June 2001 posts
whats special about buffy vampires? -- cee,
17:39:51 06/01/01 Fri
Why don't the vampires in Buffy ever fly, they do everything else
according to legend, is it because the Slayer couldn't possibly
kill an escapee if he took off?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: whats special about buffy vampires? -- Andy, 07:10:41
06/02/01 Sat
I think it has more to do with budget limitations. I know the
writers have said they want to do flying demons and such, but
they just can't afford it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: whats special about buffy vampires? -- Dark Phoenix,
14:28:17 06/02/01 Sat
PLUS HOW BORING WOULD IT BE IF EVERYTIME BUFFY WANTED TO FIGHT
A VAMP IT JUST TOOK FLIGHT, SHE'S NEED THE CROSSBOW ALOT MORE
THAN JUST A STAKE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: whats special...a reasonable answer I hope -- Aelith,
16:49:49 06/02/01 Sat
Yes the medium does affect the message. Certain historical conventions
about Vampires had to be realigned to make them viable for the
special logic that is a television story board.
The Medievil Vampire came to be protrayed as Evil incarnate with
overwelming powers who was never entirely defeated. It's another
way of saying Death is always with us and some times humans can
be seduced into evil by the false promisis of a living death.
That's then.
Now. The story board premis is teenager different and strong enough
to kill vampires.(plural - no caps) If it was Dracula she was
trying to kill each week Buffy and her viewers would get mighty
frustrated. But the premis is girl can and DOES kill vampies thus
the necessity to create a generic type that can be dusted each
week. And then to balance the easy kills there is one or more
really powerful villians to supply challenge so that the story
can have a focus, crisis, and resolution at the end of the season.
With enough left unsolved to supply a thread for the next season.
(and boy are we scrounging for that thread this time!) I hope
that answeres your question Cee. aelith
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: whats special about buffy vampires? -- purplegrrl, 08:35:47
06/04/01 Mon
Part of the non-flying vampire thing is budget limitations. Part
of it is convincing storytelling. Also, Joss picked the parts
of the vampire myth that suited the story he wanted to tell -
as have other writers before and since.
That said, I believe it was Bram Stoker who first allowed vampires
to fly and shape-shift. These abilities were not part of the original
vampire folklore. And even then only Dracula could fly and shape-shift
(mist, wolf, bat), not the other vampires in the story (Lucy,
Dracula's three "brides"). This shape-shifting may have
had more to do with Victorian morales than the vampire in legend
up to Stoker's time. Much of what we think of as the "traditional
vampire" comes from "Dracula" by Bram Stoker. In
particular, the whole thing of vampires not being able to see
their reflection in a mirror is Stoker's invention. Again, probably
pointing up some aspect of the Victorian psyche.
IMO, flying and shape-shifting is just be something that only
certain powerful vampires can do. In "Buffy vs. Dracula"
we saw him turn into mist to avoid being staked. No other vampire
in the Buffyverse has been shown to have that ability. Granted,
I think BvsD was Joss's homage to the Dracula myth, so Dracula
had to do at least one shape-shift to be in keeping with the legend.
I hope this answers your question and I haven't confused you further.
Musings/Ramblings about Spike
-- LadyStarlight, 18:26:03 06/01/01 Fri
A while back, I was cruising one of the many Buffy boards (I think
it was ScoopMe.com) and found an article about Spike's behavior
towards Buffy. This was right after "Crush", and the
author was explaining how horrible his behavior was and how it
was another example of the "rape fantasy". (I'm condensing
this and working from memory, so I might be slightly wrong).
However, after much (lustful ;)) thought, I realized that Spike
was working off of an old, established pattern of behaving with
women. After all, he WAS with Dru for 100+ years. Dru (apparantly)
liked to be tied up & tortured. Also, she probably would have
been flattered by the shrine and the mannequin. Ask anyone who
is trying to change their life, patterns are hard to break.
After the barrier spell however, he stopped the "icky"
behavior (stalking, breaking into houses); thereby (for me anyways)
confirming that on his part, it is love. A true stalker wouldn't
have stopped.
