Buffy. The SG trusts Buffy
completely so her trust in Spike will carry some weight...
I do think none of the SG should make acceptance and redemption
easy for Spike; make him really earn any respect he gets. BTW
respect based on trust is MUCH more valuable than the respect
of "the BIG BAD who killed two Slayers"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I think Buffy took a leap of faith when.......
-- Sssaaammm, 07:32:53 06/24/01 Sun
After working at drink / drug rehabs for a few years and receiving
a lot of referrals from the criminal justice system, I have found
that people who are in prison for drug offences receive basically
no form of rehabilitation apart from token gesture CAROT talks
which are impractical and the whole emphasis is on punishment.
The figure of re-offenders is the result of this. =Punishment
for being ill.
I follow the belief that there is no evil in the world and all
anti-social behaviours are a manifestation of illness. Surely
illness should be treated not punished and responsibility for
the environment that led people to such crimes should be taken.
Unfortunately, this would be unacceptable to the general public
due to the need for revenge and delight at seeing people take
punishment to tie-up uncomfortable feelings about social illness.
I'm not saying people should be allowed to commit crime with no
consequences but the whole emphasis inside prisons needs to be
changed if we want to change offenders' cycles and thus reduce
further crime. At the rehabs I've worked at people lucky enough
to get referral from prisons receive professional counselling
and life skills training etc.., and can then choose how they want
to live their lives. Without the referrals they would remain in
the prisons and develop a negative self image and resentment and
their choices are narrower and narrower in as far as their place
in community.
RE: Spike He is the victim of birth (the demon nature he possesses)
and the environment he exists in (when William got bit - if you
think Spike is William down the line). Spike is not evil he is
just what was created - a species other than human at a different
place on the food chain. Spike was however a danger and the initiative
in their experimentation unknowingly gave spike a shot at rehabilitation
rather than punishment and the true test of it worked will be
what he does if the chip is removed or damaged (in the fall maybe?).
Redemption is achievable to Spike simply by becoming reconditioned
with new beliefs and motives. There is no need for guilt or making
amends. Is is what he is not was.
Being a different species than human, surely this argument is
not about redemption but assimilation into human society and if
the SG can trust him. Is Spike evil for biting down the foodline
in the past when he could have had pig's blood when we have eaten
further down our food line when we can eat vegetables? Evil is
a label placed on illness and/or differences all to readily.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: You're like a serial killer in prison (OT) -- Rahael,
08:12:43 06/24/01 Sun
I agree with everything you say. Its great that there are people
out there in the world willing to take on all the hard and necessary
jobs . I also think that Buffy has become an even better programme
since it became less black and white. However, it has always maintained
a very strong theme of duty, of the redeeming power of relationships
and friendship, and the dangers of disassociating yourself from
the world - i.e Jonathon. A cautionary tale of what happen when
you start being too far apart from the rest of society.
As for the post below regarding unsociability - I dont think anyone
here dislikes the rest of the world - perhaps not always going
along with the "group" - which can be a wise thing too.
Buffy also tackles the topic of feeling alienated from the values
of society - school, work, peergroup. Sometimes the groupthink
can lead to injustice - like racism, prejudice etc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: You're like a serial killer in prison (OT) -- Rosenberg,
21:27:41 06/24/01 Sun
When Spike first began to have feelings for Buffy, I was one of
the ones saying to everyone "give the guy a chance!".
Of course, that's easy for us to say, we've seen him brooding
in his lair thinking about Buffy rather than how to get the chip
out so he can go eat, the others haven't. And who among us hasn't
liked the witty British vampire with his casual cynicism and good
looks? Although eventually their distrust gets rediculous. And
am I the only one who, over the years, has really come to detest
Buffy's snotty-ass preppy attitude? I don't know, that just bugs
me. Especially when Spike is trying to tell her how he feels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: You're like a serial killer in prison (OT) --
Rufus, 00:55:32 06/25/01 Mon
I don't find Buffy's attitude preppy or annoying. She has had
to protect the world so I think she gets cut some slack when she
seems single minded. Spike up until season 4 has tried to murder
Buffy her lack of trust was founded upon her experiences with
the guy. He is the one that now has to prove himself. Buffy gave
him a chance in The Gift and reinvited him into her home....it's
up to Spike to prove that the trust is worth it. Buffy has never
done anything to Spike other than defend herself. I'm surprised
that many people are blaming the victim in this case. He tried
to kill her then when he decided he loved her stalked her. I think
Buffy has been more than understanding. She had to change the
way she felt as she didn't have the information to work with that
we do. Remember she only heard what Spike wanted her to hear in
FFL. It's hard to go from Spike wants to kill me so he can improve
his big bad reputation...to Spike loves me something I have been
told that vampires were incapable of....give Buffy a break...she
is dead after all.:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: You're like a serial killer in prison (OT)
-- AK-UK, 08:21:19 06/25/01 Mon
Whilst Buffy's attitude to Spike has been ENTIRELY justified,
I find her general attitude to be snotty in the extreme. I stopped
liking her some time in season 3, and only occasionally find myself
feeling any sympathy for her. Strangely, most of my BtVS watching
friends can't stand her either; some of them *cheered* when she
died, and many were heard to mutter "bring back Faith".
Of course, I wasn't one of them :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Buffy's Attitude -- rowan, 18:47:08 06/25/01
Mon
Well, I would say that I've noticed that Buffy has a tendency
to make a judgement and then stick with it. Sometimes this can
come off as a little cold and a little inflexible IMHO. Because
we're being encouraged to some extent by the writers' portraying
things from Spike's POV, this is reinforcing Buffy seeming a little
harsh.
Of course, Spike is always quick to point out that he's being
"used" by the SG when they need him, and then tossed
aside like a used hankie when they're done. This is self-pitying
and ridiculous, given the number of times he's tried to kill them.
I like Spike better trying to be sincere rather than blathering
on about his "mistreatment." You catch more flies with
honey than vinegar, after all.
Buffy's "snottiness" as I think it was called, is probably
a counterpart, though, to her Slaying, which requires snap judgements
and decisions followed by immediate action. In battle she's decisive;
sometimes in "real life in the Buffyverse" that decisiveness
can tranlate a little less effectively. I felt that the hardness
she sensed in herself this season was one of the things addressed
by the "full of love" theme and her extending an olive
branch to Spike with the reinvite and the charge to protect Dawn
(and how huge is that, considering that she thinks Dawn is a part
of herself?!). When Buffy decides to trust again, she puts her
whole heart into it (okay, Spike, don't repeat Angel's mistake
and break Buffy's heart again).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Attitude -- Nina, 10:14:05
06/26/01 Tue
I'll do Buffy for the 1st Aniversary of the posting board. Maybe
then (I think it's due in August if I remember right) I'll find
some elements to show you how lovable Buffy can be! She truly
is an inspiration for me and I believe her snottiness, her harshness
is by way of self defense. A friend of mine told me recently that
she realized that everytime she was interested in a guy she was
a bitc* with him. Way too afraid to show her vulnerability. I
don't say it's the case for Buffy, but such attitude always hides
some fear.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Attitude -- Lurker Becoming
Restless, 13:49:38 06/26/01 Tue
I agree - I think that maybe Buffy is judgemental about other
people because she has to be so judgemental about herself. Just
think of the tests she is put through in her capacity as the slayer
(how unreasonable was the Cruciamentum?!) - surely somebody who
is judged so harshly will begin to judge others in the same way.
Of course, this causes problems when she has to forgive people,
but I think she is beginning to learn about that now and will
continue to do so in season six...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Attitude -- Rufus,
14:33:48 06/26/01 Tue
Brings to mind Giles words in Pangs....vengeance is never sated........At
some point forgiveness has to come into play. Buffy has shown
such to Spike, it is part of her growth as a slayer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Attitude
-- rowan, 17:33:00 06/26/01 Tue
I greatly look forward to Nina's post on Buffy. You know, I do
love Buffy, but I have observed that little bit of hardness, which
I think developed post-Angelus partially as a protective measure.
Just as the First Slayer said, Buffy is full of love, but she
draws away from it...Love has brought Buffy pain, so she pulls
back, which makes her hard...but now she has embraced love (and
The Gift was an ep about love from first to last -- almost every
character got a great scene with another character they loved).
I guess this helps Spike's chances! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Attitude
-- Rufus, 18:57:47 06/26/01 Tue
Just think you boink Prince Charming and he turns into an evil
killer of your friends and their fish(thank god noone had a puppy)....then
you think you've moved on to copulate with a guy who is a classless
user(never forget the toilet seat comment)..........then your
normal boyfriend who is a nice guy gets addicted to vampire bites
and leaves town.....Spike only tried to kill her body the others
killed her ability to trust herself.
Of
Fray and Action Figures and Cheekbones... -- Wisewoman, 17:57:03
06/24/01 Sun
Oh god, I missed you guys! We had a wonderful time on the Island
(went with a friend of mine from work, significant other had to
stay home with dog and cats ;o)).
Picture this: there we are, two middle-aged ladies looking fairly
obviously touristy, wandering around a shopping mall outside Nanaimo,
when what to my wondering eyes should appear but a comic book
store! Right in the middle of the mall! And the last original
copy of Fray that they owned! AND (wait for it...) the last Spike
Action Figure! OMG, I almost had a heart attack right there. I'm
dashing around, practically foaming at the mouth, and my companion
thinks I've lost my mind. She's clearly embarassed. I take my
treasures to the counter, overcome with bliss, and she makes a
point of telling the (well-over-30-year-old) clerk that I must
be buying these things for my young nephews, to which I loudly
replied, "Are you kidding? These are for me!!"
And the clerk, bless him, says, "I am not in the least surprised.
Hope you enjoy them both."
And I have and I am and I will!! But not as much as I enjoy this
Board.
I've only been back for an hour so the only thread I've had time
to read is rowan's cheekbones, which she cruelly started just
as I was leaving and which became everything I thought it would.
(BTW, I've forgiven you, rowan...it's such a treat to read all
that chewy, spikey, philosophical goodness at one fell swoop.)
There's some other truly wonderful-looking threads down there
and I'm going to read them if it takes all night. And it looks
as though we have some interesting new posters, as well. Boy,
you really can't afford to miss a day at this place.
Nina...now that you know what OnM stands for, will you tell me,
please?
(AK-UK, you have indeed made me proud! Greater use of ellipses
hath no man...)
Good to be back. Talk to you all soon...
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Of Fray and Action Figures and Cheekbones... -- AK-UK,
18:31:56 06/24/01 Sun
Good to have you back, Wisewoman. My attempts to keep this board
boring until you returned came to nothing ( I can't claim any
credit for mushing up the "Can I be a cudgel....." thread,
as that was a kinky mess before I got my hands on it).
As for my use of ellipses......well, I'm thinking of stretching
myself, maybe I'll add a few dashes to my dots, give them a morse
code-y feel...-....--.-..-........ what do you think? :)
(AK-UK respects the - ,it's the only thing that stops him looking
like a kook:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Of Fray and Action Figures and Cheekbones... --
Nina, 19:46:10 06/24/01 Sun
Wisewoman, you are an inspiration! :) I love your boldness with
the clerk! LOL
As for OnM... you will probably find it out yourself by reading
the threads bellow! A good Sherlock Holmes excercise! Hint: OnM
is lazy (god forbids me to say that!)... so he compressed his
name in 3 letters! I am lazy too, cause Nina is not my real name,
just a lot shorter to write! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Of Fray and Action Figures and Cheekbones...
-- Rufus, 21:13:55 06/24/01 Sun
Oh yeah...like Rufus is my real name.....I just like it.
Great to see you back, I can imagine the look on your friends
face when she watched you regress in front of her eyes. I take
it she may not be a sucker for cheekbones.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Of Fray and Action Figures and Cheekbones...
-- Dedalus, 08:29:11 06/25/01 Mon
Greetings, Wisewoman. I enjoyed your story. I love it when things
like that happen. I would have very much liked to have seen it.
"Are you crazy! These are for me!"
Excellent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Of Fray and Action Figures and Cheekbones...
-- verdantheart, 09:10:25 06/25/01 Mon
On the other hand, verdantheart *is* my real name -- just kidding!
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The whole story (don't worry, it's a pretty short whole
story)... -- OnM, 06:13:52 06/25/01 Mon
Click on the link for the old archives, and then click on the
Nov 2000 section. After it loads in, scroll down about 15 threads,
until you find a thread started by Ryuei regarding 'Mirrors' posted
Nov 22nd 2000.
Follow down a few posts within the thread, and you'll find one
I made that explains the source of my NetName. The correct post
starts:
*** Re: Mirrors,Thursday 23-Nov-2000 00:15:02,63.50.140.134 writes,Your
analysis is insightful and very well reasoned and you may well
be right (even though I'm among those who is wondering whether
Spike will eventually get a soul and attempt to redeem himself).***
That's the scoop! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> That's the spirit OnM! Make her work for it :) --
AK-UK, 08:30:33 06/25/01 Mon
"What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness
only that gives every thing its value"
Now, if someone could just tell me why the hell my netname is
AK-UK, I'd be eternally grateful ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Hey, it wasn't *that* much work! -- OnM, 20:56:18
06/25/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thanks! And did you ever get to listen to the Meat
Loaf song? -- Wisewoman, 08:36:59 06/25/01 Mon
And as for you, evil AK-UK, you answered your own question in
your last post...it's net shorthand for *a kook*! ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Thanks! And did you ever get to listen to
the Meat Loaf song? -- Solitude1056, 09:56:41 06/25/01 Mon
And here I was thinking that AK-UK was short for something like
"aussie knackered," with the UK stuck on there to imply
that it's a drunk aussie trapped in britain.
ok, so I have a weird mind...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Meatloaf tune-- Alas, no, I never got to.
Someday, perhaps. :( -- OnM, 21:05:29 06/25/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Welcome back, Wisewoman! Congratulations on your courage
(and is Fray available in the UK, anyone?) -- Marie, 08:48:18
06/25/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Of Fray and Action Figures and Cheekbones... -- rowan,
17:28:11 06/25/01 Mon
Welcome back.
We have expanded our little family (as I like to think of it)
over the last few weeks. We also seem to be coaxing some lurkers
out of lurkdom and into postdom. New blood *evil grin* ('it's
always got to be the blood'...or the ellipsis).
Wahhhh! I want a Spike action figure. You do notice that we kept
the Cheekbones post active for you, so you'd still be able to
get in on all the *chuckle* chewy philosophical goodness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> And chewy philosophical goodness, it was! -- Wisewoman,
18:26:16 06/25/01 Mon
Wail not over your lack of the Spike icon. While the cheekbones
are magnificent, the visage is, shall we say, ever-so-slightly
cross-eyed? Still, well worth the small fortune I paid for it.
OMG, I've just realized there's probably a more sensitive, modern
term for cross-eyed, but I can't think what it is...
;o)
After rewatching "Buffy
vs. Dracula"... -- Kerri, 08:50:29 06/25/01 Mon
Hi! I'm sorry if this is a kind of discombobulated post. I had
a few thoughts after rewatching the epi last night that I though
I'd share.
At first I kind of saw The Gift as contradicting B vs. D. In B
vs. D Drac tells Buffy her powers are rooted in darness, while
in the Gift she finds that her powers come from light, life, and
love, not darness and death.
Then after thinking about this I realized that the two ideas don't
contadict each other at all. The slayer's physical power's maybe
rooted in darkness. They may come from the same origin as the
vampire's powers as Dracula suggests, calling Buffy "kindred."
But really darkness can grow into light. Buffy's powers may have
come from darkness but their real strength comes from light and
humanity.
The fact that the slayer's powers are rooted in darkness may explain
why there is a temptation towards darkness. We see this in Faith.
Faith doesn't have Buffy's "ties to the world"(to qoute
Spike) so it is easy for her to be drawn toward evil.
However, it seems that the slayer's powers are strongest when
fed by love and humanity. In the Gift Buffy is made stronger by
her love for Dawn. In another thread I discussed how I believe
Buffy drew the strength to pick up the troll hammer(which Spike
could not do) from her love for Dawn.
Ok. So let's consider other slayers. Every other slayer we have
seen has been alone. The first slayer told Buffy that the slayer
doesn't walk in this world. The slayer Spike killed in NY was
alone(hence the slayer's death wish). Kendra was alone. Faith
was alone. Dracula tells Buffy that she is "always alone."
But this isn't true. When Buffy dies she isn't alone. She can
never be alone b/c she accepts the love inside her and embraces
it. I think that it is this that makes Buffy stronger then other
slayers.
In this way I think Buffy is a lot like Angel. Evil gives them
both physical strength, but humanity makes them stronger and makes
them forces of good. So where exactly does Spike fit in to all
of this? He does not have a soul to lead him away from the darkness,
but he does seem to resist it.
I really hope that next season we get to see a little more about
where the slayer's power comes from.
Anyway I know that was very incoherent. Sorry.
~Kerri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: After rewatching "Buffy vs. Dracula"... --
Jarrod Harmier, 09:35:53 06/25/01 Mon
That kind of reminds me of the movie "The Shadow". In
the novelization, it mentioned that the character had a side to
him that craved violence and destruction and when he tried to
appease it by fighting in a war, it just wanted more. (This is
not mentioned in a straightforward manner in the movie, but it
is sort of implied.) Because of this he commits many crimes.
At one point he is kidnapped and then trained to be force for
good. This way his dark side is appeased, but he is attempting
to make the world a better place.
I hope that made sense.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: After rewatching "Buffy vs. Dracula"... --
AK-UK, 10:17:25 06/25/01 Mon
Nothing incoherent about that post!
I think that Buffy's connection to family and friends allows her
to remember what it is that she is fighting for. She doesn't kill
for the sake of killing, for the pleasure of the battle; she kills
to protect others, to keep those she loves from being harmed.
If we look at it like that, Faith's behaviour becomes more understandable.
The poor girl had no-one to love (her Watcher was killed and she
couldn't prevent it, what effect would that have had on a slayer?)
so the fight, the slay, became everything to her. Then she finds
the Mayor, someone who genuinely cares for her, and she regains
a connection with the world, and fights to protect what she loves.
Spike is a whole other can of worms. The writers have got to bit
the bullet on this one. Loving Buffy fits with what we already
know about vampires, but affection for Joyce, Dawn and (to a lesser
extent) the SG, doesn't. It looks like season 6 could be the stage
for a battle royale between David Fury and Marti Noxon, with the
winner deciding the fate of Spike.
As for Dracula, I think he was messing with Buffy's mind. Darkness
doesn't have to mean evil. Dracula could have been playing with
the word, knowing that Buffy would read it to mean evil. Darkness
can also mean the unknown, the mysterious. And what is more mysterious
than the origin of the Slayer's (and the vampire's) power?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Darkness and Light (oops, longer than I thought it
would be) -- Wisewoman, 13:05:09 06/25/01 Mon
"As for Dracula, I think he was messing with Buffy's mind.
Darkness doesn't have to mean evil. Dracula could have been playing
with the word, knowing that Buffy would read it to mean evil.
Darkness can also mean the unknown, the mysterious. And what is
more mysterious than the origin of the Slayer's (and the vampire's)
power?"
Thanks, AK-UK, for bringing up something that I've been trying
to compose a meaningful post on for some time.
Why are we, as human beings, so obsessed with categorization and,
specifically, dichotomization? Why do we feel most comfortable
with categories that are black and white, either/or? There's lots
of evidence that that's just not the way the world works, but
we seem to cling to duality, dichotomy, polarity in order to make
sense of things.
I've been thinking about some very basic dichotomies: darkness/light,
black/white, self/other, female/male, night/day, death/life; the
yin-yang symbol, which divides reality into dark, female, passive,
wet versus light, male, active, dry. I'm trying to ascertain if,
in every case, there is a mid-point that better reflects reality.
The problem with clinging to the dichotomies is not so much that
they don't reflect reality, as it is that we tend to assign the
values of good and bad to each half of the pair. For example,
light is *better* than dark, white is *better* than black, etc.
What is there in darkness that is inherently bad? Is it the danger
that we fear when we cannot see clearly? I begin to think that
all the dichotomies can be encapsulated in the polarity of life
and death. We, at least in modern Western society, have believed
that life is indeed good, and death bad, to the extent that most
(if not all) fear can be ultimately traced back to the fear of
death.
As an example, anger is, to my mind, an expression of fear. Let's
say someone in authority tells you that you must make a speech
before some very important colleagues, and gives you very little
time to prepare. Your immediate reaction may be anger at the unfairness
of this situation; it's unreasonable to expect you to perform
well under these circumstances. But that anger comes from the
fear that you may not be capable of performing adequately. Perhaps
you have a phobia about speaking in public to begin with. Where
does this fear originate? If you were to make a complete hash
of the speech and no one minded and it made no difference to your
career, there'd be no need for the fear or the anger. But you
must feel that there *is* a threat to your career, to your livelihood,
inherent in this situation. To explore this fear more fully, take
it to its (unlikely but possible) conclusion: You make a hash
of the speech, your colleagues are critical, your boss is embarassed
and you are fired from your job. You are unable to obtain another
job because everyone has heard about your disastrous speech. You
can't meet your mortgage payments, you lose your home, your family
abandons you, and you are forced to live on the street, eventually
succumbing to death by starvation and/or exposure. Ridiculous?
Probably, but that's what goes on in your subconscious mind that
produces the fear and the anger when the order to perform is given.
And you can use a similar method to trace almost any fear (of
the dark, the unknown, strangers, others, etc.) back to the ultimate
fear of death.
So the question, for me, becomes, why do we fear death so? What
do we really know about it? Maybe it's nothingness, total annihilation,
but maybe, just maybe, it's the next big adventure--Helen Keller
thought so. Maybe we get reincarnated. I'm all for reincarnation
in theory, although if you have no memory of previous lives it
seems a fairly useless process. I, personally, don't remember
where I was or what things were like before I was born, and I'm
fine with that. Why should I fear returning to that state?
I'm not a Christian and I don't believe in heaven and hell, so
I am not motivated by the desire for one nor the fear of the other.
I believe that death is part of the natural cycle. I don't think
we're just on a linear journey from birth to death, but, hey,
I could be way wrong. If I'm right, and there's no reason to fear
death, what does that do to our dichotomies? If death can (ever)
be conceived of as a good thing, a positive experience, then what
reason is there to fear the dark, the unknown, the stranger?
I'm not saying that evil does not exist, just that death isn't
necessarily evil. To my mind, evil is pain, suffering, torment
(either physical or mental), and death probably ends these things.
Hmmm, I think I've strayed rather far from my original purpose
here, which was to show that life consists more of shades of gray
than black and white. And that's what I think the writers are
dealing with in BtVS--the growing realization in Buffy and the
SG that everything, including themselves, is a shade of gray.
Some heroes do evil things. Some demons do good things. Death
can be an end, or a whole new beginning...as we're about to see.
And darkness, blackness, can be the softness of the night, and
the awesome power of the primordial matrix--it all depends on
your perspective.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Darkness and Light (oops, longer than I
thought it would be) -- Kerri, 13:26:30 06/25/01 Mon
Picking up on a point you made:
"If death can (ever) be conceived of as a good thing, a positive
experience, then what reason is there to fear the dark, the unknown,
the stranger?"
I really hope that this is explored next season in Buffy.
Because really, in the end of The Gift, death was presented as
almost being good. Buffy realizes that she can sacrafice herself
for Dawn and we see a small smile on her face. Death was a gift
of life that Buffy gave her sister and the world, and perhaps
more importantly it was a gift to Buffy. Because Buffy could sacrafice
herself she had restored hope and faith in the goodness of the
world (remember that previously-her conversation with Giles-she
says she doesn't see the reson to live in this world.) as well
as a renewed desire to live which allowed her to be content with
her death(if that last part made any sense at all).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Darkness and Light (oops, longer than I
thought it would be) -- Slayrunt, 14:25:17 06/25/01 Mon
I've been thinking about some very basic dichotomies: darkness/light,
black/white, self/other, female/male, night/day, death/life; the
yin-yang symbol, which divides reality into dark, female, passive,
wet versus light, male, active, dry. I'm trying to ascertain if,
in every case, there is a mid-point that better reflects reality.
The problem with clinging to the dichotomies is not so much that
they don't reflect reality, as it is that we tend to assign the
values of good and bad to each half of the pair. For example,
light is *better* than dark, white is *better* than black, etc.
Wisewoman, my other posts have been light and airy, as I am not
a student of philosophy, but you have hit upon something I think
about and know a little about. The yin-yang symbol is a dichotomy
in that it is black and white, but it shows that either side possesses
attributes of the other. That is why the white circle and black
circle appear in the opposite side. Female/male, night/day, death/life,
et al, have elements of the other side. I think there is wisdom
in that showing that everything is a part of the other, or it
shows the symbiotic nature of the world. The Chinese view of the
world is interesting and I found it through study of martial arts.
I'm not a Christian and I don't believe in heaven and hell, so
I am not motivated by the desire for one nor the fear of the other.
I believe that death is part of the natural cycle. I don't think
we're just on a linear journey from birth to death, but, hey,
I could be way wrong. If I'm right, and there's no reason to fear
death, what does that do to our dichotomies? If death can (ever)
be conceived of as a good thing, a positive experience, then what
reason is there to fear the dark, the unknown, the stranger?
I am a Christian, and think that many people see death as an end
to existance, therefore bad, evil. It is a part of life, but only
a transitional part. I know many religions and philosophies believe
that as well, and someday we will all learn the truth (or maybe
not).
I can only speak about what I know, so please bear with me. If
my view is correct, there is a God/devil, heaven/hell, then the
grey is the problem. The good is there saying this is good and
that is evil, but the evil is saying no it's not. The evil wants
the grey to depurify (if that's a word) the good. The greatest
lie that Satan can sell is he doesn't exist.
Dracula, Wolfram & Hart, perhaps even my boy Spike is not the
dark, the evil, the bad. They are just elements of the grey that
the first evil has spawn.
Sorry if that sounded preachy, didn't mean it that way. Just sharing
my ideas for discussion.
Slayrunt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Darkness and Light -- spotjon, 15:13:26
06/25/01 Mon
I'm not saying that evil does not exist, just that death isn't
necessarily evil. To my mind, evil is pain, suffering, torment
(either physical or mental), and death probably ends these things.
"Pain is inevitable; suffering is optional."
What is it that is inherently evil about pain? I do not see evil
as things that are, but as things we do. Pain is uncomfortable
and unwelcome, but is it evil? We sure don't like it, but it is
through pain that we grow. Maturity is gained through pain and
sacrifice. I am not saying that pain is something to be sought,
but neither is it something to give in to. Pain and suffering
can either be our salvation, or it can be the road to bitterness
and anger.
A similar duality can be true for a life without pain. When we
have an easy life without hardship we can either praise God for
it and enjoy life to its fullest, or we can become complacent
and feel like we've somehow earned it. It is easy to take a life
of ease and turn it into a selfish and slothful existence.
Here's the yin and the yang for you: pain and ease are neither
good nor evil. They are things that can be used for good or for
evil. Both can bring great good, and both can bring great evil.
Good and evil are not such dichotomies as night/day, or light/dark,
but are how we use and dwell on these things. Things and circumstances
are neither good nor evil. Our thoughts and actions are good or
evil. That is where the real dichotomy lies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Darkness and Light -- Wisewoman, 16:20:15
06/25/01 Mon
Well, there you go...even in the midst of posting about the *evils*
of dichotomy I manage to categorize pain as evil! And, believe
me, I take your point, spotjon. Pain serves a very useful purpose
in life, physical or mental pain, and is a neutral, rather than
an evil thing, in itself.
I guess it comes from some discussions I've had about overcoming
the fear of death, and I find that most people are quite ready
to accept that death, itself, is nothing to fear, but they *do*
fear a long, lingering death full of pain and suffering.
Can we agree that it is natural and usually advisable to avoid
pain? And that the only way to cope with unavoidable pain is to
live with it and accept its lessons?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Darkness and Light -- spotjon,
19:30:21 06/25/01 Mon
Can we agree that it is natural and usually advisable to avoid
pain? And that the only way to cope with unavoidable pain is to
live with it and accept its lessons?
Yeah, I would say that it's generally a good idea to stay away
from things that cause pain, such as picking up a hot skillet
or jumping onto a pile of broken glass with bare feet. We should
avoid painful situations when we know they will cause us serious
harm. But like Solitude1056 said, pain in other situations can
be a good thing. Childbirth and athletic training are painful,
but are certainly good for you. Injected liquid bleach into your
bloodstream is painful, and definitely bad for you. The trick
comes in trying to discern which painful situations should be
embraced, and which should be avoided. It's a tricky question
without any really simple answers. Sometimes we need to embrace
painful situations that will cause us serious harm, for the good
of others (a martyr's death, for example). Nobody likes pain,
but it is inevitable, and the way we deal with it when it comes
really shows us who we are.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> well put, spotjon -- Solitude1056, 17:44:50
06/25/01 Mon
I was formulating a response & then I read yours. Ok, so much
for my brilliant repartee, you've beaten me to it. :-)
I suppose as a corrollary to your words, I'd have to add that
I was taught that "pain exists solely to tell you when something
isn't right." I think sometimes people draw a line from the
"something isn't right" to "something is wrong"
and therefore something in the situation must be evil (as in,
extremely wrong). But at the same time, as an athlete, I was also
taught that when it hurt (in particular muscles) that this meant
I was doing something right. The pain of childbirth, I've been
told, is both wrong (because it hurts, and you don't want to live
your whole life with that hurt) but also very, very right (because
it's part of a larger experience). And the pain of athleticism
falls in the same category - right, but wrong. Right because you're
achieving mind over body; wrong because it hurts like hell and
your muscles are suffering from the exertion. But neither by any
stretch is immediately equatable as "evil," yet there
it is: pain is identified with evil.
To me, that's sort of like saying that the speed limit signpost
is equal to speeding (or not speeding), when it's not. Tillich
had a whole slew o' comments about signs & symbols, and that they're
not the same thing. Pain is a sign of something... it's not a
symbol for something. It points to something larger than itself
but can also exist independently of that which it points to, hence
a sign, much like a signpost. It doesn't represent that which
it points to, nor should we grant a sign the status of a symbol.
That'd be like paying reverrence to the speed limit sign as being
equal to actually obeying the speed limit. So to draw it back
to the original, evil is a symbol (of suffering, isolation, insert
bad thing here) but pain is a sign. It may point to evil... but
not always.
Ok, so my analogies & arguments are wonky tonight - I'm swamped
with trying to get my webpages in working order, and they're not
behaving! :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: well put, spotjon -- spotjon,
19:35:52 06/25/01 Mon
Thanks for the complement. I haven't chimed in in a while, and
I enjoy discussing these issues with people who don't always agree
with me. It's always nice when somebody does!
By the way, what kind of web pages do you work with? You work
on fairly large sites, or do you mainly deal with smaller ones?
I'm just starting out in the web development field, myself, and
there's a lot of stuff for me to learn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> web stuff (OT) -- Solitude1056,
06:04:38 06/27/01 Wed
Big, big, BIG sites. (Right now dealing with a portal project
for telecommunications coalition in Asia Pacific - the "test"
site has over 300 pages, and the final product will probably be
five times that, security issues, various proxy setups, and all.)
I'm not a techie, I'm a business process analyst really, so my
techie involvement is necessarily limited to translating for non-techies
the geekspeak uttered by my own tech teams. I get to some vbscript
programming on applications for my own department, and I'm also
the flash/shockwave person when those are needed for an application.
I use javascript for my (personal) photography web pages, but
I may switch to ASP & vbscript once the web hosting move goes
through - it's cleaner, secure, & doesn't conflict with browser
platforms the way javascript does sometimes. All that said, I
actually just try to get away with doing as little as possible
for as much money as possible. So far, so good. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: web stuff (OT) --
spotjon, 21:16:28 06/27/01 Wed
Cool, that sounds like some of the stuff I've been doing. When
I worked for my college, I managed a website with 1000+ pages
on it. It was weird after a while just how easily I could find
anything on that site in under a minute. I seriously need to get
back into Flash/Shockwave stuff, it's been too long since I've
done any of that. ASP and VBScript are becoming my specialty,
now.
Jon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: web stuff
(OT) -- Solitude1056, 10:06:56 06/28/01 Thu
Go volunteer to help Liquidram, then. I'm not the vbscript expert,
and Liq tried a javascript search function - errors all over the
place. Right now Liq's working on a perl function, but I don't
know why we couldn't use vbscript... it's just that Liq doesn't
have a vbscript/asp person handy for the programming.
Hmm, maybe you'll volunteer? :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: web
stuff (OT) -- spotjon, 12:38:37 06/28/01 Thu
What kind of a search function? If you're trying to run a search
on an entire site, you would need some sort of crawler to go through
the pages and save key words into a database, I think. I've never
programmed anything that hefty before. Atomz.com has a nice free
search program you can use if you don't mind outsourcing. Or maybe
you're talking about something else entirely....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
web stuff (OT) -- Solitude1056, 12:59:27 06/28/01 Thu
Nothing wrong with outsourcing, IMO. Ask Liq - as host o' the
site, Liq gets final say. I'm just helping with the "how
to" for those folks who aren't familiar with html. I may
also end up being the final check point on any htm docs from folks
who want their coding, spelling, grammar, etc double-checked,
I dunno. Email Liq & ask. :-)
(You'll get a gold star if you do!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: web stuff (OT) -- spotjon, 08:52:49 06/29/01 Fri
You got Liq's e-mail address? Or maybe he/she is reading this
thread. I would go for the outsourcing, if possible. Atomz will
search a site up to 500 pages for free, with no ads except for
their company logo. I'm sure there are other places that will
do this, too, and it's a lot less work than trying to code it
yourselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Check what's there now.... -- Liquidram, 16:46:00 06/29/01
Fri
http://ivyweb.com/btvs/board
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Darkness and Light (oops, longer than I
thought it would be) -- Cynthia, 18:46:26 06/25/01 Mon
Many things of beauty grow out of the darkness. The womb is not
exactly a well lit place. Nether is the dirt. So many religions
tell and/or say that darkness is only the end or destruction of
something when it is equally the source of the begining. I guess
that is why the concept of yin-yang as always appealed to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> LOL! -- rowan, 19:01:06 06/25/01 Mon
"The womb is not exactly a well lit place."
This is one of those great observations that is both profoundly
true and yet humorous at the same time. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> On a slightly irreverent but scientifically
accurate note... -- OnM, 20:28:55 06/25/01 Mon
...how well something is 'illuminated' depends on the frequency
you're talking about. We humans talk about 'sight' and 'seeing'
as if the visible light spectrum was the be all and end all of
perception.
In a pitch 'dark' room, you can see via infrared if you have the
proper hardware. X-rays and CAT scans and MRI's all image without
visible light. The entire universe is afire with radio wavelength
light.
We are indeed what we perceive, and sometimes that perception
is severely lacking in complete and accurate data!
I'll close with the classic line from Pink Floyd's 'Dark Side
of the Moon composition':
"There's no dark side to the moon, really. Matter of fact,
it's all dark."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> On a completely irreverent
and totally unscientific note... (OT) -- Solitude1056, 21:59:13
06/26/01 Tue
It's late, and I couldn't resist... speaking of truth 'n lies
and sorting out knowledge, and then OnM has to mention the dark
side of the moon? Uh-oh.
A bit ago, I was casually acquainted with a group of newage (rhymes
with sewage) weenies who were doing a series of "dark moon"
astral plane rituals. No, not as in "dark magick," as
in "darkest part of the moon." I dunno, had something
to do with meditating wherever they were at a particular time
on the night of the new moon. Theoretically, they were to meet
up with each other in the astral, and then email each other the
day afterwards to report what they'd seen. And since they wanted
a "foundation" from which to visualize, the group agreed
to visualize themselves as being on the "dark side"
of the moon. Dunno exactly why, but these were the parameters
as it was explained to me.
So they're doing their little monthly routine, when around rolls
that over-hyped full moon - you know, the one that was supposed
to be twice as bright as any other full moon? I don't recall,
actually, that it was - but shortly afterwards, an email post
started circulating that was a parody, stating how the following
"new moon" would be twice as dark as a result. I, uh,
forwarded it to the email group, figuring that they'd get a kick
out of it. As a matter of fact, they didn't realize that Dr. Pinhead
and Dr. Peabrain might be signs that this was a joke. In fact,
they were thrilled at this information and were certain it meant
great things were in store for their next astral shindig.
To make matters even more entertaining for those of us who know
"gullible" is still in webster's dictionary, a friend
of mine threw fuel on the fire by suggesting that if the upcoming
new moon were to be twice as dark, they should do something special...
like meet on the opposite side of the moon from usual - because
that side would naturally be even darker. This idea was embraced
with open minds, to use the term loosely, and afterwards they
reported great success and marvelous adventures.
Only problem is that when it's a new moon... the side facing away
from earth... is the one that's lit!
(Curiously enough, none of them were Buffy fans - they considered
the whole Buffyverse to be quite demeaning to the Serious and
Important Work of Magick. Bwahahahaha.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: On a completely
ludicrous and totally unscientific note... (OT) -- OnM, 09:57:25
06/27/01 Wed
This reminds me of trying to explain to this fellow I worked for
years ago why the 'full moon' relationship to people's actions
was totally bogus in terms of it being an actual scientific effect.
(He thought it was related to gravity or somesuch, like the tides).
Pointing out that if gravity did have some effect, it would be
a daily phenomena, not monthly, and that the relative illumination
of the moon has nothing to do with the change in the moon's distance
from us, but angle of reflection from the sun etc., didn't seem
to phase him!
It was always so baffling to me how someone who was a technician
by trade seemed so little in touch with any actual real-world
science outside of his particular field. I won't even get into
the time I tried to explain the difference between weight and
mass in zero-G. Oi!
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Darkness and Light (oops, longer than
I thought it would be) -- Rahael, 16:26:10 06/27/01 Wed
There is a whole section of very influential anthropology devoted
to this (Levi-Strauss - The Raw and the Cooked) which talks about
how so many cultures around the world dichotomise the world around
them. So our repugnance for dirt/death/decay/darkness is opposed
to an attraction to other values - cleanliness/life/growth, even
if it ignores the realities of life.
But this is very different from saying that suffering ennobles,
which I strongly disagree with. Suffering, especially traumatic
events does not make you a nicer or more noble human being, though
exceptional people can overcome the past with difficulty and with
pain. Many end up damaged, embittered and angry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: After rewatching "Buffy vs. Dracula"... --
rowan, 17:24:30 06/25/01 Mon
"As for Dracula, I think he was messing with Buffy's mind."
AK-UK, I couldn't agree more. In Dedalus's great post below about
the source of Buffy's power, we discussed this a little. I think
we have to be very critical (in the analytical sense, not the
pejorative sense) of Drac's words. When dealing with Drac and
Angelus (and to some extent, Spike), I'm always reminded of Satan's
traditional role as the Father of Lies. I believe that characters
such as Drac and Angelus may offer truth wrapped in lies. It seduces
other characters (remember, Drac is trying to lure Buffy) and
we need to carefully distinguish what is what before we rely on
it as fact (or even theory).
Drac's truth could be that the power of the Slayers and the power
of the vampires does have the same source. Ultimately, perhaps
all power in the Buffyverse has the same source, in some unified
godhead. But it's possible the "lie" is that it's dark.
I loved Wisewoman and Slayrunt's comments on how we sometimes
have a tendency to take dichotomies and associate them with value
judgements (dark is evil, light is good). It's a very good point,
for example, that death isn't bad or evil, unless you make it
so -- for some, it's the gateway into a new life, or higher life,
etc. Someone commented below (Wisewoman? OnM? Sol?) that these
qualities are neutral in and of themselves (like power is neutral
or magick is neutral) but it is the use to which they are put
that leads us to define them as good or evil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Truth wrapped in lies/Lies wrapped in truth --
Aquitaine, 18:32:39 06/25/01 Mon
*** I believe that characters such as Drac and Angelus may offer
truth wrapped in lies. It seduces other characters (remember,
Drac is trying to lure Buffy) and we need to carefully distinguish
what is what before we rely on it as fact (or even theory).***
Exactly! This is why I take what happened to Angel in 'Reprise'
with a grain of salt. Sure, Holland took Angel on the elevator
to the dark side but, as of yet, I am not at all convinced that
the Home Office = Hell = the Real World. Yes, this equation *may*
end up being true but basically these parallels were set up to
'screw' with Angel's mind and drive him over the edge. Wherever
you turn, there is always a veil of fear, ulterior motive, jealousy
etc. to lift away.
- Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Truth wrapped in lies/Lies wrapped in truth
-- verdantheart, 13:46:55 06/26/01 Tue
That's what I thought! Especially since they took care to mention
that they hurried to disenchant the key at Wolfram & Hart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Oops! I meant "ring" not "key"
-- verdantheart, 13:48:16 06/26/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: After rewatching "Buffy vs. Dracula"... --
Cynthia, 18:37:15 06/25/01 Mon
Could someone please explain to me why Angel and Spike look like
normal people, vamp face aside, while Dracula looks like a bad
Halloween makeup job LOL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> LOL -- rowan, 19:02:42 06/25/01 Mon
Obviously a victim of bad plastic surgery as a result of trying
to take a few years off his age. :o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Showy gypsy makeup????????? -- Rufus, 19:26:53 06/25/01
Mon
And they never even thought to blend past the chin, really did
look like a mask.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Showy gypsy makeup????????? -- Brian, 03:57:00
06/28/01 Thu
How about those pesky monks just believing too much of what they
read (or maybe see, but monks at the cinema? I don't think so.
Of course, could be rental!)
1st
Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- rowan, 11:59:29
06/25/01 Mon
Last week we had our little post about our favorite speech from
the first five seasons of BtVS. Thanks to all who contributed.
It was fun going down memory lane. We had so many different choices
mentioned, I won't bother to name them all, but I guess we proved
that BtVS & AtS are definitely shows for fans of the craft of
writing.
This week, let's try for the eye candy. Please tell us your favorite
(non-verbal) visual moment on BtVS over the last five years. This
moment could be significant because of what it revealed about
the Buffyverse, because of its emotional impact, because of its
sheer artistry, because of the acting virtuosity, or it could
just be a haunting image you can't get out of your mind. Basically,
it's that moment that's just so right, you can still see it with
your eyes closed.
Note: If you want to nominate Spike's bedhead, be warned that
you may face the wrath of your fellow posters. ;)
I'll start the festivities with my nominee. I'm going with the
look Spike and Dawn exchanged before Doc threw Spike over the
tower. When it comes to non-verbal communication, MT and JM get
to me every time. I finally knew what the saying "a picture
is worth a thousand words" meant when I saw The Gift. I saw
so much pain, longing, guilt, fear, and love in that short exchange
(as Spike realized his defeat, and Dawn tried vainly to break
her bonds to stop Doc) that I literally cannot watch it today
without feeling that same tightness in my chest that I felt upon
first viewing. This was the moment when I felt I could say, among
other things, that I saw into Spike's heart -- and there was something
there besides evil and Buffy.
Please share your favorites!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
Brian, 12:35:33 06/25/01 Mon
For me, it's the scene in Innocence between Angel, now Angelus
and Buffy in his bedroom the next day after they have slept together,
when he just rips her apart with his words. She gave him her heart
and he crushed it with a smirk.The look of bewilderment, shock,
horror, and shame on her face still haunt me to this day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy
-- rowan, 16:54:47 06/25/01 Mon
Talk about the first sexual experience from hell. ;) And do we
wonder why Buffy can't get another relationship to work right?
This was enough to put your off the opposite sex for life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
Lurker Becoming Restless, 12:51:59 06/25/01 Mon
Okay, I'm gonna get in early on this one.
There are just so many moments to choose from - I'll stick with
just a couple from the end of 'The Gift'.
My favourite picture moment comes when they are all standing around
Buffy's body with JM slowly collapsing in the background - you
could just frame it!
My favourite acting moment comes when SMG turns away from MT and
looks at the portal. At that moment, for the first time in five
years, you can't tell exactly what she is thinking. After taking
the viewers with her wherever she goes on every occassion (see
her face as she hugs Angel at the end of Becoming for one of the
best examples of this - oh, God, that's another one!) she finally
gets to depict transcendant thought; a revelation which it is
impossible to communicate via expressions alone. Later episodes
may explain what she was thinking leading up to that moment, but
they will never explain the moment itself.
I'm sure these aren't the most original of choices, but I think
they are worth mentioning all the same!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Testing, uno dos tres -- Masquerade, 13:00:11 06/25/01 Mon
I want to see if this moment-that-needed-no-dialogue will show
up on screen...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Other moments that needed no dialogue... -- Masquerade,
13:28:45 06/25/01 Mon
Other moments that needed no dialogue...
(Just needed a little heart-wrenching music...)
(another special effects eye-popper)
(Buffy and Riley discover each other's extracurricular activities)
(brrrrr... 'nuf said)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> It showed up fine, but I can't remember what that
moment was...? -- Wisewoman, 14:34:04 06/25/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Xander, the king of luv... -- Masquerade, 14:43:59
06/25/01 Mon
Xander in "BBB" when he returned to school after his
love spell kicked in. He'd meant to just get Cordy, but got every
woman except Cordy. Once he realized what had happened, stepping
foot into the school was a really BIG step.
And of course they had the coolest musical accompaniment--"Got
the love" by a '70's funk band who's name is escaping my
aged brain at the moment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Xander, the king of luv... -- Slayrunt,
14:47:29 06/25/01 Mon
The Average White Band I think
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Don't mess with these guys... -- Masquerade, 10:38:44
06/26/01 Tue
Don't mess with these guys...
O.K., I know I'm not picking things that are strictly pleasant
on the eyes, just the images that were riveting or memorable (or
hysterical!) for me without dialogue being essential...
Don't mess with these guys...
(Who needed dialogue when a hanky would do?? Doyle saves the Lister
demons. Icky to look at, but you still look at it again and again...)
(O.K., one fan I know had a crush on these guys. No accounting
for taste. Way spooky, though! The Gentleman invade Sunnydale...)
(OK, mess with these clowns. They lawyer-ettes of Wolfram and
Hart are funny when they're frustrated)
(Didn't you ask "who is that??" before Darla even opened
her mouth??)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Don't mess with these babes... -- Masquerade, 10:48:03
06/26/01 Tue
Don't mess with these babes...
(Determined Jenny. *sob*)
(Still about the coolest moment on the show: Buffy slays the Judge)
("Anne"'s name-sake gives the hell-demons the evil eye
while she weilds her hunga-munga ["Anne"])
(Everyone needs an evil twin! "The Wish")
(Cordy the vampire slayer! "In the Dark")
(A nice shot of the First Slayer "Restless")
(Tara being the witch of everybody's dreams, "Out of My Mind")
(What mad genuis thought of putting these two babes together to
wreak Evil? "Reunion")
(Go Will! Will we see more of her human "dark side"?
"Tough Love")
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Erotic moments to remember -- Masquerade, 10:52:41
06/26/01 Tue
Erotic moments to remember
(Say what you want about Spike + Anyoneelse, aren't Spike and
Drusilla gorgeous together?? "School Hard")
(OK, wish I had a better pick of the slayer-dance in the bronze
"Bad Girls", I don't)
(My personal choice for numero uno "Graduation, pt 2")
(subtle. "Hush")
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> And a couple from the Deathwok dimension -- Masquerade,
10:55:54 06/26/01 Tue
And a couple from the Deathwok dimension
(I just think this one is kinda pretty "Over the Rainbow")
(Anyone got a better shot of dancin' Numfar?? I need one for my
website. "Through the Looking Glass")
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Masquerade - you're a Genius! I wish I could
do this sort of stuff! -- Marie, 07:39:43 06/27/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> perform the dance of shame! -- spotjon, 14:16:06
06/27/01 Wed
Try this one: http://www.theslayershow.com/angel/a2_screenshots/looking_glass/images/looking_glass13.JPG.
There are many more pics from that episode here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> oops, wrong link -- spotjon, 14:18:44
06/27/01 Wed
Try this one: looking_glass13.JPG.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Okay, I'm shallow, stake me now! -- Wisewoman, 13:17:35
06/25/01 Mon
I don't know if my favourite moment ever even showed up on-screen!
I have a vid cap (I think, might have been an outtake) in my screensaver
from Spike's dream, where he is shirtless, facing Buffy, and flinching
back a little from her attempt to run her fingers down his abdomen,
even as he's reaching out for her.
I realize that this has absolutely no relevance to anything even
remotely philosophical in the show but hey, that's my moment,
hands down.
BTW, did rowan say somewhere down there that she actually *has*
pictures of naked Spike? Be still my heart!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Okay, I'm shallow, stake me now! -- rowan, 16:56:39
06/25/01 Mon
You know I'm not going to complain! I remember when I first saw
that ep -- I had no idea what was going on, or that it was a dream.
I thought I was delusional until it showed Spike sitting up in
bed, waking up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
Kimberly, 13:19:00 06/25/01 Mon
My favorite is in Hush, in the scene with Buffy and Riley fighting
the Gentlemen. They still don't know the other is fighting demons
too; they're each fighting the Gentlemen solo and they turn, Buffy
with her crossbow and Riley with his gun. That scene, the two
of them facing off that way, is just great.
Sorry if this is a little disjointed; I wanted to get this in
before we take my son to the doctor's (just a checkup).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
Little One, 13:23:32 06/25/01 Mon
My favourite eye candy is at the end of The Crush when Spike is
following Buffy home, arguing with her. She walks into her house
and Spike, thinking to continue the argument inside, attempts
to follow her. As she enters her house, Spike right behind her,
he says "And there's nothing either one of us can do about
it. Like it or not, I'm in your life. You can't just shut me out."
But she has shut him out. And he realizes this as he suddenly
comes against the invisible barrier at the threshold. He looks
at Buffy. Look is such a simple word to describe the range of
expression on his face. We see anger, uncertainty, denial, hurt,
rejection and acceptance all flicker across JM's visage. No words
are exchanged. No words are necessary because it's all been said.
We see in that instance the depth of his emotions for her. As
well, in Buffy's gaze we see in a small degree her rage become
sorrow that it came to that extreme as she shuts the door on him.
To me, that is the poignant moment where Spike loses hope. In
the next episode he contracts Warren to make the Buffybot, revealing
that though he has lost hope of winning her love, he will settle
for having the next best thing: a clone who was created for the
purpose of loving him, who won't, nay can't, hurt or reject him.
But it was at this moment when he is shut out of her house, her
life, her sacred place that is her home that he loses hope.
And, to me, that is the moment that captured the essence of his
tragic unrequired love and reduces me to a quivering huddled mass
each time I see it. So be warned, that when this episode is repeated,
you might want to invest in shares in Kleenex!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy
-- Regina, 14:37:21 06/25/01 Mon
Think you meant to say "tragic unrequited love," although
some viewers still may not buy into Spike really loving Buffy.
I'm not one of those, by the way.
I also loved the reaction Spike gave when he passed over the threshold
after Buffy reinvited him into her home.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy
-- Liquidram, 19:07:36 06/25/01 Mon
This was mine also.... I saw shock, a flicker of a smile like
he couldn't believe it, when a question. I never saw anger. In
her face, I saw "just watch me". Door shut, fade to
black.
Actually, the whole episode of Crush with him. The whole "bad"
mask with Dru, the anguish with the dead girl at the Bronze before
the bloodlust took over, the anticipation when Buffy starts speaking
gently and then crushes him with the "unconscience"
comment, and finally his hissy fit at her and Dru. All in all,
a great JM episode.
My 2nd moment is a completely devestated Willow asking Oz "don't
you love me?".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Yah, what she said ;) -- LadyStarlight, 20:23:55
06/25/01 Mon
I also liked the look Spike & Buffy exchanged during Harmony's
little speech.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Harmony gets me every time... -- Solitude1056,
21:45:20 06/26/01 Tue
Since we're speaking of Crush... then ya gotta give Dru major
points for that hilarious deadpan response while Harmony was talking.
"Booboo?" Dru mouths silently to Spike. She barely raises
an eyebrow.
Man, that cracked me up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
vampire hunter D, 14:13:38 06/25/01 Mon
For me, one of the best visuals was from 'Blood ties', when we
see Dawn had just cut herself. there's just somthing about that
look (a sort of combination of anger and hurt). Actually, any
scene with MT from this episode works, (especially the ones with
JM) because it's the first time she was given a chance to display
some real talent.
While I'm thinking of MT, the look on her face after Buffy threw
Dawn against the wall (in 'No place like home') also comes to
mind, mostly because of the way it takles on a whole new mening
once you see the rest of the episode and realize just how much
Dawn knew.
And finally, I think any scene from 'The Body' should be on any
list of favorite Buffy scenes, because that episode was shot so
well, and the characters showed so much feeling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
Sophie, 14:22:26 06/25/01 Mon
One of my favourite set pieces this year was Spike and Dru in
the Bronze in 'Crush'. I loved their chemistry, the way they moved
towards their prey and when Spike held the girl in his arms -
what drama, what an actor! A seasons worth of conflict in 5 seconds.
Sophie.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy
-- rowan, 17:02:43 06/25/01 Mon
I was at the Bloody Awful Poet Society website this weekend. I
saw a great comment about chemistry. It basically said that if
JM's new love interest was a Cement Block, suddenly a whole group
of S/C-B shippers would arise and we'd all be commenting on how
great C-B was in certain scenes and the expression C-B showed,
etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS
Eye Candy -- verdantheart, 06:44:30 06/26/01 Tue
Didn't you think the mannequin did a great job this season? I
think JM and the mannequin had great chemistry together! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite
BtVS Eye Candy -- rowan, 09:34:47 06/26/01 Tue
ROFLMAO!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Wait, can I vote again? -- Wisewoman, 14:26:25 06/25/01
Mon
Having already admitted to all and sundry that I've sacrificed
my personal moral compass for a pair of cheekbones, I've just
realized that I have another favorite speechless moment--that
moment in The Gift when Willow reaches back, without looking,
for Tara's hand to toss aside the minions guarding the tower.
That said it all for me, about the power of their relationship
and the fact that Tara was truly back among the (somewhat) sane.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Compassless in PA -- rowan, 19:12:50 06/25/01 Mon
"Having already admitted to all and sundry that I've sacrificed
my personal moral compass for a pair of cheekbones..."
It's a disease, not a moral failing.
"...that moment in The Gift when Willow reaches back, without
looking, for Tara's hand to toss aside the minions guarding the
tower. That said it all for me, about the power of their relationship
and the fact that Tara was truly back among the (somewhat) sane."
Yes, sanity in the Buffyverse is relative. I too, loved this scene
and what it said about their relationship. Total faith that the
hand would be there to be held, total unspoken communication,
and shared power.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
Andy, 14:37:20 06/25/01 Mon
One moment that always stands out in my mind is the end of Becoming,
part 2. The whole sequence is classic, of course, but there's
one little bit that always strikes me and that's just after Buffy
stabs Angel with the sword and the portal starts to suck him through.
Buffy starts out with a blank expression on her face, but then
her eyes widen for short moment as if in a grim wonderment at
what's happening. Then the portal shuts behind Angel and Buffy's
expression finally cracks (which is also brilliant :)), but it's
that one split second with her eyes widening that stands out for
some reason :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
Slayrunt, 14:37:49 06/25/01 Mon
Just mute the tv and watch "The Body" wonderful acting
all around.
And now for something completely different. VampWillow licking
fill in the blank. Sorry, I told you I have a little Willow problem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Sight Gags -- mundusmundi, 14:43:50 06/25/01 Mon
Lots of great choices already mentioned, most of them dramatic
moments, so I think I'll name a few classic sight gags instead:
3. Xander looking at his Tweety-Bird watch after Buffy's boyfriend
hands her a deluxe time piece in "Never Kill A Boy on the
First Date."
2. Buffy stumbling on Giles, on the day of his magic shop's grand
opening, standing alone with a giant wizard's hat atop his head.
And, my all-time favorite:
1. In "Hush," after Xander asks (with a sign) how to
kill the Gentlemen, Buffy makes a staking motion that gets hilariously
misinterpreted as, erm, something else.
Countless others will doubtless come to mind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> More Sight Gag Fun -- Caulfield, 20:54:11 06/25/01
Mon
I have to go down the sight gag path myself. Both of my choices
are Xander and Anya centric (I am absolutely in love with Emma,
and not just because we share a namesake).
First, in the Harsh Light of Day, when Xander turns to offer a
juicebox to a now naked Anya and he squeezes it, spraying half
the room.
Second, in Hush, when Anya realizes Xander cares about more then
lots of orgasms after beating up a confused Spike. She makes an
offer Xander can't refuse through use of an infamous hand jesture.
Oh so funny... -Logan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: More Sight Gag Fun -- mundusmundi, 11:39:50
06/26/01 Tue
And another one: in Becoming, when Spike and Joyce sit quietly
together in her living room. Does anyone use long drawn-out silences
to funnier effect than Joss?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sight Gags -- Brian, 14:39:19 06/27/01 Wed
One of my favorites is from the Gift when Willow says she needs
some courage, and Spike's hand with his flask appears before her.
A delightful comic moment before the real seriousness starts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Sight Gags -- Marie, 01:58:37 06/28/01 Thu
Aww, you just reminded me of 'We band of buggered'! Another good
one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The scene I will never forget -- spotjon, 15:42:54 06/25/01
Mon
Giles reaches his front door to find a rose angled in the door
knob, and hears opera music playing from inside his house. Upon
entering, he finds a bottle of wine in a bucket full of ice, and
a parchment paper with the word "Upstairs" written on
it. He begins to walk up the stairs, stepping on roses and passing
lit candles. As he approaches the top of the flight, we see from
an angle a woman lying on his bed, only her arm is visible. He
walks the final steps and rounds the corner. The color drains
from Giles' face. The music swells. We see Jenny's face, lifeless
and staring into nothing. The wine bottle and glasses drop from
Giles' hand and shatter on the floor.
I will never be able to forget that scene as long as I live.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I second that -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 04:15:12
06/26/01 Tue
And did you notice that they didn't show that in the montage at
the start of 'The Gift'? It was too intense. They included the
shot of him standing just inside the doorway instead - that's
great too, but because it reminds us of what he's just experienced
rather than because it is a moment in itself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: A sad Giles moment and a funny Giles moment
(Spoilers to "Band Candy" and "Earshot") --
Jarrod Harmier, 05:28:12 06/27/01 Wed
[I went to www.mustreadtv.com to confirm the scene information
for "Forever".]
At one point in "Forever" (the episode right after "The
Body"), Giles is alone in his apartment and searches for
a specific record. As he plays it, he sits down with a whiskey
and begins to listen. The record is the same one he and Joyce
listened to together in "Band Candy". We all know what
happened then. The scene suggests that Giles' feelings for Joyce--aside
from what happened in "Band Candy"--went beyond what
you would call "just friendly".
In "Earshot", it was said that whatever they gang least
wanted Buffy to hear would be what they would think about. It
was Joyce's thoughts that let it slip that she and Giles had had
sex under the influence of the candy in "Band Candy".
An observation that was mentioned on the Everything Philosophical
on Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode guide entry to "Earshot"
was that Giles never seemed to think about having sex with Joyce
previously. At first that may seem callous. However, based on
his general reaction to Joyce's death in "The Body"
and his need to listen to that specific record in "Forever",
it suggests that Giles was not ashamed about what happened with
Joyce.
Of course, one of the funniest Giles moments I've ever seen occurs
in "Earshot". It's when Buffy mentions what she overheard
her mother thinking and runs into a tree. A very funny way to
end an episode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
AK-UK, 15:52:49 06/25/01 Mon
Oh man! I knew that rowan was posting this topic (it's funny the
things you find out at the bottom of this board :) and yet I STILL
get here to late too claim some of my favorite moments! Grrr!
And Argh!
I love the look on JM's face when he bumps into the invisible
barrier in "Crush". He conveys so much, in such a short
space of time. Wow.
And double WOW for the look that passes between Dawn and Spike
on the platform in "The Gift". I spoke to my friends
after watching that episode, and the conversations all went something
like this:
AK-UK "So........they killed Buffy........."
Everyone else ".......yeah, but did you see that bit with
Spike and Dawn????"
AK-UK "Oh my GOD!!!!! That bit was soooo intense!!!!"
Poor Buffy; how soon we forget :)
A lot of my favorite moments happen whilst charcters talking to
each other, so even though the scene's power comes from their
non verbal skills, I don't suppose I can vote for them here. :(
So, I'll happily settle for the moment in "The Zeppo"
when Xander faces down Jack, the zombie, and death itself in the
boiler room of Sunnydale High. Jack asks him if he is really ready
to die, and Xander lets him know that he is. And then this look
settles on Xander's face.......a look of resolution, courage and
calm acceptence, a look that spoke of the untapped depths this
character, and this actor, had to offer the show. It really amazed
me, and made me appreciate Xander in a way I'd never done before...........and
haven't done since.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy
-- rowan, 16:51:07 06/25/01 Mon
"Oh man! I knew that rowan was posting this topic (it's funny
the things you find out at the bottom of this board :) and yet
I STILL get here to late too claim some of my favorite moments!
Grrr! And Argh!"
I even posted it a little earlier so that you'd have a better
shot at it with the time differences between East Coast USA and
the UK.
"AK-UK "So........they killed Buffy........." Everyone
else ".......yeah, but did you see that bit with Spike and
Dawn????" AK-UK "Oh my GOD!!!!! That bit was soooo intense!!!!"
Poor Buffy; how soon we forget :)"
So true. The same thing happened at my house. Buffy dies and can't
get top billing. Although as someone mentioned above, that look
on Buffy's face when she sees the open portal & the dawn, and
realizes what she needs to do is also very moving.
This moment between Spike and Dawn. As you say, wow. This is by
far my most memorable moment, because I have never seen two actors
convey so much in such a short scene with no dialogue (or rather,
with one whispered word, 'no.'). I was just totally floored. I
think the acting on BtVS is very fine overall. But I'm especially
impressed by the way MT and JM can convey so much through facial
expression (especially through the eyes). I notice this in scene
after scene. Then, when they're together, it's...electric. Let's
here it for more Spike and Dawn sibling bonding in S6!
"I love the look on JM's face when he bumps into the invisible
barrier in "Crush". He conveys so much, in such a short
space of time. Wow"
Also a great choice. And now we can compare it to the reinvite
("Presto! Barrier gone.") scene where Buffy and Spike
can't maintain eye contact.
"So, I'll happily settle for the moment in "The Zeppo"
when Xander faces down Jack, the zombie, and death itself in the
boiler room of Sunnydale High. Jack asks him if he is really ready
to die, and Xander lets him know that he is. And then this look
settles on Xander's face.......a look of resolution, courage and
calm acceptence, a look that spoke of the untapped depths this
character, and this actor, had to offer the show. It really amazed
me, and made me appreciate Xander in a way I'd never done before...........and
haven't done since."
Well, S6 is the year of Xander *chuckles saracastically*. Seriously,
though, every season has some great individual Xander moments,
but IMHO, it never translates to overall greater Xanderness (if
you know what I mean). Let's give the guy a storyline where he
can shine a little more -- or at least be a pointy stick or a
cudgel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS
Eye Candy -- AK-UK, 18:38:37 06/25/01 Mon
Oh, that reinvite scene is lovely. Just watching Spike battling
to keep his joy from showing, watching that cool exterior buckle.......and
oh, Buffy and Spike are standing so close to each other, but they
just can't look directly at each other for more than a second.........what
will it lead to?
"This moment between Spike and Dawn. As you say, wow........I'm
especially impressed by the way MT and JM can convey so much through
facial expressions.........(and) when they're together it's...electric."
Hmmm, I seem to remember coming on this board after I'd seen "The
Gift" and begging forgiveness for (silently) mocking the
posts of one hapless individual who had been suggesting, for quite
some time, that Spike and Dawn had a bond that seemed to go beyond
that of friends..........Anyway, I agree that that those two actors
work brilliantly together, the scenes they shared really live
long in the memory (oh, that scene in "Crush" when Spike
is telling Dawn a scary story from his past......that was another
JM/MT classic), I can't wait to see more from those two in season
6.
"Well, S6 is the year of Xander *chuckles saracastically*"
You must have read this brilliant quote from The Watchers Guide
Volume 2 (the Offical guide to seasons 3 and 4 of BtVS) They give
a summary of all the things that have happened to Xander in seasons
3 and 4 (up to and including his dream in "Restless")
and conclude the character guide with this line:
"Big changes in store for the X-man as he moves to center
stage in Season Five..."
You've got to laugh......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite
BtVS Eye Candy -- rowan, 18:56:47 06/25/01 Mon
"Hmmm, I seem to remember coming on this board after I'd
seen "The Gift" and begging forgiveness for (silently)
mocking the posts of one hapless individual who had been suggesting,
for quite some time, that Spike and Dawn had a bond that seemed
to go beyond that of friends."
Hmm..was that me you were mocking? I notice that's a habit of
yours. It certainly could have been. I often suspect that the
Spike and Dawn chemistry (again, not sexual chemistry, but emotional
chemistry) comes down to the JM/MT acting chemistry. Perhaps (like
the decision to "add" Spike back to the mix sans Dru
when JL wasn't available or the decision not to make Tara part-wood
sprite) that relationship is being modified by the writers as
they see the chemistry develop or the characters interact. I've
often wanted to ask the writers about issues like that (do they
change where they're taking a storyline based on what they see
developing on screen).
I do, however, believe that if MT were 20+ years old, quite a
S/D shipper contingent would spring up, based on the same facts
in evidence today (you know, people tend to read alot into longing
looks). However, I much like a refreshing storyline where two
characters who are not romantically involved can explore a deep
and meaningful friendship. Guess it's kind of Giles and Buffylike,
with some Xander and Buffy thrown in for good measure. It's nice
to see types of love that aren't predicated on setting sheets
on fire. Although I'm not actually oppposed to seeing that, either.
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite
BtVS Eye Candy -- AK-UK, 20:03:38 06/25/01 Mon
Yes, I did beg you for forgiveness. I never actually posted anything
about what you had said, but i did read your posts on the subject
and think "that person is a bit.....weird". You seemed
to be getting quite a bit of stick from others due to your astute
reading of the situation, so when I finally "saw the light"
I felt that the first thing I should do was say "sorry"
for not sticking up for you and "damn, you is one smart cookie!!"
for spotting it....what, ten episodes before I did? I doth my
cap to thee, rowan, and I hope that I'll be a bit quicker on the
up take next time :)
I think the writers leave gaps in the season arcs to allow themselves
to modify aspects of the plot if chemistry develops or fails to
appear, or if a smaller storyline develops/fails to develop. I
think the Buffy/Spike arc was planned ages ago, but the Spike/Dawn
scenes were increased when the writers realised how well the two
actors worked onscreen. I mean, Dawn originally had a crush on
Xander, what happened to that?
If MT was 20+, I think 90% of my friends would be S/D shippers.
Personally, the Spike/Dawn interactions remind me, slightly, of
the film "Leon" (I think it was called "The Professional"
in America and Canada). Young girl with a crush on a older guy.
Older guy is a killer. The relationship was NEVER sexual, but
they did seem to genuinely love each other.
I like the Dawn/Spike friendship as I stands. I mean, when was
the last time you saw Buffy and Willow just relaxing in each others
company? And was it ever really that interesting when they did?
I don't think it was, but I could happily spend an episode watching
Spike and Dawn hang out with each other (and if they happened
to go off on a zany adventure, that would be cool too :).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your
Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- rowan, 20:14:14 06/25/01 Mon
"If MT was 20+, I think 90% of my friends would be S/D shippers.
Personally, the Spike/Dawn interactions remind me, slightly, of
the film "Leon" (I think it was called "The Professional"
in America and Canada). Young girl with a crush on a older guy.
Older guy is a killer. The relationship was NEVER sexual, but
they did seem to genuinely love each other."
Did this have Natalie Portman as the girl and that French actor
from Mission Impossible and French Kiss as the hired killer? Good
analogy.
"I like the Dawn/Spike friendship as I stands. I mean, when
was the last time you saw Buffy and Willow just relaxing in each
others company? And was it ever really that interesting when they
did? I don't think it was, but I could happily spend an episode
watching Spike and Dawn hang out with each other (and if they
happened to go off on a zany adventure, that would be cool too
:)."
Kind of the Lucy and Ethel of the Buffyverse...just another crazy,
madcap adventure with the Gothra demon (or whatever that Hydra
creature with the eggs was called).
"You seemed to be getting quite a bit of stick from others..."
Is this a Britishism? Please translate for those in America who
no longer speak the English language (ah, GBS, what a man!)
"I mean, Dawn originally had a crush on Xander, what happened
to that?"
So true. It went the way of Spike and Willow's burgeoning attraction,
Tara's 1/2 demon roots, the Year of Xander (don't get me started
on that), and...Riley. I admire Joss & Co for recognizing what
works and what doesn't -- and acting on it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dawn's Crushes (o/t)
-- LadyStarlight, 20:36:05 06/25/01 Mon
Having been at one time a 14 year old girl, let's examine Spike
and Xander from that aspect.
Xander: around alot, older guy, cute, has a job and perhaps a
car, nice to me, and a girlfriend
Spike: OK, so he's stalking my sister, which is sort of a bad
thing but still sort of romantic (weird love is better than no
love, right?), looks out for me, dangerous, wears SERIOUSLY cool
clothes, nice to me (in a mocking, go away now way), tells really
scary stories, has wicked cheekbones AND treats me like a real
person (or grown-up)
Who would you pick?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn's Crushes
(o/t) -- rowan, 20:41:34 06/25/01 Mon
"Spike: OK, so he's stalking my sister, which is sort of
a bad thing but still sort of romantic (weird love is better than
no love, right?), looks out for me, dangerous, wears SERIOUSLY
cool clothes, nice to me (in a mocking, go away now way), tells
really scary stories, has wicked cheekbones AND treats me like
a real person (or grown-up)."
This sounds like every guy I dated for the first 10 years of my
dating career (except the evil dead thing -- I think).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: LOL
dating -- voyageofbeagle, 20:52:44 06/25/01 Mon
LOl rowan- reminds of my dads's (unintentionally)funny quote in
regards to my choice in boyfriends-
"First it was the long-haired guys,and I was starting to
get used to that. But now you bring home a shaved-head guy. This
is hard."
My brothers and I (and also my "shaved head" boyfriend)
still like to quote that line. Classic, Dad.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn's
Crushes (o/t) -- verdantheart, 06:53:33 06/26/01 Tue
Are you saying every guy you dated had "wicked cheekbones"?
I don't remember even meeting more than a couple of guys with
wicked cheekbones my whole life! Is there a paralell dimension
of the wicked cheekbones -- sort of like the dimension without
shrimp?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Dawn's Crushes (o/t) -- rowan, 09:36:59 06/26/01 Tue
You seem less concerned about the evil dead thing than the cheekbones
thing. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Well, you did say "except for the evil dead thing,"
after all! :) -- verdantheart, 12:14:31 06/26/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I've
been to the demension without shrimp. It sucks, you have to order
a beef cocktail at the bar. -- Rosenberg, 23:47:13 06/26/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary
Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- AK-UK, 21:05:51 06/25/01
Mon
Geting quite a bit of stick = coming in for a lot of criticism.
Now, if you could return the favour by telling me who Lucy and
Ethel are, I'd be very grateful :) For some reason I'm picturing
rubber gloves on a glass bottles.......very weird.
"Did this have Natalie Portman as the girl and that French
actor from Mission Impossible and French Kiss as the hired killer?"
Yep, that's the one. One of my favorite films, if only because
of Gary Oldman's wonderfully over the top performance, and this
piece of dialogue:
"Be careful, that pizza could be poisoned!" "No....there's
no anchoives on it"
"I admire Joss & Co for recognizing what works and what doesn't
-- and acting on it"
Yeah, I think the writers are eager to avoid a repeat of the the
Riley/Iniaitive debacle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary
Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- rowan, 21:34:02 06/25/01
Mon
"Geting quite a bit of stick = coming in for a lot of criticism."
Oooohhh, I love the way you Brits talk. It's so...Spikey. ;)
"Now, if you could return the favour by telling me who Lucy
and Ethel are, I'd be very grateful :)"
Well, since you asked so nicely, how could I refuse? Lucy Ricardo
and Ethel Mertz were characters on the old B&W "I Love Lucy
Show". You've probably heard of the show, it's considered
a bit of a comedy classic. The show featured Lucille Ball and
Desi Arnaz playing on screen (as in real life) a married couple
with alot of...personality differences, let's say. It was an excuse
for alot of screwball comedy, led by Lucy and Ethel (played by
Vivian Vance) getting into impossible situations. There was one
memorable episode where they were working in a candy factory on
an assembly line (don't ask me why) and the conveyor belt was
going too fast, so Lucy had to keep stuffing candy in her mouth
to keep up...and hijinks ensued.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Year of Xander ?!? --
Rahael, 16:02:51 06/27/01 Wed
The one aspect of 'Restless' which didn't seem to pan out was
the scene between Xander and Snyder - where he's told that he
would be a sacrifical lamb. Both the spoilers and this scene seemed
to promise a prominent role for Xander.
Its the only thing that hasn't become clearer after S5 has ended.
Did they scrap it? or is it still to come?
I've never seen Apocalypse Now, so maybe I didn't get all the
allusions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Year of Xander
?!? -- AK-UK, 16:35:56 06/27/01 Wed
Apparently, Xander was originally going to be Glory's mortal prison
(rather than Ben). Hence all that sacrifical stuff, and the expectation
that Xander was going to be central to season 5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy
-- JBone, 21:23:47 06/28/01 Thu
"Poor Buffy; how soon we forget :)"
I really appreciated the scene between JM and MT, but I'd rank
it between 10th and 15th on the list of scenes that I really liked
in that episode. Maybe the rest of you will come around soon enough.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
Solitude1056, 16:44:28 06/25/01 Mon
I suppose some images can be captured on a screenshot, but unfortunately
I tend to think in groups of images... or else I'd be fancy like
Masq & try to find screenshots.
So, hmmm. These would have to be the images I think of, in no
particular order.
1. Cordy silently cutting up her pictures of herself and Xander,
and burning them. Up until that point, Cordy had loudly proclaimed
her non-love for Xander (except at a few hesitant points) - it
was only then that it became clear she did have a heart under
her cold exterior, and it was broken.
2. Willow in Evil-Willow guise, waving excitedly at Oz while she
tries to convince the vamps (and Anya) that she's really Evil
Willow. It was that quick, goofy little smile and the tiny wave
that cracked me up.
3. The shot of Xander, and then of Anya, in the car on the way
to pick up Tara & Willow in The Body. Completely silent, completely
isolated.
4. Oz's smile. As an actor playing a character who emotes very
subtly, I'd have to say that most interactions with Oz fall under
the category of eye candy. (Maybe that's where JM/Spike learned
to tone down his original brashness.)
5. Cordy's expression after she's told Angel to stay lost now
that he's fired his team. That eyebrow action of hers gets me
everytime - sooooo cool. :-)
6. Wesley doing the unexpected thing - shooting one bad guy with
a cross-bow in the hand as he stoops to catch the guy's gun at
the same time.
7. Faith's expression when she turns herself over the authorities
- as seen behind Kate & the rest of the crew. All those people
bustling about, and she's the silent center of the shot.
8. Giles in The Body - putting on the record that he & Joyce listened
to in Band Candy, and sitting down with a drink. It was that little
shake of his wrist to get his watch to slide just a bit down the
wrist - an odd movement, and one that just stuck in my mind. So
much more subtle of a "settling-in" to think about something
than his usual on-again off-again with the glasses.
9. Anya's expression when she realizes she can't grant Cordy's
wish. (Hehe.)
10. As someone else mentioned, Xander in The Zeppo, in that last
long minute where he waits for Jack to decide. I wouldn't mention
it here otherwise but for the fact that's one of my favorite Xander
episodes.
11. Ok, most of Hush - but especially the shot of the Gentleman
floating past the window right as Rupert's girlfriend (what was
her name?) is looking out the window. I just about jumped out
of my skin!
(Yes, this list goes to eleven.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
Aquitaine, 18:05:56 06/25/01 Mon
Oooh. So many good 'images' already mentioned above... I think
that I will cite the visuals of the FFL alley/subway car scene.
Sure, the words in that scene were haunting but I will never forget
the image of Spike kneeling over Nikki's body after killing her
superimposed on the reverent image of him kneeling before Buffy.
*Shudder* The editing juxtaposed not only past and present, light
and dark, good and bad, but created a new depth for BtVS and turned
this formerly-casual viewer into an ME aficionado.
- Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
Cynthia, 18:33:12 06/25/01 Mon
Only been watching since Season Five so I'll pick from that.
In Fool For Love, the moment where Spike dares Buffy to continue
"dancing" there is a moment of silence that leads to
Spike starting to move in for a kiss. The sexual tension between
the two characters was intense. I feel it was this moment between
them even more than the fighting that Buffy really worries and
wonders about in regard to accidently leading Spike on in Crush.
Giles sitting in the darkness, listening to a special song, remembering
Joyce.
I've also enjoyed Dawn's ability to be terrified of Glory and
serpents yet be totally unafraid of Spike, to his total frustration.
Everybody's reaction at the end of The Gift.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
Anthony8, 18:55:17 06/25/01 Mon
Okay, here's a few that instantly come to mind. After more careful
thought, I'll probably have some more.
1. In 'Enemies,' the look on Faith's face when Angel replies that
she is the "second best [actor in the world]" and realizes
she has been played.
2. Also from 'Enemies,' Buffy and Faith, cutlery at each other's
throat, then Faith kissing Buffy on the forehead before fleeing.
3. The look on Cordelia's face (batting eyelashes and silly grin)
after she tells Angel that he can't fire her because she's "Vision
Girl" and Angel's (DB's? It almost looked like it could have
been the actor's reaction rather than the character's) attempt
to suppress a grin.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy
-- John Burwood, 00:06:39 06/26/01 Tue
To that list of moments, can I add the expression on Buffy's face
in 'Nightmares' as her father tells her the divorce was her fault.
It was that scene which turned me from a regular watcher enjoying
a good series to a total addict convinced he was watching the
best television drama he had ever seen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Just for you rowan.............eye candy .............:):):)
-- Rufus, 19:57:33 06/25/01 Mon
In the episode Superstar there was a little interaction near the
end between Buffy and Spike.
Buffy: "Shut up Spike."
Spike laughs: "Ooh ooh ooh! Semi harsh language from Betty!
You're feisty when the big guy standing in front of you. (sighs)(lightly
strokes Buffys hair and side of her face while each intently look
at each other) "Someday sweet slayer." (he slides his
hand down her throat) "See you face the evil alone for once."
I found that a hint of what was going on in his mind. Had to think
throw that guy a life ring.....he's sunk.....so much for killing
the slayer....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Just for you rowan.............eye candy .............:):):)
-- rowan, 19:59:49 06/25/01 Mon
And yet further proof of what our mothers always told us: don't
play with your food!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Just for you rowan.............eye candy
.............:):):) -- Rufus, 20:03:02 06/25/01 Mon
Is that how you do the Heimlich maneuver???????????
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Next Year's Obsession -- rowan, 20:07:50
06/25/01 Mon
I'm just announcing this now. For S6, I plan to be obsessed with
Dawn's character development. While I fully intend to remain committed
to, er, cheekbones and redemption, S5 was the Year of Spike.
S6 will be the Year of Dawn. I want to know why she stole those
earrings, how she'll deal with a Buffyless Buffyverse, if she'll
develop her witchy ways, if she'll manifest latent Slayer powers,
etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Next Year's Obsession -- AK-UK,
20:18:34 06/25/01 Mon
I agree that Dawn should be centre stage next season, but I'm
no sure I'd want her to develop her key powers yet. It might be
fun to just have her deal with being a 14(?)yr old girl in Sunnydale.
Buffy had to handle responsibilty when she was young, lets not
force Dawn to grow up too soon.
And as I typed that last sentence in, I remembered that Joss said
the theme for S6 was going to be "Oh grow up!".
Damn :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Next Year's Obsession
-- rowan, 20:20:59 06/25/01 Mon
Well, I'm thinking, please Joss give us some Key clues to puzzle
over in S6, then really go for the full deal in S7 (stretch out
the goodness for a while).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
OnM, 20:06:41 06/25/01 Mon
Like with the writing, there really isn't just one choice, there
are so many wonderful visual moments, and I agree with the ones
mentioned so far.
My pick is the same one that I wrote about before, back after
*Forever* aired. A lot of people concentrate on *The Body*, and
for good reason, but I maintain that it and *Forever* are bookends,
like *Surprise/Innocence* and the one isn't complete without the
other.
*The Body* concentrated on the physical aspect of death and the
physical immediacy of the survivors having to deal with it. *Forever*
goes on into the process of grief and the more long-lasting emotional
and spiritual aftereffects.
*Forever* had a very large number of visually stunning shots that
captured those thoughts, but none was greater in my opinion than
the one that starts by seeing Buffy sitting alone and bereft in
her room, then panning down the hallway, past the family pictures
on the wall, to Dawn's room where she sits exactly as Buffy does.
In just a few seconds, the sweep of the camera captures the horror
of that aloneness perfectly, and without a single spoken word.
That scene then segues perfectly into the scene at the cemetary.
Shortly afterward, there is the sequence (also wordless) where
Buffy stands motionless by the gravesite as darkness falls, and
Angel appears beside her and takes her hand. She doesn't even
turn around, she knows it's him.
Those are the two that stay in my mind the most from this past
year.
Runners up:
Spike sitting on the ground, choking back tears, the money Buffy
flung at him scattered all around, suffering a fate worse than
death, in FFL.
The scene shortly after on Buffy's back porch where he goes seamlessly
from rage to sympathy in a matter of a minute and redefines our
concept of what a vampire can be. This is no small feat-- our
belief in all that happens afterward hinges on us 'buying' this
seemingly impossible action. Marsters pulls it off.
The above-mentioned scene with Dawn and Spike in *The Gift*.
Favorite humorous moment: Dracula announces himself to Buffy--
she pauses-- there's this look on her face-- then "Get out!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy
-- rowan, 20:28:41 06/25/01 Mon
"Spike sitting on the ground, choking back tears, the money
Buffy flung at him scattered all around, suffering a fate worse
than death, in FFL."
Painful to watch. It's hard watching even bad guys get so totally
humiliated. Having someone tell you that you're beneath them after
they throw cash in your face for information you should have given
freely is not my idea of a fun time.
"*Forever* had a very large number of visually stunning shots
that captured those thoughts, but none was greater in my opinion
than the one that starts by seeing Buffy sitting alone and bereft
in her room, then panning down the hallway, past the family pictures
on the wall, to Dawn's room where she sits exactly as Buffy does.
In just a few seconds, the sweep of the camera captures the horror
of that aloneness perfectly, and without a single spoken word.:
A beautiful conceived and executed moment.
"Favorite humorous moment: Dracula announces himself to Buffy--
she pauses-- there's this look on her face-- then "Get out!""
Please feel confident that we'll do some 1st Anniversary postings
on funniest ep, funniest one liner, and funniest scene.
My only problem is...what will I come up with for the 2nd Anniversary
Party?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 2nd Anni - We'll have a whole 'nother season
to talk about, now won't we? -- OnM, 20:50:13 06/25/01 Mon
Maybe that year you can get Joss, Marti, Sarah, David and the
whole gang to join us online for what would probably turn into
the longest thread in ATPo history!
After all, you are the mighty rowanificus, are you not?
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: 2nd Anni - We'll have a whole 'nother
season to talk about, now won't we? -- rowan, 20:51:46 06/25/01
Mon
Maybe I AM "Joss, Marti, Sarah, David...[or] the whole gang".
Seriously, though, why can't we attract them to the high tone
and serious debate of our posting board?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Wait a minute.........we're serious????????:):):):)
-- Rufus, 23:11:07 06/25/01 Mon
Sure.....must be what attracts all the Canadians........and their
cats.......:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
Malandanza, 20:17:21 06/25/01 Mon
I liked the power shot of Darla, Angel, Spike and Dru with the
burning Chinese city as a backdrop in FFL. Also, in the same episode
-- the look that Buffy gives Spike when Spike came, shotgun in
hand, to kill her -- a sort of "go-ahead-and-kill-me look."
From Season 4's "Living Conditions," I liked the evil
glare a tied up Buffy gave Oz and Xander as they cautiously approached
her to see if they had tied her up tightly enough.
Finally, all the way to season 1 -- the ending of The Puppet Show.
The Scoobies were armed with archaic weapons with a dead demon
at their feet when the curtains came up -- leaving poor Principal
Synder puzzled.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy
-- rowan, 20:24:18 06/25/01 Mon
"I liked the power shot of Darla, Angel, Spike and Dru with
the burning Chinese city as a backdrop in FFL. Also, in the same
episode -- the look that Buffy gives Spike when Spike came, shotgun
in hand, to kill her -- a sort of "go-ahead-and-kill-me look."
Yes, that Boxer Rebellion backdrop with the Demonic Family highlighted
in front was certainly one image of hell on earth.
I always wondered if Buffy even knew why the heck Spike had a
shotgun with him. I'm glad to hear someone's opinion of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS
Eye Candy -- Sebastian, 20:38:54 06/25/01 Mon
Mine's rather generic: :)
1. I would say the moment when Buffy and Dawn first witness Ben's
transformation into Glory in "Spiral."
The shock/horror in their eyes is chilling - and even though as
a viewer I had known the "secret" for sometime - it
feels as if I'm just learning it along with them.
AND......
2. Angel feeding on Buffy in Graduation Day Pt. 2. The way the
entire scene is filmed is very cinematic. (Buffy and Angel falling
to the ground in slo-mo and Buffy crushing the urn in agony & ectsasy
still sticks out in my mind)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ah! Snyder doing post-Apocalypse Brando! There's a
moment!! -- OnM, 20:53:16 06/25/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Ahhhh Snyders moment........funny thing......gave
me a cramp......:):):):):):) -- Rufus, 23:16:25 06/25/01 Mon
I liked Snyder his dislike for kids didn't stand in the way of
him being a major pain in the ass......I did love the moment in
Band Candy when Snyder stalked around Oz admiring his full head
of hair........oh and....."Summers, you drive like a spaz.......oh
oh, and when he tried to pick up Joyce......sniff......I kinda
miss him.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
Isabel, 22:37:56 06/25/01 Mon
I was reading the posts being very happy that no one picked my
choices, when 'bam' people remembered 'Fool for Love.' sniff.
But my eye candy bits are slightly different from other people's
choices.
1) Spike kneeling in the alley in front of Buffy.- Ok, this was
picked, but, damn, my toes curl...
2) After Buffy knocks Spike down, throws the money and stalks
off. He gathers the money, starts to sob, gets control of himself,
the music changes, then he looks after her with a glare of such
rage and hatred, that it still makes the hairs on the backs of
my arms stand straight up.
3) In Family, Spike sitting in his crypt with the mannequin's
head in his lap. He's just gently caressing the face, completely
alone with his fantasy and trying so hard to ignore Harmony's
prattling behind him.
And a non-Spike moment for me.