Anyways, thanks for listening! No-one else wants to discuss this
stuff with me. Sorry if this has been discussed to death already.
ps Is the FX network Fox? Or an American cable station we don't
get in Canada? (this refers to possible BTVS syndication)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Musings/Ramblings about Spike -- Rufus, 19:46:07 06/01/01
Fri
Another Canadian.....we don't get FX here on the west coast...unless
you have satellite. As for Spikes behavior...I wasn't thrilled
at the treatment of stalking on the show. It's a serious problem
that can be confusing to understand. The clear thing that happened
was that Spike stopped and kept his distance until Buffy initated
further contact. So he was a stalker that ceased stalking. Your
point about him acting on what he knows a woman likes in his society
is well made, Dru would have thought his attentions great. But
Buffy was unaware of his interest. She also ignored some of the
things he was doing, so he took that to be encouragement. Spike
has had to relearn how to interact with people. His actions before
were based upon demon habits and accepted behavior. We now have
to stand aside and watch what happens next year.
Classic Movie of the Week - June
6th 2001 -- OnM, 23:19:57 06/01/01 Fri
Evil Clone: Do I have to do this?
OnM: Please, stop whining. There isn't anyone else here and my
fans are waiting.
EC: Fans? All 3 or 4 of them?
OnM: Hey, that's my line. Don't steal my line!
EC: Yeah, right, like you invented irony.
OnM (frustrated): Just do the interview, OK? It's already after
10:00 PM. If I don't get to post on time, they'll wander off to
the Cross & Stake and then who knows where else afterward. Cyberspace
is a dangerous place!
EC: Only 'cos you're there, dude. Do I get paid for this?
OnM: Paid? Oh, please! The voice of the cinema needs to be heard!
EC: Roger Ebert's the voice of the cinema. You're just his groupie.
OnM (sighs): Oh, all right. You can play on the swing set tomorrow,
and if you behave, you can have an ice cream cone. Interview now?
EC (grinning evil grin): Hello, ATPoBtVS campers! Tonight we are
speaking, and fortunately all too briefly, with the one and only
quasi-voice of the cinema, OnM. Ah, hold your applause for the
end, please, which should be very shortly.
Now, Mr. OnM, how did you first get started in recommending films
for ATPo?
OnM: Ahem... (gives evil eye to Evil Clone). Well, as other ATPoBtVS
boarders know, I have been a regular visitor to Ms. Masquerade's
Most Excellent Website for over a year now, and a contributor
to her discussion board from a time shortly after she started
it. I found that in a number of discussion situations, I was giving
answers to posts that involved invoking a movie I had seen as
a reference point.
EC: Uh, yeah, so?
OnM: Well, there is a 'language of cinema', a set of conventions
that moviemakers use to express ideas with visual images and sounds.
Also, movies are such a universal experience for most inhabitants
of Western culture, that it seemed like a useful sort of shorthand
for getting my point across. From there, I got the idea to do
a weekly column where I would reference a movie to some theme
or idea that was taking place in the current weeks' Buffy or Angel
episode, or was linked to some aspect of the overall story arc
this season.
EC: 'Most inhabitants of Western culture?' Psychobabble much?
Why don't you speak like a normal person? You are you know. You
think they can't figure that out?
OnM (getting agitated): Hey!
EC: Oh, all right. Not my delusion. If Masquerade puts up with
you, who am I to say? So, how did it go, did the fans on the board
enjoy your little monotribes?
OnM: Well, they seemed to. I got a few responses, and they seemed
mostly positive. So I did another one the next week, and the next,
and now here it is, the beginning of June, and it's turned into
an overwhelming success! I'm just so pleased!
EC: Yeah, well, low entertainment threshold, what can I say?
OnM: Hey, these are the finest, smartest Buffy Philosophiles on
the Net, I'll have you know!!
EC: That's true. Why they listen to you, I'll never know. Must
be some misplaced sense of charity. Be that as it may... What
are your plans for the summer, O great E. Pluribus one?
OnM (very peeved now): Don't pun with my tag line! I put a lot
of thought into that, and it speaks deeply of my desire to unify
all persons under the realm of the cinematic!
EC: That's it, I'm outa here.. this isn't worth even *two* ice
cream cones. 'Realm of the cinematic', holy s**t, what a schmuck...