4) I have to agree with Maladanza about that scene in 'Living
Conditions.' But my favorite bit is the 'Uh oh' look exchanged
between Oz and Xander when they realize that they've got to go
check Buffy, who's glaring at them evilly. Xander looked terrified
and Oz actually looked concerned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> And from Beer Bad............ -- Rufus, 23:27:30 06/25/01
Mon
I loved the exchange between Jack the owner of the bar and Xander..
Jack: "You know I've been taking abuse from snot nosed kids
for twenty year. They're always coming in here with their snotty
attitude, drinking their fruity little micro brews and spouting
out some philosophy....like it means a damn thing. Thinking they're
different than us."
Xander: "They are now."
Jack: "They ain't. That's the great thing about beer. It
makes all men the same."
I find after working a few weekends or so stolling the bars, Jack
is quite right....beer levels all men..they didn't take much kindly
to us taking it away from them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> A scene with impact! -- Emcee003, 23:47:23 06/25/01 Mon
My best socalled eye candy is, The arrival of Spike as he just
flattens the "Welcome to Sunnydale." :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The most chilling 'goosebump' moment... -- Marie, 04:04:56
06/26/01 Tue
...for me, over the whole 5 seasons, was the scene in 'Passion'
when Giles 'phones Buffy's house to tell her and Willow about
Angel killing Jenny Calendar. As the girls both start sobbing,
the camera cuts to Angel, outside, watching, smiling...
One of the saddest - who can forget Willow walking into Oz's empty
room?
One of the funniest - it makes me smile even as I type - Xander's
face as he gasps 'Syphilis?!'.
The Gentlemen as they float on by, of course, and ALL Spike moments...mmmmmm!
(Rowan, I promise you can have him when I've finished with him!).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The most chilling 'goosebump' moment... -- Millan,
04:37:15 06/26/01 Tue
"(Rowan, I promise you can have him when I've finished with
him!)."
*shock* You think you would ever be finished with him!?
*mumbles* ...that would not be bloody likely in my case...
/M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The most chilling 'goosebump' moment... -- rowan,
05:05:25 06/26/01 Tue
We'll need to work up a schedule to share...I don't want him getting
tired.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The most chilling 'goosebump' moment...
-- LadyStarlight, 06:45:47 06/26/01 Tue
Can I please have Sunday nights then? I promise it's just for
conversation ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The most chilling 'goosebump' moment...
-- Isabel, 18:11:17 06/26/01 Tue
Perhaps it's a good thing he's immortal. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> SHARE!! But didn't you realise? I meant you
could have what's left of him - his husk! -- Marie, 03:18:09 06/27/01
Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> OK, OK! I won't be mean - maybe we could
work something out for a few days in the month! -- Marie, 03:20:36
06/27/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> That's really cold, Marie. :) -- rowan,
05:31:49 06/27/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
Millan, 04:31:51 06/26/01 Tue
Hi! I've never posted here before, but can't leave this one without
my contribution.
I have not seen the second half of season 5 - that is, after Triangle
- so that limits my choice. Since this season has struck me quite
hard, I won't even try to think about scenes in season 1-4. Thus
my favourite Eye Candy goes to:
"Fool for love", the last scene.
Spike is closing in on Buffy, shotgun ready. Rage in his eyes.
Waiting for her to look at him: This is personal and he has to
have that contact. Buffy looks up, tears and pain in eyes. The
next shot of Spike is amazing. His anger so very slowly dissipates
while he's registering her pain. I don't know how he does it even
though I've watched it some twenty times, but you can see his
eyes changing expression from rage via hesitation to care. 'What's
wrong?' He wonders. The next transformation is where I think he
meets his turning-point. Before this, in the right situation,
he might have killed her. After this, I don't believe he will
ever be able to. The care becomes an expression of love and deep
concern. 'Is there something I can do?' His eyes are a window,
if not to his soul, at least to his heart.
I'll never tire of watching that scene.
Sorry if this is a bit jumbled, English not being my native tounge.
/Millan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Not at all, well put! -- verdantheart, 07:17:56 06/26/01
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> What about this powerful Willow and Tara moment? -- sollig,
07:51:21 06/26/01 Tue
Since I've waited so long to post, some of my favorites have been
mentioned, but one that hasn't:
The totally non-gratuitous, loving kiss between Tara and Willow
in The Body that says so much about the depth of their feelings
for each other. It was all the more tender because it was shared
through tears and grief, a desperate emotional attempt to ease
the pain and confusion they felt and a confirmation that they
were precious to each other. Very touching!
So many other scenes from The Body are fabulous, but some others
that really stand out are:
The scene where we are in the classroom looking out as Buffy tells
Dawn their mother is dead. Having lost a parent suddenly myself
when I was about Dawn's age, I was just sobbing as this scene
unfolded!
When Xander and Anya join Willow and Tara and are talking about
what they are supposed to do for Buffy, and Anya sits on the chair,
pulling the blue shirt that Willow has been frantically searching
for out from under her. This happens in the background and she
tosses it aside without comment. I just thought it was visually
interesting: sort of funny and sort of sad, for some reason. (Help
me out here; I can't seem to express why this is so.)
Other scenes I love:
In FFL, final scene, specifically when Spike so very badly wants
to comfort Buffy. He's not sure what he can do or what she'll
allow him to do, so he just sits next to her. He seems to feel
helpless and unsure of his place and even his true feelings.
The sexual tension as Spike goes in for the kiss, and Buffy totally
rejects him, then the whole struggle to maintain his composure
after Buffy throws the money at him.
I've only been watching since Season 4, so my choices are limited,
but I thought these were pretty darn good!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
Humanitas, 09:12:39 06/26/01 Tue
Wow, there are so many, and reading the posts alreay up has reminded
me of so many more... Hush... The Body... The Gift...
I haven't seen many of the earlier seasons (can't wait for the
re-runs on FX), so my impression may change over time, but the
one scene that sticks in my mind, and just haunts me, is from
the end of "Amends:" Buffy and Angel on the roof, as
it starts to snow. I don't know why this sticks with me so clearly.
Perhaps it was because this was the first episode I saw in it's
entirety, or maybe it was just a beautiful shot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy
-- dream of the consortium, 09:46:24 06/26/01 Tue
It can be easy to dismiss the early shows because the writing
has developed so much since then, but even first season Buffy
was far superior to most television. So I'm going to pick an image
from the very beginning - in Harvest, the vampire gang, led by
Darla, heading for the entrance of the Bronze, where they intend
to lock in the teenagers and feed. They approach in slow motion,
full vamp-face, Darla in her schoolgirl outfit, skipping and grinning.
The image is terrifying, to me anyway, because, other than the
vamp faces, they could be any group of bullies, taking pleasure
in their malice. The slow motion actually works for once because
the camera is placed in the path of the oncoming vamps, so the
viewer is being approached, and the slowmotion replicates the
fear of having been singled out. (Oh, God - what do they want
with ME?) The High School/Hell equation is spelled out so clearly
and effectively. The visual supports both the plot needs and the
theme - a rare level for television direction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS
Eye Candy -- Nina, 10:03:30 06/26/01 Tue
Well I am late, aren't I? Most of my very top favorite moments
are already taken, but some of them are still free, so I'll jump
on them!
A Buffy moment: The Gift - when she jumps in the the portal. The
look on her face is wonderful, but that jump gets me everytime.
It's a leep of faith. No barrier, no restraint. Same position
as in Prophecy girl when she falls in the pool, yet this time
she flies. Just a wonderful image!
A Giles moment: In "Passion" when he goes to the factory
and fights Angel with a stick on fire. He's my hero each time
I watch him. I always hope Angel won't catch the stick and that
he'll kill him. Chilling.
A Xander moment: In B2, the scene with Willow in the hospital.
The whole speech in beautiful, but all the silences showed me
a Xander I didn't know. He's deep and vulnerable. Love how his
eyes are full of restrained tears.
A Willow moment: In Innocence when she sees Xander and Cordelia
kissing. The look of surprise/betrayal/hurt in her eyes.
A Dawn moment: In Tough Love. The look in her eyes when she thinks
she's evil. It's heartbreaking.
A Spike moment: I think it's Aquitaine who mentioned that moment
at BAPS. I haven't seen it here, but it's one of my favorite.
In FFL when Buffy and Spike are in the Bronze talking about beer.
Buffy tells him they are not there to talk about hops and the
look on Spike face at that moment is just so full of hurt. It's
not a moment that is often refered to, but really it's when Spike
showed how much he was hurt for the first time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite
BtVS Eye Candy -- fresne, 10:42:33 06/26/01 Tue
Late but, fashionable so...in addition to what everyone else has
said, and a few repetitions.
The Pack - Xander after he has been Heyenafied, walks across the
school yard with his pack members. It was such a Jim Morrison
moment. They are so very controlled, graceful, dangerous. You
can see the change in his eyes. This Xander will kill you as soon
as look at you. Also, as (I think) the first instance of one of
the core group being a threat, there is an emotional immediacy.
I the viewer think, "But its just Xander." and then,
"No, its not."
Prophesy Girl - Buffy walks down the sewer to face the Master.
She is wearing a simple, elegant white dress, but in the light
of the tunnel, it appears to glow yellow. Her hair is up in a
very elegant style, but it also serves to reinforce the fragile
lines of her neck. Her eyes are downcast, almost shyly. A young
girl going to her first dance. A young bride going to meet a groom
she has never met. But she is carrying a crossbow. She is a young
slayer going to meet her destined fate. SMG conveys such trepidation,
resolve, innocence. She looks so very young. The knowledge that
she is going to die is in every line of body, in every flow of
her dress and in those tiny little shoes, but on she goes.
When She Was Bad - Buffy pounding the Holly Bejesus out of the
Master's bones with a sledge hammer. It's a visual they build
towards nicely all episode. All of her anger, rage, and helplessness
at her fate are in this scene. She does not want to be the Slayer.
She does not want this. And here are these bones, that could have
been, maybe should have been, hers.
Halloween - Buffy putting on a late 1700's dress sans corset.
Okay, so may that's just a costuming thing.
School Hard - Spike drives into town and takes out the SunnyD
sign. Steps out of the car and has a smoke. They establish Spike's
entire persona in about a minute.
Anne - Buffy stands there in the Demon Dimension holding a Hunga
Munga Throwing Knife from W. Africa. Because it's a Hunga Munga
knife and it's wicked cool looking. Because I get a real sense
that Buffy is healing from Season II's events and coming back
into her own. Because it is a 34 side shot, SMG is looking out
of the corner of her eyes for unseen dangers. There is something
spine straight resolute in the pose and yet...and this is hard
to explain... She has that relaxed loose look that you get when
you are ready to fight. It's this moment, when you totally bypass
your brain and you just act.
Lovers Walk - Spike once again plowing over the SunnyD sign, but
this time falling of the car. Its an excellent revisit to the
earlier scene and does a great job of establishing where Spike
is now.
Something Blue - Spike proposing. Its just one of the funniest
things ever.
New Moon Rising - At the very end of the episode, when Willow
blows out the candle that Tara is holding. Cut to black. The soft
light in the scene suits the soft reaching nature of the characters.
The hope, fear of rejection on Tara's face. The look of love on
Willow's. The softness of the gesture. The luminescence of the
votary style candle. It's such a gentle scene.
Fool for Love1 - Spike kneeling in front of Buffy in the ally
behind the Bronze. They are somewhat backlit. His coat is pooled
around him, almost like a medieval robe. His back is very straight,
which works really well with the flow of the coat. It's such a
supplicants position. His throat is exposed. He is very vulnerable.
And yet, in body language he is the master of this situation.
Visually lower, and yet instructing. Buffy. He is so very open,
while there is something very tight in Buffy's stance. Of course,
juxtaposing this image with the action in the subway, is just
utterly brilliant.
FF2 - Spike sitting in the alley just after Buffy has thrown the
money at him. He goes through so many emotions. The little sob.
The completely exposed looseness to his body. And then the change
in his face as he comes to look very, very angry. The way the
shadows play on the absolute angularity of his face are very...well
frightening.
FF3 - Spike as at the end of the episode as he is about to shoot
Buffy. He walks up. He is so filled with anger and resolution.
He just doesn't care about the potential pain. Then he sees her,
so small and sad on the step. His jaw clenches once and you literally
see the anger just flow out of him. And then he does that head
side tilt thing and everything in his posture and facial expression
tell you that he wants to comfort her, but doesn't know how. It
is at that point that I see Spike accepting that he loves Buffy
and why no matter what occurs in subsequent episodes I just couldn't
believe that he could hurt her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
verdantheart, 13:22:39 06/26/01 Tue
I asked myself what I thought were simply stunning visuals and
came up with:
1) Loved that dragon that flew out of the portal in "The
Gift." Also the tower.
2) Angel dropping the cigarette into the gasoline to burn Dru
and Darla. ("Redefinition")
3) The "power shot" in "Darla" wherein we
see Angelus and "family" striding through the chaos
of the Boxer Rebellion.
4) A general comment: make-up design for the Host. That's probably
the best horned demon make-up I've seen.
Of course, there are numerous Spike moments, pretty much covered
in previous posts (we *do* seem to have quite the appreciation
society going here ...). I'd add the following:
1) Spike and Dawn sitting cross-legged as Spike weaves a scary
story in "Crush." There's a nice intensity to the scene,
and I can envision it as an illustration.
2) Someone mentioned the proposal scene in "Something Blue."
Let me add to that the moment when they announce their intentions
to Giles (I believe this is the moment I'm thinking of). Buffy's
and Spike's heads are together and they both have huge smiles
on their faces. It reminds us that these two can summon gorgeous
multi-megawatt smiles. Those two don't seem to have much occasion
to smile -- certainly not this last year!
3) Oh, yes! And Spike's fight fantasy in "Family." Erotic/humorous
elements aside, I thought that was a nifty fight sequence to watch.
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Regarding Something Blue -- Rufus, 14:28:49 06/26/01
Tue
Same ep. when Xander comes into the room and notices that Buffy
and Spike are holding hands....he asks what's up and they go into
this manic clench and announce they are getting married.....and
Xander askes if he can be blind too....laughed lots.......
In Intervention Xander and Anya approach the Buffybot and it askes
how Anyas money is...Anyas smile and joy about her money was wonderful....then
when Spike shows up and the Buffybot goes it's Spike and he's
wearing a coat....to the later straddling scene...can never think
of the big bad in the same way again....poor Xanders eyes....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Regarding Something Blue -- rowan, 17:17:04
06/26/01 Tue
"to the later straddling scene...can never think of the big
bad in the same way again."
That scene shocked me in more ways than one. Yes, the phrase Big
Bad now takes on more meaning...and becomes indelibly associated
with that image. Sometimes I wonder if the writers take a look
at the fanfic sites to come up with some of these things.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Oh yeah............I think they do......:):):):)
-- Rufus, 18:53:37 06/26/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
Eva, 23:02:48 06/26/01 Tue
I would like to nominate two very visual scenes that I found very
effective. But dealing with Dawn.
The first was when Dawn finally changed into her "sacrifice
dress". She slowly placed her "street/kid clothes"
on a chair very neatly. Almost ritualistically. It was so errie.
Like she was preparing to die. Putting everything in place so
carefully. What really stood out was her tennis shoes, as they
so represent for me the "kid" in her. It like she was
trying to build some momument to her childhood. Her life.
The second was at the end, when she was standing there bleeding,
the blood draining down to her bare feet. I really don't know
what Joss was trying to envoke with that image. Why bare feet?
What did he want us to feel?
Two scenes, very visual, yet I am not quite sure what emotions
were being envoked by them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: why bare feet? -- Nina, 17:56:20 06/27/01 Wed
Eva, I believe it's to continue the Christ metaphore. We got bare
hands with blood (Spike in Spiral), Giles wound on the side and
blood on bare feet (Dawn). It's the three wounds the Christ got
during cruxifiction. My humble opinion anyway!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: why bare feet? -- Solitude1056, 20:46:09
06/27/01 Wed
And don't forget Xander's bloody knuckles during The Body ...
the whole season's been filled with images of blood, and for a
show that's revolved around bloodsuckers, that's saying a lot!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Isnt' it strange...? -- Wisewoman, 19:12:30 06/27/01
Wed
I got almost the exact opposite message from the way Dawn carefully
folded and arranged her clothing and shoes. I saw it as her belief,
which she stated continually, that Buffy would save her, and that
she would be needing her things again very soon, so she wasn't
going to just toss them aside but make sure that they were neatly
ready for her.
Your interpretation makes sense too...isn't it odd that the same
brief, speechless moment can be interpreted in two such different
ways?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Isnt' it strange...? -- Eva, 20:00:57 06/27/01
Wed
Dawn wasn't protrayed as a "neat" person, so her neatly,
slowly, and carefully folding the clothes seemed out of character.
It seemed so ritualistic. Like Dawn was subconciously trying to
make a statement. One last way to try to make at least some little
mark in this world. Maybe I will not exist anymore, but at least
this shell of me will be left to remember me by.
When I saw the clothes, especially the shoes, I had images of
kid sister, bubblegum, pony tails, childhood, all of that. It
was eerie in that the only thing that was missing is the little
girl to wear them.
Dawn was forced to leave all that behind. It will be interesting
even though she ultimately wasn't sacrificed, how much of her
childhood was sacrificed along with her sister that night.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Dawn will be 15 next season -- Susan,
20:18:08 06/27/01 Wed
I mention that just to point out that we first met Buffy when
she was 16.
Dawn is growing up.
Not a kid anymore.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> *Bitty Buffy* no more! -- Wisewoman,
12:39:55 06/28/01 Thu
Dawn certainly is growing up! And if MT grew any taller over the
summer, it'll be the *real* Buffy that we're calling Bitty Buffy
in S6, 'cause Dawn is going to tower over her Big Sister!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> that's the way I saw it, too -- spotjon, 20:06:53
06/27/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Isnt' it strange...? -- Marie, 01:48:44
06/28/01 Thu
"...isn't it odd that the same brief, speechless moment can
be interpreted in two such different ways?"
Make that three - I interpreted it as her putting off the moment.
You know, like when you were a child and didn't want to eat your
sprouts, you pushed them around your plate for as long as you
could before your mother said 'eat your vegetables'! Dawn was
being uncharacteristically tidy, very slowly - she knew that when
she was finished, she'd be led to her fate!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Isnt' it strange...? -- Andy, 06:01:11 06/28/01
Thu
That's pretty much how I saw it. I also think there was an element
of focusing for her. She's about to be lead to her death so the
only thing to keep her from panicking is to just concentrate on
folding those clothes as diligently as possible. Once it was done
and the minions started leading her away, then she started screaming
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> same here -- Solitude1056, 09:57:52 06/28/01
Thu
It made me think of suicides who clean their house before killing
themselves - putting everything "in order" as ritualistic
preparation, and of self-focusing. In this case, I think the antidote
to panic is also part of it, and the zen element of leaving a
mark behind, as neatly and carefully as possible. It's all of
that - and to think, on any other show it would've been a throwaway
few seconds of screen time... but when it's Joss, those three
seconds carry almost a show's worth of impact & import in & of
themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: same here -- rowan, 14:23:23
06/28/01 Thu
Yes, I equated it to with the ritualistic preparation of suicides.
As if Dawn was closing her accounts, since she expected to die.
The music playing was also the same as when Buffy and Dawn had
their last scene on the tower, which evoked preparation for death.
Also, Dawn was symbolically putting aside all the Dawn-stuff and
going outfitted with only her Key-stuff (which would be her bare
flesh plus the dress prepared for her).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
purplegrrl, 11:54:11 06/27/01 Wed
My favorite is Buffy's dream of her night with Angel (from "Surprise"
I believe). All naked body parts and red silk sheets. Yikes!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
JBone, 22:05:06 06/28/01 Thu
I've been out of town for a little while, and reading up on everyone's
eye candy, I can really appreciate most of them. While the list
of my favorites (and my favorites of those listed) is too long,
especially with a show with the script stage direction "off
look(s)", I'd thought I'd name something I never see on this
board. The HOTTEST Chicks scenes.
First, Buffy trying to make Angel jealous on the dance floor in
WSWB with Xander. Awesome dance. Next, Buffy in the raincoat in
BBB. Vamp Willow letting it all hang out in Doppelgängland.
Faith and Buffy on the dance floor at the Bronze in Bad Girls.
Buffy's cavegirl hair in Beer Bad. Sorry, I'm a guy, and I dug
it. Most any episode with Anya in something revealing. The hot
robot chick in IWMTLY. Last, but most certainly not least, Cordy
in the last four episodes of season 2 of Angel. From the bikini
to the throne ware.
That my friends, is Eye Candy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Might I add-- -- Rosenberg, 23:20:00 06/28/01 Thu
Willow in her "ghost costume". How could you forget
that? Mmmm . . . okay, just any seen with Willow then. And this
is my philosophical contribution to this thread?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Might I add-- -- JBone, 08:31:26 06/30/01
Sat
I don't know how I missed ghost Willow. Cordy's Catwoman outfit
wasn't bad either.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
Rattletrap, 07:24:05 06/29/01 Fri
A couple of light ones, from otherwise heavy episodes full of
great visual moments.
The Body, toward the beginning there is a flashback sequence that
shows the entire gang at Christmas dinner. Dawn makes a comment
about accidentally getting eggnog with rum in it. What catches
me every time, though, is the little face MT makes the next time
the camera cuts back to her, it is about the best interpretation
of "14-year old with a buzz" that I've ever seen. I
don't know why this scene of all the ones in this episode should
stick out in my mind, but it does.
Another great one is from Becoming I. In the flashback sequence
to Buffy's first vampire kill, the expression on SMG's face after
the vamp explodes is absolutely priceless, and says so much without
a single word.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy --
Olympia, 05:30:48 06/30/01 Sat
My favorite non-verbal visual moment - that's kinda hard. There's
so much to choose from. But I guess when all is said and done,
I have to go with the heartwrenching ones. And of those there
is one that wrenches above all others. Becoming II. Yes, I'm sure
you know the scene I mean.
Buffy and Angel are in a fight to the death - a fight that the
Slayer must win or else, well, ya know, the world being suked
into hell is never a good thing. She's finally pretty much kicked
his ass and she's going for the kill. She pulls back for the death
stroke but something stays her hand. Something seems to go through
Angel. He seems different. What? Wait...are those...tears? (Begin
very sad and tragic Buffy and Angel love theme.)
ANGEL : Buffy? What's going on? Where are we? I don't remember.
Buffy just stares at him, not sure what to think, but she starts
to lower her sword. She very slowly begins to realize what's happened.
BUFFY: Angel? ( She starts to move to him, unsure.)
ANGEL: Oh Buffy...God.
And they embrace. And this is the moment that I'm talking about.
The camera stays on her as she closes her eyes in an "Is
this real?" kinda way as she realizes that the man she loves
is back on the good side of the Force. She accepts this just in
time to hear Acatha rumble. She opens her eyes. There are tears
from the wary happiness. Then they go wide with shock as she realizes
that, just as Angel has returned to her, she must scarifice him
to save the world. Again. (I love that moment. There's so much
going on in her face - in her eyes.) She tells him that she loves
him, asks him to close his eyes, and kisses him one last time
before running him trough with a sword and sending him to Hell.
She steps back and watches as he reaches out to her and then is
suck Acatha's growing, gaping mouth. The vortex closes and she
begins to cry. (Begin Sarah MacLachlan's " Full of Grace".)
'Course, by this time I'm weeping like a wee babe and when she
sings, ' I know I can love you much better than this ' and we
see Buffy's reflection in the window of the bus as she's leaving
town...fresh sob.
I think that Joss said it best when he replace the monster going
"Urrrg, Arrrg" in front of the Mutant Emeny logo with
the same monster crossing the screen with, instead, an "I
need a hug". Very aptly put.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Urrrrg, Arrrrg -- Solitude1056, 18:46:54 06/30/01
Sat
I think that Joss said it best when he replace the monster going
"Urrrg, Arrrg" in front of the Mutant Emeny logo with
the same monster crossing the screen with, instead, an "I
need a hug". Very aptly put.
He did? When? Where? I missed this!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Urrrrg, Arrrrg -- JBone, 18:57:57 06/30/01
Sat
actually, the WB screwed up and it didn't air with the original
episode, but you can find it all over the internet. I have a clip
of it myself somewhere.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> You can see/hear it at... -- Wisewoman, 22:25:08
06/30/01 Sat
this url (need RealPlayer, I think)
http://www.slayology.fsnet.co.uk/Video.htm
Possible Season 6 (possible spoilers, but let's
hope not)(longish) -- vampire hunter D, 13:39:37 06/25/01 Mon
Hey, I was checking out the feedback page the WB still has, and
found this post:
'How does Buffy come back from dying and the whole bit from the
finale you say? Well i have gotten these tid bits from a reliable
source...Hope you guys enjoy...I am almost positive these will
happen.... *!!Spoiler & Sneak Peaks alert!!* * Angel will not
be involved in this except in terms of giving some key advice
to Willow, (hence the ending of the Angel Season finale). * Buffy
is coming back in a cliffhanger at the end of e p i s o d e 2
* Willow, with increasing powers, will work with Dawn, with Tara
involved in some way to bring Buffy back. Willow will release
the spirit of Buffy her Soul, which was ****ed into the portal.
Buffys body died not her soul, which has been trapped in another
(demon?) dimension. How Series 6 will affect Character development-
* Buffy is expected to return with increased powers involving
teleportation * Tara will get a lot darker. * Willow will have
increasing powers. She will also have to face up to the consequences
of the dark magic that she is using. * Anya will have some interesting
experiences as Anyanka returns for at least 2 e p i s o d e s,
before she reverts to Anya. Anyas role will increase. Dawn is
confirmed for Series 6. The reappearance of Hank Summers in the
1st couple of e p i s o d e s is also expected. Dawn will have
the opportunity in the 1st couple of e p i s o d e s to work through
the message Buffy left her with, the live life for me bit in the
S ea son 5 finale. The Season Premier - There is some confusion
about the air date for this. The line said that different sources
quote October and August as alternate dates, however the lines
latest info is that it would be in September. The Premier will
be two hours long, combining e p is o d es 1 & 2. Buffy is expected
to make a reappearance in a cliffhanger ending for e p i s o d
e 2. The writers for the first 6 E p i s o d e s are as follows:
* E p i s o d e 1 Marti Noxon * E p i s o d e 2 David Fury * E
p i s o d e 3 Jane Espenson * E p i s o d e 4 or 5? Douglas Petrie
(will see return of Jonathan unfortunatly) * E p i s o d e 6 Joss
Whedon in the Musical E****ode The Musical E****ode - Joss has
said that he is working on the songs for E p i s o d e 6, but
it is hard. He says it will be very contemporary and cites as
his influences Rent and Elvis Costello. Joss says he can't wait
to hear the cast actually singing them. Allegedly it will be the
cast members singing and no dubbing. Joss states that Series six
will see the Scooby gang entering the Adult world, having to focus
on jobs, housing payments and relationships. Even going to College
has still been a sheltered environment and now even though Willow
& Tara are still there, series 6 will focus on the Adult world.
Everyone will be making adult choices and some of them will be
bad. In Season 6 the gang will start to understand and experience
why adults and their parents always seemed so dumb, as they grow
into adults themselves.'
I don't know about you, but some of that sounds like the dumbest
crap I've ever heard. The part about how they're going to resurect
Buffy sounds too amatuerish to have been done by Joss (Hell, I'm
willing to bet most of you have better ideas than that). Actually,
there are two points here that I think expose this as a fraud.
First, I seem to remember Joss saying somewhere that the portal
has nothing to do with Buffy's return, and that Hank wouldn't
be making an appearence. I just hope this is a hoax, because if
not, it means that Buffy's definitely jumped the shark.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Possible Season 6 (possible spoilers, but let's hope
not)(longish) -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 13:56:23 06/25/01 Mon
Sounds to me like somebody's taken all they know about the end
of season five, added the bits and pieces we've heard about the
beginning of season six and then filled in the gaps with a ton
of guesswork. As you say, sounds way too predictable to have anything
to do with Joss.
(+ it doesn't mention Giles. At all.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Possible Season 6 (possible spoilers, but let's hope
not)(longish) -- Rufus, 14:37:19 06/25/01 Mon
Spoilers from this early aren't true. I've seen this before. Most
spoilers are crap I'd consider this just some more of the same.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Possible Season 6 (possible spoilers, but let's
hope not)(longish) -- rowan, 05:01:54 06/26/01 Tue
True. However, do keep track of spoilers, philosophers and philosophettes,
because one of our 1st Anniversary Fun postings right before the
season starts will be to review the spoilers for S6 and speculate
on what's true and what's false.
Importance
of Names -- Jarrod Harmier, 17:49:53 06/25/01 Mon
I was thinking about the importance of names. I did some searches
and this is what I found.
Alexander "Xander" Lavelle Harris: I have found several
websites that state the name Alexander means "protector"
and I even found one that said the name Alexandria (the feminine
form of Alexander) means "helper" or "defender
of mankind". I couldn't find a meaning for Lavelle. I found
a website that said that the name Harris is similar to Harrison,
which means "son of Harry".
Angel/Liam: I found that the name Angelo (close) means "heaveanly
messenger". Liam (his original name) means "unwavering
protector".
Allen Francis Doyle: Allen - "handsome, cheerful, noble".
Francis - "free". Doyle - "dark stranger".
Rupert Giles: Rupert - "bright, famous". I found a definition
for the name Giles that seemed to follow the Ripper part of his
persona, but the website was iffy.
Willow Rosenberg: I did a search to confirm something I read years
ago. The willow tree has something to do with immortality. This
is important because I think that vampire folklore forbids to
use of the wood from a willow tree as a stake because of this
property.
Spike/William the Bloody: William - "valiant protector".
Buffy Summers: Buffy - "God's promise".
Joyce Summers: Joyce - "rejoicing".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Importance of Names -- Kerri, 18:25:11 06/25/01 Mon
Where did you look b/c I looked up the meaning of Buffy not that
long ago and found that it meant bunny. So I looked up the importance
of the bunny and posted it in a thread called About Bunnies(posted
6/15). I copied it and put it here b/c it's quite appropriate
to this thread.
The name Buffy comes from the word bunny...
so I looked up the importance of the bunny and here's what I found:
from:http://www.easter-traditions.com/html/the_easter_bunny.html:
Here are the main points:
*First easter: a connection to Christ-already been debated so
I won't continue.
*In Buddhist the Bunny is sacred becaus it supposedly sacraficed
itself. Hummm....
*In German tradition the Bunny brings life...Buffy brought life
by sacraficing her own.
*In Native American tradition the Bunny is revered b/c it helped
humankind.
Just thought this was really interesting...
~Kerri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Importance of Names -- Jarrod Harmier, 20:04:25
06/25/01 Mon
Your points are interesting.
I'm not sure which interpretations are right. However, several
interpretations may be right. Just think of "Restless".
I found a good deal of the names at www.babynamelocator.com and
another I can't find again. There were also a few more general
sites.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Perhaps it has different meanings from different
origins. -- Kerri, 20:26:56 06/25/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Giles -- spotjon, 19:51:43 06/25/01 Mon
Found this here:
GILES (m) "young goat" from Greek aigidion. Saint Giles
was an 8th-century miracle worker from Greece who regarded as
the patron saint of cripples.
Here's another one I found:
Giles (n.) 1. "Saint," 8th century a.d., Athenian hermit
in France. 2. a male given name: from a Greek word meaning "shieldbearer."
I didn't find anything that would go with his "Ripper"
persona, though. The name seems to have sort of the opposite connotation,
actually.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Giles -- Jarrod Harmier, 20:19:41 06/25/01 Mon
I had to do a search again just to be sure, but the origin Buffy
that I found was Hebrew. Kerri found that the name comes from
the word bunny. I goes the interpretation depends on the origin.
Since similar words pop up in different cultures, multiple interpretations
will always occur.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Importance of Names -- mundusmundi, 14:53:14 06/26/01
Tue
Interesting how perfect certain character names are, isn't it?
Besides word origins and original definitions, another way to
look at their names is what Joss may have meant them to suggest
based on how they sound and mean to us today:
*Buffy. Natch, most people probably associate the name with "bubblebrained"
(e.g., my friends/family who still refuse to watch the show).
But the name can also imply strength -- someone who's "buff."
*Xander. Dimunitive of Alexander. "Alexander" suggests
someone strong (or "Great"), as does "Alex."
Both are also too familiar. "Xander" suggests to me
someone not fully formed.
*Willow. Suggests weakness or timidity -- as she originally was
-- but also strength. Somebody who bends but doesn't break.
*Angel. A vampire with a soul. Ironic but also defining.
*Cordelia. One of King Lear's wicked daughters...or was she the
good one, I forget. In any case, there's a fitting witchiness
to that name.
*Giles. "Miles" is too obvious and "Niles"
already on another show. Dunno why, but it works.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Importance of Names -- Jarrod Harmier, 03:01:29
06/27/01 Wed
>"Xander" suggests to me someone not fully formed.
Missed that. Good one, mundusmundi!
I believe I read somewhere that Cordelia was the daughter who
loved her really loved her father. The rest (I think there was
at least two more) told him they loved him, but were scheming.
(If this is wrong, please correct.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Importance of Names (warning - a little gross)
-- Humanitas, 07:22:08 06/27/01 Wed
And don't forget Drusilla, who was the sister/wife of the Emperor
Caligula. He thought he was the god Zeus, so when she got pregnant,
he cut her open and ate the baby, expecting Athena to be born
from his head. Associations with madness and family abound!
Buffy vs. Dracula redux (fairly long) -- purplegrrl,
11:51:03 06/26/01 Tue
I intended on starting this thread yesterday, but was unable to
get to a computer. (And it is on a completely different wavelength
than the Bvs.D thread below.)
After watching "Buffy vs. Dracula" Sunday night I had
some additional thoughts as to the meaning of or ideas behind
the episode. Some have said it begins Buffy's dark journey of
self-discovery, while others have criticized it doesn't really
fit in the story arc of season 5. (Actually, for me, what doesn't
fit is Dawn's sudden appearance at the end of the episode, but
that's a whole 'nother thread.)
In my opinion "Buffy vs. Dracula" is a retelling of
Bram Stoker's "Dracula", as translated into the Buffyverse.
(It has been a number of years since I read "Dracula,"
so please forgive me if some details are fuzzy or not completely
accurate.) Some story elements and characters are similar, while
others shift and blur to tell the story according to Buffy. I'm
not saying that "Buffy vs. Dracula" is strictly an homage
piece (as well as a bit of a spoof). Joss uses the Dracula story
skeleton as an introduction to the possible dark origin of Buffy's
powers.
We've argued about whether or not Willow's calling of fire caused
the storm at the beach. I posit that it was merely coincidence.
Dracula arrives that night as the storm still rages, just as he
does in Stoker's novel. He comes with his boxes of native soil,
killing those who bring him to his new home.
Soon after this Dracula meets Buffy and her friends. Since this
is Sunnydale, not London, Buffy knows immediately that he is a
vampire. However, she cannot help but be intrigued by him (the
world's most famous vampire knows who she is!). Later, Dracula
singles out Xander to become his servent (Renfield). It is possible
that Xander is picked because his rantings in the graveyard are
viewed as a state of madness by Dracula (similar to Renfield's
mental illness).
Other roles begin as one character and shift to another. Initially
in the graveyard, Willow briefly takes on the role of Lucy Westenra
-- both scared and intrigued by Dracula. Because of his relationship
with Buffy, Riley is Jonathan Harker (Mina Murray's fiance), while
Giles is Dr. Van Helsing (the knowledgable older man who knows
how to hunt and kill vampires). Willow, Anya, and Tara take on
roles similar to those of Lucy's three suitors (Arthur Holmwood,
Quincy Morris, and John Seward).
Riley/Jonathan goes to Spike's crypt (the vampire's castle/lair)
to get information about Dracula. In typical Spike fashion, Spike
poses and obfuscates -- smoke and mirrors -- much like Dracula
does with Jonathan about his business in London. But Spike does
give Riley some real information. (Forget Spike's claim that he
knows Dracula, is owed money by him, and dismisses Dracula's powers
as "showy gypsy tricks." This is Spike trying to regain
his self-importance.)
Riley/Jonathan is concerned about Buffy/Mina's attraction to Dracula,
but feels helpless/impotent to do much about it. He tries to protect
her because he is afraid he will lose her to Dracula.
Joyce invites Dracula into her home, much as Dracula is invited
into the Westenra home before it is realized he is a vampire.
Thus, Buffy takes on the role of Lucy/Mina. Dracula comes to her
in the night to seduce her, telling her of the dark mysteries
of her powers. This is similar to Dracula's seduction of Lucy
and particularly Mina. Although Lucy succumbs easily to Dracula,
Mina is more resistant. But in the end she, too, allows Dracula's
kiss/bite. As Buffy herself does. Both are frightened yet intrigued
by the mysteries that Dracula offers.
Riley and Giles search for Dracula's location. Similar to Van
Helsing and the men's search for the boxes of soil Dracula has
deposited throughout London. The last place they look is a castle
that appears to be on the outskirts of town, much as Carfax Abby
was. (I don't think Riley's comment about never having seen the
"castle" before is necessarily relevant. How many of
us can say we know every block or street of the town or city we
live in, no matter how long we've lived there?) When Riley and
Giles enter the castle, their roles reverse. Giles is seduced
by the Three Vampire Sisters, as Jonathan Harker was in Dracula's
castle. While Riley/Van Helsing continues the search and eventually
resuing his companion from the clutches of the vampire.
Buffy, much as Mina did, fights Dracula's thrall over her. Although
this is difficult because she is interested in what Dracula seems
to offer -- in Mina's case, unrestrained passion and sex; and
in Buffy's case, knowledge of the source of her Slayer power.
Under his thrall, Buffy drinks Dracula's blood -- as did Mina.
However, unlike Mina, Buffy does not become a vampire or psuedo-vampire.
As Buffy rejects Dracula's thrall and fights to destroy him, her
role shifts to several of the male characters -- specifically
Van Helsing (the ultimate destroyer of Dracula), and Jonathan
Harker and Quincy Morris (who destroy Dracula in Stoker's novel).
For me, using the Dracula story was an excellent way to begin
Buffy's journey for the source of her powers, whether dark or
not. Stoker's Dracula seduces Mina by showing her a passionate
and mysterious life of sexuality tinged with blood; a life very
different from the one Jonathan offers her. For a while Mina falls
willingly under Dracula's spell, but in the end she rejects him.
For a while Buffy believes Dracula when he tells her that her
powers stem from a dark source. Although Buffy rejects his claims,
she remains curious and wants to learn more.
And of course in the end Buffy is reunited with Riley, just as
Mina was reunited with Jonathan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy vs. Dracula redux (fairly long) -- Lurker Becoming
Restless, 13:32:55 06/26/01 Tue
I think you're right about the success of the episode in turning
the focus to the source of the slayer's power. Interestingly,
if you were convinced by Dedalus' post about the Key being the
source of Buffy's power, then this theme was continued and not
broken by Dawn's appearance.
I think I'm gonna piss everyone off now by repeating what's already
been said, but the best idea about this episode is that it is
an illusion conjured up by the Monks to make the introduction
of Dawn less noticeable. I know that there are practical problems
associated with this, but it just kinda fits.
The monks knew exactly where they wanted the key but they couldn't
just make it appear. They had to create memories and stuff and
presumably had to transport it to Sunnydale without anyone noticing...so,
how do you distract a Vampire Slayer?
I think this provides a nice explanation for any plot problems
with the episode and accounts for its dreamlike quality. However,
it doesn't discount any of the points in your post, purplegrrl
(cool name), but just adds another layer to the episode.
What would be most interesting (IMO) would be if Dawn was indeed
the source of Buffy's power and the monks actually intended for
Dracula to get Buffy thinking about this - that would be so cool!
This explanation also covers Dracula's disappearance at the end
of the episode and all sorts of bits and pieces which aren't totally
convincing, such as Buffy not turning into a vampire and nobody
knowing about the castle (what the hell is a castle doing in America
anyway!). I take your point that nobody knows everything about
their home town but it's like a massive landmark (+ Xander knew
about the mansion on Crawford street (oh, God, Sunnydale streetnames:
too much knowledge (wow, a bracket within a bracket: cool. Hang
on...))).
There is a good essay about this on 'Above the Law' which mostly
makes similar points to the ones I made, only it does it better
and with less focus in quirky punctuation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy vs. Dracula redux (fairly long) -- Cynthia,
14:10:32 06/26/01 Tue
I read about this theory on the another board. That Drac is an
illusion created by and/or an agent of the monks in order to obtain
Buffy's blood and setup Dawn. Interesting.
What puzzles me is the fact that the two people, a "rival"
and a "friend", who claim to know Drac and would know
what he actually looks like, never see him. Was he avoiding them.
Wouldn't he want to meet up with an old pal or brag to a rival.
These are the two who would most likely not be affected by the
"gypsy tricks" or actual powers Drac has since they
are are demons themselves. And how and why did he just disappear
from Sunnydale. Ah, questions, questions. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Good points -- Solitude1056, 15:49:37 06/26/01
Tue
I've been wondering about that - if Dawn is made from Buffy, where
did the monks get that part of Buffy to make Dawn? An imposter
Dracula would sure fit the bill, would string Buffy along, and
be a vessel for obtaining the blood. In that case, maybe we shouldn't
be so suspicious about Drac's words, remembering that they may
have been posited and puppeted by the monks. And the monks were
searching for a good use for the Key, so why introduce the Key
by telling the Slayer that her power is rooted in darkness? Hm.
More going on there than I can puzzle out at this point, I guess.
But it's always nice to see that there's more to puzzle out even
when the episode aired more than 9 months ago!
Second, I did always wonder about that - that Anya & Spike claimed
to know Drac but never managed to meet up with him. That did seem
unusual, especially in Anya's case. I can see Drac avoiding Spike
(and I can't see the two characters ever getting along, frankly),
but I can't see Drac avoiding a cute meal like Anya - especially
since she's no longer a demon these days. It only fits if Drac
wasn't coming to stay, but only visiting with some express purpose
in mind. So why the hell search "all over the world"
for Buffy when she's been in Sunnydale for the past 4 years? Hm,
must be the brain damage from sleeping in special dirt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: monks, schmonks/castles -- squireboy, 20:41:45
06/26/01 Tue
Blah, monks, schmonks, way too much of a stretch for my disbelief
suspenders (ow!). I have a big monks post bubbling away on the
back burner which is just waiting for some eye of newt or something
(not the discount salamander :) to boil over onto the page.
You're kidding about the castle right? I'm sure there are lots
of crazy very rich people in real America who have built actual
castles (or craptacular copies). I can think of a couple off the
top of my head [Boldt Castle, 1000 islands; Richard Garriott's
estate, Austin Tx] One could probably make money conducting tours
of all of them. :) Now, not knowing that one exists in Sunnydale
seems unlikely, but the architectural features of the town and
area have been traditionally only revealed to the gang as necessary.
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: monks, schmonks/castles -- Solitude1056,
21:37:02 06/26/01 Tue
Yeah about the castles - there's one in Gloucester, MA that's
phenomenal, and bizarre as all get out. Guy who built it was an
inventor to the nth degree. If I recall (and yeah, so it's off-topic,
but it's almost 1am, sheesh), he's the brain who came up with
radar... among a bizillion other things. So a castle in the US
doesn't surprise me, after seeing Biltmore. It was simply Riley's
line that cracked me up as to the utter ridiculousness of the
whole scenario: "yeah, a big honkin' castle."
So just why would the monks pick Dracula, anyway? Why not someone
a little less well known, for starters? And assuming they were
pulling Drac's strings, why have him go on about the slayer's
source?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: monks, schmonks/castles -- Rufus,
00:45:00 06/27/01 Wed
Or the monks could have worked with Buffys unconscious bringing
her the one thing that would interest her...the Vampire....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: monks, schmonks/castles -- Lurker
Becoming Restless, 05:32:40 06/27/01 Wed
Yeah, I don't think that the monks knew a great deal about vampires
so they went for the one vamp celebrity - Dracula. Personally
I think that this scenario is way more believable than the alternative
- Dracula as presented in this ep doesn't fit in with the mythology
of the show at all. In fact, the first time I saw it, I thought
that it was a sign of things going a bit stale and the main way
I have got over this is by focusing on this different and more
interesting interpretation.
If it was a trick, dragging a famous monster out of Buffy's subconscious
(or out of popular mythology) to distract everyone, it does not
even imply the existence of Dracula in the Buffyverse at all -
he may have simply been an invention of the monks.
BTW, I love the idea of the monks using Dracula to get Buffy's
blood to make Dawn.
Sorry about the castle thing - I take your point(s). However,
it hasn't appeared since then and they did make a big deal of
the fact that nobody had seen it before.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: monks, schmonks/castles
-- Andy, 06:00:43 06/27/01 Wed
I think the castle line was a self-parodying joke about how anything
needed for the plot has a way of suddenly appearing in Sunnydale.
You need an army base? Okay. How about a UC college campus? That
too. Waterfront? Sure. Sunnydale's grown a lot from being just
a "one Starbucks town" :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: monks, schmonks/castles
-- rowan, 06:03:49 06/27/01 Wed
And the famous...'we have to follow Tara to locate where Glory
is planning to bleed Dawn...oops, what's this big tower over here?!'
I think BtVS is great at doing some self-parody as you mention.
How about when the portals open, and the building (a hospital
or apartment complex?) suddenly becomes a hellish version of it's
Sunnydale self?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: monks, schmonks/castles
-- spotjon, 13:45:58 06/27/01 Wed
Personally I think that this scenario is way more believable than
the alternative - Dracula as presented in this ep doesn't fit
in with the mythology of the show at all. In fact, the first time
I saw it, I thought that it was a sign of things going a bit stale
and the main way I have got over this is by focusing on this different
and more interesting interpretation.
Personally, I'm not sure why the Buffy creative team decided to
do a Dracula episode. The best reason I can think of is that they
were trying to pull in new viewers. I don't buy the "monks
created a Dracula illusion" theory. If that were the case,
it would have been explained as so when Buffy talked to the dying
monk. I admit that the episode was a little too cheesy and unbelievable
(even for a show like Buffy), but there's no point in reading
into the episode something that wasn't there to begin with. It
was, quite simply, a very bad episode. But fun, nonetheless.
Jon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy vs. Dracula redux (fairly long) -- rowan, 05:21:33
06/27/01 Wed
*Sigh* I've never been able to really appreciate this episode
(at least not as part of the S5 storyline). I think purplegrrl
that you've done a very nice analysis of how this ep is Buffyverse
re-telling of Dracula. But this ep has never felt to me like it
fits in with BtVS. It has the feel to me of a midseason filler
ep that doesn't advance the plot very much (while it may sprinkle
some valuable crumbs of information). It's like other shows that
have Christmas episodes, for example, where the point is to have
a Christmas episode, not really to tell a story that fits in seamlessly
with what's going on in that show's world. The revealed connection
of Dracula to Tara's prediction ('you don't know who you are'
stuff) felt forced to me. The revelation of Dawn had a few overtones
of Bobby Ewing stepping out of the shower. If we're revealing
Slayer roots, why use Drac? Why introduce Drac's special powers
(e.g. surviving a staking).
I'm sorry to be so critical, but I almost feel as if the thought
process behind this was, 'well, we're a show about vamps, so eventually
we have to deal with Dracula.' It was not a "bad" ep.
It was an enjoyable ep, it was a different ep, but it was IMHO
an unusual choice for a season opener.
I now expect flames to fall down upon my head. Be gentle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Episode Dates -- mundusmundi, 06:47:33 06/27/01
Wed
"But this ep has never felt to me like it fits in with BtVS.
It has the feel to me of a midseason filler ep that doesn't advance
the plot very much (while it may sprinkle some valuable crumbs
of information)."
Interestingly, if one checks the dates that the B5 eps were written
on the shooting script site, one finds that "BvD" was
written *after* a few of the others. The earliest dated ep is
David Fury's "Real Me" (July 28), followed soon after
by "The Replacement" and "Out of My Mind."
"BvD" wasn't completed by Marti Noxon until August 31.
So it seems that Joss got Fury et al started on the Dawn/Key stuff
and may have originally intended the Dracula episode for the fourth
or fifth episode, 'round Halloween (really where it belongs).
"Real Me" is a nice episode but would've been just too
jarring to start with, so pushing back the Drac spoof with the
little Dawn coda inserted at the end was the best way they could
think of to do it, I guess.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy vs. Dracula redux (fairly long) -- Sue,
01:23:00 06/28/01 Thu
I liked Dawn from the beginning.
"Superstar" kind of prepared me for it though.
The difference between "Bobby in the Shower" and "Dawn"
is the universes. In Buffy reality does have a way of turning
on its head. "Dallas" was supposed to obey the normal
laws of physics.
I would have felt the same way about JR being kidnapped by aliens.
That would work in the X-files universe, but again in Dallas it
would have been lame. If ER suddenly had an episode about the
doctors fighting off a vampire attack, that would be lame as well.
For it isn't in that universe.
I have been a fan of Dawn from the start. I think the writers
did a very good job of writing her into Sunnydale. And they sure
picked an incredible actress to play her. I look forward to great
things from her in the future.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> where did my thread go? -- purplegrrl, 11:43:44 06/27/01
Wed
Sigh. I was hoping to discuss the "Buffy vs. Dracula"
episode in a different light. Not just rehash "did the monks
do it?" Or even whether or not it fit with the rest of the
season arc. I just thought the parallels with Stoker's novel were
interesting and noteworthy. Guess I was wrong.
Going away now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> It's right here! Dracula then, Dracula now: Buffy's
response -- Solitude1056, 12:39:21 06/27/01 Wed
Don't go away. I think that was an inadvertant mid-summer rerun-triggered
thread hijacking, if a casual one. I got what you were saying
about the idea that this was Joss' homage to the Dracula tradition,
just as he paid lip service to Stagecoach in Spiral. And I think
to a certain extent, this reading works - for the most part -
against the episode, but there's definitely more to the current
than just that. (Isn't there always, with Joss?) Then again, I've
never managed to finish the original novel - I get bored right
about the point where the good guys start winning. Film-wise,
I'm only familiar with the Lugosi version & the original Nosferatu.
The rest of the tradition I pretty much avoid as inane if not
downright silly (Love at First Bite, anyone? Or worse, Once Bitten?).
But you made a comment about Mina/Lucy being drawn to the sexuality
that Dracula is proferring. The Victorians may have been prudish
in public, but behind closed doors they liked their women wicked
and their sin really, well, sinful. Girl in the red velvet swing,
and all that. So in the eyes of the Victorians, what Dracula was
offering (as I understand it) was a free sexuality, in which there'd
be no "closed doors" to hide behind, because they wouldn't
be needed. Dracula, in Buffy's case, though, was offering knowledge
of where she'd come from, her power Source. The original lure
of Dracula was that he was offering something the young women
were taught was "bad," and that they should stay away
from, despite their reluctant (or eager) desire to know more.
I don't recall Buffy ever being told by Giles or anyone else that
searching for more about the Slayer Source was bad or something
she should stay away from... so I'm not positive that the lure
of Dracula as the snake in the garden, the one who holds the key
(ahem) to dangerous (self) knowledge, works in the Buffy paradigm.
Oh, no doubt, it works on some levels. But much of the dynamic
that's so quaintly outdated now is Mina's & Lucy's innocent curiousity
in, and fear of, what Dracula is offering them. It's not Dracula
who's shown (as best I recall) as being a terrifying person. In
fact, the people around him seem to chalk him up as just one more
old world wealthy eccentric noble inbreed. He fascinates them,
but confuses them as well. He's in on a joke they don't even realize
is being made, and the young women don't see him as the danger
- they just know that the information or power he imparts is in
itself something that they've been taught is dangerous. Joss let
Dracula come close, with Buffy: "you don't get that until
you beg for it," or some such. But it wasn't immortality
that the women were begging for - it was first-hand knowledge
of their own power and sexuality. They weren't begging to know
Dracula - they were somehow begging to know themselves, with the
caveat being that Dracula may be their only chance to really do
that.
We don't get that dynamic with Buffy - she's no shrinking violet
of the Victorian age. If Dracula carries knowledge about the Slayer
source, this hardly rates as something that would force Buffy
to rebel against her society in order to learn. We were left with
Dracula being the frightening aspect in & of himself, solely,
and that by virtue that he was a vampire. He had nothing to say
(IMO) that could qualify as recreating that dynamic - in fact,
he didn't leave a Mina or Lucy behind saying, "oh, I'm so
glad I'm back in the arms of my sweet husband where I can now
go on to a life of being the naive wifey I'm supposed to be"
or some such crock. He left behind a Buffy saying, I want more
- and this desire was clearly stated with her peers, and not treated
as a bad thing, nor did she herself consider such desire bad,
if she ever had.
You more literary types might do better than I with this, but
that's what it seemed to me in this episode. The makeup cracked
me up, the Renfield redo was obvious - and there just wasn't any
fear of Dracula. He's a known entity now, despite all his showy
gypsy tricks. He's not a harbinger of the arcane arts of sexuality
anymore. That's retread for Buffy - she's done that already. And
his status as a vampire just isn't the shocker it might've been
had he, uh, been her first. In that sense, the ultimate bad-good-what-is-bad-what-is-good
conflict in the original Dracula, got eaten away somehow by the
changes in society, and trying to recreate that dynamic with a
female lead who just don't play that game no more. Dracula came
bearing a different message, but it still wasn't one that prompted
the difficult internal conflict of society's teachings versus
secret desire.
So while there was definite literary connections (as you well
illustrated), I don't think the tradition translated well... if
at all. The "you don't know who you are" lines were
just barely smokescreen enough & still didn't succeed (in the
long run) to cover the fact that without the means to catalyze
the protagonist's crucial yes-no inner dynamic, Dracula is just
another vampire who needs to cut back on the maybelline.
And lastly, go back to the idea that Dracula's teaching Lucy/Mina
of themselves, and the dynamic that their real desire was not
to unleash Dracula's demon but their own - Buffy didn't have that
need, really, at the beginning of the season. Ok, so she had the
First Slayer, and done the song & dance with the Slayer Source.
But she still fundamentally knew who she was, who her community
was, and all the rest of it. Yeah, as someone else has mentioned,
sticking Dawn in at the end of it may explain some threads - but
I still don't think it works, in the greater scheme of things...
unless we move it to mid-fall. By mid-fall, her mother's been
sick, Riley's on his way out or gone already, and she's already
found out that Dawn's not really her sister. She doesn't know
what's up, and she's starting to question who she is. If Dracula
had come along at that point? Hell yeah we'd have dynamics - we
might've had dynamics out that wazoo. Buffy might've been struggling
to keep mind 'n body 'n relationships 'n family together, and
here's something/one offering to give her a glimpse of who she
really is. Glory's appearance would've upped the stakes: now it's
twice as important to want to know, thus explaining Buffy's willingness
to allow the thrall, to go along with it, if only for a little
while. She'd have a lot more on the line, and a lot more questions
in her heart by mid-season. At the beginning, though, there was
no sign of trouble and hence little need to go chasing after big
risk for potential little reward.
IMO, of course. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: It's right here! Dracula then, Dracula now:
Buffy's response -- purplegrrl, 13:16:30 06/27/01 Wed
Thanks, Sol!
***what Dracula was offering (as I understand it) was a free sexuality,
in which there'd be no "closed doors" to hide behind,
because they wouldn't be needed. Dracula, in Buffy's case, though,
was offering knowledge of where she'd come from, her power Source.***
This is what I was getting at. Dracula offers knowledge. Perhaps
even knowledge that could be considered "dangerous."
I think Joss used the Dracula story in several ways: 1. as an
homage to the genre 2. it's a vampire show, so let's have the
world's most famous vampire 3. as a way to start Buffy on her
journey of self-discovery
I don't think it would have worked to just have Dracula "drop
by Sunnydale" in a normal episode (although as someone else
mentioned, having "Buffy vs. Dracula" as the Halloween
episode might have been better). So Joss and Co. took the Dracula
story and used bits and pieces as they could and as would fit
in the Buffyverse.
And of course Dracula is still playing head games with the women
he is attracted to. With Lucy and Mina it was a release from the
Victorian sexual prison. With Buffy it is the possible source
of her power. Is he to be trusted? Of course not. But Buffy seems
willing (or is this the thrall?) to go along with his line of
stuff just to see where he's going and what he will try.
In the end Dracula is confused by Buffy. He is used to women who
are willing to give up everything for him -- even when their heart
lies somewhere else, as it did with Mina. Perhaps Dracula has
even run up against other Slayers over the centuries. But never
one like our Buffy Summers. She is strong -- body, mind, and soul
-- and not easily taken in by "hypno-eyes."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Warrior Tradition? -- Lurker Becoming
Restless, 14:08:49 06/27/01 Wed
One of the things I heard about Dracula was that as a human he
had longed for the revival of an ancient warrior tradition in
which people had to band together to fight their enemies. Of course,
by becoming a nasty vampire guy, he resurrected this tradition
in a small way because it was the only way anyone could stop him.
In this light, maybe another tiny purpose of the episode was to
cement the SG back together after the split in the Yoko Factor
(it was only partially resolved in Primeval IMO) by giving them
something specific to fight against.
I'm probably getting this slightly wrong since I don't know the
Dracula story very well. Any thoughts?
(Sorry - trying to redeem myself)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: It's right here! Dracula then, Dracula
now: Buffy's response -- Rufus, 15:32:11 06/27/01 Wed
I think that the Dracula is underrated because many didn't understand
it. The season has been about reality, what is real and what isn't
and how we come to those conclusions. I think is was facinating
to have Buffy confront "the Vampire"..and as the episode
had a dreamlike quality we have to wonder what was real. The episode
also gave you the answer to The Gift in blood is life. I go back
to when Buffy drinks Draculas blood and flashes to her actions
as the slayer, blood, and light(Dawn). Dracula was Buffys temptation
or seduction to power being darkness. We then get further confused
with Dawn at the end of the episode. The episode was fun, surreal,
and forshadowed the rest of the season. Dawn isn't "real"
but Buffys love changed that and she transformed unreality to
reality with her love for Dawn. If one would be tempted to evil
why not put it in a package that is attractive, seductive, but
ultimately not real. Buffy found that out as her seduction progressed,
she saw the light when she consumed the blood of Dracula, I loved
the episode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Dracula: Myth vs Reality --
Jarrod Harmier, 17:25:39 06/27/01 Wed
Unreality and reality. That's interesting. I posted something
similiar to some other thread, but I can't find it. I'll try to
remember as much as I can.
Ah, Dracula. Able to create storms. Able to transform into a mist,
a wolf, a bat. Able to control minds. Powerful. Deadly. Well,
the last two are incorrect. What's that? You don't agree?! Well,
I'll tell you why the last two adjectives don't apply to Dracula.
To me "Buffy vs. Dracula" is about myth vs. reality.
When Buffy first meets Dracula, she is shocked that Dracula knows
her. She is kind of flattered. However, when Xander meets him
for the first time, he starts mocking Dracula in a scene that's
pure Xander. Okay, when he learns that the vampire is really Dracula,
he is shaken up a bit. Of course, when he meets Dracula later,
Xander dares to mock Dracula AGAIN and then challenges Dracula
to "fisticuffs".
Why the differing responses? Most of the female Scoobies (Anya,
Buffy, and Willow) are taken in by the image of Dracula. However,
the majority of the male Scoobies (Spike and Xander) are not impressed
by him. They are clued in to the fact that the myth of Dracula
far outweighs the reality of Dracula. Spike knows because he has
a past with Dracula. I dealt with how Xander seems to know instinctively
in a thread called Xander and Destiny. (Look it up. Respond even
if you don't agree.) Of course, Buffy understands the difference
in the end and does what she has to do.
The reason some people think this is a lame episode is because
Dracula turns out to be a wuss. But that's really the point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dracula: Myth vs Reality
-- Rufus, 18:10:53 06/27/01 Wed
Yup, Dracula turned out to be just so much smoke and empty promise.......:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: It's right here! Dracula then, Dracula now:
Buffy's response -- Humanitas, 06:25:53 06/28/01 Thu
Sol, I can't blame you for being unable to finish the original
novel. The problem is that Dracula in the novel is not a character
so much as a force of nature. We are never told why he does anything.
This is why so few of the films have stayed true to the book.
Even the Gary Oldman version, which followed the original narrative
more closely than any of the others, had to add an entire sub-plot
involving reincarnation to give the character some motivation.
Stoker's Dracula is simply un-actable.
As for the inversion of the dynamic with Buffy, I agree that it
doesn't work in the same way as it did with Mina, but in part
I think that may be the point. The whole Buffy concept is about
turning classic horror on its head. One of the things that we
have learned about Vampires in the Buffyverse is that barring
extraordinary circumstances (Gypsy curse, Government chip) they
do not change very much. Dracula is still playing the "forbidden
sexuality" card that worked so well in the Victorian era,
but the rest of the world has, to a certain degree, moved past
that particular hang-up. Buffy has had sex, with a number of partners,
so it doesn't hold the same level of terror and mystery that Dracula
was expecting. This forces him to offer her information about
the source of her power, in the expectation that she will hide
her desire for power from the rest of the SG. He's playing on
the traditional notion of "how women behave." Of course,
that notion does not constrain Buffy much. She has always shared
information (and therefore power) with her friends. That's why
she has lasted as long as she has. (Had? Do we speak of her in
the past tense, since she is dead at the moment, even though we
know she's coming back? English isn't built for this.)
I also think that the lack of fear of Dracula helped establish
the premise of the season - that we've conquered all the "regular"
monsters, or at least have a mechanism for doing so. Vampires,
even oddball ones like Dracula, are beatable. We know this because,
well, we've been beating them for four years now. The pattern
is established: Encounter, Research, Eliminate. Because Dracula
is essentially a known quantity, there's not much to fear. Now
Glory, on the other hand, is unknown, so there's lots to fear.
To some extent, I think Joss is lulling us into a false sense
of security, saying to us "You think you know what to expect.
We start off the season by doing all the things the dying shows
do: bring in famous villains and add new characters. But wait
'till you see what comes next!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: It's right here! Dracula then, Dracula now:
Buffy's response -- Malandanza, 21:48:07 06/28/01 Thu
"Then again, I've never managed to finish the original novel
- I get bored right about the point where the good guys start
winning. Film-wise, I'm only familiar with the Lugosi version
& the original Nosferatu. The rest of the tradition I pretty much
avoid as inane if not downright silly (Love at First Bite, anyone?
Or worse, Once Bitten?)."
Solitude, IMO, you missed the best part of the novel. The beginning
is rather bland for modern readers -- we already know the vampire
mythology, so much of the early novel is material we really don't
need to know. Van Helsing mentions Dracula vs the Turks in the
early chapters -- how Dracula's army was defeated, so he returned
to his castle for many years planning a second expedition, and
so on, until he won. This anecdote sets the stage for the final
chapters -- Dracula is defeated in London (but not killed) --
so he attempts to flee back to his homeland -- in the expectation
of returning again (perhaps decades later) to try his plan again.
The problem is that Mina had been bitten -- if she dies before
Dracula does (whether through accident, disease or old age), she
will rise as a vampire. To prevent this, the good guys set out
across Europe in an effort to kill Dracula before he reaches the
safety of his castle (Drac travels by sea, using his control over
the winds to hasten his boat -- the good guys travel by land).
These last chapters remind me of the action of a Dumas novel --
quite gripping -- I recommend you finish the book :)
As for screen versions -- you are right -- most vampire flicks
are uninspired (some of the better ones I've seen are Fright Night
and Fright Night II, plus a weird independent film called Nadja).
The worst, for me, are the ones where vampirism is explained as
some sort of blood disease that modern science is capable of curing.
Andy Warhol's Dracula was less about vampires and more about class
struggle (Dracula representing the worn out and effete aristocracy).
Unfortunately, I think that "Buffy vs. Dracula" has
more in common with the bad vampire films of the 60's and 70's
than Bram Stoker's novel. Certainly, the depiction of the bug-eating
Renfeild is at odds with the novel: the movies seemed to have
bug-eating flunkies merely for the disgust factor. Renfeild from
the novel ate bugs, spiders & birds (he wanted a kitten, but the
doctor wouldn't allow it) as a means of devouring lives (as Dracula
devoured human lives). He would feed flies to spiders, spiders
to birds then eat the birds raw to consume not only the life of
the bird, but all the lives that the bird had consumed. Dracula
didn't make Renfeild insane, but he did capitalize on Renfeild's
insanity by sending small creatures to him to eat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> OK, this time I did'n do it! -- masq, 12:53:31 06/27/01
Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> guess I should have said "hijacked thread"!!.....:)
-- purplegrrl, 07:41:20 06/28/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Sorry 'bout that... -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 13:38:51
06/27/01 Wed
...didn't know if you had discussed it before or not.
Vampires and Christiam Symbols -- darkpoet, 14:37:20
06/26/01 Tue
I´ve already posted this but seems like someone had deleted
it and since it seems like some people yet don´t understand
it I would explain again why does the legend of christian symbols
serving as a protection for vampires exists...
The Real Verse (not Buffyverse) Vlad Tepees the third of Wallakia
a.k.a Dracula was a prince that received and award from the hands
of the Pope for bravery shown fighting on the crusades. Lately
when he returned to reign as prince of Wallackia he turned insine
he desired a world with a perfect morality and applied very cruel
punishment to those who weren´t up to his moral standard
(for example cutting of the breasts of a womam who had commited
adultery) the most notorius punishments were impaling them on
long wood stakes on the yard of his castles and making his servants
drink the blood of those he killed...
That´s why the villages of Wallackia later on developed
the legend of those who had been killed on hands of Vlad coming
back to drink their blood and that they could be killed with stake
and that they could be scared of with christian symbols because
that was the symbol of his master.
Bram Stoker visited Vlad´s Castle and interviewed some villagers
and then got the idea for his book Dracula.
Buffy and Love -- Wisewoman, 18:42:38 06/26/01
Tue
One of the threads below contains an off-shoot concerning Buffy's
attitude (in particular toward Spike) and her struggle with her
ability to express love.
It made me think of the many books I've read and the many TV specials
I've seen recently on the Near Death Experience phenomena. I'm
aware that all of the experiences described by people after an
NDE can be attributed to the slow loss of oxygen in the *dying*
brain, but one thing that can't be explained away so easily is
the extreme personality changes that sometimes result from NDEs,
changes far more substantial that those achieved by drug and/or
psychiatric/therapeutic intervention. Personalities are incredibly
resistant to change.
Most of the people who have had NDEs, even those who can't remember
the event in detail, remember the overwhelming feelings of love,
joy, bliss, security, safety, etc., that they felt during the
time they had *died*. When they return, they often go about expressing
that love much more freely in their own lives. They no longer
see themselves as separate from others, but see everyone as a
part of the Divine. Some go into a completely different line of
work, one in which they can express their love of their fellow
beings in service to them.
I'm wondering if we'll see anything like this dramatic shift in
Buffy when she returns in S6? She's already spent a great deal
of her life in service to her fellow humans, but she hasn't had
a great deal of joy in doing so lately, and not much opportunity
to express her love of anyone but Dawn. If she experiences something
like an NDE while she's dead, I wonder how that will affect the
way she interacts with the SG? (Actually, a Buffy-full-of-love,
as she was in Something Blue, would get old pretty fast!) ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and Love -- Kerri, 19:08:44 06/26/01 Tue
I think we will definately see a change in Buffy. I'm not sure
that will entirely be due to her death, but also the events that
led up to it. When Buffy realized that she could sacrafice herself
for Dawn she gained a renewed sense of love for all of humanity.
As she wanted Dawn to tell Giles she was *okay*-she understood
why her job was so important. She understood her calling and everything
that it meant. Buffy loved the world that allowed her to give
herself instead of killing her innocent sister.
I think that when Buffy died she finally accepted what the spirit
guide had told her: that she was full of love. In Buffy's death
she embraced this love.
Ofcourse it will be interesting to see how the love manifests
itself when Buffy returns and how it will change Buffy and her
relationship with others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy and Love -- Dedalus, 22:18:58 06/26/01 Tue
Fascinating idea. NDEs are quite interesting.
Unfortunately, I'm recovering from a 2 1/2 hour root canal procedure
and my consciousness is floating on waves of antibiotics and pain
medication, so I have nothing further to add at the moment. Nothing
that would sound even marginally coherent anyway.
I'll just be slipping back into lurk mode now ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy and Love -- Manoon, 03:29:11 06/27/01
Wed
I remember this really great film a while back called Resurrection.
The lady who died and was brought back came back with the power
to heal.
would THAT be an interesting addition to the Slayer's abilities...?
good post, really interesting wisewoman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Love O/T -- verdantheart,
06:47:32 06/27/01 Wed
I second the recommendation for Resurrection (1980; apparently
there are a lot of films by this title). It includes a great performance
by a great actress, Ellen Burstyn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy and Love -- rowan, 05:03:55 06/27/01
Wed
It would be interesting to hear your ideas when you're whacked
out on pain medication. ;) Seriously, I hope you're feeling better.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Ouch! Yow!! Hope you feel better soon... ;o)
o/t -- Wisewoman, 08:03:20 06/27/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Sending Cyber Get-Wells, Best Wishes and Chocolate
Kisses =) -- Little One, 08:43:32 06/27/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Sending Cyber Get-Wells, Best Wishes
and Chocolate Kisses =) -- Dedalus, 09:03:43 06/27/01 Wed
Thanks all. Good to know this is such a caring forum. I am feeling
better. Still can't open my mouth quite all the way, but hey,
we can't have everything. See, my molar roots were really, really
curvy ...
Take my advice kids - never go six or seven years inbetween dentist
appointments. That's my public service message for today. Resume
your normally scheduled Buffy talks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> My sympathies, friend. Been there,
done that, although it wasn't 2 1/2hrs! Yikes! -- OnM, 09:39:58
06/27/01 Wed
But of course, all of those procedures differ from person to person
and instance to instance. For me, the procedure itself wasn't
too particularly awful, but I was really sore for weeks and weeks
afterward, and it took almost a year before occasional low-level
achiness left the area. Go figure-- for most the procedure is
bad, but recovery is pretty quick afterward.
I say, enjoy the drugs while you can, assuming they give you the
good ones. They wouldn't give me anything more than ibuprofen
or acetominiphen, bummer...
We will all wait anxiously for your return to form-- and appreciate
the public service message. We could always add Baz Luhrmann's
'Sunscreen' message on top of that for a double dose of sensible
advise, eh wot?
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My sympathies, friend.
Been there, done that, although it wasn't 2 1/2hrs! Yikes! --
Dedalus, 10:45:40 06/27/01 Wed
Well, at least half an hour was due to getting my gums appropriately
numb. And then ya know, once they even get you in that chair,
the dentist is always wandering off for like ten minutes at a
time. Plus, there is a regulation that says they have to take
five x-rays now to make sure they've got everything cleaned up.
And that takes even more time ...
I had it on Monday afternoon, and I am still feeling pretty bad.
Of course, this was a walk in the park compared to the oral surgery/wisdom
teeth earlier this year ...
BTW, I am on a major Star Wars binge. So now I have to spend half
my internet time back on the forums defending TPM. Can't wait
for the DVD though. I doubt my arguments are helping though. Pain
medication and all.
"No, no, you don't understand - Buffy had to jump in the
portal to bring balance to the Force!!!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My sympathies, friend.
Been there, done that, although it wasn't 2 1/2hrs! Yikes! --
Humanitas, 06:30:38 06/28/01 Thu
"No, no, you don't understand - Buffy had to jump in the
portal to bring balance to the Force!!!"
ROTFLMAO!
Seriously, my best wishes go out to you. I'm looking at something
similar in the next year or so, as soon as I get my insurance
straightened out. :( We'll have to compare medication stories!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and Love -- Rufus, 03:34:46 06/27/01 Wed
First off the Buffy in Something Blue was the wedding planning,Spike
groping,hormones gone horribly wrong, result of bad magic. That
wasn't love we saw but unreasoning, crazy,blind, stupid, but I
know I hate this guy but can't help myself, Buffy.:):):):)
The love that The Guide referred to is love that isn't lust based
but life based. Buffy has gone from a girl who felt her father
left because of her, boyfriend went evil because of her, Parker
used then left because of her, then Riley self destructed because
of her. She was missing something. All these things didn't happen
because she is capable of loving, they happened because of circumstances
beyond her control. The result is that she pulls back from love
because she doesn't trust it will last, she feels she will be
worse off because of it. Until she got Dawn. Dawn allowed Buffy
to love someone besides her mother in a way that wasn't hampered
by sex. Buffy was able to realize her potential because she finally
got what love really meant. Dawn allowed Buffy to connect with
her purpose as a Slayer, why she was created for. Humanity is
what Dawn is, that part of Buffy she thought gone, the reason
she is here. The Forces of Light, PTB's, whatever, made the Slayer
to balance the darkness, make sure humanity survived. The job
of a Slayer unfortunately distances the girl from the humanity
she protects. Buffy began to feel her existence was to bring death,
nothing more, a very dismal fate for anyone. The monotony of killing
ending with your own death would be enough to make anyone wish
for their own death. Dawn changed that. At first she was that
bratty kid sister that Buffy envied and wanted to ditch, then,
when Buffy knew the truth she realized that Dawn had to be protected,
she was innocent, just like Buffy had been around Dawn's human
age. In Checkpoint the Watchers had Buffy protect a dummy, they
said protect it like it was precious. Buffy ended up putting an
axe in it's head, this happened because as an inanimate object
Buffy had no connection to it. Humanity was the same, Buffy felt
disconnected, apart from those she would save. Dawn, love, brought
her back to her gift. In Buffy vs. Dracula when she tasted his
blood she saw flashes of what she was, what she did, and light,
perhaps Dawn. In the Gift Buffy gave her gift at Dawn. April said
it's always darkest before...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and Love -- Marie, 06:20:13 06/27/01 Wed
Do you think she'll have more understanding of Spike and Angel
now that she's died, too?
IMO, they are going to be more easy in their manner to her than
the rest of the Scoobies, at least at first, 'cos just what do
you say to someone who once was dead and now isn't? Would be pretty
spooky at first, I'd imagine. And will she even remember them?
If it's reincarnation, she may now 'belong' to another family
altogether - can you imagine one of the SG walking down the street
and seeing 'Buffy' walking towards him, maybe with other friends,
another mother?
(or Spike, if she was with another guy, or MARRIED?!! (Hehehe!)).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and Love (a rowanesque response) -- sollig, 06:41:20
06/27/01 Wed
This may have been covered in the thread you mentioned with Buffy's
attitude toward Spike, but here goes:
If she is affected by an NDE in the way you describe, then I think
it is her feelings toward Spike that will change most dramatically.
She already loves the Scoobies and may be more outwardly affectionate
with them. But with Spike, since she was already beginning to
trust him (with Dawn's life, no less), and maybe even respect
him as an asset to the SG, perhaps she'll develop an affection
of sorts for him.
I don't think she'll be a wacky love bunny as in Something Blue,
but she may finally accept Spike's attempts to help as an expression
of genuine concern and love for she and Dawn. (Whether this would
be wise is another issue altogether. While I see Spike as being
on the road to redemption, I only started watching in Season 4,
and don't have the inherent mistrust of him that many longtime
viewers do. Maybe after the reruns start airing on cable this
fall, I'll change my mind about him.)
Even if she doesn't have an NDE, at the very least, maybe she
won't be so venemous in her dealings with Spike, given the sacrifices
he made for her and Dawn. We saw evidence of this when she kissed
Spike after he revealed he'd sooner die than see the Sunmmers
women hurt, and again, when she enlisted him in their battle with
Glory.
(In case you can't tell, I also have a Spike fascination. Can't
help it. I'm with you on those cheekbones, rowan. I also love
his character--a delicious blend of danger, passion, humor and
vulnerability. Bitter evil sweetened by a capacity to love. Sounds
like a coffee. Okay, all done now.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Welcome to the club! Shall we all meet and have coffee?
;) -- verdantheart, 06:49:15 06/27/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Yes indeed! Maybe it could be a Spike-accino--
-- sollig, 07:51:09 06/27/01 Wed
Starbucks' new cold as-the-dead blended frozen coffee treat, "spiked"
with a shot of whiskey, mixed with chocoloate "chips"
and topped with whipped cream drizzled with bloody red cherry
syrup. On second thought---eeeeccccch!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Yes indeed! Maybe it could be a Spike-accino--
-- Humanitas, 10:07:50 06/27/01 Wed
I don't know, that sounds pretty good, except for the cherry syrup!
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes indeed! Maybe it could be
a Spike-accino-- -- purplegrrl, 11:23:08 06/28/01 Thu
Nah, the cherry syrup is what makes it. Otherwise it's just a
plain ol' coffee drink.
:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Let's make it hot cocoa with mini-marshmellows....:)
-- rowan, 07:41:42 06/27/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Make mine one with marshmallows and another
with Weetabix for my companion! -- Marie, 07:49:23 06/27/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Coffee Proverb -- Brian, 14:11:08
06/27/01 Wed
Ancient Persian Proverb:
Coffee should be as hot as hell, as black as death, and as sweet
as love!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Coffee Proverb -- Solitude1056,
17:51:11 06/27/01 Wed
You sure that's not Southern? :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Why does every thread I start degenerate into a Spike Love-fest?
;o) -- Wisewoman, 08:24:20 06/27/01 Wed
Of course I wondered how that would affect Buffy's relationship
with Spike, but I managed to suppress that in favour of attempting,
at least, a non-Spike-centric, somewhat philosophical (metaphysical?)
post...but you guys are incorrigible!!!!
Okay, I give in... let the bleating and drooling begin.
(I'm kidding, BTW) ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Once again, proving the rule: all threads lead to
Spike (ATLtS). LOL -- rowan, 08:37:27 06/27/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Picture me, every ep, bib-swathed!! -- Marie, 08:52:22
06/27/01 Wed
Does that make me a 'bibbling idiot'?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Picture me, every ep, bib-swathed!! -- Rahael,
16:07:19 06/27/01 Wed
Am I the only woman on this board who doesn't fancy Spike? I like
the character, but even the cheekbones cannot make up for his
terrible hair. (I know this is going to be hugely controversial!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Bedheaders Unite! (o/t) -- rowan, 18:03:42
06/27/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I'm partial to Riley myself....lucky for
rowan....I'm way worse than a hair puller.....:):):):) -- Rufus,
18:08:37 06/27/01 Wed
And now OnM is sweet enough to write about Riley.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Picture me, every ep, bib-swathed!!
-- Cynthia, 19:35:36 06/27/01 Wed
I kinda fancy Giles myself. More my age and you know the saying
"still waters run deep". Shy on the outside, tiger on
the inside. I suspect, he's not know as the ripper just for only
one reason :.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Are you borrowing the bib from your Weetabix
companion? ;o) -- Wisewoman, 21:10:19 06/27/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Darlink, ve share everytink! (That was
my 'Bella' Lugosi voice!) -- Marie, 02:21:35 06/28/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Why does every thread I start degenerate into
a Spike Love-fest? ;o) -- verdantheart, 12:27:14 06/27/01 Wed
You can blame sollig for this one ... on the other hand, it may
be your vibe ... ;)
(really, just teasing, it's not just you!)
Joyce and Giles (Spoilers to "Band Candy",
"Earshot", and "Forever") -- Jarrod Harmier,
12:55:23 06/27/01 Wed
[I posted this to another forum here. I am posting here also so
that people may not see it there will be able to see it.]
[I went to www.mustreadtv.com to confirm the scene information
for "Forever".]
At one point in "Forever" (the episode right after "The
Body"), we see and hear a record play. It's Giles' apartment.
He's alone. He sits down with a whiskey and listens and drinks.
The record is the same one he and Joyce listened to together in
"Band Candy". We all know what happened then. The scene
suggests that Giles' feelings for Joyce--aside from what happened
in "Band Candy"--went beyond what you would call "just
friendly". (I'm not saying that he was in love with her.
I don't know that. I don't think I made that clear in the post
in the other forum.)
More evidence can be found in "Earshot". During that
episode, it was said that whatever they gang least wanted Buffy
to hear would be what they would think about most. It was Joyce's
thoughts that let it slip that she and Giles had had sex under
the influence of the candy in "Band Candy". An observation
that was mentioned on the Everything Philosophical on Buffy the
Vampire Slayer episode guide entry to "Earshot" was
that Giles never seemed to think about having sex with Joyce during
that episode. At first that may seem callous. However, based on
his general reaction to Joyce's death in "The Body"
and his need to listen to that specific record in "Forever",
it suggests that Giles was not just unashamed about what happened
with Joyce, he valued the experience of being with her in that
fashion. (A responder on the other forum mentioned that Giles
had more important things on his mind at the time and that Buffy
"hearing" it from her mom made a better set up. Those
also seem to be reasonable points.)
What do you all think?
On a lighter note, one of the funniest Giles moments I've ever
seen also occurs in "Earshot". It's when Buffy mentions
what she overheard her mother thinking and runs into a tree. A
very funny way to end an episode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Fair assessment -- squireboy, 14:52:12 06/27/01 Wed
I think that's a reasonable assessment. I'm thinking that Giles
may never have pursued an active relationship with Joyce because
of his duties as Buffy's Watcher/mentor (father figure) and the
awkwardness that would then ensue. Let's also remember that, in
spite of his competence in his field and the Ripper persona, Giles
is bookish and shy (re-examine the Jenny Calendar moments for
confirmation).
Even if there was no actual sparkage there (and there are tons
of little clues, shynesses, glances, etc., Band Candy notwithstanding),
Joyce is the only other real adult in the group, especially if
you accept the "vampires as eternal teenagers" analysis.
Of course he would mourn her. As well as Buffy's mother, she may
have been a "maybe, someday" longing that was never
really acted on, and grief is stirred in with regret.
The Master, Kissingtoast ( I mean Kikistos ), etc
-- Slayrunt, 15:56:00 06/27/01 Wed
Sorry if this has been discussed before, but is there anything
to lineage in vampires other than bragging rights.
As I understand vampires in the Buffyverse a demon mixed with
a human and created vampires, so all lead to one, but over the
years, we've seen some old and bad vamps and some pretty (not
in cheekbones) wimpy ones.
Is a vamp bigger and badder because they were sired by the Master
or Kikistos a la Darla, Luke (presumably), Mr. Trick (presumably)
And since all threads lead to Spike anyway, conversely do they
get wimpier though the line as in the Master to Darla to Angel
to Dru to Spike (our Big Bad who used to be a bad ass vampire
but love and a pesky chip has turned him into a big fluffy puppy
with bad teeth. No Rowan, not the hair, never the hair! Who likes
to work up a load of sexual frustration and use that nancy boy
hair gel he loves so much.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Master, Kissingtoast ( I mean Kikistos ), etc --
Nina, 19:36:52 06/27/01 Wed
I have no answer to that, but another question. If the person
they used to be as human determines what kind of vamp they are
going to be, how come Willow was such a bad ass vampire in VampWillow?
How come Harmony remains exactly the same (with bloodlust)?
Maybe it does have something to do with the sire. If I remember
well, VampWillow would have been sired by the Master himself,
so she would have his blood through her veins and could explain
why she is so evil. Härmony was probably sired by an anonymous
vamp, with no special blood. Harmony sired Brad who doesn't seem
to have any kind of special evilness (except the need to fight
and drink blood).
Hmmm I'm writing while I'm thinkung and it doesn't make much sense,
but maybe you are onto something Slayrunt. Maybe both the sire
and the person you used to be have importance to determine what
kind of vamp you will be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Six Degrees of Wickedness? -- Sebastian, 22:14:19
06/27/01 Wed
I would think that a vampire's sire has something to do with how
evil he/she is.
Most vamps in BtVS are run-of-the-mill baddies. They're evil,
they give Buffy and the Scoobies a good fight - but not much else.
The Master, Kakistos, Angelus, Darla, Drusilla and Spike were
another story.
It seems that evil in relation to vampirism is somewhat genetic
in nature (at least in theory). That is the degree of evil is
passed on by the carrier, but is diluted with each succeeding
infection.
Harmony was bit by a typical vamp (seen in Graduation Day Pt.
2) and wasn't that much of a threat. She was evil - but nothing
earth shaking. Buffy's humorous reaction to Harmony's "minions"
in The Real Me is proof of that.
But look at The Master, Angelus, Darla, etc. The Master, as we
know, was one of the oldest "living" vampire in the
Buffyverse.
The Master sired Darla, Darla sired Angel, Angel sired Drusilla,
and Dru sired Spike.
In terms of cruelty, each of them were exceptional (enough to
merit warrant in the Watchers' Diaries) but their level of evil
(at least, how we perceive it) and capacity to cause chaos and
destruction moves in descending order.
So I would almost think that a vampire's capacity for TRUE evil
is carried like a trait. The farther away it is from the actual
source, the weaker it becomes.
IMHO, that is. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Think it works that way with Anne Rice's vamps,
too. -- Wisewoman, 22:35:58 06/27/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Six Degrees of Wickedness? -- vampire hunter
D, 12:55:48 06/28/01 Thu
I have a problem with your resoning here. In my opinion, Angelus
was more evil than Darla (of course, I missed the first season,
so havn't seen what she did back then). I am also wondering if
Drcilla would have been as bad had Angelus not driven he insane.
Actually, this is the one aspect of the show I never really liked.
Becoming a vampire immediately makes you evil. I much prefer the
way it's portrayed in Vampire: the Masqerade or Anne Rice, where
a good person made vampire retains their goodness (and agonizes
over hurting people when they feed).
I also just had a thought on VampWillow, VampXander and Spike.
All three, in life, were people who were picked on and teased
by their peers. Then, they became vampires and recieved power
in addition to bloodlust. Something I've noticed is that when
the downtrodded and picked on recieve power over others, they
tend to start abusing others, sometimes worse than they ever recieved.
So the meanness we saw from these three is almost normal human
behavior made worse by vampiric instincts. (forgive me if that
made no sencse, I'm thinking as I type here)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Six Degrees of Wickedness? -- Sebastian,
17:49:47 06/28/01 Thu
Good points...and something to consider.
I guess considering "which vamp is more evil?" is a
matter of personal perspective. In season one, Darla attempted
to aid the Master in opening the Hellmouth until she was killed
by Angel. However, Angel (as a restored Angelus) also tried to
bring hell on earth by awakening Acathla.
And because Darla and Angel spent over a hundred years with each
other - you could say that they both influenced each other in
terms of atrocities they became famed for.
Peer pressure - as it were. :)
So with the actions that we (as an audiance) know they have committed
- we would have to debate which are worse - Angelus' or Darla.
Which would be rather pointless. :)
I suppose I always saw Darla as more evil because her desire to
cause chaos was on a broader scale - she wanted to cause pain
to a wide range of people. Meanwhile, Angelus tended to pick specific
targets.
But then again, Angel's actions could seem more heinous to someone
else because he is picking out specific people to torment (Drusilla,
Buffy, etc)
Regarding the common trait of VampXander, VampWillow and Spike
being picked on before being vamped - that is something to consider.
But it is also hard to decipher because their degree of "wickdness"
(as it were) are so close to The Master (Willow and Xander by
one degree, Spike by three).
So in regards to being a moot point -it is and it isn't.
But you still have to compare them to other vamps on the show.