OnM: Hey! HEY!!! You work for me, remember? HEY!!!!! Come back
here!
(...waits several minutes, but Evil Clone has gone back into the
basement. Sounds of clicking keyboard emerge...)
*******
OK, hi there folks. Had a little interview thing planned, tell
you something about myself and my column here at ATPo, but, well,
few little technical problems. You know how computers are! Heh,
yeah...
This week I thought I'd take a break from a new Classic Movie
recommendation, and instead present a listing of the films that
I've suggested so far since I started this way back in February.
That way, newer visitors to the board who have missed them can
get a chance to scan over things without having to dig back through
the board archives. What I'll do is list the flicks in date order,
with a very short little summary of each, and why I chose it.
If it calls out to you, you can then locate the original post
in the archives and read up for yourself.
I have been very pleased to perform this little service, I hope
it has been pleasurably entertaining for you all. Please feel
free to post your comments and let me know if it was good for
you too! Now, on to the goodies!
DATE -- TITLE --- DIRECTOR
020201 -- Brazil --- Terry Gilliam
Genius at work-- Orwell's '1984' on acid. Be sure to get the version
with the unhappy ending, not the studio remake that gutted the
director's original intentions. Like Darren Aronofsky's *Pi* further
down this list, this film is a truly unique experience, as are
most of Gilliam's cinematic visions.
020901 -- The Conversation --- Francis Ford Coppola
The finest film ever made on the subject of paranoia. This followed
up on last week's recommendation, which was about the evils of
unchecked bureaucracies. They often go hand in glove, of course,
but in Francis Ford Coppola's vision, the paranoia is all within,
not without. A better film than The Godfather, which is saying
something. I'll leave you to debate what.
021601 -- They Live --- John Carpenter
Carpenter takes a B-Movie concept, and makes it into high art.
Well, maybe low art. Well, who the hell's to say, anyway?? Well,
me actually, but I liked it, so there. Stars none other than wrestler
Roddy 'Rowdy' Piper-- surprise, he's actually pretty good as an
actor. In this film we learn that the world is run by evil aliens.
But then, we knew that, didn't we?
022301 -- L.A. Story --- Mick Jackson
"Why is it we don't always recognize the moment that love
begins, but we always know when it ends?"
This story takes place in L.A., but otherwise is not related to
Angel. In it, the weather will change your life, and if this film
doesn't make you wanna sing do-wah-diddy, you have no business
going to movies at all. Contains a four minute sequence that is
a truly transcendent movie experience, and one of the best uses
ever of an Enya tune. Also stars another talented three-name actress,
before she became well known-- Sarah Jessica Parker. One of my
top ten all time favorite flicks
030201 -- The Seventh Seal --- Ingmar Bergman
The original chess game with death. Death wins, as always, but
somehow it's still OK.
030901 -- McCabe and Mrs. Miller --- Robert Altman
Robert Altman's finest film. Warren Beatty's finest work. Stunning,
moody photography. Love and death and destiny. Leonard Cohen songs.
'Nuff said.
031601 -- Shadowlands --- Richard Attenborough
Death and loss and C. S. Lewis. Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger.
Richard Attenborough. Again, 'Nuff said.
032301 -- The Last Temptation of Christ --- Martin Scorsese
Jesus as the reluctant saviour. This film really ticked off a
lot of people. You probably either love it or you don't, but being
either an atheist or deeply devout has little to do with whether
or not you do. This recommendation brought more responses than
any other film I spoke about. Consider watching this film one
afternoon as part of a trilogy with *The Road Warrior* and *The
Gift*. Great stories never die.
033001 -- The Road Warrior --- George Miller
Mad Max as the reluctant saviour. One of the most perfect movies
ever made, a classic multi-layered hero's journey tale disguised
as an action-adventure flick. Hummmm... now that can't possibly
work....
040601 -- A Perfect World --- Clint Eastwood
Kevin Costner is Spike. T.J. Lowther is Dawn. Clint Eastwood is
Buffy. "It's gonna take a time machine with a loud radio
to take me where I'm goin..."
041301 -- Defending Your Life --- Albert Brooks
Took a break from all the pain here, with a very lighthearted
and slyly insightful comedy from the very witty Albert Brooks.