And lik I pointed out - all the other vamps just kind of pale
(aprdon the pun) to that group. And I'm sure there were some "former
nerds" in the many that the Sccobies have fought.
Regarding showing vamps with morals - it seems to me that they
are broaching that subject with the Spike/chip arc.
I think in the long run its best for the show if the vamps are
inherently bad on the show - because dealing with vamps conflicting
issues would proably take too much away from the issues the Scoobies
deal with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Sorry - I rather rambled in that
last post...:) -- Sebastian, 17:51:55 06/28/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Six Degrees of Wickedness? --
Olympia, 11:59:08 06/30/01 Sat
OK, yes. I believe that vamp genetics play a significant role
in who gets to be a bad ass. But have you thought that maybe time
might also factors into it? The older a vampire gets, the more
powerful. In the Buffyverse, it also means a vampire takes on
more and more characteristics of the demon. The Master was so
old that he lost his human visage. Kikistos had cloven feet if
I'm not mistaken. In the end, doesn't it really come down to survival
of the fittest, even among vamps? The ones who live the longest
get to pass on their blood and create new vampires. (Have you
ever noticed that the stronger lines are awefully selective about
who they turn?) The ones who survive are always the strongest.
And I think surviving for a vampire means an eventual total loss
of humanuty. They loose even their human aspects and become the
demon absolute and powerful.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> I think about a big bubbling
pot of soup.......... -- Rufus, 16:23:22 06/30/01 Sat
With the vampire it's and infection, makes sense that as the vampire
becomes older they slowly reduce the amount of humanity in the
demon like you would when you boil the water out of a soup. It
takes centuries from what I could see. The infection eventually
may just overtake the host and any residual humanity is lost.
So I'd think Angel would eventually get those bat ears he was
so worried about.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Master, Kissingtoast ( I mean Kikistos ),
etc -- Slayrunt, 05:32:50 06/28/01 Thu
Hmmm I'm writing while I'm thinkung and it doesn't make much sense,
but maybe you are onto something Slayrunt. Maybe both the sire
and the person you used to be have importance to determine what
kind of vamp you will be.
Thanks, and you made sense to me.
I have no answer to that, but another question. If the person
they used to be as human determines what kind of vamp they are
going to be, how come Willow was such a bad ass vampire in VampWillow?
I think Vamp Willow was a bas ass vamp because Willow has it in
her to be that kind of bad ass, an Harmony doesn't. There certainly
may be something to the degrees of evil degradating as you go
down the line.
Great, now I'm taking the opposite view. Well, I do try to see
both sides of a discussion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Master, Kissingtoast ( I mean Kikistos ),
etc -- Rattletrap, 07:38:10 06/29/01 Fri
As someone brought up in the debate on Willow last week, real
life Willow tends to be a fairly repressive person, so it follows
that VampWillow had a similar personality, but without the layers
(and layers, and layers) of inhibitions and the generally sweet
nature of her human predecessor.
Harmony, on the other hand, was a fairly shallow person that didn't
really conceal much below the surface, nothing really kept back.
Hence, when she became a vampire, there was very little change.
Just a theory. *drops his 2 cents into the jar*
I'm BACK!! -- Glory, 01:11:07 06/28/01 Thu
yes, it's me, Glorificus... and I'm BACK! As IF that little squirt
Slayer could kill ME, I was only pretending to die, cos I was
like, BORED, and ER was on the other channel so I zoomed off to
watch it, only to find that somebody had suffocated little Benjy-boy...
when I find out who did that, he's MINCEMEAT!
Anyway, to all those of you who wrote nasty things about me, I'M
COMING TO GET YOU TOO!
For those of you who write such NICE things... wanna be my new
minions? Come on boys, you know you want to!
Ah, I'm so pretty.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> No minion wannabe's here, Glory. Maybe you better stay dead!
;o) -- Wisewoman, 12:33:50 06/28/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I'm too pretty to be dead, wisewoman... -- Glory,
08:35:15 06/29/01 Fri
But since you were the only one brave enough to reply to me..
I'm going to make YOU my new HOST!! You are PRIVILEGED dear! Hasta
la vista, Ben. I got myself a new home..... HA HA HA HA HA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Hey, great! Does this make me The Third Evil?
;o) -- Wisewoman, 18:23:02 06/29/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Can we have more than six degrees of Evil?
:-) -- Solitude1056, 11:17:33 06/30/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> See, this is all wrong. -- Solitude1056, 11:22:36
06/29/01 Fri
If you really wanted to provoke this board, or even cause more
than a minor ripple, Glory isn't the one to do it. Nor even an
eyebrow lifted, I think, really. I'd guess we had maybe ten posts,
max, about Glory once she was dead. Giles' conflict over killing
Ben, Buffy's mercy, and Ben's death all notwithstanding, I'd say
it's safe to assume she of the lopsided ass has been forgotten.
Now... if someone were to post who just happened to be James Marsters,
and just happened to want to say hello to all these brilliant,
intelligent, thoughtful philosophers?
You'd get more than eyebrows. You'd be able to hear the simultaneous
WHUMP as various members of this board passed out in instaneous
shock, pleasure, and sheer excitement, all over the world. I dare
say we might even have a few who'd take a screen shot of the original
post just for posterity's sake.
Glory? Bored now. Spike? Stand back unless you like being trompled!
:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Mm. Spike? Bored now. -- Masq, 16:15:10 06/29/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Did someone say Spike? Big bad cheekbones...;)
-- rowan, 19:32:32 06/29/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Why did it seem Glory was so uninteresting to many...(Long-winded)
-- KendratVS, 11:55:43 06/30/01 Sat
(Perpetual lurker here, first time posting)
This thread got me to thinking - the arc of season 5 involved
a villain who most people really didn't seem to care too greatly
about. In fact, almost every other fan I know spends more time
talking about the changes in Willow or Xander/Anya than what I
thought were some really over-the-top battles and interesting
premises an exiled hell-god raises. Maybe it's a bit low-brow,
but I think a truly memorable scene this season (and what kind
of hit the theme of Buffy going into many battles she isn't going
to win on Slayer strength) was Glory backhanding Buffy about 20
feet into the wall of the factory in No Place Like Home and asking
her if she was sure about the not being stupid.
Am I the only one who really enjoyed the introduction of Glory
as a new threat into the Buffyverse? I read a while back on this
board (my apologies for not being able to give due-credit to the
insightful author, but there are so many great ones, it's hard
to keep track) a truly interesting thread about Glory as evil;
how her representation of it is so different than prior villains
who actively sought to bring humanity pain and do the protagonists
harm, in that her sole purpose was to pack her bags and vacate
our reality. Her ill-intentions towards humanity rarely surpassed
being a parasite or reactive violence when people were "rude"
and did something to displease her. In her mind, snapping the
neck of the security guard in the hospital in Blood Ties was probably
a completely appropriate response. When it came to the Key, she
seemed to use violence as a way of removing obstacles, but contrasted
to vampires/demons/etc., she did not seem to find inherent pleasure
in it. Rather, it seems as if it was like work for her. Granted,
she did want to bring "super-size portions" of suffering
and misery to the hell she came from upon her return, so my thoughts
are maybe in her mortal confines, doing harm and causing suffering
was too taxing to be a habitual recreational activity. I guess
that also raises questions as to what kind of powers hell-gods
would have in pure form (I'm also wondering right now what 'super-size
portions' of suffering look like...).
My take-away feeling from Season 5 is that I found her great as
a new twist, being a villain who was uninterested with and generally
viewed the SG and Buffy (and our whole world) as minor irritants
on her path. The fact that she had a penchant for the finer things
in our realm such as couture and mimosas during bubble baths was
also pretty entertaining as maybe a non-major layer to the threat,
but it amused me (i.e. I knew it wasn't going to be an achilles
heel as it was for the Mayor, but still developed her a bit).
Does anyone else agree (or even vehemently disagree) with me on
this?
Whew - glad I finally got this all off my chest and I hope this
first post wasn't too off the wall (and I know I abuse the parentheses,
so I'll go back to lurker-mode and see what you insightful folks
thing about my rantings)!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> good point -- vampire hunter D, 13:28:35 06/30/01
Sat
I agree with you on some of this. I don't know why everyone hates
Glory either. I guess the people on this board are more into more
diabolical intentions aout of thier villans.
btw, that wasn't bad for a fist post. A whole lot better than
mine. And about abusing the parentheses, try reading one of my
posts and you'll feel a whole lot better about your post.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Glory as "one more bad guy" -- Solitude1056,
14:42:56 06/30/01 Sat
I think Glory worked outside the usual paradigm, for the reasons
you mentioned, and that made her harder to grasp, or even care
about. She didn't tiptoe about hiding her intentions, or her methods.
The Mayor and the Master both worked in secrecy; Glory just wanted
to go home and didn't seem up to wasting time being secretive
about it. She was a pretty blunt character, when ya think about
it. Maybe I'll expand more on that when I've got more time, since
you've gotten me thinking about it.
And btw, a rule I think I may institute, just because a Second
Evil's gotta do something evil every now & then... you make a
good post like that as your introduction, don't follow it up by
saying you're going back to lurking! no fair, 'coz now I want
to hear what you think about so many of our other ongoing posts
'n topics! So just realize you lost your lurking rights and now
gotta speak out. Bwahahahaha.
And second, paranthesis are frequently abused around here - man,
you should see some of my posts - I think there's more in parenthesis
than not. The real button around here seems to be ellipsis. Three
little periods ... intercepting ... every phrase ... hehehehe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> A lurker bites the dust... -- KendratVS, 15:33:22
06/30/01 Sat
(Taking off lurking hat, putting on active-participant-in-my-favorite-board
hat)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Yay! Welcome! :-) -- Solitude1056, 15:54:13
06/30/01 Sat
But I'm partial here, since my sister's named Kendra. She doesn't
have a problem with boys, though, unlike the Slayer by the same
name... ;-D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Putative Third Evil...and Queen of the Ellipsis...agrees
with Sol. Welcome! -- Wisewoman, 18:03:42 06/30/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Why did it seem Glory was so uninteresting to
many...(Long-winded) -- rowan, 16:13:35 06/30/01 Sat
You've brought up something I've wanted to talk about for a while.
Glory wasn't a very popular Big Bad by most accounts I've read.
But I must confess, I loved her.
Glory was evil to a degree heretofore unseen in the Buffverse.
First, she wielded tremendous physical and mental (note I didn't
say intellectual) power. She could swat the Slayer like a fly
and drain the sanity out of humanity. The full extent of her evil
acts weren't even shown on screen, since they occurred during
her reign in the hell dimension. But by references to her as "the
Beast", she became linked with the most gruesome & fundamentally
evil images of unending torment conceived of in places like the
Christian Hell.
All this was contained within a 'skanky, fashion-victim, ex-god
with a bad perm' (to paraphrase Spike) who demonstrated a fetish
for shoes and a total disregard for anything human. She could
inflict pain and cruelty of any magnitude on the Buffyverse, because
she was so fundamentally detached from it. This made her scarier
in conception than any Big Bad before her. They at least acknowledged
what they would destroy or dominate; Glory could have given a
rat's a$$ about any of it, as long as she could go home. She was
an evil that we laughed at, while at the same time it crushed
us.
As Glory and Ben began their bleed together (as the 'mojo' faded),
we saw Glory being infected with humanity. She was forced to start
confronting her acts and those she acted upon. This began to drive
her to despair and weakened her power. She then became beatable.
Much was made of Clare Kramer's perceived "poor acting"
this season. I thought she played Glory just right -- like the
cheap tart of a hell god she was. And that very tawdry cheapness
made it all so much more evil for me. After all, Evil (with the
capital E) somehow deserves, by its opposition to Good, to be
beautiful in its terribleness, seductive in its attraction, graced
with an intelligence and purpose that makes it a worthy adversary.
But when it's vapid, stupid, and whorish, that's frankly very
disturbing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> rowan, Glory sure talked a lot about sex...............
-- Rufus, 16:19:46 06/30/01 Sat
Glory was always talking about sex, to the monk she killed, the
knight, comments about Bens appearence. She talked but I never
got the impression she ever did the nasty in her human form.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> remember what sex equals -- Solitude1056,
16:27:06 06/30/01 Sat
Going on a twisted version of Xtianity, the Beast being the ultimate
Bad Guy, the Fall, the serpent, sin, blah blah blah... it only
made sense to me that temptation (but no follow-through) would
be an underline for Glory's role as The Beast. It's a mish-mash
of Xtian imagery, granted, but much more of a pop-culture view
- the Beast, the Bad Guy, being one that would tempt and lure
with seductive looks and lovely curves and speak all about sex,
sensuality, the pleasures (and pains) of the flesh. Continue ad
nauseum.
That's why I didn't see Glory as offering or even mentioning anything
so crude as "squishing bodies," to use Anya's visual.
Naw, I thought of it as Glory tempting with physical pleasures
(since who would know better all about the pleasure of the body,
who knows already about the pains of the body - seems to know
one, you'd know the other).
Come to think of it: we've been talking about Dracula offering
something that causes severe internal conflict in his intended
victim. Glory uses the same card in her dealings with Orlando
& others - that of tempting folks who (we assume) have sworn themselves
to celibacy. Again, it's the idea of sex, and the body, and the
fact that it's the Big Bad who's offering the experience (regardless
of whether the offer is carried through). Could Dracula be the
season's precursor in that sense, too?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: remember what sex equals --
Rufus, 16:37:54 06/30/01 Sat
First Buffy was truly tempted by Dracula, then she met Ben the
coffee guy who never even got a coffee out of her. I remember
the convesation Glory had with the minions about Ben banging the
key out of Buffy, there was the assumption that Buffy couldn't
resist Ben, or should I say them? Her reaction to Buffy cancelling
the coffee date stuck with me, "she turned us down?".
Not just Ben, Buffy turned down Glory and that made Glory look
puzzled and insecure. Now maybe if they had added Charlize Theron
(sick Crush reference) into the mix it would have been a bit more
tempting for Buffy....:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> OMG, now I have an image of Glory/Ben
switching in mid-act...I have to wash my mind out with soap...
-- Wisewoman, 18:25:12 06/30/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Thank goodness Buffy and Ben never
dated! ;) -- rowan, 09:10:50 07/01/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> don't bother -- vampire hunter D,
12:02:41 07/01/01 Sun
Hey, if it makes you feel any better, I've had an image like that
in my head since we first saw them switch (Ben's with Buffy in
bed when he suddenly becomes GLory). Of course, my mind perpetually
lives in the gutter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: don't bother -- LadyStarlight,
20:47:40 07/01/01 Sun
Of course, my mind perpetually lives in the gutter.
But you meet such interesting people down here!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> You found rowan in the
gutter???.....;):):):):) -- Rufus, 21:15:27 07/01/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excuse me! I resemble...I
mean, resent...that remark! :) -- rowan, 18:28:33 07/02/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Having an
intense giggle fit here...a philosophical fit of course..:):):):)
-- Rufus, 18:58:12 07/02/01 Mon
Thought it would take you a bit to notice that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Having an intense giggle fit here...a philosophical fit of course..:):):):)
-- rowan, 19:07:10 07/02/01 Mon
You're getting sneaky and hiding your little notes at the bottom
of the page or in the middle of posts...but I'm wise to you. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Curses, I've been found out..have to get more cunning....can one
be philosophically cunning? -- Rufus, 19:19:55 07/02/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Machiavelli and Rufus...perfect together. ;) -- rowan, 21:08:05
07/02/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> You knew my cat, Machiavelli?????:):):):):) -- Rufus,
22:11:03 07/02/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> "like the cheap tart of a hell god she
was" -- Liquidram, 02:22:14 07/01/01 Sun
Rowan - this line is a prime example of why I love this board
so much and thank the stars every day that I found you all!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> When I think of Glory I think of the word caprice...........:):):)
-- Rufus, 16:16:58 06/30/01 Sat
I did like Glory, she was underestimated because she seemed so
shallow and did most of her actions on her unpredictable emotions.
She was the most powerful in a physical sense being that Buffy
had battled. You couldn't know what she would do because nothing
she did could be predicted. We didn't know about her bodymate,
Ben, and it was his infusion of humanity that made Glory prone
to capricious actions. Spike was right she was a light weight
in the villian department because she only wanted to go home.
The true danger to the world as a whole was if she used the Key.
I loved Glorys madcap ways, she wasn't dripping with evil like
the Master, she was so powerful she didn't need to be obvious.
I loved the scene where the minions were packing her things to
go to an alternate reality, made no sense when you consider her
body was a rental, what would she need all those shoes for?:):):):)Welcome
to the board, Kendrat......:):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Prancing lightweight -- rowan, 09:08:55 07/01/01
Sun
For me, when Spike commented that Glory was a 'prancing lightweight
of a god', he was pointing out that she apparently had little,
if any, intellectual capacity. She didn't seem to be able to reason
things out (I mean, look how long it took her to find the Key).
But she was a chaotic, destructive force of unimaginable power
for all that. Her very stupidity (yes, I'll go that far) combined
with her apparent lack of motive behind her cruelty at times plus
her one-note 'I want to go home' allied with physical strength
made her a very dangerous foe indeed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Prancing lightweight -- Scout, 02:09:18
07/02/01 Mon
Glory reminded me of a bitch-queen I went to high school with
who made life miserable for all and sundry (except for her "minions").
Throw in supernatural powers and permanent PMS and, voila, one
hell-god with a footwear obsession.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Prancing lightweight -- Rufus,
04:06:16 07/02/01 Mon
Now, tell me where the hell were all those shoes going to go???Oh
yeah....hell....:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Name that one note bad guy in, uh, one note -- Solitude1056,
10:50:41 07/01/01 Sun
"I wanna go home."
I think you've hit the nail on the head, as have others, in refreshing
a discussion of this season's bad guy. I keep going back to the
Mayor, Angelus, and the Master: all of whom were intelligent,
secretive, ambitious, cunning, and worst of all, had every intention
of sticking around Sunnydale to wreck havoc in one way or another
once they'd gotten whatever they were after. Glory, on the other
hand, had no intention of doing so, and like others have said
better than me, her one-track-mind couldn't really do two tracks,
let alone multi-task.
I wonder, if Dawn had been a bicycle pump, if Glory had come to
Buffy looking for her Key... we could ended up with a season where
Buffy struggles to determine whether letting Glory go home qualified
as doing her Job, or if she should get rid of Glory here, instead.
Well, shuffling Glory off to her own dimension qualifies as getting
rid of, IMO. Somewhere down in the bottom of all the sound & fury
of this past season, I think we were well aware that but for Dawn's
presence, the whole argument might've been moot. Buffy and Scoobies
look the other way while Glory heads on, and then they break the
bicycle pump the minute Glory's through. Not much of a conflict,
which makes Glory as a bad guy rather boring at the bottom line.
It's not surprising that we spent the majority of the season riveted
on Spike and Dawn - those two characters were undergoing change
from the very start, and that's what keeps our interest. Glory
didn't get interesting to me, really, until the last few episodes
when she started having to deal with Ben's emergence as a part
of her own personality. Yeah, so that would've blown the whole
"ben-and-glory-as-same-body" shocker, but seeing that
developing conflict earlier in the season might've made her a
bit more interesting than a simple one-note villian whose only
motto is "you have it, I want it, I want to go home!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Why did it seem Glory was so uninteresting to
many...(Long-winded) -- Andy, 10:56:10 07/01/01 Sun
> When it came to the Key, she seemed to use violence as a
way of removing obstacles, but contrasted to vampires/demons/etc.,
she did not seem to find inherent pleasure in it. Rather, it seems
as if it was like work for her. Granted, she did want to bring
"super-size portions" of suffering and misery to the
hell she came from upon her return, so my thoughts are maybe in
her mortal confines, doing harm and causing suffering was too
taxing to be a habitual recreational activity. I guess that also
raises questions as to what kind of powers hell-gods would have
in pure form (I'm also wondering right now what 'super-size portions'
of suffering look like...).
Yeah, that's an interesting point. I hate mosquitoes, and if I
had a magic wand would gladly wish every last one of them off
the planet, but that doesn't mean I get off on manually squashing
them when they get in my path. That's just...distasteful :)
All in all, I very much agree with your post. I really enjoyed
Glory and feel that Clare Kramer did a great job nailing the portrayal
of her :)
1st Anniversary Posting Party:
Giles -- Rufus, 03:06:31 06/28/01 Thu
Giles,
In 1997, Buffy the Vampire Slayer entered our homes looking like
one of the many kids shows, only with monsters. It was in the
characters and their lives that I first became interested, then
devoted to the show. I'm writing about Giles because he is more
than just a mild mannered librarian. Giles is a man who appears
very old world, old school (Oxford), old boys club in his thinking
and actions. Season one didn't do much to change that. His introduction
in Welcome to the Hellmouth revealed a man who liked the past
and was reluctant to enter the new age of television and computers.
His comfort zone was in the library with his volumes about myth
and monsters. His misfortune was to end up with a modern Slayer
who played by her own rules and came complete with friends and
family. Giles never bothered telling Buffy about the Slayer handbook.
In the season two episode "Halloween" we were shown
a glimpse of what Rupert Giles was capable of under the right
conditions. Ethan Rayne was in town to cause chaos in the form
of a spell that caused the wearer of the costumes he rented from
his shop to take on the appearance and behavior, the costume represented.
It left Buffy helpless, in the form of a young lady from a time
long past. With Buffy and her friends in danger, Giles went to
the costume shop to find his former friend in a back room along
with a bust of Janus.
Ethan: "Chaos. I remain, as ever, thy faithful, degenerate,
son."
later.......
Giles: "Janus, Roman mythical god."
Willow: "What does that mean?"
Giles: "Primarily, the division of self. Male and female,
light and dark."
Giles beat the shit out of Ethan, not because he enjoyed it, but
to find out how to break the spell. Emotionless, just a man doing
what he had to to get results. The smashing of the bust of Janus
showed just how fragile the divide between light and dark of the
self are. Giles is just like Janus a combination of light and
dark.
Ethan: "Who you are? The Watcher, sniveling, tweed clad guardian
of the slayer and her kin, I think not. I know who you are, Rupert,
and I know what you are capable of.....but they don't...do they?
They have no idea of where you come from ...and you said the Ripper
was long gone."
The "Ripper" is the dark side Giles keeps hidden in
proper clothes and manners, only an angry moment away. The full
truth about Giles past is exposed in The Darkage(season two) when
Ethan is back running from the consequences of "their"
past partnership in magic and chaos.
Willow: "Look, the Mark of Eyghon, also called the Sleepwalker,
can only exist in this reality by possessing an unconscious host.
Temporary possession imbues the host with a euphoric feeling of
power."
Giles told Buffy how he had rejected his destiny as a Watcher,
changed his dress, speech, temperment, and got himself a new gang.(I
thought of Spike/William in Fool for Love). Giles was sucked in
by easy sex and illusory power until something happened to frighten
the starch back into his collar.
Giles: "I was twenty and studying at Oxford. And, of course
the occult by night. I hated it. The tedious grind of study, the
...overwhelming pressure of my destiny. I dropped out, I went
to London....I fell in with the worst crowd that would have me.
We practice magicks. Small stuff for pleasure or gain. And Ethan
and I discovered something bigger."
Buffy: "Eyghon."
Giles: "Yes, one of us would um....go into a deep sleep,
and the others would summon him. It was an extraordinary high.
God we were fools."
Buffy: "You couldn't control it."
Giles: "One of us, Randall, he lost control. Eyghon took
him whole. We tried to exorcise the demon from Randall, but it
killed him. No....we killed him. We thought we were free of the
demon after that. But now he is back. And one by one, he will
kill us all."
Giles never wanted Buffy to see that he had ever been able to
walk away from his duty because he was bored and wanted a normal
life. He was most certainly horrified that she knew that he was
capable of selfish actions that seem so unlike what the librarian
facade would indicate. The Ripper is Giles, it's part of his personality,
when angry Giles becomes more Ripper like. He was embarassed that
Buffy ever found out about his mistakes as a young man.
Giles: "I never wanted you to see that side of me."
Buffy: "I'm not gonna lie to you. It was scary. I'm so used
to you being a grownup, and then I find you're a person."
Once Buffy could see Giles as a person he became less the authoritarian
Watcher and more a friend, one who knew the pressure of a predestined
life first hand. Both Buffy and Giles had been forced into service,
leaving the chance for a normal life remote. The barrier between
the generations dissolved in the understanding of their similar
lot in life. Giles wanted to be anyone else but a watcher, leading
to his playing at magic, which had consequences that made him
grow up and return to his destiny and the Council. The Ripper
is still there, part of the Giles package that is prepared to
use brutality to get the desired information or results. The difference
is that in his youth, the Ripper was self centered and impulsive,
his brutality self serving and more random. Now, Giles has control
over his dark impulses the Ripper only becoming evident if needed.
The man that beat Ethan in Halloween is the same man who drools
around books. Giles was able to grow past the selfish need for
power and Ethan wasn't. Ethan doesn't care about anything past
his own needs and pleasure.
What Giles could have become had he not gotten smart was illustrated
in Band Candy. Chocolate was a new route to chaos turning the
adults of Sunnydale into teenagers. Giles reverted back to his
Ripper persona and ended up meeting Ethan again.
Ethan spies a crowbar on the table, and being unguarded now, reaches
for it and begins to advance toward Buffy. Giles notices his advance.
He pulls back the hammer on his stolen Beretta and points it at
Ethan's neck.
Giles: "I wouldn't"
Ethan stops cold in his tracks. Buffy turns around and swings
the telephone receiver hard into Ethan's chin. He spins down to
the floor, dropping the crowbar. Giles aims the gun at the back
of Ethan's head, executions style. Buffy hands the phone to her
mother.
Buffy: "Giles, give me the gun."
He just stares at Buffy and doesn't give in.
Buffy: "Giles...."
He keeps the gun aimed right where it is.
Buffy: "Now."
After a moment Giles reluctantly gives up his weapon. Buffy stuffs
it into the back of her pants.
Giles had beaten a policeman to get that gun....he was prepared
to use it on Ethan to protect Buffy. The younger Ripper may have
been prepared to kill, but age and experience showed Giles how
to let his Ripper side out when needed. He has manhandled principal
Snyder to help get Buffy back in school, beaten Ethan a few times,
and set Spike straight in season five about Buffy. Giles has learned
restraint with his years...something he has taught Buffy...he
knows what can happen if you let your angry feelings go. Giles
said in Pangs vengeance is never sated, I have a feeling he knows
something about vengeance.
The worst moment for Watcher and Slayer came as a result of the
Council's visit to Sunnydale. These men had only been voices on
the phone til their visit to Sunnydale. They weren't kindly old
sorcerers, but bureaucrats who had reduced the Slayer to a thing
to be used til broken (dead) then replaced. The Slayer was only
useful as a instrument of the Council, the Watcher, the eyes and
voice that made sure the Slayer was following procedure. Giles
did what he was told and drugged Buffy to get her "Helpless"(season
three) enough for a test to proceed. I didn't like Giles or the
council when I saw what they were ready to do to a young girl
who risked her life daily for humanity.
Quentin: "Cruciamentum is not easy...for Slayer or Watcher.
But it's been done this way for a dozen centuries. Whenever a
Slayer turns eighteen. It's a time-honoured rite of passage."
Giles: "It's an archaic exercise in cruelty, to lock her
in this tomb...weakened, defenceless. And to unleash *that* on
her."
Quentin: "Which is why you're not qualified to make this
decision. You're too close."
The council was in Sunnydale to make sure that their interests
were taken care of. The Watcher and Slayer, compliant, worthy
to represent them. The only thing..if she failed she died, that
possiblility mattered little to the council, the slayer changes
the council stays the same. Giles betrayal of his relationship
with Buffy was hard to watch. To stick a needle into the arm of
someone who trusted him, and not tell her why and what was happening
to her was pure council training in action. But Giles did the
unexpected he gave into his conscience and told Buffy what was
going on. He couldn't stand by and watch as the girl he had gotten
so close to was tortured to satisfy tradition.
Giles: "It's a test, Buffy. It's given to the Slayer once
she....uh, well, if she reaches her eighteenth birthday....The
slayer is disabled and then entrapped with a vampire foe whom
she must defeat in order to pass the test. The vampire you were
to face....has escaped. His name is Zachary Kralik. As a mortal,
he murdered and tortured more than a dozen women before he was
committed to an asylum for the criminally insane. When a vampire........"
Buffy: (sobbing)"You bastard. All this time, you saw what
it was doing to me. All this time, and you didn't say a word?"
Giles: "In matters of tradition and protocol, I must answer
to the council...my role in this was very specific. I was to administer
the injections and to direct you to the old bordinghouse on Prescott
Lane."
Giles thought that he had nullified the test by informing Buffy
about it. Quentin was getting his test no matter how many bodies
it took to get it. This led to a confrontation between the two
men.
Giles: "Then you know what's happened."
Quentin: "Yes."
Giles: (angrily) "He's killed Hobson and made Blair one of
his own. Your perfectly controlled test seems to have spun rather
impressively out of control, don't you think?"
Quentin: "It changes nothing."
Giles: Well, then, allow me. I've told Buffy everything."
Quentin: "That is in direct opposition to the Council's orders."
Giles: "Yes. Interestingly, I don't give a rat's ass about
the Council's orders. There will be no test."
Quentin: "The test has already begun. Your Slayer entered
the field of play about ten minutes ago."
Giles: "Why?"
Quentin: "I don't know. I returned there just as she entered."
Giles grabs his keys from his desk and starts out of the office.
Quentin tries to stop him."
Quentin: "Now Giles, we've no business....."
Giles grabs him by the coat and shoves him up against the doorframe.
Giles: "This is *not* business!" He lets the other man
go and strides out of the library.
Giles actions proved that he had chosen a side and it was that
of human decency. The test is twelve centuries old and clearly
barbaric. If a Slayer makes it to her eighteenth year I think
a big party is in order, not a sick rite of passage. Giles went
and helped Buffy because he values Buffy, not as an instrument,
but as a daughter. His "fathers" love for Buffy helped
him make the choice to disobey council orders and risk his positition
as a Watcher. He redeemed himself by telling Buffy and taking
his lumps. He then further proved himself by going to the house
and interfering in the test because he knew it was pointless.
Kralik had taken Buffy's mother forcing Buffy into the test to
save Joyce.To watch Buffy go against Kralik as a "normal"
girl was frightening, she was helpless in her red riding hood
cape, running from a twisted monster. The mortal Kralik was already
a monster, becoming a vampire only gave him more stamina to carry
out his fantasies about killing women. To this day I feel that
Kralik was the most frightening vampire I have ever seen. To become
a monster Kralick didn't need to be infected by a vampire, he
was already there. Buffy used her mind and killed Kralik not with
brute strength, but a batch of pills with a holy water chaser.
Giles came in and took out a second vampire. The test was important,
Buffy and her mother weren't. The test was done because it had
always been done, times may have changed but the Council stayed
the same, the progress of humanity wasn't going to change that.
Giles took a chance, he didn't just use the rules to excuse his
role in the test, he chanced losing his career as a Watcher to
protect Buffy, he became a man to respect. Giles defiance of the
council was punished.
Giles: "You're *waging* a war. She's fighting it. There is
a difference."
Quentin: "Not quite, She passed, you didn't. The Slayer is
not the only one who must perform in this situation. I've recommended
to the council, and they've agreed, that you be relieved of your
duties as Watcher immediately. You're fired."
Giles: "On what grounds."
Quentin: "Your affection for your charge has rendered you
incapable of clear and impartial judgement. You have a father's
love for the child, and that is useless to the cause. It would
be best if you had no further contact with the Slayer."
Giles: "I'm not going anywhere."
Quentin: "No, well, I didn't expect you would adhere to that.
However, if you interfere with the new Watcher, or countermand
his authority in any way, you will be dealt with. Are we clear?"
Giles: "Oh, we're very clear."
Quentin:"Congratulations again." (to Buffy)
Buffy: "Bite me."
Calling Buffy a child helped Quentin stay in a superior position.
It also hinted that she was too young to make her own decisions.
The Council had kept their hold on power by complicated rules
and intimidation, no one had questioned their authority until
Giles stood up to them. They had become a bureaucracy only interested
in their games and the continuation of the comfortable, old world
ways. I can see why Buffy kicked them out of town and eventually
cut ties with them. They tested the Watcher and Slayer to make
sure that they were a fighting unit only, no relationship other
than what the rules allowed. This dehumanizes the Slayer and Watcher
and leaves a young girl an object, destined to die alone and afraid,
without the thing that could make the difference, love and human
closeness. The scene at the end of Helpless showed just how attached
to Buffy, Giles had become. He stood his ground and was staying
no matter the consequences. He was no longer a Council mouthpiece,
he was a father of a sort.
With the Council out of the picture Buffy and Giles went into
season four with a relationship that became strained as Giles
went through a mid life crisis. No longer an official Watcher
Giles became a bit lost. He was unemployed(he did blow up the
high school) and felt that Buffy had progressed beyond needing
his help. By the end of the season they were fractured by their
self doubt and the Yoko Factor. Spike split them up to make them
weak. Buffy figured it out in time for the four to join and defeat
Adam. They remembered the importance of their friendship and bonded
together in a spell to defeat Adam. In Restless they gathered
at Buffy's to enjoy movies and some down time. They all had dreams
that foreshadowed what was to come in season five.
Giles: "Buffy, you have a sacred birthright to protect mankind.
Don't stick out your elbow."
Olivia: "For god's sake, Rupert, go easy on the girl."
Giles: "This is my business. Blood of the lamb and all that.
Oh, now you're gonna get that all over your face."
Season five was about the family. Giles felt he wasn't needed
in Buffy's life, her power enough that she could stand on her
own. At the end of Buffy vs. Dracula Buffy asked Giles to become
her Watcher again. Buffy may have power but she still needed guidance
to understand how to use it.Giles got new purpose as Watcher and
Magic Shop owner. He also had the job of helping Buffy endure
her losses. First Riley left, her mother sickened and died. We
also got to meet Buffy's monk made sister, Dawn, who is the Key.
Giles helped Buffy train and comforted her when she was upset.
This year Buffy needed Giles more than ever with her mother gone
and Dawn the Key, Buffy faced a god and doubted her ability to
win this battle.
In Checkpoint the council was back in town with another test.
Buffy at first was afraid of their behind the scenes power, until
she realized that it was she that had the actual power, power
everyone wanted. The Council had power because no slayer survived
long enough to question it.
Quentin: "Buffy.....I can sense your resistance, and I don't
blame you. But I think you Watcher hasn't reminded you lately
of the resolute status of the players in out little game. The
Council fights evil. The Slayer is the instrument by which we
fight. The Council remains, the Slayers change. It's been that
way from the beginning.
Giles: (scornfully) "Well, that's a very comforting, bloodless
way of looking at it, isn't it?"
Quentin: "Giles, let me talk to Buffy, because I think she's
understanding me."
At one time Giles had been on the inside, one of the old boys,
but his experience in life allowed him to see that the ways of
the council were pathetically outdated and cruel. He broke away
deciding to do the right thing by Buffy. Buffy had an epiphany
regarding her place in "the game" after meeting up with
first Glory, then the Knights. This made her rethink her former
feelings of helplessness in regards to the Council, her conclusions
reorganized the power stucture.
Buffy: (Glory came over to Buffy's house)"Just to talk. She
told me I'm a bug, I'm a flea, she could squash me in a second.
Only she didn't. She came into my home, and we talked. We had
what in her warped brain probably passes for a civilized conversation.
Why? Because she needs something from me. Because I have power
over her."
Buffy: "You guys didn't come all the way from England to
determine whether or not I was good enough to be let back in.
You came to beg me to let you back in. To give your jobs your
lives some semblance of meaning."
Buffy: "You're Watchers. Without a Slayer, you're pretty
much just watchin Masterpiece Theater. You can't stop Glory. You
can't do anything with the information you have except maybe publish
it in "Everyone thinks We're Insane-O's Home Journal. So
here's how it's gonna work. You're gonna tell me everything you
know. Then you're gonna go away. You'll contact me if and when
you have any further information about Glory. The magic shop will
remain open. Mr. Giles will stay here as my official Watcher,
reinstated at full salary......."
Buffy: "Now. You all may be very good at your jobs. The only
way we're gonna find out is if you work with me. You can all take
your time thinking about that. But I want an answer right now
from Quinton, cause I think he's understanding me."
You bet Quinton understood Buffy. The Council is all talk, all
games, no actual power to fight the battle. The reason they exist
is because of the Slayer not the other way around. Giles could
see that as a human being Buffy deserved better than to be treated
like an instrument. Giles worked with Buffy learning to trust
in her judgement. Buffy's judgement established a new order, Slayer
and Watcher work together, Council goes back to England to move
paper about. The Council had shown they were undeserving of a
command position, they were sent back to reasearch and inform
the Slayer and Watcher team. Slayer and Watcher were "Helpless"
no more.
In Restless Giles mentioned his job, his sacred birthright as
well as Buffy's to protect the world. The only time Giles has
ever lost it with Buffy was over Dawn. The fact that the key could
be part of a ritual that would destroy the world. Giles understood
Buffys need to protect her sister, but for him his duty was clearly
to protect the world, even from Dawn. Buffy made it clear that
the last thing Dawn would see was her protecting her. Giles and
Buffy never had to confront each other over this as they had different
roles to play in the defeat of Glory. Buffy found that love indeed
would bring her to her gift, her gift to the world. Buffy turned
out to be the blood of the lamb, the sacrifice that saved humanity,
Giles did his bit to keep it safe. Giles saw Buffy hesitate when
Glory turned back to Ben, she couldn't kill a helpless human.
Giles made a choice one he felt a hero shouldn't have to contemplate.
Giles: "Can you move?"
Ben: "Need a minute. She could've killed me."
Giles: "No, she couldn't. Never. And sooner or later Glory
would re-emerge, and make Buffy pay for that mercy. And the world
with her. Buffy even knows that...(reaches into his pocket, takes
out glasses) and still she couldn't take a human life."
Giles: "She's a hero, you see. She's not like us."
Ben: "Us?"
Giles suddenly reaches down and puts his hand over Ben's nose
and mouth, holding them shut. Ben struggles weakly as Giles keeps
him still. Giles expression calm throughout.
Giles killed Ben/Glory to spare the world and Buffy any further
danger. He felt that as a hero, Buffy was above making choices
that went against her honor code, so he took it upon himself to
do what Buffy's mercy wouldn't let her do. He missed Buffy jumping
into the portal to save the world and her sister. The look on
his face showed the shock of loss and defeat, after all the battles
Buffy was gone forever. He lost his Slayer, his daughter. Buffy
was told her gift was death, her gift to the world was life through
Buffys sacrifice. Buffys last words were of comfort to those left
behind.
Buffy: "I love you. I will *always* love you.....but this
is my work I have to do...tell Giles I figured it out, and I'm
okay. And give my love to my friends. You have to take care of
them now. You have to take care of each other...you have to be
strong. Dawn, the hardest thing in this world ....is to live in
it....be brave...Live .....For Me."
Buffy's solution lead her to the light of dawn, Giles choice to
kill Ben took a certain amount of darkness. Both choices had to
be made. Giles did what he felt was needed to prevent any further
destruction from Glory, Buffy's made sure there was a world left
to worry about. Now all the survivors have to do is live, it's
the only thing Buffy wanted.
Giles and Buffy escaped the stereotypical Watcher/Slayer relationship
because they took the chance and became close. They got results
that speak for themselves. They were willing to ignore the Council
based rules and work with friends that included demons. They combined
old world knowledge and new world technology to come to new solutions.
Giles was the best Watcher for Buffy as he was able to change
with the times and try a new way of fighting the battle with demons
and evil. Giles was able to get out of the library and back into
living in the world, he may not always been comfortable, but he
was a better man for it. Giles did so much more than simply document
the life of a Slayer, he helped her become the best person she
could have been. Giles is a man that is more than his look can
define, he is more than the tweed clad Watcher, he is Giles/Ripper/Friend/Father/light/dark,
a man. I'll never be able to see librarians the same way again.
I have only written about one small part of who Giles is, I look
to your additional posts about a character that has brought so
much to Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Some episodes I liked and show Giles in his many guises: Welcome
to the Hellmouth, Halloween, The Darkage, Passion, Band Candy,
Helpless, Something Blue, Pangs, A New Man, The Yoko Factor, Checkpoint,
The Body, Spiral, The Gift.
all quotes from Psyche's transcripts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- Marie, 04:13:37
06/28/01 Thu
Great post, Rufus. I really LIKE Giles, you know? He comes across
as a nice person, who's really doing his best. I think he has
come to really love Buffy - she's not just the Slayer to him,
she's the daughter of his heart. One of the most heartbreaking
moments for me was in 'Revelations', Xander has revealed to the
group that Angel is back - and Buffy not only knows, but was KISSING
him!
In the resultant confrontation in the Library, Willow is shocked,
but wants to hear Buffy's explanation; Xander is just plain furious;
Cordy is disgusted and accusatory; Oz is, well, Oz-like, Giles
is quiet, dignified. He calls the meeting to a halt when emotions
start to get out of control, and Buffy, very defensive, follows
him into his study:
Buffy: I know this is a lot to absorb, but Angel did find the
glove, and that was a good...
Giles: (interrupts) Be quiet. (slowly turns to face her) (sternly)
I won't remind you that the fate of the world often lies with
the Slayer. What would be the point? Nor shall I remind you that
you've jeopardized the lives of all that you hold dear by harboring
a known murderer. But sadly, I must remind you that Angel tortured
me... for hours... for pleasure. You should have told me he was
alive. You didn't. You have no respect for me, or the job I perform.
Wow! To me, that showed that not only was there all this fury
bubbling volcanically under that calm surface, but SUCH HURT!
Such disappointment! It made me cry.
Also, Buffy, up until that point, had got away with a lot things
with Giles, by pouting or kidding around. Suddenly, she's slapped
in the face (metaphorically, I mean!) by someone who's basic approval
she's taken somewhat for granted up to now. Giles is no longer
the sometimes-bumbling old guy who always gets knocked unconscious,
but this cold, disapproving person she can't get around this time.
(This turned into a bit of a ramble - sorry!).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- Solitude1056,
06:24:11 06/28/01 Thu
Awesome post, Rufus, and hell yeah, Marie - I always loved that
response from Giles. He had usually come across as quiet & dignified,
but that few seconds o' line revealed just how much he cared and
how much he could be hurt, too. And it brought me back, as the
audience, to the reality that Angel's always going to present
some pretty conflicted feelings in Giles as a result.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- Rufus,
16:40:28 06/28/01 Thu
Thanks Marie, I like Giles very much, his words can at times sting
but at the bottom of the post I put a scene where he does shine
with words to help not hurt Buffy. His character is very complicated
because we can make the mistake in judging him by his daily actions
as a tweed clad librarian, it's clear that he has much more life
experience that dusting books.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- Kimberly, 05:03:02
06/28/01 Thu
Wow! Great post; lots to think about.
Giles has always been my favorite character; I have a thing for
British accents, glasses and attractive men.
I'll post more later, if I can come up with anything more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Rufus, excellent post ! -- Slayrunt, 05:19:42 06/28/01 Thu
You really show the importance of the Watcher Giles.
Giles and Buffy escaped the stereotypical Watcher/Slayer relationship
because they took the chance and became close. They got results
that speak for themselves. They were willing to ignore the Council
based rules and work with friends that included demons. They combined
old world knowledge and new world technology to come to new solutions.
Giles was the best Watcher for Buffy as he was able to change
with the times and try a new way of fighting the battle with demons
and evil. Giles was able to get out of the library and back into
living in the world, he may not always been comfortable, but he
was a better man for it. Giles did so much more than simply document
the life of a Slayer, he helped her become the best person she
could have been. Giles is a man that is more than his look can
define, he is more than the tweed clad Watcher, he is Giles/Ripper/Friend/Father/light/dark,
a man. I'll never be able to see librarians the same way again.