Meryl Streep steals the show, as she usually does. Are we all
just 'Listening to fear?' Streep isn't, Brooks is. They work it
out.
042001 -- Georgia --- Ulu Grosbard
My sister is the Chosen One, and I'm... not. The age old musical
question, is passion enough when there's no actual talent to back
it up? This film asks and answers... blood ties, indeed.
042701 -- Altered States --- Ken Russell
The ultimate questions of existance-- who are we, where did we
come from, why are we here? More importantly, suppose we actually
find out? That's the truly scary part... Love, give, forgive,
and it will lead you to your Gift, as William Hurt and Blair Brown
discover at the end of that inward journey.
050501 -- Fearless --- Peter Weir
*Tough Love* of a very unusual variety. How does your life change
when you survive the unsurvivable? Do you collapse into despair
and grief, or does death no longer hold any fear for you? And
how do you deal with those around you who, while well meaning,
cannot ever truly understand your experience?
051101 -- Sorcerer --- William Friedkin
*Spiral* as the Wages of Fear. This film did very poor box office
because it followed *The Exorcist*, and moviegoers apparently
expected another supernatural thriller. This is extremely unfortunate,
for this is a much better film than in almost every regard, and
pays great and honest tribute to it's predecessor.
051801 -- Pi --- Darren Aronofsky
*Weight of the World* was about what happens when a person, no
matter how heroically motivated, gets pushed to far and finds
their brain 'in the sink'. Interesting socio-political, religious
and moral themes abound in Aronofsky's mind-poking high-contrast
think piece. Looks like no other film you've ever seen.
052501 -- Until the End of the World --- Wim Wenders
*The Gift*, of course, was about the 'end of the world', and about
how love triumphs over despair, despite the pain of endless setbacks.
Wenders' film uses the theme of apocalypse, but not the apocalypse
itself, (which turns out to be nearly irrelevant) to show how
in the end it's people that count. A masterful example of how
to use negative space to outline the subject at hand.
*******
And so it goes... long, strange trip and all. This is going to
be the latest I've ever posted this column, but you'll note it's
also the longest one I've done so far, so I guess that adds up.
Hey, more value for your net surfing dollar, right? Don't worry,
I'll restrain myself in future. (Uh-huh...)
Next week, back to the recommendations as per usual, same ol'
format, except during the summer here I won't necessarily be tying
the choice of film into BtVS or Angel, that'll have to wait for
the series to resume in the fall. Summertime is movie time for
lots of folks, but if nothing is playing at your local multiplex
that floats your boat, you always have me to help give your mind
a spin. (Don't worry, not like Linda Blair in *The Exorcist* or
anything...)
Time for me to say g'nite, now nearly 2:00 AM here where my keyboard
clicks for you. I'll leave you with a couple questions that, if
you wish to post, it can help me do my best in future:
1 > Do you enjoy this column? 2 > Do you want it to continue?
3 > Are there any ways I can make it better?
There, short and sweet. See? I can do it!
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Like you had to ask........:):):):) -- Rufus, 00:09:16 06/02/01
Sat
I sit and wait for the Friday night movie to see if I've first,
seen said movie, second, if I've seen said movie can I can remember
it. So, that means I'm either a bugger for punishment, or I like
the post, I choose the latter. So don't change a thing....I'm
happy....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 6th 2001 -- Rendyl,
00:24:10 06/02/01 Sat
***1 > Do you enjoy this column?***
Yep
***2 > Do you want it to continue?***
Yep
***3 > Are there any ways I can make it better?***
Ye..er..ack..got carried away. I like it fine just the way it
is. Like Rufus I read first to see if I have watched it and then
to see if I can remember it.
(Sorcerer comes to mind as a movie I know I saw but was ..cough..cuddling
with a bf while watching so I don't remember much more than some
big trucks. Did it have big trucks? Or a bridge?)
I don't always comment on your films (or other threads) because
many times other posters say my thoughts and me chiming in would
be redundant but I do always read and enjoy them. Thanks. And
Yep.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 6th 2001 -- Nina,
09:52:14 06/02/01 Sat
Loved the Evild Clone!!!!! :) :) :)
1 > Do you enjoy this column?
Very much!
2 > Do you want it to continue?
Do you really have to ask? Okay I don't comment much, because
I would look like a total ignorant (which I am!). I have seen
just a few movies in all the selection you gave us and I don't
think it would be appropriate to jump in each week to say: "I
love your column but I don't know what the hell you're talking
about!" :)
It opens my mind. It makes me more curious. So as long as you
want to share your thoughts, be sure I read and enjoy them each
week!
3 > Are there any ways I can make it better?
Just be OnM!!!!!!!!! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> You clever girl...you used Spikes line........:):):):)
-- Rufus, 14:09:06 06/02/01 Sat
So does that mean OnM is a robot?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: You clever girl...you used Spikes
line........:):):):) -- Nina, 18:16:15 06/02/01 Sat
Not at all.....;) (Spike, really???) I just think that OnM has
to remain himself! And as long as he does the column for himself
first (because he needs to do it) then we are all sure to get
the better end of the deal! :) :) (and we always do anyway!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 6th 2001 -- Aquitaine,
10:56:44 06/02/01 Sat
OnM, you are such a unique storyteller! I loved your schizoid
dia-monologue;p I really think you need to try your hand at fanfic.
LOL. What I love about 'Classic Movie of the Week' is that I can
always count on the fact that I won't have seen the movie in question
but that I will enjoy the review nonetheless. I love reading your
thoughts and your analysis because your brain seems to be wired
in completely opposition to mine. This makes your reviews a bracing,
informative and stimulating experience for me. I will admit that
I still haven't rented many of the movies you reviewed because...
gasp... I know they will unsettle me profoundly and I don't know
if I am strong enough emotionally to put myself through that pleasure/pain.
I think that when disturbing or profound concepts are translated
into visuals, my senses go on overload. For example, I watched
'The Gift' through half-closed eyes. Out of all the movies you
have reviewed, I've only seen 'The Seventh Seal' and that movie
still haunts my nightmares.
I am always surprised that so few posters respond to your reviews...
I wonder if you could remedy this by ending your review with a
forum question. Just a suggestion. Other than this, I love the
format of your reviews. Don't change a thing. I particularly relish
the fact that you don't tell us the title of the film in question
until the end of the review. You are such a tease! But I love
it! LOL.
- Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 6th 2001 -- Jen C.,
12:55:38 06/02/01 Sat
Answers:
1. Yes 2. Yes! 3. Nope
Love the Column!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 6th 2001 -- Brian,
13:37:33 06/02/01 Sat
Just "Keep on Trucking!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 6th 2001
-- Alien Visitor, 22:43:49 06/02/01 Sat
Applause to OnM!! I loved your posting..off to the video store
any second to check them out.
Have you seen the movie "Withnail And I"? English cult
film. The character of Withnail is very Early Spike :ie completely
self-indulgent, full of addictive behaviors, has a plan but "I
got bored". He also gets all the good one-liners. I haven't
seen it for ages,so can't tie it in to a specific episode. Well
worth a look.
I'm new here, so if you already discussed this, please excuse
me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Previous message was for OnM. Sorry! --
Alien Visitor, 22:56:55 06/02/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Movie of the week -- AK-UK, 05:37:13
06/03/01 Sun
Now I feel guilty for never posting on your previous movie threads
OnM. Yes, I love them, yes keep posting them and yes, you could
improve them by following (Aquitaine's?) suggestion of putting
a question at the end to help spark a debate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 6th 2001 -- Wisewoman,
13:28:37 06/03/01 Sun
OnM, you and your Evil Clone are seriously warped, and I love
that in a person (or a demon, for that matter :o)).
In fact, if I recall I think the first time I posted to this list
was in response to your review of Fearless. Thanks so much for
going over the movies I missed. They're equally divided between
ones I've seen and loved, and ones I'd love to see.
Something caught my eye though...I'm sure a saw a film called
"Shadowlands" several years ago that starred Joss Ackland
(South African actor?) and, I think, Claire Bloom? It was about
C.S. Lewis, and it was wonderful. Am I losing my mind, or were
there really TWO versions of this movie, a few years apart? I
know you'll know!