Giles was the best Watcher for Buffy. Had Gwendolyn Post or Wesley
been assigned first to Buffy, everthing would be truly different.
By now we might be waiting desperately for the UPN debute of Kendra
the Vampire Slayer if we (the world) were here at all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- Aquitaine, 05:31:42
06/28/01 Thu
Rufus,
Great post! What you've made especially clear for me with your
analysis is just how linked Buffy and Giles are. It is easy to
forget that Giles' task is to be a buffer for Buffy. At times
he possesses knowledge or experience that make black and white
situations more ambiguous for him, that make his choices particularly
difficult and painful. IMO, his excursion into controlled-Ripper
mode in The Gift served to show that Buffy isn't the only Chosen
One. In the end, death was his gift to the world as well.
I love Giles' integrity and intelligence. These attributes have
always made Giles attractive to me. However, there is something
about him that makes me uncomfortable and it isn't his dark side,
at least not his Ripper dark side. What gets me about Giles is
the suppressed but omnipresent feeling of sorrow that surrounds
him. Giles is the epitome of the permanently-disappointed man.
His disappointment is at once the source of his strength and the
reason he needs to take cover behind his mild-mannered-librarian
persona. Last season, Giles almost disappeared by self-effacement
and this season he continued to struggle with his own inner demons
and feelings of failure.
I can't wait to see what's in store for Giles now that his charge
is dead. I would love to see him happy, if only momentarily. He
deserves it.
- Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Not trying to start an international incident ! --
Slayrunt, 05:44:39 06/28/01 Thu
Aquitaine, I just took it for Giles being British.
I mean from reading Douglas Adams, I can see Arthur Dent as being
very much like Giles in that way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Giles is not your English-garden-variety
dour boy. LOL -- Aquitaine, 10:09:23 06/28/01 Thu
I haven't read Douglas Adams, unfornatunately, so I can't comment
on any possible British paradigm. Hehehe!
I don't know. Even more than Spike (or even William - another
British guy if that helps your case - LOL), Giles exudes 'something'
very deep and vulnerable. There is always an air of mystery beneath
the awkwardness and fuddy-duddy-ness. But, despite this air of
mystery, Giles always falls just a smidgen short of becoming a
true romantic figure. I like to think that Giles himself is wary
of the allure of romanticism.
-Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Giles is not your English-garden-variety
dour boy. LOL -- Slayrunt, 15:03:56 06/28/01 Thu
Perhaps if they names the ep's for Giles instead of Buffy "The
Gift" would have been "The Weight of the World"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- gds, 06:28:28
06/28/01 Thu
Rufus, you did a good job listing the big issues about Giles.
However some of the smaller issues have been really made me connect
with Giles. E.g. 1. His relationship with Olivia - especially
in "Hush" 2. His banter with Buffy in his new car "Real
Me" which shows how comfortable they are with each other
3. His singing especially in "Where the Wild Things Are"
4. His practical non-supernatural approach to creating a door
in "Fear, Itself" 5. His gentle revenge on the high
& mighty Walsh chasing her for a few seconds as she runs away
screaming in "A New Man"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- Humanitas, 08:35:03
06/28/01 Thu
Giles is easily my favorite of the SG. Maybe because I'm a bit
bookish myself, I've always identifed with him. I think you captured
the layered nature of his personality quite well. One thing I'd
like to emphasise, though, is his self-awareness. The librarian
is not merely a mask to hide the Ripper. Giles is aware of both
aspects of his personality, and has even developed a sense of
humor about it.
Olivia: "All the time you used to talk to me about witchcraft
and darkness and the like - I just thought you were being pretentious."
Giles: "Oh I was. I was also right." --"Hush"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Yea! It's here (and so early in the day!) -- rowan, 08:39:16
06/28/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Rufus on anything BtVS -- Masquerade, 09:11:03 06/28/01
Thu
Always quotable! Now I'm gonna kill my harddrive with another
Rufus down-load. Some day soon I gotta get all this stuff up on
my page.
Especially your insights into the Watcher's Council:
"...They weren't kindly old sorcerers, but bureaucrats who
had reduced the Slayer to a thing to be used til broken (dead)
then replaced. The Slayer was only useful as a instrument of the
Council, the Watcher, the eyes and voice that made sure the Slayer
was following procedure...
Calling Buffy a child helped Quentin stay in a superior position.
It also hinted that she was too young to make her own decisions.
The Council had kept their hold on power by complicated rules
and intimidation, no one had questioned their authority until
Giles stood up to them."
Very cool.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Rufus on anything BtVS -- spotjon, 13:23:20 06/28/01
Thu
I really hope that all of these analyses will end up on the ATPOBTVS
site in the near future. This forum has a tendency to swallow
threads whole, and I would hate to see them gone forever (especially
mine, wink wink). You could add an entirely new section: "Character
Analyses", or some such thing. All of the character posts
thus far have been great, and I have high hopes for the rest of
them.
BTW, I think that somebody should do a character analysis of the
new "Fray" character that was recently introduced in
the comic books. I have the first issue (of eight), which just
came out, and she has quite the personality. Kind of a mix of
Faith and alternate-universe-Buffy without the "I hate my
life" attitude. You all should check it out if you haven't
already.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: FRAY -- Brian, 13:40:49 06/28/01 Thu
If you want a copy, better hurry. It is selling out across the
country. I guess comic book retailers were caught by surprise
at how popular the comic turned out to be.
Maybe they've learned their lesson and will order more copies
of the Angel comic which Joss is writing, and it will be out in
the Fall.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Rufus on anything BtVS -- Masquerade, 14:10:58
06/28/01 Thu
Oh, don't worry. A special character analysis page with all the
featured writers each week this summer was part of the original
plan. But some especially insightful sentences or paragraphs may
go on the standard pages (e.g. Moral Ambiguity of...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> cool! -- spotjon, 14:21:16 06/28/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Excellent post, Rufus! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 09:16:59 06/28/01
Thu
You made me remember that Giles was the reason I originally stuck
with BtVS through the first season (aside from the writing). It
was reassuring to me that there was at least one *adult* character
who had a large role in the show, and the fact that the adult
was attractive and incredibly interestingly conflicted was a bonus.
I do think there is some great sorrow in Giles' life (aside from
the death of Jenny Calender and the recent death of Buffy) that
we haven't been made aware of, and may never be, unless it was
the murder of his friend while possessed by Ehygon. He has always
struck me as someone with not just an inner Ripper, but an inner
*griever* as well.
Well done, Rufus. Chocolates for you!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Excellent post, Rufus! ;o) -- Rattletrap, 07:30:31
06/29/01 Fri
Great point Wisewoman! I think Giles inner griever was captured
especially well in Intervention. We didn't see much of him in
that episode, he was always strong and supportive for Buffy and
the gang. But then, there's the one priceless scene that shows
him sitting down with a drink and Disareli Gears on the stereo,
clearly remembering Joyce, but grieving inwardly, as always.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Excellent post, Rufus! ;o) -- Lurker Becoming
Restless, 15:01:26 06/30/01 Sat
Yes, that scene reminded me of how little I really know about
Giles. In fact, the Scooby Gang don't know a great deal about
him either (though Buffy is much closer than the others).
I think there is evidence for this in Restless, when Willow clearly
sees him as a 'doddery, well-intentioned director'- figure (no,
I don't know what that is either) and Xander sees him as someone
who he is less interested in being close to than he was and who
he often fails to understand. In his own dream, Giles insists
that he has 'a gig' himself - I wonder what this means...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Excellent post, Rufus! ;o) -- Rufus,
15:59:27 06/30/01 Sat
I thought about the "gig" that Giles refered to in his
dream and the only feeling I had was that it refered to his other
interests in life. Giles saw Buffy as a little girl type in his
dream but he spoke to her like he would his own child. Giles has
always been torn between duty and having a normal life. He had
to make a choice to continue as a Watcher but he still longs for
something more in his life. He has talents that he had to forget
to perform his duty as Buffy's watcher. This may be the time in
his life that he withdraws to permit Buffy to grow up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Agreed -- Lurker Becoming Restless,
04:45:05 07/01/01 Sun
Yes - that's exactly it. I'm really impressed that you seem to
know so much about Giles - even more than was suggested by your
superb original post. Good show!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Great post as usual, Rufus. -- Wiccagrrl, 10:26:37 06/28/01
Thu
Adding a couple of comments of my own:
Like many people here, Giles has always been one of my favorite
Buffy characters. He's smart, ruthless when necessary, with a
real vulnerability at times. His reaction after losing Jenny (going
after Angelus, the comment in Revelations that people have already
mentioned) break my heart every time. And, I wish they'd let him
have a love life again. I've been rewatching some of the old eps,
doing some episode reviews on the BC&S, and I'm struck by
how wonderful the chemistry is between Giles and Jenny. Same with
Olivia. I mean, Jenny had it nailed- he *is* kind of a sexy fuddy
duddy.
Of all the Scoobs, I think Giles is going to have the hardest
time dealing with Buffy's death. This is gonna hit him hard.
And, no one's mentioned his singing yet (or if they did, I missed
it.) Yummy.
One last thing- just rewatched The Dark Age, and it seemed to
me the whole Eyghon thing was kind of a drug use metaphor- Bunch
of kids experimenting, extraordinary high, things get out of control,
one of them ends up dead (OD's)Just a thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Great post as usual, Rufus. -- Rufus, 20:26:16
06/28/01 Thu
I can agree with the drug metaphor, plus we also see that some
problems growing up are universal. Giles did some immature stupid
things as a kid, lucky he didn't get himself killed. He understands
what it is like to make a mistake that cost lives. Sometimes things
you did when you were younger have a way of coming back to bite
you in the ass years later. His life experience made him perfect
to deal with Buffy, he has grown since his "bad-magic-hates
the-world-ticking-timebomb guy", he understands how mistakes
can happen. I don't think someone like Wesley was ready to deal
with an adolecent girl when he had the maturity level of a blueberry
scone. Giles can be harsh but he also knows when kindness is the
way to go.
I only mentioned the parts of Giles that I felt were the most
important, he does have talents other than books and Watching.
His singing is something I hope to hear some more of in season
six.
As for his sex life I had started a post on Sex and the Middle
aged Watcher but the one you see is what I finished.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Great post as usual, Rufus. -- Sssaaammm, 14:14:25
06/29/01 Fri
Using the drug abuse metaphor, it is interesting to see the difference
between Giles' and Angel's recovery.
Both have relapsed (Giles through band candy, Angel through the
happy-clause) unknowingly yet only Angel has made the intentional
metaphorical 'grab for that first drink' (By sleeping with Darla)
- although it turned out to be non-alcoholic the intention was
there.
Giles resembles a reformed addict who has replaced old thinking
and old behaviours although can remember them and use his experiences.
Giles' problem was created as a response to pressure and he rebelled
with peer influences. Angel is a "dry drunk". Angel
will never fully recover unless he can dettach from his past self
and replace his thinking patterns as a new identity. Angel's problem
was hereditary (the alcoholic gene?) from his sire which gave
him a predisposition fuelled by escapism (Darla promising bigger
brighter horizons).
Giles has no need for redemption as he is not the person he once
was. Angel is a reflection of what he was but is even further
removed in being a different being than what 'he' once was. Perhaps
Giles does however carry a similar burden to Angel in terms of
guilt for the loss of the Randall (good point about the OD Wiccagirl)
or other, as yet, undisclosed events) Perhaps he either would
feel unable to act as mentor to Buffy if it were disclosed or
he chooses not to discuss it as he does not want to go down the
path of identifying himself with his past.
Angel: Has taken on his past acts as part of his personality.
They influence everything he is now and his fight for good is
more a need for redemption. His dark side is uncontrollable as
he is not detached from it enough to have an outside perspective
(which is why he lost the plot mid AtS: 2). Angel has however
had the 'moment of clarity' although it's been a long time coming.
Giles: Has learnt from his past and has evolved as a new person
for it. Giles' fight for good is a need to do the right thing.
His dark side/ memories of a dark side are accessible and controllable
as he is detached from it enough to re-enact past behaviour patterns
and let them link on to emotions as he chooses.
With this metaphor, it does however suggest that Angel had a heavy
addiction and was physically dependant, whilst Giles was involved
in drugs as part of a lifestyle and in that sence they were peripheral
instead of the be all and end all. This could also indicate why
recover patterns are different. It doesn't help that Angel must
undergo withdrawal therapy (pig's blood) 100 years on!
The pressure of Giles' destiny to be a watcher pushed him into
rebelling but do we know anything else about what this pressure
and destiny consisted of apart from his father wanting him to
follow in his shoes? How are watchers selected and where does
destiny come into it - a birthright?...Was Wesley's father a watcher?
To everyone who's felt the need to apologise for rambling in their
posts, I hope this post can help ease those feelings :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> A moment with Giles and Buffy that I had to mention seperately......
-- Rufus, 16:23:55 06/28/01 Thu
It was in Innocence that Buffy had to deal with the fact that
Angel had reverted to Angelus. Angelus tried to get to her through
her friends. At the end of Innocence there was a scene that I
never forgot because Giles show of compassion was enough to make
one cry.
Cut to the street in front of Buffy's house. Giles pulls up inan
ancient car to drop her off. He looks over at her and shuts off
the engine. Cut into the car. The only noise is that of crickets
outside. Giles breaks the silence.
Giles: "It's not over. I-I-I suppose you know that. He'll
come after you, particularly. His profile, uh, well, he...he's
likely to strike out at the things that made him most human."
Buffy: "You must be so disappointed in me."
Giles: "No(she looks at him) No, no, I'm not."
Buffy: "But this is all my fault"
Giles: "No. I don't believe it is. Do you want me to wag
my finger at you and tell you that you acted rashly? You did.
A....and I can. I know that you loved him. And....he....has proven
more than once that he loved you. You couldn't have known what
would happen. The coming months a-are gonna, are gonna be hard...I,
I suspect on all of us, but..if it's guilt you're looking for,
Buffy, I'm, I'm not your man. All you will get from me is, is
my support. And my respect."
Buffy smiles at him through her tears.
Giles could have destroyed Buffy's self-confidence, her self-worth
by blaming her for Angel's transformation. He could have frozen
Buffy out and punished her with silence. He did neither...he showed
kindness and understanding. Giles understands how easy it is to
make mistakes, even when you have the best intentions. To blame
would have paralized Buffy, Giles told her what she needed to
hear, no lecture, just kind words.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A moment with Giles and Buffy that I had to mention
seperately...... -- Rahael, 17:17:24 06/28/01 Thu
This is why I love Giles! It reminds me of 'When She was bad'
, where Giles is the only person who understands her situation.
When he first says hello to her at school, the expression on his
face said everything - tenderness, compassion and understanding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A moment with Giles and Buffy that I had to mention
seperately...... -- gds, 07:34:26 06/30/01 Sat
Thanks for reminding me of that very special moment. It did deserve
to be mentioned separately. It is not only a part of the 'big
picture', but also a moment which invites us to connect with Giles
on a more personal level - a person we wish we knew instead of
just a great character in a story.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Rufus, Isabel, Wiccagrrl, Rowan and other Anniversary posters--need
your feeback -- Masquerade, 17:19:22 06/28/01 Thu
Here is a sample of the page I would post on my site with the
character analysis. I've just done Rufus' so far to see what ya'll
think:
http://home.4w.com/pages/btvs/giles.html
Masq
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Rufus, Isabel, Wiccagrrl, Rowan and other Anniversary
posters--need your feeback -- rowan, 18:00:19 06/28/01 Thu
Wow! This is fantastic. I really like it (it makes me sorry I'm
not doing a post so that I can be immortalized). One suggestion:
could we do a "Responses" area where we do something
similar to the suggestions about the archived post? I'm thinking
perhaps we'd edit the responses down to any new observations or
elaborations on any point of relevance to the main post.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Wow pretty much sums it up.......... -- Rufus,
18:31:45 06/28/01 Thu
Looks very nice, loved the pictures. The green background is a
good idea. (I had no idea how to paste a post so all the bold
print and italics I did were gone when they showed up here, it
would have been better if I knew something about computers.) To
see the words with pictures gives one something more to think
about. You did a lovely job.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Wow pretty much sums it up.......... -- Rufus,
18:36:08 06/28/01 Thu
Looks very nice, loved the pictures. The green background is a
good idea. (I had no idea how to paste a post so all the bold
print and italics I did were gone when they showed up here, it
would have been better if I knew something about computers.) To
see the words with pictures gives one something more to think
about. You did a lovely job.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Rufus, Isabel, Wiccagrrl, Rowan and other
Anniversary posters--need your feeback -- Masq, 18:40:42 06/28/01
Thu
Due to space limits with the 4w.com server, I am only going to
post the original post. But I can put links to the archives once
Sol or OnM or whomever gets them someplace I can link to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Rufus, Isabel, Wiccagrrl, Rowan and other Anniversary
posters--need your feeback -- Isabel, 18:44:32 06/28/01 Thu
Wow! Muy impressivo. I like it.
I never suspected that you'd be archiving my post (or anyone's)
in this fashion. To tell you the truth, I'm glad I didn't. I would
have been neurotically re-writing Willow well into Friday afternoon.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm grinning like a maniac and as soon
as I get off the 'Net, I'm making long distance phone calls. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Rufus, Isabel, Wiccagrrl, Rowan and other
Anniversary posters--need your feeback -- Nina, 09:54:50 06/29/01
Fri
Well now the pressure is on, right? Why the hell did I choose
Buffy? :) No kidding, it's wonderful Masquerade!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I got *tons* of Buffy picks to highlight
your enlightened treatise -- Masq ; - ), 11:19:08 06/29/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Looks really good. -- Wiccagrrl, 20:24:45 06/28/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Nifty! Immortalized in pixels! :-D -- Solitude1056,
05:51:16 06/29/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Nice! -- verdantheart, 06:36:55 06/29/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Cool!(NT) -- vampire hunter D, 13:15:56 06/29/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Groovy! (but, hey, scared now!) -- Lurker Becoming
Restless, 14:46:26 06/30/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- rowan, 17:56:52
06/28/01 Thu
Yes, I love Giles, too. It would be hard to over-emphasize Giles'
importance to the Buffyverse. Spikes, Rileys, Parkers, and yes,
even Angels come and go, but a Giles is here to stay. The foundational
relationship of the Buffyverse is this first one: Slayer to Watcher.
"When the student is ready, the teacher appears." We
have a marriage of teacher and student here that is truly remarkable.
Rufus (and others) have pointed out how the relationship between
Giles and Buffy has evolved over five years. Giles has shown a
remarkable talent for adapting himself to Buffy's growth. His
choices have been right, even while they were controversial. Rather
than shedding roles, Giles seems to accumulate them, so that he
is never less than he was, but always more. They have a relationship
of love and respect (with the occasional family argument thrown
in for good measure).
When someone asks my mother who her best friend is, she says:
"My daughter." When someone asks me who my best friend
is, I say: "My mother." This is the feeling that I get
from watching Buffy and Giles in S5. They have now achieved every
healthy emotional bond: professional colleagues, student/mentor,
parent/child, and friends -- and they swap those roles fluidly.
This is demonstrated very simply in Tough Love, when Buffy asks
Giles to be "the foot-putting-downer" for Dawn and Giles
responds that he can but "she needs you to do this."
Buffy's echoes Giles when she agress that Dawn needs "the
guiding hand and stompy foot that is me." Giles now brings
Buffy full circle, as he tries to instill confidence in her about
her own parenting abilities.
In The Gift, you see the bonds between Buffy and Giles tested.
Buffy and Giles are in opposition: if they cannot make Glory miss
her window of opportunity, Buffy will protect Dawn at the expense
of everyone else, and Giles will protect everyone else at the
expense of Dawn. Both operate out of love and out of a sense of
their special obligation: Buffy as Dawn's symbolic mother and
Giles out of his role to "protect this sorry world".
They debate through the first part of the episode, without resolution.
Yet, despite their fundamental differences, the bond remains.
When Buffy makes her decision, she imparts her final words to
her friends, but importantly singles out Giles. She wants him
to know that she has found a way to reconcile their opposition.
She does not want him to live with guilt or sadness at how they
parted and at how he saw her last: shaken in her faith. Her last
compassionate thoughts are for her friends, and specifically for
the most important man in her life.
This is partially because (as Aquitaine and Wisewoman have pointed
out) Giles is a man of sorrow. I have always thought of Isaiah's
"man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief" when thinking
of Giles. He knows almost too much of life. His special mission
has separated him from having family of his own. While Buffy maintains
her connections through her family and the SG (and has drawn on
that as a source of power), Giles only tentatively sustains that
link, primarily through Buffy. His attempts to carve out his own
life (as apart from his mission)each come to a disappointing or
disheartening end. He is alone. He shares this with Angel.
I look forward to ASH's reduced role in S6 with trepidation. To
Giles, I say: "Do not go gently into that good night"
because the passing of such a man from prominence in Buffy's life
to the perimeter (if that is what happens) needs to be marked
with as much respect as Joyce's passing.
Giles tells Ben: "She's a hero, you see. She's not like us."
But I say that Giles is wrong: she learned it from the best.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- verdantheart,
06:53:42 06/29/01 Fri
Well put! I see Giles as a man of duty. And as such, he seems
to try to keep his emotions out of the equation ("Never let
sentiment get in the way of your job" -- oh wait, that's
Garak again). Buffy is more visceral, putting more of her heart
into the effort. Buffy's heart is what led her to show mercy to
Ben, whereas Giles sense of duty to the larger issue of preserving
the world caused him to sacrifice Ben. The very position of Watcher,
sending a girl out to do battle with monsters, requires a certain
steeling of oneself. No wonder it can interfere with happiness.
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- Isabel, 21:10:37
06/28/01 Thu
Wow, Rufus, that was terrific. (And I am so not surprised. Everything
you post is so well thought out.)
The only thing I could think of Rowan just brought up in her post.
Buffy has feared that she's somehow driven away all the men she's
cared about in her life, her Dad, Angel, Riley. (I am not including
Parker, even though she would, because he's a tasteless p***k
who only cared about one part of her. pig.) I think it's a last
season development, her realization that she'd never drive away
Giles.
They don't talk about their bond very much, and when they do it's
often subtle, but they speak volumes. In Fool for Love, when Buffy
is commenting on Giles' hesitancy to speak about the previous
Slayers' Watchers' reactions to their deaths. Buffy: 'Unseemly?
Love ya, but you Watchers can be such prigs sometimes.' Giles:
(looking very uncomfortable) 'I was going to say 'painful'.' Silence.
And Buffy returns the feeling. In Checkpoint, Buffy goes along
with the tests of the Watchers Council because they threatened
to deport Giles. She tells him she can't lose him.
Giles has shown he'd do anything to keep from losing Buffy. I
think part of the reason he killed Ben was to keep her heroic
and merciful. (The other part being to save the world.) If Giles
had let Ben live, as he said, Glory would have made Buffy regret
not killing Ben when she could have. The next time she faced that
type of ethical dilemma, it would be harder for her to make the
'heroic, merciful' decision. Maybe Buffy would then kill the 'harmless
human' to save the world, but the cost to her would be a large
part of what makes Buffy so special. Am I making sense?
I also have a dark confession to make. It ties in to 'Giles doesn't
want to lose Buffy'. Giles learned to work with and get along
with the returned Angel. I don't think he ever forgave him for
the murder and the torture, and I do not blame Giles at all. (I
haven't seen all of third season, so I can't be sure.) But until
a couple weeks ago, except for that episode with the drugs on
AtS, I had never seen Angelus in action. I rented and watched
the 6 2nd season eps available in the US. I had known what happened.
I had read synopses and scripts, but after watching those eps,
I wanted to stake Angel. And I'm talking Angel in Revelations.
Since I don't live in the Buffyverse, I was wanting Giles to do
it. I wanted him to send Buffy on a job with Xander and Willow
and then pay Angel a little visit during the day with a couple
of stakes, a crossbow and a dustbuster. (And I love Angel, that
'big fluffy puppy with bad teeth.')
But he didn't. I guess he's a much better person than I am, despite
his Ripper-ness.
Sorry for rambling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- Rattletrap,
07:15:34 06/29/01 Fri
I've been lurking for a little while, but this group is too interesting
not to post.
Great essay this week, on one of my favorite characters. Giles
is one of the few characters on television today who can make
an intellectual, academic librarian seem heroic and, dare we say
it, even cool at times. BtVS recognizes more than most shows that
knowledge is power. Giles is the one who invariably has the knowledge.
A couple of other great essays on this subject are: Grace DeCandido's
piece "Giles: Hero Librarian" (I don't have the URL
for this right now . . . can someone help me?) and William Wandless's
"Undead Letters," from Slayage, vol.1 (www.slayage.tv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Welcome, Rattletrap! Hope you stick around... ;o)
-- Wisewoman, 08:32:46 06/29/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- Cynthia,
13:27:54 06/29/01 Fri
" couple of other great essays on this subject are: Grace
DeCandido's piece "Giles: Hero Librarian" (I don't have
the URL for this right now . . . can someone help me?) and"
http://www.well.com/user/ladyhawk/Giles.html
I don't know if it's the same piece since it has a different title
but it is about Giles. I found it through www.slayage.tv, which
you mentioned under Number 1 (as in edition). Hope this helps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles --
Rattletrap, 06:50:58 06/30/01 Sat
Thanx Cynthia, that's it. That piece has been reprinted dozens
of times with different titles, but that's the one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles (o/t) --
LadyStarlight, 14:40:24 06/29/01 Fri
Thanks for posting the URL for Slayage. I hadn't heard of it before
and it looks very interesting. Couldn't read as much as I wanted
due to a small person wreaking havoc around me. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Giles and Buffy -- Elizabeth, 23:14:21 07/01/01 Sun
I was just thinking about the Giles/Buffy and Giles/S.G. relationship
when I read the posts on underage drinking below. One thing that's
struck me about Giles in S. 4 & 5 is how unfatherly he becomes
when relating to the kids about sex and alcohol. He's like "I
don't see anything, I don't know anything, this is not my terrain."
Well, except for the Buffy/Angel moment in S. 2. But only because
that had consequences for everyone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Rufus, 00:15:59 07/02/01 Mon
Giles is like many parents in real life when is comes to things
that they are uncomfortable speaking about, don't ask don't tell.
Giles has fatherly feelings for Buffy, he has no fatherly control
over her. He is content to let Buffy come into her own when it
comes to life. This was reflected in a talk he had with Professor
Walsh in A New Man.
Maggie: "I don't lecture from the textbook, but I'm glad
she's inspired by the material. She's a bright girl. All she's
really been lacking is encouragement in the academic setting."
Giles: "Well, well, I think it's best to let a young person
find their own strengths. If, if you lead a child by the hand,
they never find their own footing."
Maggie: "And if it's true about hiking, ergo it must be true
about life?"
Giles: "That's not...I'm simply saying Buffy isn't the typical
student. If you really got to know her, you'd find out she's a
very unique girl. I hope you're not going to push her too-"
Maggie: "I think I do know her. And I have found her to be
a unique woman."
Giles: "Woman. Of course. How wrong of me to choose my own
word....."
Maggie: "She's very self-reliant, very independent...."
Giles: "That's what I-"
Maggie: "Which is not always a good thing. It can be unhealthy
to take on adult roles too early. I suspect what I'm seeing is
a reaction to the absence of a male role model."
Giles: "The absence of a-"
Maggie: "Buffy clearly lacks a stong father figure."
I feel that as Giles reacted to the authoritarian approach to
child rearing in the way he did(The Dark Age)he feels that to
stifle Buffy in the same way would be counterproductive. He also
only sees himself as a father figure to Buffy only, he frequently
will lash out at Xander for making the same mistakes Buffy has.
In regards to sex and drinking, Giles only comments when he feels
he needs to letting the person sort their lives out by experiencing
life. He has warned Buffy on occasion, he has rarely ordered her
around as she listens to her heart, even if she has to learn the
hard way about a few things. Buffy has learned from mistakes,
even if she has to make the same mistake a few times before wisdom
sets in. Giles learned from his own mistakes what can happen if
you get heavy handed with a young person. Maggie was a complete
contol freak and you can see what happened to her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 02:00:22 07/02/01
Mon
Good earlier stuff about Giles, but I still don't get the 'father
figure' analogy, and this is only one of the many reasons why.
Why call Giles Buffy's 'father' when: 1) he really isn't 2) he
only does the 'best friend' parts of parenting anyway? Why not
simply call him Buffy's friend and mentor? The analogy straineth
to the breaking point.
Also I think it's telling that when Giles gets drunk later in
"A New Man", what he's lamenting to Ethan about is that
Maggie said Buffy didn't have a 'male role model', not a 'father
figure'. They aren't the same thing. Giles always has kept scrupulously
out of all the younger SG's lives, Buffy included (except where
her personal life might impact upon her duty as The Slayer). That's
how one deals with one's friends, not with one's children. I think
he feels that he must play 'father figure' to Buffy when he thinks
she might need it, but it doesn't come naturally to him and he
would far rather relate to her as a friend.
This sometime lurker and always-Giles-fan is greatly enjoying
the Giles-fest nonetheless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Rufus, 04:04:31
07/02/01 Mon
It depends on what you consider the criteria for a father. Giles
has taken over that role when he became the man that Buffy goes
to when she needs help. It is why Giles got canned as a Watcher,
if he didn't have "a fathers love for the child" he
would have continued on with the test in "Helpless".
He may be Buffy's Watcher, but he also has taken the place of
Hank where Buffy is concerned. Hank bailed and Giles has taken
his place. She confides in Giles in a way I suspect is not in
the Watchers rule book. In Something Blue, even though under a
spell, Buffy asked Giles to take the place of her father in her
"wedding" to Spike. His talk to her in Spiral was the
only goodbye he got before she was gone in The Gift...he wanted
her to know how proud he was of her.
From the shooting script.
Buffy is gripping Giles' hand like a lifeline, trying not to completely
fall apart. Giles is barely conscious.
Buffy: "I'm sorry."
Giles: "For what?"
Buffy: "We should have stayed. If we had, none of this--"
Giles: "Don't. You did what was necessary. What I've always
admired."
Buffy: "Running away?"
Giles: "Being able to place your heart above all else. I'm
so proud of you. You're everything a Watcher - everything I could
have hoped for....
Giles may not be Buffys father, but how would you describe his
involvement in her life? He didn't stay in the Library or Magic
Shop, just a Watcher to report into. Giles became involved in
Buffy's life in a way her father hasn't been for years. That is
more than being just a mentor. Giles has been willing to die for
his "charge". A Watcher, trains the slayer and documents
her life and death. The Watcher is to remain remote, uninvolved,
not close enough to care about the Slayer. Giles has not only
gotten close, but involved in Buffy's life and well being. Also
remember, when Joyce died it was Giles that took care of the arrangements
with Buffy, her real father nowhere to be found. I do consider
Giles a father figure to Buffy, no other description fits his
involvement and love for the young girl he was originally sent
to just "watch".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat,
11:31:01 07/02/01 Mon
I became a fan of the show because of the second season Buffy-Giles
relationship, and not because he was playing her father figure.
What they had then, and what they still have, if you go below
the surface of things, is a complex, fascinating friendship and
partnership that suceeds despite and maybe even because of the
age gap, the gender gap, the generational gap, the cultural gap
between them.
In any case, Giles couldn't have been a successful Watcher to
Buffy if the 'father figure' thing defined their relationship.
With few exceptions, he's always been willing to step back and
allow her to be the one to face the risks, make the decisions,
be the one in command. (Tony Head, in a third season interview,
when asked if anything was ever going to happen between Giles
and Joyce stated that he didn't think that Giles could continue
to send Buffy out against the forces of evil if he were her actual
stepfather.)
BtVS is a feminist show, Buffy has been shown to be a strong,
decisive character. So why the insistence that Giles be her 'father'?
He's never played out the 'authority figure' part of that equation
-- his strength is in his ability to support, which is the hallmark
of a close friend. Plus casting Giles as Buffy's father figure
inevitably dooms him to a dwindling role in Buffy's life and on
the show. (Which may be happening anyway, but I refuse to accept
that the writers can't reverse this until they actually write
him out of the show.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Rufus,
13:33:15 07/02/01 Mon
It still goes to what your criteria for a father is. I feel that
Giles has become a father figure to Buffy in the absence of the
real thing. The fact that he is so involved in her life is part
of it, as well as his devotion to her that goes a long way past
being her Watcher. It's all in how you personally see it. I've
seen many situations were a father is way less involved in a child's
life than Giles has been. To me, if Buffy needs comfort like when
her mother died, it is Giles she goes to, I know he isn't her
father, but in the Buffyverse family has become what you make
it, not what you were born into.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy
-- Coral Cat, 14:32:02 07/02/01 Mon
I agree about finding your family ties where you can, as long
as the analogy isn't overstrained. I love the 'family feel' on
the Angel show, for example, especially because nobody is going
overboard trying to cast Angel as 'Dad'. Note that Wesley, as
Watcher there, is actually allowed to function as a Watcher, rather
than some family member surrogate. Giles could only stand to gain
by getting back to his Watcher roots on BtVS.
And I love the close connection between Buffy and Giles too, but
I don't like seeing it stereotyped as father and daughter. Partly
because there's a lot of levels on which it doesn't function as
such (even the most sensitive new age parent is still 'head of
the household' vis a vis his children, whereas Buffy is clearly
the 'head of the household' as far as the SG is concerned), but
also because it's a dead end for any potential character development
for Giles on the show.
And why does Giles have to be Buffy's surrogate father to be involved
in her life, to care for her and support her? Xander and Willow
fulfill some of the same functions as well, plus it's usually
Xander who gives Buffy the proverbial parental 'kick in the ass'
when she needs one. (Not to mention that in real life we are usually
stuck with the family we were born with. Part of growing up is
learning to accept that fact and learn to cope with the people
we're stuck with as family.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and
Buffy -- Brian, 15:21:14 07/02/01 Mon
Giles serves the father role in many ways. However, he has enough
experience in life to allow Buffy to find her own way, but he
is always there to help her sort through her emotions and ideas
to find a solution. A perfect example of this technique is the
end of Lie to Me:
The last rays of the sun are glancing off the trees as Buffy stands
at Ford's grave, Giles beside her.
BUFFY I don't know what I'm supposed to say.
GILES You don't need to say anything.
BUFFY It'd be simpler if I could just hate him. I think he wanted
me to. I think it made it easier for him. Be the bad guy. The
villain of the piece. But really, he was scared.
GILES I suppose he was.
BUFFY You known it's just, like, nothing's simple. I'm always
trying to work it out. Who to hate, or love ... who to trust...
it's like the more I know, the more confused I get.
GILES I believe that's called growing up.
BUFFY (little voice) I'd like to stop, then. Okay?
GILES I know the feeling.
BUFFY Well, does it ever get easy?
Ford BURSTS from the grave, a snarling VAMPIRE, and lunges at
Buffy -- who plants a stake firmly in his chest. She doesn't even
look as he explodes into dust.
GILES You mean life?
BUFFY Yeah. Does it get easy?
GILES What do you want me to say.
She thinks about it a moment.
BUFFY Lie to me.
GILES Yes. It's terribly simple.
As they start out of the graveyard:
GILES The good-guys are stalwart and true. The bad-guys are easily
distinguished by their pointy horns or black hats and we always
defeat them and save the day. Nobody ever dies...and everybody
lives happily ever after.
BLACK OUT.
BUFFY (O.S.) (with weary affection) Liar.
Plus, in context of The Gift, this coda is a wonderful foreshadowing
of Buffy's final choice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles
and Buffy -- Rufus, 16:27:40 07/02/01 Mon
I remember that one Brian. In Helpless, Giles went from authority
figure, to father figure. In the beginning Buffy was telling Angel
about her date for her birthday...
Angel: "Um, am I gonna see you this weekend? You, uh, you
probobly have plans."
Buffy: "Right, birthday. Um, actually, I, I do have a thing."
Angel: "Oh, a thing. (trying to be cool) A date?"
Buffy: "(nods)"Nice attempt at casual. Actually, I do
have a date.(steps closer)Older man. Very handsome. He likes it
when I call him *Daddy*."
Angel: "(smiles)Huh, your father. (frowns) It is your father,
right?"
Buffy: "He's taking me to the ice show. (Angel sighs with
relief) Which should be big fun. I could use a little fun."
Buffy originally had plans with her biological father, until he
blew her off because he was busy. Buffy then went to Giles to
try to fill that emptiness...
Buffy: "You know, it's not just cartoon characters. They
do pieces from operas and ballets. Brian Boitano, doing Carmen,
but a lot of sophisticated people go."
Giles: (absently)"Yes, I think we should start with the grounding
crystal again."
Buffy: "You know, it's usually something that families do
together."
Giles: "Now, look very carefully for the tiny flaw at its
core."
Buffy: "I-if someone were free, they'd take their daughters
or thier student....or their Slayer. (Looks up to him hopefully)"
Buffy was looking for someone to fill the role her father had
given up by his repeated absence. Giles was trying to prepare
Buffy for the test. He was trying not to be close, something he
just couldn't follow through with in the end. He helped Buffy
and wanted to make up to her.
Giles:"(imploringly)You have to listen to me. Because I've
told you this, the test isn invalidated. You will be safe now,
I promise you. Now, whatever I have to do to deal with Kralick...and
win back your trust...."
Giles went against his Watcher training and the council for his
fatherly love of Buffy, he got fired for being too close having
a *fathers love* for Buffy. I would not have considered him a
father figure if the show hadn't been so specific in making it
look that way. Helpless wasn't just about the test, it was about
how life can test your values and priorities. Giles at first was
a dutiful Watcher, by the end of the show he had manhandled Quentin,
directly interrupted the test to help Buffy, and was faced with
the truth of his relationship to the Slayer. Giles is a Watcher,
but if he didn't have a fathers love for Buffy he would have never
gotten as close as he did. Giles priority went from being an uninvolved
teacher, to a very involved person in Buffys life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 17:28:18 07/02/01 Mon
Buffy looked to Giles to step into her father's shoes in "Helpless"
only because her real father had to opt out. Giles was her second
choice, and we were never given any other indication that they
ever did anything after that of a father-daughter social type
activity. (Giles did mention 'ice cream' in "The Prom"
but Buffy bowed out on that one.)
"Father's love" was Quentin Traver's phrase for Giles'
motivations. We've never heard from Giles on the subject. Is Travers
really an expert on human motivation? Plus I expect that that's
exactly what Giles was being tested for, because having a 'father's
love' for his charge could be a definite liability in a Watcher,
in that it could impact his willingness to send her out to fight
the evils of the world. They assumed that because Giles put his
loyalties to Buffy above his loyalties to the Watchers, that he
loved her like a father loves his child. They were wrong. Giles
loves Buffy, but that doesn't get in the way of his being a proper
Watcher to her, of enabling her to fulfill her 'sacred duty' as
protector of the world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Giles and Buffy -- Rufus, 18:18:46 07/02/01 Mon
We will have to go our seperate ways on this issue, the show has
made it clear that Giles has a parental type influence on Buffy.
As a Watcher he would have been more like an observer who documents
her activity, not getting close or personally involved. Giles
has taken chances for Buffy. I see him as a father figure, you
do not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 18:35:36 07/02/01 Mon
If the show had made it clear that Giles has had a parental type
influence on Buffy, we wouldn't be having this disagreement. I'm
arguing from the text, as much as you are.
Giles had become a mentor/advisor and a friend and a partner for
Buffy, the last two of which take him outside the boundaries of
the traditional Watcher-Slayer relationship. What is more is that
he has surrendered that one aspect of the traditional Watcher-Slayer
relationship that could be seen as parental: He sees the Watcher
as subordinate to the Slayer, whereas traditional Watcher doctrine
would have it the other way around. Yes he advises and supports
her, as a good father (or friend) would do, but he doesn't presume
upon their relationship to infringe upon her authority. Which
isn't parental at all, when you get right down to it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Rufus, 19:11:21 07/02/01 Mon
"Yes he advises her and supports her, as a good father(or
friend) would do, but he doesn't presume upon their relationship
to infringe upon her authority. Which isn't parental at all, when
you get right down to it."
Actually I think that can be very parental. Buffy is twenty now
and her relationship has evolved with Giles. He was more involved
when she was younger but has given way to her judgement as she
has gotten more mature. Checkpoint had to be his proudest time,
when Buffy turned the tables on the Council. As we age our relationships
with friends and family changes. To me it goes full circle, your
parents guide you to adulthood when they let you make your own
life, then as they get older you may have to in turn become a
parent of your parent. Giles has certainly been a mentor(trusted
guide, teacher)but his other actions of a personal nature still
suggest to me that he took on a parental role. He didn't replace
Hank, he was just there when Hank no longer had much contact with
Buffy. Giles is still very dual natured, he is Giles the Watcher/Ripper,
Giles the mentor/Father figure to Buffy all these roles overlap
and depending on the situation you may see more of one than the
other. In The Gift, Giles the Watcher had a Ripper moment when
he killed Ben. In Spiral he had a parental moment with Buffy when
he told her how proud he was of her. If it weren't for Giles flexible
nature we would have never gotten the moments we have between
Watcher and Slayer, he would have been too busy writing her activities
into a journal to send to the Council.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 19:41:02 07/02/01
Mon
Buffy is the authority figure in the Buffyverse. Hers has always
been the last word, but even more so since Angel turned in S2.
Giles may argue with her (although he frequently keeps his disagreements
to himself unless asked), but, with one exception, when push comes
to shove he defers to Buffy's decision. The only exception to
this, and this was an extreme point with the fate of the world
at risk, was when he strangled Ben.
And you can't be proud of your friends, your students? You have
yet to point out to me the aspects of their relationship that
makes it especially parent-child rather than friend-friend and/or
mentor-student. I've never denied the special connection between
them, I'm only pointing out that their relationship is far more
complex than, and frequently doesn't pace, a parent/child relationship.
Parents do frequently become their children's friends as the relationships
mature, but Giles was never Buffy's actual father. He first met
her when she was almost a young adult; he had to throw the traditional
rule book away with her and learn to work with her. From the beginning
they had a partnership of almost-equals. His few forays (Reptile
Boy, Band Candy, The Freshman) into parental-authority figure
territory were failures. He's always done best with her working
with her as her partner. He refused to intrude on or even comment
on her personal life in the early years except where her work
might be affected. He never questioned her growing involvement
with Angel, even when he might have prudently done so.
Parenthetically, I'm also going to argue that the 'Ripper' moment
in "The Gift" wasn't a Ripper moment at all. That was
Giles The Watcher acting there, to protect 'this sorry world'.
(Notice that Giles put his glasses on before strangling Ben? Ripper
always removes his glasses before kicking ass.) There are many
facets to Giles' personality, but he has them pretty well integrated.
Sorry to be difficult, but I'm an incorrigible Giles watcher.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Rufus, 19:52:23
07/02/01 Mon
I took the putting on of the glasses to be indicative of how hands
on his killing of Ben was. In his other fights he took off his
glasses as it was an active beating, such as what he did to Ethan
in Halloween(get rid of glasses in case they fall off in confrontation).
With Ben he put on his glasses as if doing detailed work, focusing
on the task. Remember the Ripper part of Giles surfaces in his
violent moments but is only part of Giles, the Watcher part giving
focus to the Ripper, so any action isn't random and sloppy. We
are closer than you may think on Giles, I just see that father
part of Giles he never got to be in real life has been transferred
to Buffy. He is still her guide, her counsellor, but he has a
fatherly love for Buffy that has influenced his actions as a Watcher.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat,
20:55:26 07/02/01 Mon
ASH is a very methodical actor, I've found, which means he usually
knows exactly what his character is feeling behind the small gestures.
Giles didn't need the glasses to strangle Ben, any more than he
needed them when he gave Glory's minion a little 'incentive'.
When he takes them off, it's usually a prelude to him getting
violent, which makes the Ben strangling an anomaly. I think the
gesture meant more than just allowing him to see better. He was
donning his Watcher's executioner's mask, because he instinctively
was flinching from what had to be done. That's what tells me that
we were seeing Giles acting as The Watcher there.
I never thought we were that far on the subject of Giles, BTW,
but I try to get people to look beyond the "surrogate father"
role for him. It's there at times, I'll admit, but it's by no
means the sum or even most of who Giles is, or even of who he
is to Buffy. I've never thought of them as parent-child myself,
(Buffy's much too strong and dominant a figure in my mind), but
then I've never thought it a desirable thing that Buffy have a
perfect Dad. (And really, how on earth could Hank, even with the
best of intentions, devote himself 24-7 to Buffy to the extent
Giles has?) Joyce was a good, if sometimes clueless, mother, and
what more should any of us ask of a parent?
I worry especially, because to me the best evidence that the writers
do see Giles as a father figure is the fact that they appear to
have been whittling down his role, parceling out the tasks that
were once things he did for the group (the magic, the research,
training with Buffy): in other words allowing Buffy to grow up
and become totally independent from him. I happen to think that
Giles and Buffy have always had a strong enough friendship and
partnership to survive her growing up, but Joss dearly loves his
metaphors, even when they're creeping past the breaking point.
The next season will tell, I suppose, whether Giles is primarily
her father surrogate (and increasingly irrelevant to her life)
or her friend (in which case their partnership can continue to
flourish).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Wiccagrrl,
21:29:55 07/02/01 Mon
See, my thing is...I think he can be a father figure and still
be very relevant in a twenty-year-old's life- especially a twenty-year-old
who happnens to have just lost her mother and is going to have
the duty (I assume) of raising her teen-age sister. He'd just
be the father figure of a twenty/twenty-one-year-old and not a
16-year-old. I get the sense that people who dislike this phrasing
dislike it because they think it's limiting in how important he
is and implies that she'll outgrow him. When I use that phrase,
I don't mean that at all. I do agree that their relationship goes
beyond just parent-child, but to me "father figure"
can very much encompass all the things that are best about Buffy/Giles-
mentor/student, friend, father/daughter love, protectiveness,
pride, even irritation with each other at times. And those relationships
can last far beyond the age of maturity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy
-- Coral Cat, 22:03:54 07/02/01 Mon
You know, people keep telling me this, that the parent-child relationship
can continue to be strong when the child reaches adulthood, and
I believe you in real life. Problem is BtVS is all about metaphor
and coming-of-age, and the teachers and parents are left behind
in these stories. Plus I see no sign that Joss is treating the
story as anything but that.
In any case, as you say, real life parent-child bonds that survive
into adulthood are the ones that develop into friendships. Giles
is at best a surrogate father, which means he is only a father
to Buffy as long as she relates to him as one. As soon as she
stops, he ipso facto is no longer a surrogate father but does
(one would hope) continue to be a friend.
In any case what I always liked best about the Buffy-Giles relationship
is the way they usually tend to relate to one another as equals.
Not the warm fluffy, "I could never be disappointed in you"
Giles affirmations, but the "So after all this time it turns
out we do have something in common. Which, apart from being a
little weird... is kind of okay" moments of connection and
understanding. Requires a little more from Buffy than basking
in Giles' admirations. I loved when he yelled at her in "The
Gift" and I loved that she stood her ground regardless. That
is an adult relationship, and it gives me hope for the future.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and
Buffy -- Wiccagrrl, 22:40:37 07/02/01 Mon
Humm...I think part of the problem may be one of definitions and
semantics here. I definitely see "father figure" role
as going well beyond the adult-literal child "mold".
I also don't think that the parent/adult child (or surrogate parent/adult
child) relationship morphs completely into a friendship of equals,
although that's part of it. But there is a dynamic there that,
in my eyes, is a bit different than simply friends. And I'm not
talking about it being an authority figure thing, cause that does,
to some extend, get "outgrown"- it's more an issue of
the type of respect and support and advice. I don't know if I'm
explaining this very well.
As for the Buffy/Giles interactions, I love the "I'm so proud
of you" moments, but also love the "turns out you're
a person" moments too. Both are important and good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles
and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 23:35:35 07/02/01 Mon
Well, yes semantics does have to play an important part in our
definitions of 'surrogate parent', because it is an artificial
concept. I can point to my blood parents and say, with much certainty,
that they are indeed my mother and father. What makes a 'surrogate
father-child' relationship, however, especially in a relationship
where both people are adults, or near adults? The term is going
to mean different things to different people, so the nature of
the relationship is always going to be in the eyes of the beholder.
It comes down to what the two people in question think that it
is, and even they might not agree. (I suspect that S5 Buffy thinks
of Giles at times as her surrogate father and at other times not,
but I also suspect that while Giles thinks that he ought to be
a surrogate father to Buffy he doesn't really see himself as one.
Until the characters see fit to inform us, we can only judge by
how they interact.)
FWIW, I think that Joss never took the notion as literally as
a lot of the fans seem to do. The term of choice, when the actual
Buffy characters see fit to label Giles at all, is 'patriarch'.
Which I actually have no problems with at all, because 'patriarch'
in its broadest terms means the male head of a clan or tribe.
He's in a position of respect vis a vis the others, he's the elder
and the voice of experience, but he's not the voice of authority.
(The SG being a matriarchy at heart.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Giles and Buffy -- Cynthia, 04:42:33 07/03/01 Tue
Well, no matter how many aspects this relationship has, Giles
has shown that he is willing to protect Buffy and Dawn with his
life. Something, from what little I have seen of the Watchers,
other Watchers wouldn't even think about doing.
Giles see Buffy as a human being and worthy of being treated as
such. Something the other watchers seem to ignore. They seem to
treat Buffy as a servent or slave in that they want to deny her
as much of her free choice as possible.
The fact that he gives her such respect and, therefore, freedom,
is one of the reasons, I believe, she as matured as a Slayer as
much as she has.
In turn, when Buffy let go of some of the her boxed-in concepts
regarding Spike, resulting in her treating him "like a man"
is when Spike had the most growth. He, too, had the freedom to
make a choice as opposed to just "acting like everyone, even
himself, expected him to because of who he was preceived to be.
So, Giles has had an indirect influence on Buffy's relationship
with Spike, and I assume all the others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Rufus,
21:50:38 07/02/01 Mon
I don't know if you heard, but ASH did supposedly ask to work
less in season six. I hear he will be in the first few eps then
appear less. With the theme next year being "Oh grow up"
it makes sense that he back off and let the characters do just
that.
I did notice all the stuff with the glasses and taking fighting
into consideration taking them off always made sense(no breakage)he
also wiped his hands with his handkerchief after roughing someone
up(after Ben he may need to wipe the blood off). I find it fun
watching to see what he will do next. When he told Spike to get
lost and get over Buffy the vampire noticed it wasn't just a stuttering
librarian he was dealing with. Giles only wants the gang to see
his light side(made the girls turn around when he convinced the
minion to talk), but it's still there waiting for the right moment
to surface. He no longer uses violence to, like in Band Candy,
just rip someone off, he uses it as a last resort. When he killed
Ben he felt it was the only option he had to keep everyone safe.
The process of putting on the glasses for the job indicated to
me what a close up and personal killing it was. Ben was no stranger
to Giles, he knew the doctor to be the man who helped patch him
up in Spiral. Giles also knew that Ben had no control over Glorys
actions, if she were ever to surface again. Giles made the choice
that he felt Buffy and everyone else shouldn't have to shoulder
the guilt for.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy
-- Coral Cat, 22:43:11 07/02/01 Mon
Yes, I did know, thanks. I'm usually a lurker here, so I was unsure
as to how 'spoiled' the board was.
In fact, recent comments by ASH indicate to me that his decision
to drop to recurring status was at least in part motivated by
the fact that he simply hasn't been given much to do on BtVS the
last two years. He's far too classy to make any public complaints
about the situation, but at a convention earlier this year he
did comment to the effect that 'Giles isn't as important to Buffy
as he once was', and ASH also commented in a more recent interview
that he'd been told by Joss that BtVS was about Buffy, not Giles,
(Joss leading up to the new series which would be about Giles),
which leads me to believe that ASH had at that time been voicing
his concerns about his dwindling role on BtVS. In any case, ASH
made significant sacrifices for five years to be a regular on
BtVS, but the role of Giles as it has developed over the last
two years didn't offer him much of an acting challenge or provide
him with much incentive to stay. As far as I'm concerned, Joss
and ME can bring the situation around, make Giles an important
character to the show again. Faith was a powerhouse of a recurring
character S3. But IMO they've got to drop the 'father figure'
analogy, or let Giles develop beyond it, to make him a dynamic
part of the cast again. Joss has likened the core four to the
Fantastic Four, and he's said that he thinks that they are all
essential to the mix. I'm waiting to see if he means that, or
if he's too attached to his metaphors to give them up.
I'm looking forward to the spin-off (knock on wood that it gets
off the ground and that I get to see it) in any case. Six episodes
could give us more Giles character development than we've seen
in the last 44 episodes of BtVS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and
Buffy -- Wiccagrrl, 22:59:58 07/02/01 Mon
Well, here's a thought. If the "Oh, grow up" metaphor
is in effect next year, yeah, there may be a tad less Giles. But...I
think there's every chance that after some time to struggle with
their new adult roles, Giles will very much get re-intergrated
into the group (maybe being a regular again in season seven? Or
at least having a meatier role?)It'll be interesting to watch.
It would work with the father figure metaphor, as well, because
kids often do need to pull away for a bit at that age before re-establishing
a more adult relationship with their parents (or in this case
surrogate parent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles
and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 00:08:33 07/03/01 Tue
I'm still not on board with Giles' status as 'surrogate parent',
(and Tony Head, in the early years at least, said that he saw
Giles as more of an uncle-figure than a father-figure to the Scoobies
and I don't think he ever changed his thinking on that point),
but otherwise I pretty much agree. The 'grow up' theme does go
hand in hand with the young adult breaking away from the guidance
of her elders to try out new things on her own, in the process
repeating many of the same mistakes her elders did when they were
young. (Doesn't sound like Giles would've have much to do S6 even
if ASH hadn't decided to go to recurring.)
My best case S6 scenario, actually, would be a major Buffy-Giles
conflict ending in her essentially firing him as her Watcher.
He leaves for England, she deals with things on her own for much
of the season, grows up some, discovers that she still needs a
Watcher for some things even though she is an adult now. (Even
the best of adults can't shoulder the whole weight of the world
on her shoulders.) He discovers that he can have a life beyond
Watcherdom. They reconcile, end of S6, into a newer, more mature
partnership.
That's me, playing the optimist again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Giles and Buffy -- Malandanza, 06:50:11 07/03/01 Tue
"I'm still not on board with Giles' status as 'surrogate
parent', (and Tony Head, in the early years at least, said that
he saw Giles as more of an uncle-figure than a father-figure to
the Scoobies and I don't think he ever changed his thinking on
that point), but otherwise I pretty much agree. The 'grow up'
theme does go hand in hand with the young adult breaking away
from the guidance of her elders to try out new things on her own,
in the process repeating many of the same mistakes her elders
did when they were young. (Doesn't sound like Giles would've have
much to do S6 even if ASH hadn't decided to go to recurring.)"
I agree that Giles is not a father-figure in any meaningful sense
of the phrase. He is a Watcher first -- as The Gift pointed out.
If it means sending Buffy to her death, so be it. There is not
much room in a true father/daughter relationship for this utilitarian
mentality. I do see the relationship more as a mentor/student
relationship. Also. consider how Giles subconsciously views his
relationship with Buffy in the Restless dream sequences -- he
is definitely not fatherly.
Buffy, however, does seem to see Giles as a father-figure. Either
you or Rufus mentioned the skating rink scene which is, I think,
the best example of his refusal to become more involved in Buffy's
life and her desire to have Giles play more of a role. Also remember
that Buffy asked Giles to give her away in her marriage to Spike.
Giles has had many opportunities to offer advice to Buffy and
the Scoobies -- to help guide them through the difficulties of
adolescence -- and has generally failed to assist them. Professor
Walsh was a brilliant (if evil) psychologist. I see no reason
to doubt her diagnosis of Buff's personality development. Besides,
in the Buffyverse, evil people have the greatest insights into
human nature (think about the Mayor's advice to Buffy and Angel,
Spike's insights, Faith's remarkable perspicacity, etc.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Giles and Buffy -- Rufus, 15:14:55 07/03/01 Tue
I do remember Buffy asking Giles to give her away in her *marriage*
to Spike. In Helpless Buffy made overtures to Giles to fill a
void left by her father. It never said that Hank was a bad man
but a busy one. Giles at first ignored Buffy because he was in
the process of filling her full of drugs for that council test.
He was trying to stay removed from the subject. By the end of
the show he had been fired for having a "fathers love for
the child". Now, Giles may be her teacher, her mentor, but
he does love Buffy like a father would, that doesn't mean he replaces
her father. I think it's normal for a girl Buffys age to reach
out to Giles to fill the role of her absent father. He is there
all of the time, doesn't make Hank a bad man. I would rather see
Buffy reach out to Giles than do some of the many things younger
people can do when they feel alone(drug abuse ect). Giles is Buffys
mentor, friend, father figure. He is also her Watcher, something
he never forgets.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 16:17:16 07/03/01 Tue
I do notice that some fans have in the past criticized Giles for
1) not doing more for Faith, 2) not doing something about Xander's
home situation, 3) not doing more about Willow's potentially dangerous
experiments in magic. In other words, they expected Giles to take
a parental role with these young people, and felt disgruntled
when he didn't. Thing is, Giles never undertook to play the parent
to any one of these characters. He consistently interacts with
the younger characters like peers. If they ask for his help, he
gives it, with great insight usually, but if they don't he doesn't
presume to intrude on their personal lives. Right or wrong, that
is Giles.
As for the "Something Blue" wedding, it's not unusual
for a woman to ask a close male friend to give her away at a wedding
if her father isn't available for some reason. (And I doubt if
Buffy wanted to have to explain Spike to Hank anyway.)
Buffy tends to turn to Giles as a father figure only when she's
feeling very vulnerable. In "The Prom" she turned down
Giles' offer of ice cream: In other words he (tentatively) was
offering to step in as a father might, and she told him that it
wasn't necessary. Her refusal didn't seem to bother him. The extent
of the fathering that I've seen this last year were a couple of
pats on the back from Giles, Giles doing the paperwork after Joyce's
death (again something that a friend would've done), and Buffy
trying to get Giles to take over the parenting of Dawn (he refuses).
And again, if Giles had a "father's love" for Buffy,
he wouldn't be able to function as her Watcher. How many fathers
could, consistently, resist stepping in to take on the dangers
their children face? Why wouldn't we see Giles doing more of this,
if he had a parent's instinct to protect? The love is there, but
it is a friend's love. The only time we ever saw him trying to
step in to spare her from the danger was "Prophecy Girl",
and that was when she was facing her prophecized death.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Rufus, 16:41:15 07/03/01 Tue
Giles did step in to help Buffy in Helpless. In the Freshman in
season four he at first told her to start to deal with her problems
herself, only to show up at the end to say he couldn't help himself
he had to help her. The fact that he goes and gets involved in
Primevil, The Gift, ect. goes against what his duties as a watcher
entail. He is to Watch, not get close, get involved, but he has.
If you don't like the term father figure just ignore it. I'm giving
you my opinion on what I feel the situation is about using the
show transcripts and my perception of the situation. You may not
agree with what I say and that's okay.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 17:28:05 07/03/01
Tue
Giles set Buffy up for her peril in "Helpless", so he
was kind of morally obligated to keep an eye out for her. And
I'm not arguing that he doesn't back her up as a Watcher. That's
not the same thing as parental backup. The mistake Giles made
in "The Freshman" was that he tried to act like a father
might (encourage his charge to become indepedent). But he's not
her father, he's her Watcher and he owes her his technical support.
That he rushes in to help in the end demonstrates that he recognized
his mistake.
That's why Tony Head said that he didn't think it would be a good
idea for Giles and Joyce to hook up, because as her father, Giles
couldn't bring himself to send Buffy out into the perils he regularily
has to send her out to face. He'd be constantly having to struggle
with the impulse to do the patrols, to face the battles, himself.
The Watchers weren't wholly unwarranted in worrying about this
issue. The Slayer has to be allowed to perform her duty, and the
Watcher has to be able to step back and allow her to do it. Where
they made their mistake was in assuming that because Giles cared
about Buffy -- what Quentin termed a 'fathers love' -- he couldn't
perform his job. They were wrong.
And you're making a good case for your side using canon, but I
am referring to the scripts too. That we can have an intelligant
debate about the subject indicates, to me anyway, that there is
room for disagreement. The B-G relationship is not nearly as cut
and dried as a lot of people seem to think.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Glasses -- Humanitas, 05:21:48 07/03/01
Tue
I think that removing the glasses is not necessarily an indicator
of voilence, as such, but more of intimidation. ASH has some very
intense eyes, when he wants to, and removing the glasses allows
him to use them like a weapon. I'm thinking in particular of the
scene in IWMTLY where he tells Spike off. In that moment, I feared
Giles.
By contrast, there was no need to intimidate Ben. In fact, Giles
seemed to feel bad for the poor boy. That didn't stop him from
doing his duty, but he didn't feel the need to intimidate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Glasses -- Rufus, 15:16:38
07/03/01 Tue
Whatever his reason, it made for a good scene.....something we
always get from ASH.......:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles
and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 17:09:24 07/02/01 Mon
So how does 'father' differ from mentor or friend in this respect,
since this is exactly the same sort of advice a mentor or friend
would give to Buffy?
Note that in the "Lie to Me" scene Buffy already knew
the answer herself, she wasn't turning to Giles for any real guidance.
Giles was commiserating with her about the moral complexity of
the adult world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Solitude1056, 19:39:52 07/02/01
Mon
Giles didn't start out as a father figure, I'd say that's pretty
much a given. He started out intending to be an Authority Figure
of some sort, going on the Council's tradition that a Watcher
is supposed to be running the show, and the Slayer just goes and
slays.
It's hard to categorize the B/G relationship, because it's too
easy to say father-figure, not-father-figure. The complexity,
to me, revolves around the fact that Giles is not a parent. I
don't mean that he's not a father figure, but that he's not a
parent. I'm a non-parent myself, but I've had relationships with
people who've had children, and it can be rough. As adults, we
have several patterns we use for developing a relationship, and
usually those boil down to friends and lovers. If we're from a
family with multiple children, then there may also be a pattern
for sibling relationships. But until you're thrust into a parental
relationship, you really have no more clue than you would if you
were an only child trying to grok the nature of a sibling relationship.
You can come close, but there's always going to be that deep down
recognition that you are not a parent, just as the only child
will always know that s/he is not a sibling.
To make matters even more difficult, there are various types of
parental styles, from authoritarian to laissez-faire. And on top
of that, the relationship itself evolves as those in it also evolve.
My relationship with my own father swung from authoritarian to
verging on laissez-faire, depending on the circumstances of my
rebellion and the situation we were in. On top of that, the relationship
has further evolved as I've grown older - thus I can't say that
Giles fulfills Buffy's adolescent requirements for a father figure.
He doesn't enforce curfew, he doesn't lay down the law about sex
& drugs - and the one time he came close to doing so, it was not
only an unmitigated disaster, but he & Joyce proceeded to demonstrate
their own latent adolescence thanks to the band candy. Any chance
he might've had of shifting into an outright parental figure was
blown at that point, once Buffy had gotten a firsthand glimpse
of just how much boy still hides inside the man.
However, the relationship between Buffy and Giles relates very
closely to parent/child relationship if you pretend, for a minute,
that Buffy is actually in her late 20's or older. Her independence,
self-reliance, and self-integrity are respected by the parent,
who acknowledges her self-authority to govern herself and her
life, and lets her do just that. Giles doesn't intrude on areas
that he considers Buffy's domain, as the master of her own destiny.
He voices his contradictions when necessary, but like any parent
of an adult child, recognizes that he no longer has the ability
or need to enforce those arguments upon her, if he ever did.
Short of having been there to change her infant diapers, Giles
is as close to father figure as a person can get, when the father
figure is a single non-parental man who's introduced into her
life when she's already into adolescence. In that sense, Giles
also has the benefit of not knowing that Buffy wrote on the walls
at age 5 or any other scrapes that a parent remembers and tallies,
however unconciously. He's able to interact with her as a young
adult, and reframes a parental tendency into the closest framework
he can manage, which is a teacher/friend.
So I'd say, he's a father figure because he fulfills many of the
requirements that young adults have in their parent(s). He's not
a father, no, and will never be. But he comes pretty close, while
stretching across a lot of different aspects of his personality.
In sum? Yup, once again I'm left marveling at Joss' ability to
create complex characters that defy black & white categories.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Rufus, 20:09:43 07/02/01
Mon
Giles wouldn't do well with little children, they would be too
chaotic for him(he had enough of that in his youth). His reaction
to an evening with cookie dough, boy talk, and Dawn was enough
to cause nervous collapse. If you remember in Restless we got
a glimpse of what part of Giles sees Buffy as, petulant child.
His little dose of Band Candy resulted in he and Joyce checking
out the paint job on a police car.....hardly dignified. But it's
interesting that in a way he almost became a step-father.....the
relationship didn't last past the effect of the candy. When Buffy
brought up the fact that he had sex with her mother didn't he
walk into a tree? Not only does Joss create complex characters,
but he also shows how complex family relations can be. Giles is
no good at the authoritarian approach to child rearing as he saw
what he did as a result of the pressure it can cause. In season
four I saw that Giles became almost an empty nest parent in that
Buffy didn't seem to need him as much any more. He floundered
that whole year only becoming more secure with his life when he
got the Magic Box in season five. I suspect that in Season six
he may just feel his presence is no longer required for Buffy
and will begin to get his own *gig* seperate from Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 21:43:47 07/02/01
Mon
Good points about real life parent-adult child relationships.
But why force the metaphor here? (Ignoring for the moment the
apparent fact that Joss likes his metaphors.) What does it mean
that Giles is 'pretty close' to being a father to a young adult?
Okay, so real life young adult/parent relationships are essentially
friendships at their best. So why not skip the metaphorical hemming
and hawing and call a friendship a friendship, especially when
the show has seen fit to give Buffy all the real power in the
relationship? Giles isn't, and never has been, Buffy's father.
He never functioned as an authoritative/disciplinarian force in
Buffy's life, except by proxy (never used) for the Watcher's Council.
He's her friend, sometime mentor, sometime advisor, sometime partner
in the battle against evil.
The father-figure metaphor is razor thin, worn away in places,
and it has resulted in dumb Giles' acts like his telling Buffy
to go solve her own problems in "The Freshman" when
he thought she needed a nudge out of the nest, in his state of
perpetual uselessness in S4-5, even while Wesley was proving very
useful backup to Angel doing the exact same sorts of things that
Giles used to do for Buffy pre-S4. (Duh. Giles is Buffy's Watcher,
not her father. He's supposed to provide her with technical backup.
The writers seem to have forgotten this.) I won't blame Giles
if he decides to opt for his own gig in the future, but it's not
as if he's been given a whole lot to do in the way of helping
Buffy out recently. This isn't something they had to do to Giles,
because Giles and Buffy do have a multi-faceted relationship.
I hope the writers turn it around, but I haven't been real happy
about the prospects lately.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Rufus, 21:58:16
07/02/01 Mon
Now if we have to talk Wesley then we have to remember that he
didn't help much until he went against Councils orders and directly
helped in G2(won't go into how quick he went down). When Wesley
helps Angel he is an ex-watcher doing more than just research.
Both Giles and Wesley went against Council orders when they directly
participated in the hands on battling. Wesley is another interesting
character that has gone from academic-snob-fraid of his own shadow-screams
like a girl- Council mouthpiece. He shares something with Giles,
he has gotten close to the battle and become attached to those
involved. I feel that the Council very much prefers the Watchers
to remain distant, uninvolved in the actual fight type of people.
Both Giles and Wesley paid for not following orders.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat,
00:32:43 07/03/01 Tue
The real parental/authority figures in the Buffyverse are the
Council of Watchers. Wesley's actual father appears to be a personification
of that kind of authority: Stern, authoritarian, demanding, emotionally
unattached. Both Giles and Wesley were once part of that order,
but are now outcasts and rebels.
You can see Giles still at odds with his classical Watcher's training
in "Restless": He starts out by trying to hypnotize
Buffy speaking words of the traditional roles of men and women
(shades of "Helpless"), moves to the stern paternal
taskmaster of little girl Buffy in the carnival scene, moves beyond
that to the crypt (a metaphorical death of that Watcher?) and
to the Bronze with a gig of his own. He finds his watch (his calling?)
again, just before the First Slayer metaphorically cuts out his
brain. That seems to imply (IMO anyway) a dramatic shift in his
relationship with The Slayer.
Giles has been trying to come to terms with what being a Watcher
really means (beyond the traditional definition of the calling)
ever since he was fired (well actually ever since he met Buffy),
but he still doesn't seem to know for certain what a Watcher should
be to The Slayer. His relationship with Buffy is a dynamic work
in progress. He's tried being father, taskmaster, friend, teacher,
partner, uncle, and everything in between. The relationship is
all of that, and none of that. I don't known that they'll ever
settle into one easily defined relationship, and I actually hope
they don't. It's still, even after two seasons with Giles on the
sidelines, one of the most complex man-woman relationships on
television.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> No one thing -- Solitude1056,
09:37:35 07/03/01 Tue
Agreed, and good points all. My argument was just that when it's
an adult male, dealing with an adolescent easily 24 years his
junior, there's a limited number of patterns for developing a
relationship. "Friend" just doesn't work that well,
in some degrees, since the young adult's experience just isn't
going to give her a basis for meshing with someone who's seen
a lot more. He may be able to provide some friendship for her,
but it'll be more difficult in the opposite direction. In that
respect, Giles takes on - as best he can, given his lack of knowledge
- a fatherly dynamic, though I'd think it's more like the masculine
version of a "maiden aunt" - someone without children
and no practical knowledge of dealing with children, who nonetheless
loves the child to some extent and thus forms a relationship with
the child like, and unlike, a parental one... and also like and
unlike a friendship among equals - because the two people (aunt
and child) aren't equals. One is an adult. One's not.
As the two characters have progressed, and one has started growing
up, the equality of the relationship has begun to level out. Giles
is better able to deal with Buffy now that he's been inoculated
against her adolescent tendencies, and she's better able to accept
his fuddy-dud leanings. This is not a relationship that qualifes
as what most people would call a friendship, in some ways: you
don't see Buffy and Giles hanging out a lot, and he even remarks
that she rarely asks him how he's doing until her freshman year
starts. Olivia is a friend/lover to Giles; Joyce was a friend.
Buffy is something else.
So I'd argue that if you asked Buffy what Giles is to her, then
friend, mentor, teacher, partner would all be in there, but she
may also say that he's her "other father." (I know several
children of divorce who use this phrase to describe close family
friends who've stood in as a father figure when needed, in various
ways.) And if you asked Giles, he may also use the various other
descriptions, but he's also shown in word and deed that he considers
her the daughter he's never had.
I don't think it's a metaphor... I think it's just another handle
for understanding a complex and wonderful friendship between two
people a generation apart who don't have blood to come between
them or tie them together. We can search the Giles/Buffy interaction
for a month of sundays and find examples for just about any pattern
of interacting that we wanted. Joss made it patently clear that
the Scoobies consider themselves family, so IMO that makes the
father-daughter element a major aspect of that - but not the only
aspect. That's all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No one thing --
Rufus, 15:26:48 07/03/01 Tue
Yes, I agree with you Sol. I have three step-children and they
have called some of the people in their lives other than their
father, Dad. Giles I would describe as an uncle type to the other
Scoobies, but because the show has specifically made reference
to father and Giles relationship to Buffy is much closer I consider
that he has been a father figure to Buffy. That doesn't mean that
"father" is the only role he has. Giles is also her
Watcher and he never forgets his duty to the world as a whole.
I wonder if he ever thought he would end up so close to the girl
he was sent to "watch and train"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No one thing --
Coral Cat, 16:46:11 07/03/01 Tue
Joss has been on the fence about whether the Scoobies are a real
family or not. For all the talk about your real family being the
ones closest to you, when push came to shove Buffy's commitment
in "The Gift" was to her blood family, Dawn. When Giles
offered to help after Dawn slashed herself in an earlier episode,
Buffy told him that it was a 'family' matter, meaning herself,
Dawn, and Joyce. Blood does matter in the Buffyverse, although
I'm not sure to what extent. In a show about vampire slaying,
it has to have some powerful significance.
And again, I think Joss takes the 'father figure' metaphor far
less literally than a lot of the fans do. It makes a convenient
handle, especially for pitching an episode or hanging a metaphor
on, but I think it's counterproductive to get too attached to
the labels. (Especially when overuse of the label starts hurting
one of the characters, but I've been through that rant already.)
Sure first season, Giles was the 'stuffy British guy who knows
all the occult stuff'. Where would the show be if the writers
had stuck with that characterization?
Buffy is coming into her adulthood, the show is a coming-of-age
story, if the writers want to keep Giles a part of that story
they need to let him leave what ever existed of the 'father-figure'
trappings behind. The writers have already pretty much abandoned
the 'father figure' anyway. If Giles has any active place now
in Buffy's life he needs to be as something other than that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> How about... --
Malandanza, 06:39:25 07/04/01 Wed
"And again, I think Joss takes the 'father figure' metaphor
far less literally than a lot of the fans do"
When I think back to the Thanksgiving episode, I recall Buffy
sitting at the head of the table (opposite Giles). Others have
mentioned that Buffy is the "head of the household,"
and I agree. She has often been both the father and mother figure
to the Scoobies. They look to her for both support and guidance
and tend to flounder a bit when she is not around. So where does
that leave Giles? The grandfather figure?
I suggest that since season 3 there has been more of a (strictly
non-sexual) spousal relationship between Buffy and Giles. They
are essentially equals (although lately Giles has seemed more
of a junior partner). Giles' concern is for Buffy -- not her extended
family. So I would place Giles in the role of "childless
stepmother" -- someone who tolerates her stepchildren (Xander,
Anya, Cordelia, Willow) but would be happier if they were all
sent to a boarding school.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> boarding
school... LOL! -- Solitude1056, 07:03:09 07/04/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, no!
-- Marie, 07:06:26 07/04/01 Wed
So I would place Giles in the role of "childless stepmother"
Now I have this vision of Giles in drag! Heeelp!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No
kidding............LOL.............. -- Rufus, 13:13:44 07/04/01
Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How
about... -- Coral Cat, 19:48:24 07/04/01 Wed
LOL! "Childless stepmother" is an interesting image.
I think Giles is genuinely fond of the others, however. A lot
of the sniping between him and Xander seems to have an underlining
affection to it, and he was genuinely distressed when he thought
Willow was dead in "Doppelgangland".
Again, I like the term "patriarch" for Giles' function
in the SG, keeping in mind that Buffy is the matriarch, and that
this is a "matriarchy". A lot of the Buffy-Giles scenes
during S4 and S5 had a definite domestic feel to them. I think
of Giles as the tribal elder. (Uncle might not still be too far
off even now.) In a lot of ways, the SG is better conceptualized
as a tribe or clan than as a family. Even though Buffy is younger
than Giles, she is still clearly the head of that clan. Her Slayer
lineage gives her that power.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
How about... -- Rufus, 21:24:49 07/04/01 Wed
To heck with terms....stick around for a helping of Riley from
OnM tomorrow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: How about... -- Coral Cat, 02:43:20 07/05/01 Thu
Thanks for the invitation! I like Riley, so I'll definitely be
driving by.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Sorry got the date wrong it's Angelus this week -- Rufus,
02:59:46 07/05/01 Thu
Still drive by.....you can't go wrong he's evil...:)
Buffy and the bar scene -- vampire hunter D, 13:32:25
06/29/01 Fri
Alright, I know that this question will sound dumb and sort of
nitpicking but, What is the drinking age in California? I was
rewatching Family the other day (I have most of the season taped)
and realized that, while Riley and Giles were the only ones at
the party over 21 (and therefore leagally old enough to drink
in most states), Everyone had alcohol except Dawn. The same thing
happens on Angel, where Cordelia's still only 20, but still gets
served in bars. It's stuff like this which tends to break my suspension
of disbelief. I can accept vampires, monsters and magic, but this
is just stretching things too far. It looks like someone forgot
how old thse characters are supposed to be and just let the actors
act their real ages.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and the bar scene -- AK-UK, 14:44:51 06/29/01
Fri
What, don't Americans indulge in under-age drinking *coughbush'sdaughterscough*?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Hey, AK-UK, you should have something done about that
cough:):):):):) -- Rufus, 15:19:37 06/29/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> And what about my sneeze?? *atichoobringbackdoyleatichoo*
-- AK-UK, 15:28:48 06/29/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> blessyouiagree -- Liquidram, 16:40:06
06/29/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy and the bar scene -- Cleanthes, 17:53:21
06/29/01 Fri
I have a 20 year old daughter. She's telling me the other day
that her pals all stop binge drinking at 21 'cause it ain't any
fun any more.
The drinking age in the USA is 21 because Tipper Gore or someone
like that insisted and NHTSA made it a condition of the State's
getting federal highway funds.
The reason for the 21 limit is to encourage disdain for the law.
This makes Americans much less willing to bend to other authoritarian
rules. We used to have a 55 mph speed limit that had this same
effect.
On another forum, this discussion came up and a frequent poster
from Denmark was asked about the drinking age there. He said,
"if you're old enough to put your money on the counter, they
sell it to you".
When I last visited Greece, a waiter asked me if I wanted my son
to have wine with dinner. I thought it over and decided it would
be okay. He put five wine glasses on the table. We (my spouse
and I) had (at the time) an 18-year-old daughter, a 15-year-old
son and a 7-year-old-son. I *had* thought he was asking me if
it was okay to serve the 15-year-old, but, he actually wanted
to know about the 7-year-old!
Americans have some silly notions. Wouldn't it make more sense
to have the DRIVING age be 21? That's a lot more controllable.
But, as I say, the object isn't to stop "underage" drinking
but to encourage disrespect for the law.
Anyways, I gotta say that Buffy and pals would be unbelievably
out-of-synch if they didn't drink. I doubt if 5% of the alcohol
drinking US population waited until they were 21 to start.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Okay, I've changed my mind about amalgamation.
Gonna stay Canadian! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 18:15:25 06/29/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy and the bar scene -- Brian, 20:52:37
06/29/01 Fri
You cracked me up. Very funny and well put. We Americans have
some strange ideas about drinking and age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Oooh, word on semantics-- -- Rosenberg, 16:51:07
07/01/01 Sun
All right, I agree that a drinking age is absurd, but you're absurd
semantics are kind of bothering me here. The "object"
of a law is what it is specifically created for. The object of
the drinking age law is supposedly to prevent underage drinking
and auto accidents (it's much easier to put a useless law into
effect than it is to, say, pay for actual effective driver's ed.
courses, isn't it?). The object of this law is not to cause disrespect
for the law, that just doesn't make any sense. It's all about
politics and the misuse of federeal funds. Sorry, I just like
to keep any debate free from biased propoganda language even if
it's my side. Otherwise I completely agree with the whole drinking
age fiasco. And why does everyone think the American governement
is evil and oppressive? It's not evil, it's just horribly, horribly
inept and beaurocratically idiotic (though one of our top agencies
DID kill a great President some forty years back . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> P.S.: Does anyone know of any houses for
sale in Canada or Scotlant? -- Rosenberg, 16:53:15 07/01/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Fake IDs -- Malandanza, 05:04:53 07/02/01 Mon
It's not too difficult to get fake ID here and most places that
sell alcohol are not particularly vigilant -- if the ID looks
reasonably realistic, they won't look too closely (in fact, I
can remember friends deliberately putting absurd information on
their fake IDs -- ridiculous names, numbers or adresses). The
most easiest form of a fake ID (although it doen't apply in Buffy's
case) is using an older sibling's ID card. At a college campus,
it is not surprising that some minors would be drinking.
In the Buffyverse, fake IDs should be even easier -- I mean, how
much magic would it take for Willow to change one number on an
ID card?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Fake IDs -- Cactus Watcher, 07:29:29 07/02/01
Mon
Right! I'm from the stone age, but I'm pretty sure there are still
plenty of places in college towns around the country that accept
engraved pictures of presidents with green stuff on the back as
sufficient ID.
Hinduism and Buffy -- heywhynot,
19:27:14 06/29/01 Fri
I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the aspects of Hinduism
in Buffy. We have seen Giles reading the Legends fo Vishnu in
"Invisible Girl". The same book made the credits for
the first few seasons, to be replaced in season 5 by an image
of the First Slayer. The first dream of Buffy's we saw had an
image of a medallion that is of Shiva. Giles himself had a figurine
of Shiva in his library office at the high school. If you read
the shooting script for Restless is specifically states that Tara
(which is a name of a HIndu Goddess) in the finale dream sequence
is to be dressed in Indian wears (or the Hollywood version) when
she speaks for the Slayer. Anyone care to take a shot? Love to
hear what ideas people come up with on here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Hinduism and Buffy -- vampire hunter D, 13:19:27 06/30/01
Sat
I don't think Tara's name has anything to do with Hinduism. Tara
is actually a Celtic name meaning tower. I've never even heard
of a Hindu god by that name (although the Romans had a goddess
named Terra)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The Origins of the Name Tara & Tara in the Hindu/Buddhist
Faiths -- heywhynot, 13:52:08 06/30/01 Sat
Actually Tara comes to us from various sources. According to the
Behind the Names Website (which I find to be fairly accurate)
this is where Tara comes from: "This name has several different
sources. It can mean "hill" (Gaelic). Tara was the name
of the hill in Ireland where the Irish kings resided. It can also
mean "star" (Sanskrit). In Hindu and Buddhist mythology
Tara was an astral goddess, the wife of Brihaspati. Tara is also
the name of a Polynesian sea goddess. Finally, this name can function
as a short form of ASTAROTH. "
A summary about Tara in the Hindu faiths by Stephen T. Naylor
can be found at http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/asia/hindu/articles.html,
where it states: "In Hindu mythology, Tara was an astral
goddess who was the wife of Brihaspati. A heavenly adventure was
played out in the night sky when Soma, the moon, lusted after
and abducted Tara, who was the pole star, from Brihaspati, the
planet Jupiter. Soma kept Tara hostage, not releasing her at either
the urging of Brihaspati or even Brahma. The gods rallied against
Soma, who called on the asuras to be his allies, and a mighty
war erupted. Before both sides could wipe each other out, Brahma
again tried to intervene, and this time Soma listened and freed
his captive. She returned to her husband, but she was pregnant,
and would not say who the father was. Brihaspati refused to accept
her back until the child was born. At that moment, the child heard
the ultimatum and was born instantly. He was brimming with power
and beauty, and both Soma and Brihaspati claimed the child as
his own son. The boy became tire of the bickering over him, and
was ready to utter a curse, but Brahma once again came to the
rescue. He calmed the child down, then gently asked Tara who the
father was. Tara confessed that it was Soma. Soma welcomed his
son and named him Budha, who became the planet Mercury.
In southern India, Tara was an important aspect of the Mother
Goddess. When the Buddhists came into their own, they made this
Tara one of their most important goddesses, and her name came
to be an appellation to most female deities. She had many different
colors, and can be gentle or dangerous, depending on her hue.
If she was white or green, she was loving and tender, but if she
was red, yellow, or blue, then it was best to stay out of her
way. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Origins of the Name Tara & Tara in the
Hindu/Buddhist Faiths -- heywhynot, 14:54:23 06/30/01 Sat
For those interested in Astaroth, it is a form of Astarte from
the Old Testament. From the Behind tthe Name website: ASTARTE
(f) Meaning unknown. Astarte was the Phoenician goddess of love,
war and fertility. She was called Ishtar by the Babylonians.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Ashtaroth, Astarte, Inanna, Ishtar --
Solitude1056, 15:52:39 06/30/01 Sat
Ishtar, btw, is a later version of Innana.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Hinduism and Buffy -- Solitude1056, 14:33:57 06/30/01
Sat
Hinduism has a Tara, as heywhynot explains, but Buddhism's Tara
is far better known. You can find the encylcopedia excerpt I posted
by clicking here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Hinduism and Buffy -- kelly, 14:32:24 06/30/01 Sat
Let me try. Shiva is one of the three Hindu Gods that make up
the Holy Trinity in the Hindu faiths. Vishnu & Brahma are the
other two. Each has a female consort, the female consort of Shiva
being Parvati (Devi & Lalitha are other names for her). As with
many Gods and Goddesses in the Hindu faiths, Parvati has different
aspects that are worshipped under different names. The more out
of control aspect is known as Kali, she has been described as
a slayer of demons who can become bloodthirsty and turn on the
world she seeks to protect, a goddess of destruction. The warrior
aspect is known as Durga is considered to be inaccessible, the
goddess beyond reach, in many ways the opposite of Kali.
If you associate the Slayer as the female aspect of Shiva you
can look at the three slayers we have seen on Buffy so far. Faith
is very easily Kali & it is no stretch of the imagination to see
Kendra as Durga. Buffy seems to be a balance of the two. Each
aspect has come to the surface and been dominant but eventually
balance is restored.
Could the PTB be the Hindu Trinity? The Slayer associated with
Shiva, with Angel being associated with Vishnu the protector maybe?
If that is the case then the Slayer association with Devi/Parvati
is all the more interesting. One aspect of Devi is Lakshmi, goddess
of creative power (Buffy is fairly creative, thinks outside the
box). Lakshmi is the wife of Vishnu.
All the Gods and Goddesses it should be noted in the many Hindu
faiths are all aspects of the Supreme Being/God.
Hope this all made sense. Where Tara fits into all this, I do
not know. Tara I do believe is the Goddess as savior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Hinduism and Buffy -- heywhynot, 06:41:54 07/02/01
Mon
Kelly I was thinking along the same lines. Did not know about
Lakshmi being an aspect of Parvati/Devi as well. Would make all
the Buffy/Angel shippers out there happy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Hinduism and Buffy -- Rahael, 13:08:03 07/01/01 Sun
Hi, Heywhynot, glad to see I'm not the only one from the shelter
lurking here! THanks for bringing this discussion over, cos I
think its a very interesting line of thinking. Josh clearly likes
to dovetail more faiths than just Christianity.
Classic Movie of the Week - June 29th 2001 -- OnM,
20:19:12 06/29/01 Fri
*******
Never cared for westerns much, when I was a young'un. No sirree,
pardner, all them horses and dirt and saloons and such-- bleah!
I mean, I thought myself a child of the modern era. My fascination
ran to electricity, to radio, to clever and inventive machines,
to space travel. Other kids may have wanted toy guns and ten-gallon
hats, I wanted a telescope and a guide to constellations. Why
on Earth would someone want to live in a time and place where
there was no hot and cold running water, no indoor toilets, lighting
was provided by dim, flickery oil lamps or candles, you often
had to kill your own food, and worst of all, other people seemed
hellbent on killing *you*!
Nope, I didn't get it then, and on a practical basis, I even more
so don't get it now. I won't even get into the whole extermination
of the Native American peoples thing, sheesh.
I have mellowed a bit as I've aged, however, and the perspective
gained with the passage of time has allowed me to have some understanding
of the appeal this aspect of popular culture has with so many
individuals. I understand, for example, that there are similarities
to many of the concepts explored in our beloved Buffyverse-- The
Hero's Journey, the eternal fight of good vs. evil, characters
of integrity and decency who provide us with a moral compass to
model our own behaviour on, and the scheming, dirty-dealing card-sharps
of the soul who we long to boo and hiss at.
What has also helped a lot is the simple fact that the whole traditional
Western genre has been done to death, and so there isn't really
anywhere to go with it but up, and in recent years that is just
what's happened. There have been quite a number of superior films
made over the last decade that start with the basic, underlying
tenents of the Western, and then go-- well, interesting places
with it.
Some of these are revisionist in nature, in that they aim to bring
a greater sense of reality to the proceedings. The 'Indians' are
now 'Native Americans' and they aren't portrayed as being stupid
or mindlessly violent or uncultured. Even in a flick like *Shanghai
Noon*, where stereotypes edge up on you on occasion, something
will subsequently happen that shows that the director or writer
is winking at you, or lets you in on the joke-- they're poking
fun at the stereotypes, not engendering them.
Or, the fact that life was actually pretty damn hard for most
of those intrepid settlers, that those spacious skies and purple
mountain majesties proffered a tempting siren song that led thousands
to dash their hopes against the harsh reality of scorching heat,
bitter cold, dust storms, and of course the most dangerous element
of all, other people.
Outlaws, gunslingers, corrupt sheriffs, politicians and other
psychotic individuals are still very much with us today, of course,
they just take on other forms or wreak other kinds of public havoc.
We don't need to use the Western as a means to frame a conflict,
there are plenty of other artistic methodologies available. But
the genre endures, and my own opinion is that it does because
it makes it possible to distill complex issues of morality down
to a simpler, more digestible formula. We who have lived with
Westerns since childhood understand the conventions, the shorthand
techniques. We can quickly get into the story without much concentrating
on the details of the set dressing.
So, one way you can make a 'modern' Western is to do what the
director of this week's Classic Movie did, which was to (1) concentrate
on updating the set dressing cinematically and (2) do a little
gender twist. Does it work? Some critics thought nay, but I say
yea in a big way. I went to see this film when it was first released,
despite very mixed reviews, because I liked director Sam Raimi's
other works (most of them, anyway), and his well developed and
original sense of cinematic style. I also like Sharon Stone, and
admire how she is willing to take chances on doing some films
that aren't just a vehicle to show off her obvious physical assets,
but are films that go off the beaten path a bit. This was one
of them, and in it we get to see what happens when the mysterious
gunslinger who ambles into town one day is, well, *not male*.
This fact, in and of itself, makes it a challenge to do a film
that the averge moviegoer will accept, because the Mysterious
Stranger is a staple of the Western, and the MS is never a Ms.
Given that you are a filmmaker, and you decide to do this audacious
thing, you certainly wouldn't pick as your lead actor someone
as attractive as Sharon Stone. I mean, who is going to believe
her as a gunfighter? Then, to make matters worse, you fill your
cast roster with people like Gene Hackman, Leonardo DiCaprio,
Russell Crowe (yes, *that* Russell Crowe), Lance Henricksen and
Gary Sinise and various other testosterone-laden film heavies,
and you expect her to hold this project together?
She does, though, and does very well. I bought it, and I think
if you are willing to suspend disbelief for a short while as things
get started up, you'll buy it too. Raimi aids you in your purchase
by adding (at no extra charge!) a substantial helping of sheer
photographic cleverness to the whole shebang, with one startling
camera move after another, odd POV's, intense, almost surrealistic
color shadings and densities, and on and on until you accept,
just like any other 'conventional' Western outing of years past,
the whole ridiculous mess and find your id immensely entertained.
The MS of this flick is named Ellen (Stone), and she's come to
the town of Redemption looking for revenge. (Ooooo!) At first,
we don't know exactly why, but we soon discover that she is gunning
for one John Herod (Gene Hackman), who pretty much owns the town,
and oh, by the way, is also the fastest gun around. Herod, along
with fifteen others, has enrolled in a quick-draw contest, the
prize to the winner being a rather substantial bundle of money,
and the bonus aspect of not being dead. Naturally, Ellen cares
little about money, but seeks the higher ground of seeing justice
done and a past wrong righted. All she has to do is bide her time
and eliminate a few unsavory ne'er-do-wells along the way to her
ultimate confrontation with Herod. Only one tiny problem, though:
while eminently skilled with her trusty six-shooter, Ellen's never
actually killed anyone.
Ooooo, indeed. So I present to you, this week's Classic Movie,
*The Quick and the Dead*, by director Sam Raimi, he of *Evil Dead*
and *Darkman* fame. Ignore the other critics who dissed this flick,
and check it out for yourself, even if you normally accept that
'Space is the Place', or aren't a big fan of Westerns. I do, I'm
not, but I promise it will make you revisit the past of our collective
imagination in a new and entertaining way.
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technical Ammunition:
*The Quick and the Dead* was released in 1995, and is available
on DVD. Running time is 1 hour 45 minutes. Aspect ratio of the
original theatrical release is 1.85:1, although the DVD offers
both widescreen and pan'n'scan (cropped for standard TV) versions.
Sound is Dolby Digital 5.1 (English) and standard 2ch stereo (French).
Subtitles are available in English or French.
Producers were Joshua Donen, Allen Shapiro, and Patrick Markey.
Screenplay is by Simon Moore. Cinematography is by Dante Spinotti
and music by Alan Silvestri. Additional cast members besides those
mentioned above are Tobin Bell, Roberts Blossom, Kevin Conway,
Keith David, Pat Hingle, Olivia Burnette, Fay Masterson and Raynor
Scheine.
*******
Closing notes and the question of the week:
For those who enjoyed M. Night Shyamalan's brilliant work in *The
Sixth Sense*, be aware-- be very aware-- that his most recent
film, *Unbreakable*, is now out on DVD. Oh, yeah...
OK, so the question of the week-- can you recall any other notable
cases of lone female gunfighters in the past oeuvre of the Western
film genre, and if so, were the portrayals successful, in your
opinion? Not counting TV series here, film only, please.
*******
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 29th 2001 -- Rufus,
22:16:34 06/29/01 Fri
I only got a chance to see part of the Quick and the Dead. I liked
what little I saw, never had a chance to see the whole movie.
I did however see Unbreakable two nights ago, I just love Samuel
L. Jackson, at the end when you see he is clearly mad and has
done some terrible things you still feel for the boy who was called
Mr. Glass. I will have to watch it a few more times to get all
the stuff I missed in the first viewing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 29th 2001 -- Rendyl,
00:52:38 06/30/01 Sat
***OK, so the question of the week-- can you recall any other
notable cases of lone female gunfighters in the past oeuvre of
the Western film genre, and if so, were the portrayals successful,
in your opinion? Not counting TV series here, film only, please.***
Depends on your definition of 'Lone'. The obvious ones would be
Calamity Jane (several movies, none really seemed to capture her.
Buffalo Girls was not bad but still off historically), Belle Starr
(several movies, NONE of which do her justice)
Etta Place (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid) who was much more
than just "the girlfriend". The movie was great, and
it comes closer to showing her as three dimensional then many
other movies. (it still misses the mark)
Then there is also Cattle Kate Watson who was lynched in Heaven's
Gate. I have no comment good or bad. ;)
Is there a movie on Sally Skull?
There -should- be movies made about Mary Fields and Pauline Cushman
(I would watch them) but to the best of my knowledge there are
not. (sigh)
From a fiction perspective there is Mattie Ross in 'True Grit'.
Technically she is not a gunfighter but she does carry a gun and
shoots one of the bad guys with it. (besides it is one of my favorite
movies-grin) My husband is clueless as to what I see in the movie
and really gets annoyed when I threaten him with "my lawyer,
J. Noble Daggett". When I was a pre-teen I wanted to be Mattie
Ross. Her characterization was very true to the book and unlike
many females in westerns she got to be a real character, not an
idealised or sanitized version of a person. She was also very
smart and resourceful. (traits not assigned to Belle in most of
the movies about her even though she possessed them)
I would comment on The Quick and the Dead but I fell asleep about
15 mins into it. Not the movie's fault, I had a bad cold and the
medicine put me out. Afterward I had this wierd dream where Keith
David did the Elvis singing/fight restaurant scene in a western
saloon, (they were strong meds-grin) but that is kinda off topic.
I do think I will rent it again and give it another try. Thanks
OnM!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Definition of 'Lone' -- OnM, 04:44:37 06/30/01 Sat
I generally meant as in the 'Mysterious Stranger' tradition, but
my intended use of the word was to differentiate a woman gunfighter
(or even an 'outlaw') who wasn't an adjunct or token member of
some gang, or 'the girlfriend' to a gunfighter, etc., but who
acted mostly by herself, for her own reasons, whatever they might
be.
One reason for asking this question was, as I stated, I'm not
a big fan of the genre overall, so there are literally hundreds
of westerns I've never seen, and I was hoping that someone out
there more familiar with the field could come up with a contradiction
to my statement of 'The MS is never a Ms.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Definition of 'Lone' -- Rendyl, 17:42:16
06/30/01 Sat
Ahhhh...There were many actual western women who would fit your
definition but I cannot think of any movies specifically portraying
them as a Mysterious Stranger.
There is also the drawback (from a movie standpoint) that many
of those women dressed and passed as men. Some even married other
women. Many were not discovered as women or were not found out
until they died.
Being a western movie nut I may think of one yet. (grin)
Rendyl, -still hunting for a female 'Shane'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 29th 2001 -- Andy,
06:44:16 06/30/01 Sat
> Never cared for westerns much, when I was a young'un. No
sirree, pardner, all them horses and dirt and saloons and such--
bleah!
Heh. I've always liked westerns. What puts me to sleep are mob
movies. From The Sopranos all the way back to Little Caesar, you
start getting into mafia stuff and I just tune out :)
> Nope, I didn't get it then, and on a practical basis, I even
more so don't get it now. I won't even get into the whole extermination
of the Native American peoples thing, sheesh.
What fascinates me about the West is that it's this odd, liminal
place and time in our history where we have a concrete idea of
when and where it happened, and it really wasn't all that long
ago, but we really don't have much in the way of exact specifics.
I can't count the number of times I've read differing accounts
of what "the real West" was. So that helps contribute
to these legends that pop up about it, which are kind of modern
but kind of archaic at the same time.
> She does, though, and does very well. I bought it, and I
think if you are willing to suspend disbelief for a short while
as things get started up, you'll buy it too. Raimi aids you in
your purchase by adding (at no extra charge!) a substantial helping
of sheer photographic cleverness to the whole shebang, with one
startling camera move after another, odd POV's, intense, almost
surrealistic color shadings and densities, and on and on until
you accept, just like any other 'conventional' Western outing
of years past, the whole ridiculous mess and find your id immensely
entertained.
I loved Quick and the Dead and own the dvd. What amazed me about
this movie was that even though I've always been a Raimi fan,
I couldn't figure out how he was going to tell a story that hinged
entirely on the concept of the showdown, which, to me, is possibly
the lamest cliche there is in western movies (Unforgiven did a
pretty good job of blowing holes through it, I thought). But he
made up for it with all these incredible, Hitchcockian camera
tricks. It's just really cool looking with an amazing cast and
colorful characters :)
> For those who enjoyed M. Night Shyamalan's brilliant work
in *The Sixth Sense*, be aware-- be very aware-- that his most
recent film, *Unbreakable*, is now out on DVD. Oh, yeah...
I'm still trying to make up my mind about Unbreakable. There were
a lot of things I appreciated about it, but I did have trouble
completely biting into it. Probably because I'm a comics fan and
a lot of Samuel Jackson's ideas about comics and superheroes strike
me as ridiculous. It's like this movie that expresses this great
love for comics without actually knowing anything about comics
:)
> OK, so the question of the week-- can you recall any other
notable cases of lone female gunfighters in the past oeuvre of
the Western film genre, and if so, were the portrayals successful,
in your opinion? Not counting TV series here, film only, please.
The biggest example I can think of is a relatively obscure 50's
film directed by Nicholas Ray, called "Johnny Guitar".
It's got Joan Crawford, Sterling Hayden, and Mercedes McCambridge.
It's been awhile since I've seen it but the story involves Crawford
being the owner of a saloon who runs afoul of a group of conservative
townspeople led by Mercedes. I can't remember the exact dispute
but after starting out as a typical western with Hayden coming
into town to protect his fair lady, the movie suddenly yanks the
rug out from under him and and he starts playing second fiddle
while Crawford and McCambridge take over the movie, pretty much
being at each other's throats the whole time. The finale between
them is pretty intense stuff.
(Sergio Leone supposedly based part of Once Upon a Time in the
West on this movie.)
It's not really an amazing film in terms of consistent entertainment
(and I've never really liked Crawford in much of anything), but
it's really interesting to watch it just to see the women taking
charge in a mid-50's film with these feminist and McCarthyist
themes colliding together. The bottom line is that it's probably
one of the most kick-ass female westerns I can think of. "Bad
Girls" had nothing on this :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 29th 2001 -- rowan,
15:51:41 06/30/01 Sat
I too, have never been a big western fan, with a few notable exceptions.
This is one of them. First, with a cast this fantastic, how can
you go wrong? This is great Leo DiCaprio (of the Gilbert Grape,
not the Titanic) and great Russell Crowe (of the LA Confidential,
not of the Meg Ryan). Sharon Stone is no slouch, either.
And the town ain't called Redemption for nothing -- at least 3
major characters are seeking it, with mixed results. Throw in
some vengeance, some justice, some atonement, some Oedipal conflict,
some redemption -- and you've got a weighty mix of fun.
I totally agree about the sheer beauty of this film, as well.
There is a shot near the conclusion which portrays the end of
a gunfight that I promise you won't forget.
On another subject, please all head out and see AI. I saw it this
week and I would love to get an o/t thread started on it with
anyone who's interested in discussing it. It is one of the most
singularly disturbing movies that I have ever seen, punctuated
with stellar performances by Jude Law, Haley Joel Osment, and
an extremely creepy one by William Hurt. The buzz is for real.
This movie will have people talking about it for decades.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Me, me, me............ -- Rufus, 16:01:59 06/30/01
Sat
rowan, tell me what you thought of AI, I'm taking my 14yr old
nephew out for a birthday movie and want to know if AI would be
a good choice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Me, me, me............(o/t AI spoilers)
-- rowan, 18:35:42 06/30/01 Sat
Well, I don't have children, so it's hard to say. It's truly a
very disturbing story. It's very emotional. It has alot to do
with the nature of love and the definition of humanity. Alot of
the issues raised are ethical ones. Specifically, it deals with
whether robots with artificial intelligence (called Mechas) can
love and whether humans (called Orgas) can love them back as well
as the responsibilities that exist when such relationships start.
I definitely recommend it, but I really think it's more of an
adult film. I will say I have never been so affected. I left the
theatre beyond tears and it was several hours before I could calm
myself down and stop my thoughts about it from racing through
my head. That's why I'm hoping some of you will go see it, so
we can discuss it.
I'll tell you the basic premise (not more than a trailer would
reveal). The polar ice caps have melted. Coastal cities are flooded.
Space becomes scarce as populations move inland. In the more affluent
US, couples now must get licenses to have children (since space
is at a premium). Companies abound who build robots with artificial
intelligence that do not consume resources. As the "next
generation of AIs," one company creates the prototype for
an AI child that can love once a series of commands are activated
that 'imprint' him on a specific human. The imprinting is irreversible.
David (the AI prototype child) is placed in a home where the couple's
human child has fallen ill and is cryogenically frozen (with little
hope of recovery from his disease). The mother eventually activates
the imprinting and David begins to love her. The story is about
what happens after the "real" child is miraculously
healed and life with both children becomes increasingly problematic.
There are three things that might be problematic for a 14 year
old. First, the story has alot to do with parental abandonment/rejection
and its affect on children. It really pulls at your heartstrings
when you see how David's human mother and father treat him.
Second, there is an AI (played by Jude Law) who is called Gigolo
Joe. This type of AI is created solely for the sexual pleasure
of humans. Although there is no graphic sex, there is extended
discussion of the ethics surrounding the peddling of sex. NYC
has turned into a flesh pot full of porno palaces.
Third, there is something called a Flesh Fair where the AIs are
tortured and destroyed in front of paying throngs of humans a
la Roman gladitorial games. It's very disturbing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Me, me, me............(o/t AI spoilers)
-- Rufus, 23:09:18 06/30/01 Sat
I watched Bladerunner years ago and found the idea of these simulated
humans needing to have a past something. So when Dawn arrives
the Monks had taken care of making sure she felt like she belonged
by creating her memories for her. She may have found out later
they were false but it no longer mattered, she identified her
home as being with Joyce and Buffy. Then you get April in IWMTLY
who was programmed to love Warren, he never counted on her being
able to go into growl mode. So we have to ask because it's a robot
who loves does that make that emotion not count because it springs
from a digital mind? AI sounds like a good movie to go to for
me, my nephew I think will go to Cats and Dogs......:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> AI Image **spoilerish** -- Liquidram,
23:24:38 07/02/01 Mon
I just saw AI today with my kids (14 & 10 - they both loved it)and
thought it was pretty exceptional. It seemed more Kubrick than
Spielberg to me.
There was one scene that was one of the most visually powerful
images I have ever seen on screen. It probably wouldn't give too
much away, but if you don't want to know anything at all about
it, STOP NOW.....
The scene when David jumped off the highrise into the water was
astounding. The camera panned over to Joe watching him through
the glass and the way the shot was set up, the image of David
falling was reflected on Joe's face just like a tear. Amazing!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> A.I. o/t -- Wisewoman, 17:56:27 06/30/01 Sat
I'm dying to see this movie. The original short story by Brian
Aldiss that it's based on, Super Toys Last All Summer Long, is
at:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.01/ffsupertoys_pr.html
The story is very short, so the movie must have tons of other
stuff in it...love Osment and Law to begin with.
Ooooh, I'm so jealous of you, rowan!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: A.I. Viewing -- Brian, 08:35:18 07/03/01
Tue
I saw A.I. last night, and I found it a powerful and disturbing
movie. It, too, took me several hours to wind down from seeing
this film. My immediate reaction at the end of the film was to
wipe away the tears, and head for the nearest bar. I needed a
drink badly.
I can't imagine taking a child to this film. Unless it was a very
mature child that was secure in its family relationships.
But, it is the most thoughtful film I've seen in years. Quite
a challenge to the intellect, and I will be talking about this
film for quite some time. I may even go see it again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: the Quick, the Dead and A.I. (partly o/t) -- mundusmundi,
16:15:04 07/01/01 Sun
First, good choice OnM. "QATD" has long been a guilty
pleasure of mine. Always loved Raimi's overheated visual style
and wit. Glad to see it's become a cult fave, even if it's only
to see Russell and Leo. Whatever works.
Second, A.I. I'm with you, rowan, on the excellent perfs, Law
and O'Connor particularly, and the flick has some striking passages,
but truth be told it left me underwhelmed. It continues two disturbing
trends in Spielberg's recent work: A) an overreliance on tedious
exposition, telling what he should be showing us; and B)unnecessarily
drawn-out climaxes. There's a moment around the 2-hour mark, which
I won't give away for those who haven't seen it, that would've
made a perfect ending, the kind of ambiguous conclusion of classic
fairty-tales. As usual, though, Spielberg's insecurities get the
better of him, and he drags it out for another 25 minutes, causing
the audience I attended with to groan in frustration. Sorry, but
whatever happened to the great visual stylist of "Jaws"
and "E.T.," who suggested terror with a simple shark
fin or a pair of keys?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: the Quick, the Dead and A.I. (partly o/t)
-- rowan, 18:25:51 07/01/01 Sun
Yes, I will give you (B). The movie could have ended quite nicely
where I think you're suggesting. But some say that is the Kubrick
ending. Spielberg pulled it along. I felt the last 1/2 hour was
continued to yank my emotional chain, though. It made me delve
a little deeper into the themes the movie was exploring, but it
was a little too "talky" for my taste. And I don't know
that the Spielberg ending was ultimately any "happier"
than the purported Kubrick ending. 'Nuf said. The movie was truly
disturbing intellectually and emotionally. Jude Law's character
was...well, let's wait until others have seen it.
Teddy was my favorite character, though. Quite a Winnie the Pooh-like
devotion displayed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: the Quick, the Dead and A.I. (partly
o/t)(partly spoiler-y) -- bess, 07:12:01 07/02/01 Mon
too interesting a thread too ignore....teddy !!! my favorite character,
sadly enough. hee hee.... i went to see AI this weekend... at
one point the friend i was with turned to me and said, "i
know why they used all that secrecy surrounding the 'making-of'.
they didn't want anyone to know they didn't have much of a plot."
while i don't totally agree, i feel as you guys did - that the
last part was... meandering. just out of curiosity, what serious
filmmaker takes a step back and says "2,000 years then passed"
and presents you with a future filled with glowy robot-creatures
in flying lego ships ? it seemed more like a cheap shot at heightening
the FX budget, rather than a logical outgrowth of the story. there
were about thirty minutes they could have diced out here & there...
my problem with AI ran a bit deeper. everything they said about
david was not shown in david, but in the characters (also AI's)
that surrounded him. his "love" seemed more like obsession,
a single-minded goal rather than a feeling. teddy did not try
to 'own' him or his love, but helped him, loyally, through all
his adventures. his "abstract thought and reasoning"
seemed more like he stood in a forest, asking where the blue fairy
was, until jude law's joe came up with ideas for finding both
women and the blue fairy (dr.know, etc...). it seemed like all
the other AI's already posessed the traits they had tried (unsuccessfully)
to instill in david. i wonder if this was intentional or not.
perhaps it was the director's odd way of saying, we're so egotistical
we can't believe anything but us has a soul, we have to create
one ourselves... but can they ? (evil laugh - moowahahahaaa)...
who knows ??? ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Huh, I liked A.I....go figure (spoilery)
-- fresne, 13:34:55 07/02/01 Mon
Chiming in...I went to see AI this weekend with a few friends.
A number of them had the same reaction to the final section (beware
travelers, after this point lie spoilers) of the movie. They felt
that the end was disjointed. Didn't belong. Tacked on, etc.
It was weird and yet, at least for myself and my housemate, emotionally
perfect.
I would agree that David does not fully express love throughout
most of the movie. How can he. He has been programmed to love
by people with an imperfect understanding of the emotion themselves.
Professor Hobby is so obsessed over his son's death that he chooses
to remake David over and over in a hardier form. He is not really
the best source of a complete understanding of love. David's love
is the obsessive of a child, without the adult understanding of
the emotion.
David's quest is to become human so he can receive love. However,
it is only when he is freely given the love, which the parent,
the creator, owes the child, that he can finally make that leap
to become human. His mother tells him that she loves him and David
is finally able to dream. Thus in that weird faery tale sort of
way, his mother was the Blue Faery all along.
I suppose the story could have ended with David futily praying
to the faery. And yet, and perhaps this is just me, it would not
have been true to the story. Which was not science fiction as
far as I am concerned. It was a faery tale. I'll definitely have
to see again because I really want to examine the faery tale motifs
more thoroughly. What version of Robin Hood was Monica reading?
Martin frozen in his case as Snow White. David likewise frozen,
woken with a touch. Of course Pinocchio. David being thrown into
the woods, so many faery tales. David's suicidal fall into the
sea, which is more the hero going into the realm of the dead.
Joe and Teddy's roles as guides and companions. The aliens as
fellow seekers.
The movie was visually stunning. David in the pool with his outstretched
arms. Teddy picking up the falling strands of hair. The Nannybots
final smile. The vision of Man-hattan. The Blue Faery with strands
of sea weed
The only thing I didn't like about the final image was that Teddy
didn't crawl into bed with David at the end, but rather sat at
the end of the bed. Given that Monica was his mother too.
I had no difficulty in emotionally connecting with David. Some
have commented that they were afraid that he would turn on Monica,
Martin, Henry, etc. Which of course it the excuse for abandoning
him. Like Frankenstein who upon seeing his monster breath for
the first time, feels horror at his creation, and obviates himself
of all responsibility for raising it and teaching the creature.
(What can I say Frankenstein's creation is my favorite character
in Frankenstein. A horrifying killer, and yet if Frankenstein
had stood up to his obligations, preventable) And okay, I'll admit
it, I cried when David wrote those crayon messages and you could
just see what Monica was intending to do. That absolutely focused
childness that was at the core of David's quest. His anger at
the other David, his only violent outburst in the movie. (Interesting
that it so startled Joe) An anger that turns inward as he sees
his own lack of uniqueness.
And poor Joe, he didn't get to come on the final quest. Being
slowly lifted away. "I am. I was." Then again, I'm not
sure that Joe could have made the cognitive leap of faith that
David and Teddy possessed to wait for a miracle in the liminal
space of the sea.
So, yeah, here is one vote of, I liked it. I laughed, I cried,
I feel like writing a paper, which come to think of it, I just
did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Huh, I liked A.I....go
figure (spoilery) -- rowan, 15:40:52 07/02/01 Mon
I liked it too, my comments about the various potentialities for
the ending nonewithstanding. I think it will be considered one
of the masterworks of film for this century.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Huh, I liked A.I....go
figure (spoilery) -- fresne, 09:06:18 07/03/01 Tue
Good, I was beginning to feel lonely.
Course, now that I've talked to my housemate. "Future robots
looking for their creators not aliens." and my response of,
"Huh, well that makes sense" I feel much better as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Huh, I liked
A.I....go figure (spoilery) -- bess, 14:23:57 07/05/01 Thu
oh, don't get me wrong ! it had its moments.... the visuals were
gorgeous, joe against the moon, the blue fairy covered in seaweed...
an artist's dream. i think you're totally correct in saying that
his love was imperfect because it was programmed (hey, way to
tie in spike... the buffybot wasn't real enough for him because
her love was just a program... ;).... it's just that for me....
it was lacking something. like in the end, after everything, no
one still "got" love. and they didn't have to get rid
of joe so abruptly ! ahh, but that's my un-indulged inner jude
law fan... hee hee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: AI and buzz -- OnM, 19:57:48 07/01/01 Sun
Haven't gotten out to see AI yet, but I plan to sometime in the
next couple weeks. The reviews have been mixed, but since it involves
Kubrick and Spielberg I will see for myself.
One comment I have heard several times is that weakness in the
film is largely due to trying to meld the very dissimilar styles
of Kubrick and Spielberg-- some feel it works and some do not.
The issue itself (AI) is a very important one, one that we need
to be thinking about now, since I have very little doubt that
sometime in the next century we will finally create synthetic
'living' beings, although I feel they will be biological rather
than mechanical/electronic. (Yes, clones would count-- will they
have a 'soul'? Does that matter?) Companies that have already
created the basic constituents of living matter are trying--and
succeeding-- in getting patents for them! Thus, they 'own' them.
This is pretty scary, methinks.
Any who wish to discuss this theme, or any other movie-inspired
philosophical concepts, are welcome to use any current 'Classic
Movie' thread to comment. Just be sure to clearly label spoiler
material if the film is in current release, as the various posters
have done on 'AI' this week.
This is one of the big reasons I started doing this column in
the first place, movies and philosophy go together, the former
is just one modern language for expressing the other.
(Not always, but often!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: AI and buzz -- rowan, 20:41:00 07/01/01
Sun
"One comment I have heard several times is that weakness
in the film is largely due to trying to meld the very dissimilar
styles of Kubrick and Spielberg-- some feel it works and some
do not."
I hope some of us do see this so that we can have a discussion
about it later. After having seen the film, IMHO, even if one
could demonstrate an artistic failure to meld the dissimilar styles
(which would be a very fun conversation to have), the content
would remain. And that content is very, very disturbing and thought-provoking.
As I mentioned earlier, I was in a funk for several hours after
the movie, totally unable to express what I felt about it, or
what I thought it was really about.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: AI and buzz -- mundusmundi, 05:06:08 07/02/01
Mon
"One comment I have heard several times is that weakness
in the film is largely due to trying to meld the very dissimilar
styles of Kubrick and Spielberg-- some feel it works and some
do not."
The most perceptive critique I read suggested that the real creative
conflict in the film is Spielberg vs. himself (his contradictory
impulses as a filmmaker). I'm inclined to agree.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: AI and buzz (plenty o' spoilers) --
Humanitas, 10:32:23 07/02/01 Mon
Y'know, it occurred to me in the shower this morning that OnM
probably wouldn't mind if I hijacked CMtoW for a bit to talk about
"AI," and here I find that y'all beat me to it! :)
I found the movie more engaging on an intellectual level, than
an emotional one. From the moment that nameless assistant asked
about the resposibilties of humans towards machines that can love,
I was hooked. I thought "Oh, goody! Here we have Spielberg,
the master of giving special effects emotional resonance, talking
about a deeply philosophical issue!" >sigh.< The emotions
barely kicked in for the rest of the film. There were moments
(Monica and David in the woods), to be sure, but David's behavior
was so problematic that I didn't know whether to feel pathos or
fear. On the one hand, I felt horrible for Monica, but the scene
was shot in such a way that it was almost like a horror movie.
I expected David's love to turn to rage, or for him to harm Monica
to keep her with him. It was creepy. I ended up never really connecting
with the character.
On the other hand, the movie did keep me engaged and thinking.
Lots of great moral ambiguity, racism (or should that be orga-centrism),
and pondering on the nature of love. I had the same reaction to
the ending(s) that one of the above posters had: the first one
was Kubrick's, the second was Spielberg's. I thought both were
good endings, but they had very different feels to them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: AI and buzz (spoilers) -- purplegrrl,
11:09:34 07/02/01 Mon
I, too, saw A.I. over the weekend with a couple of female friends.
I'm not entirely sure what to think of it. I may have to see it
again.
One friend and I agreed that the "2000 years in the future"
end sequence was unneccessary. We thought the movie could have
ended just fine with the scene where David is "praying"
to the Blue Fairy. IMO, the ending seemed tacked on. And, to extend
the Pinnochio analogy, almost too "Jiminy Cricket" --
he gets his heart's desire in the end. (My other friend's complaint
was that even in the far distant future, super-skinny is considered
the norm -- even if they are machines.)
Both Haley Joel Osment and Jude Law did an excellent job in the
film. David is lovable, yet strangely disturbing. Gigolo Joe is
smarmy without being truly disgusting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: AI and buzz (spoilers)
-- Humanitas, 11:37:58 07/02/01 Mon
"Gigolo Joe is smarmy without being truly disgusting."
Hey, maybe we could set him up with the Buffybot!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> AI's ending--very spoilerish
-- Rob, 09:25:08 07/09/01 Mon
I have heard a lot of negative response for the final sequence
in "A.I." which truly astounded me, because I thought
that was the most brilliant part of the movie. It is the part
where Spielberg truly took over, and I loved his reference to
"Close Encounters" (the aliens were very similar). I
believe the message of the film is that whether it is right or
not to create an artificially intelligent child is unimportant...What
is important is that once that child is created, the humans must
have a responsibility towards it. In other words, if you create
something completely dependant on your love, abandoning it would
be as bad as abandoning a real creature. I found the true great
irony in the film is that after 2000 years, after all of mankind
is destroyed, the only living vestige of humanity is one small
little boy robot and his talking teddy bear... I found the innocence
of David's character beautiful. He was created only to love. He
did not feel anger towards his mother, even though she abandoned
him, but just longed to return to her, to become real so that
she would love him. This makes him all the more poignant. The
only time he ever struck out in anger was against another David
robot...After all, his mommy had told him he was unique, the only
one of his kind, and now he found out that he was not. I never
found David's character disturbing...I found what was done to
him disturbing. The character I found disturbing was Martin. He
deliberately set about trying to get David in trouble, pointing
out to him that he was just a toy. Real or not, David does have
feelings. He is not even allowed to explain to his parents what
truly happened, that he had not meant to drown Martin. Martin
never told his parents that David had only done what he did because
he was afraid. He was jealous. I think it would have been a cruel
injustice to leave David at the bottom of the ocean as the closer
for the film. After so much heartache and sadness, this little
boy deserved a happy ending. And it was not a typical Spielberg
ending, either. A typical one would have the mother being returned
to him forever. Instead, he is only given one single day. Thus,
the ending, where he finally is able to dream, is both happy and
extremely sad. I thought the idea of the aliens was brilliant.
Early on in the film, David asked his mother when she would die.
He was heartbroken, because 50 years or so was not a long time...and
he would then be alone, for robots can potentially last forever.
This perfectly sets up the idea that he does last forever. In
the end, the mother he gets is an idealized, perfect version of
his mother, one who is not torn by her love for her husband or
for her son...A mother for whom David is the only child...A mother
who loves him completely. His love for this mother is what finally
turns him into a real boy. As far as the directing, Spielberg
has once again proved his genius to me. Never before has he ever
done a childhood fantasy that has so many disturbing elements.
He didn't shy away from, at points, making the audience uncomfortable.
The scene where David is abandoned is one of the saddest, most
gutwrenching moments in film I have ever seen. And the direction
was also extremely visionary: The visuals in Rouge City, for example,
and the underwater Manhattan were among the best in the history
of science fiction. I loved how the movie began as a science fiction
story, and ended as a fantasy. What made it perfect, however,
was how the fantasy elements did not come out of nowhere. In David's
mind, he was speaking to the Blue Fairy. In actuality, it was
a hologram image generated by the aliens. To a small boy, bringing
a dead mother back to life is magic. To the aliens, it was science...they
created her out the DNA from her hair. I think in the end the
movie was very much Spielberg's story more than Kubrick's. Kubrick
inspired the darkness, but the true brilliance lies in Spielberg,
who realizes that nothing is more pure and beautiful than the
love a young boy has for his mother. Despite all the corruption
and darkness the boy is forced to go through, he remains unscathed...
I know I've been rambling on and on, but my point is, and I probably
already said this...After such horrible occurences, David deserved
a happy ending. I don't find that contrived or tacked on. I find
it beautiful. After all, dark though it may be, this movie's purpose
was to be a fairy tale. If a movie like this cannot end with at
least some hope, it would be a horrible commentary on the world.
In the end, I am glad Spielberg's spirit won out over Kubrick,
although I am grateful for Kubrick's inspiration in some of the
darker elements of the film.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: AI and buzz -- Anthony8, 20:26:35 07/04/01
Wed
Haven't seen it myself, but Kubrick's widow (on a recent Charlie
Rose Show) really loved it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: AI and buzz -- Brian, 07:13:40 07/05/01
Thu
Probably A.I. should be considered Kubrick's last film, not that
disaster Eyes Wide Shut.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: AI and buzz -- Anthony8, 19:00:05
07/05/01 Thu
I'm curious as to what made Eyes Wide Shut such a disaster for
you. At first viewing, I thought it was pretty good. It bears
up even better after repeated viewings. For me, it wasn't as enthralling
as 2001, Clockwork Orange, or Paths of Glory, but I thought it
was comparable to Full Metal Jacket or The Shining. People seemed
to either love it or hate it (there was a similar reaction to
The Shining when it came out).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 29th 2001 -- Lurker
Becoming Restless, 04:55:18 07/01/01 Sun
I, too, have never been a big Western fan but I loved this movie.
I enjoyed the edgy atmosphere and the way that each gunfight was
filmed in a different way (this was a very self-conscious genre
movie).
However, picking up on just one thing you said (I'm sorry, this
way lies thread-theft), I have to join you in recommending 'Unbreakable'
to everyone. It's one of my favourite movies and is so well-directed,
well-acted and original that anyone with an open mind who doesn't
insist on comparing it to 'The Sixth Sense' (which it beats hands-down,
BTW) is sure to enjoy it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 29th 2001 -- purplegrrl,
11:17:15 07/02/01 Mon
I, on the other hand, am a big Western film fan. Especially John
Wayne westerns (El Dorado, Chisum, True Grit, The Searchers, The
Sons of Katie Elder, to name a few).
That said, I also like off-beat westerns like "The Quick
and the Dead." No one is what they seem at first meeting.
And the cinematography is very interesting.
OnM, have you seen "The Ballad of Little Jo"? I think
it's an independent film. It's based on the real-life story of
a woman in the old West who was forced by circumstances to dress
and act as a man just to survive. Sort of a twist on the "mysterious
stranger" theme.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> 'Ballad of Little Jo' - Heard of it, haven't seen
it. Anyone else out there have? -- OnM, 21:31:57 07/02/01 Mon
And if you have, what did you think?
BTW, always appreciate suggestions from y'all for possible movies
to check out. I keep a list, and if I run into them at the video
store I will often purchase a copy.
(I rarely rent, although with rentable DVD's becoming more common,
that could change in the future for flicks I might be interested
in seeing but not necessarily buying. I used to depend on premium
cable movie packages for this (Showtime, Cinemax, etc.), but it
just got too costly forking over $30.00+ a month to get a whole
big buncha channels, just to tune into one or two interesting
movies a month, and then usually in pan'n'scan versions. I do
currently subscribe to Sundance and IFC on DirecTV, although time
doesn't permit me to watch as much as I would like to.)
So please don't feel any kind of slight if I respond with a 'haven't
seen it' to your recommendation, I do consider them all seriously.
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 'Ballad of Little Jo' - Heard of it, haven't
seen it. Anyone else out there have? -- Rufus, 22:09:08 07/02/01
Mon
Hey, I saw and enjoyed that one very much. The reaction of the
towns people when she died was something else. This movie didn't
just break gender rules but racial ones as well. I remember it
being a movie I watched because it was mentioned on Siskel and
Ebert. That show has done a great service for the smaller movies
as they do deal with titles that would have been buried under
the blockbusters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Rufuuuus! You gave away what happened!!
-- Leah, 04:09:42 07/03/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Rufuuuus! You gave away what
happened!! -- Rufus, 15:29:11 07/03/01 Tue
Not really specially when you consider that we know from square
one what the others don't. It was never a secret in the movie
what happens. That was only one aspect of the movie....
Buffy's Power Source -- Simplicity, 15:45:40 06/30/01
Sat
*SPOILERS* for everything up to and including "THE GIFT"
S P O I L E R
My apoligies if someone has already discussed this on the board.
I'm not current. :) After viewing "Buffy vs. Dracula"
this past week, I started thinking about Buffy's power source.
Then, I ran for the video tapes to see if I saw what I thought
I saw (say that five times fast!)
Just where does all that Slayer strength and stamina come from?
She just can't be completely human. Giles mentioned (in one of
the first episodes) that in the beginning that only demons walked
the Earth. Human beings came later. So, is the Slayer a human/demon
hybrid? The only strong enough to fight a demon is a demon
To back me up. . .
Below, in Graduation Day, prt 1, Anya speaks about demons. . .
All the demons that walk the earth are tainted, are human hybrids,
like vampires. The Ascension means a human becomes pure demon.
They're different.
Below, Buffy speaks about Dracula's take on her power.
He understood my power, better than I do. He saw darkness in it.
Dracula, enticing Buffy with his blood, says. . .
All these years, fighting us - your power so near to our own -
and you've never once wanted to know what it is we fight for?
Never even a taste?
And as Buffy drinks from him, Dracula says. . .
Find it... the darkness.... Find your true nature.
In "Restless", a veritable gold mine of Buffyverse information,
Buffy is speaking with the man that ADAM was before he was turned
into a demon/human/machine hybrid. . .
Adam says. . .
Aggression is a natural human tendency. Though you and me come
by it another way. Buffy, who looks upset by this information
says. . .
We're not demons. Adam looks at her mockingly and says. . .
Is that a fact?
Also in Restless, Giles speaks about the "thing" that
is stalking him. . .
It's strange. It's not like anything we've faced before, yet it
seems familiar somehow. Of course! The spell we cast with Buffy
must have released some primal evil, that's come back seeking...
I'm not sure what. Willow, look through the Chronicles. Some reference
to a warrior beast...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> All these questions.............. -- Rahael, 13:29:24 07/01/01
Sun
I agree that all your (excellent) points seem to show that Buffy's
slayer nature is not human. But the question is, is it in fact
a demon? Dedalus suggested some weeks ago that slayer power could
in fact come from the same energy that is the 'key'.
I think that Buffy is scared during Season 5 that the darkness
within her is demonic.
Also another interesting thought (off topic) is the Narnia connection.
If in the Gift BUffy sacrificed herself as Aslan did, could it
have been recompense for the spell they cast in Season 4? The
primeval slayer sought their lives in revenge - but only in a
dream. THey woke up alive. Was Season 5 a long build up to an
actual revenge? and Buffy had to give up her life instead......
And another thought - Angel was visited by the first evil, whose
origin is never clearly explained, and whose connections with
the rest of the Buffyverse never shown.
Primeval - Prime Evil - First Evil
Is there some connection here?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy's Power Source -- Rosenberg, 17:12:02 07/01/01
Sun
Mmm, very interesting concept you have there. I'm seeing some
sort of hiearchy throughout the Buffyverse in terms of vampires,
human/demon interaction, souls, etc. Basically we have two kinds
of basic living creatures on Earth--humans and other related biological
creatures (be they dogs, cats, or two-toed sloths), and demons.
Humans have souls, and I believe it was Joss who said something
along the lines of "all can do good, but beings without souls
are more inclined towards evil". Would that be implying that
demons have no souls, or would there be specific human and demon
souls. Vampires would be humans inhabited by a demon soul, or
by the actual physical demon? There are physical changes in the
vampire, but could that also be accounted for by some metaphysical
property of the demon soul? Okay, I'm probably wrong, but a zombie
would be defined as a dead human reanimated with no will of its
own--i.e., a human without a soul or without a consciousness?
Or are the two interelated? Okay, now I'm rambling. Does any of
this have any relevance at all to Buffy philosophy? Oh, I didn't
even think of anything about the Slayer's powersource.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy's Power Source -- FanMan, 00:14:13 07/02/01 Mon
Good post and valid points...
Demon....definitions
1...an evil spirit
2...a source or agent of evil, harm, distress, or ruin
3...usually daemon: a supernatural being of Greek mythology intermediate
between gods and men.
4. one that has exceptional enthusiasm, drive, or effectiveness
Relivance of the definitions of "demon" to Buffy
1. Maby; extreme agression of the First Slayer might have been
caused/inspired by evil...I doupt this one myself. I think the
violence of the Slayers is reactive and thier strength varies
directly with the need to counteract threats...
2. Buffy is an agent of harm distress and ruin...for evil!(Grin)
Example; she ruinned Spikes evil plans...when he was still the
"Big Bad"
3. Entity between gods and men? Demigod of course! BTW Deamon
was the original word and it meant any etheral or nonphisical
supernaturalentities; not neccisarily evil... Christian religions
are what started the current practice of using "demon"
and "deamon" interchangably... Demon(christian) a denizan
or authority of hell, also any supernatural entities that are
serving hell, Satan etc. Note that neither definition or word
accurately matches the ussage of "demon" on the show.
Only Glory and the Mayor(if he had succeeded...) could be described
as Deamons according to the original Greek definition.
4. Dead on Accurate!( In a GOOODDDD way!!! grin)
I have speculated in previous threads on POSSIBLE sources of Buffy's
power. As far as the REAL source of Buffy's power, it is still
up to Joss to tell us...
It would be interesting if it tied in with the KEY; more reason(although
there is allready plenty) to consider Dawn to be PART of Buffy,
not just her sister)
The main point I wanted to get across on this post is that the
definition of "demon" has variable although similar
interpatations and that it is not neccisarilly bad to be a deamon/demon...
One other point is that in the show there are not many other options
of WHAT to describe supernatural entities(besides ghosts), also
we see the worst of demon species; other species of demons/deamons
that are not as evil would not be as interesting for an action/horror/drama
like the Buffy show.
Whew! I was just going to post definitions of "demon"
and a comment! I am done rambling for now..LOL.
Current board
| July 2001