Yes, I love the column, yes, keep writing it, no, don't change
a thing unless you feel like throwing out a question or statement
to get a discussion started.
Cheers, Wisewoman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 6th 2001 -- Anthony8,
20:21:58 06/03/01 Sun
I might as well join the OnM validation bandwagon.;)
Keep up the good work--it gives everyone an opportunity to see
the bigger picture with regards to BtVS. Particularly since JW
frequently pays homage to the works of other directors.
BTW, you might be interested in the current issue of a publication
called 'Cinefex.' It has an extensive article on the planning
and production of '2001.'
Also, I was curious about your take on some less well known films
of the esteemed directors you cited in your summary. My personal
faves are 'The Rain People' and 'The Rumblefish' (Coppola), 'After
Hours' (Scorcese) and 'The Last Wave' (Weir). I suppose they have
nothing to do with BtVS (well, maybe 'The Last Wave' has some
parallels), but they're worth a rental. What do you think?
A8
Magicians: Who can use magic in the Buffyverse?
-- Jarrod Harmier, 02:20:14 06/02/01 Sat
I had trouble posting this to another thread about magic in the
Buffyverse, so I'm starting an entirely new thread. This thread
is going to be about the nature of magic and the magician. It
has been said that only certain people can do magic in the Buffyverse
and there are others who say that the only magic that is limited
to certain individuals is only certain types of high level magic.
This particular post refers to Xander and his ability to use magic.
This is portion of something I posted to another website devoted
to "Big Wolf on Campus", a horror sitcom that is only
connected to "Buffy" and "Angel" because it
sometimes references "Buffy" and "Angel" and
fans of BWOC tend to be fans of "Buffy" and "Angel".
I have posted the full version (along with some additions to the
BWOC website post) to other threads on this message board.
I was wondering about Xander's destiny. Even though he does fall
into the category of the Everyman, there are some instances in
the series that suggest that he is slated for so much more than
that. Not to suggest being an Everyman is a bad thing.
In "Superstar" the group is looking over spell books
and Riley asks if the spells really work and Willow said that
the spells take concentration and being tuned in with the universe.
Then Xander says, "Right you can't just go 'librum incendere'
and expect..." The book bursts into flames. He closes it
to extinguish the flame and Giles replies, "Xander, don't
speak Latin in front of the books." Now Xander at that point
is not really a concentrated individiual and he certainly isn't
tuned in with the universe. Or is he? Even a relatively small
spell like that needs more than a little skill which Xander doesn't
seem to have because he hasn't done the proper research. He has
done research for the group but he hasn't done as much as Willow.
So how can a person relatively unskilled in magic say two words
and make a book burst to into flames? I think the Powers That
Be (PTB) have instilled in Xander some inherent magical ability
or something like that. I think the reason we haven't seen it
before is do to his self image. It's obvious that Xander's parents
abused in some fashion. Based on information provided by Xander
in the series, I can conclude that it was probably a mixture of
physical abuse (hitting), emotional abuse ("What good are
you?), and neglect (showing outright indifference). This created
problems because the relationship with his parents was not just
abusive, but inconsistent. He had no way of knowing at any one
point what kind of abuse was going to be used. If you he had know
exactly which type of abuse was going to be used at any one time,
he could have learned to avoid it. This created a sense of learned
helplessness which, until recently, consumed him. Now that he
is out in the real world and feeling better about himself, his
abilities will begin to surface.
Any comments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Xander as magician? Or just different theories? -- SingedCat,
08:05:13 06/02/01 Sat
Hm.
Magic is a hard one to research-- there are so many theories as
to how it works, and it's hard to know if the creators are reading
the same books you are. For the most pert it seems to be Hermetic
magic-- that is, the classic Western method of incantations, components
and gestures, though there is Shamanic magic as well-- magic that
runs off the intuition rather than the intellect. For the Hermetic
magic my theory goes thus:
You need lots of mental focus (ie somebody really smart) to control
the force.
For the Shamanic magic, a little different:
Either it drops on you or it doesn't.
So: How did Xander make the book bust into flames?
Well, uh...
OK, let's take this fromm the other end first. From the writing
standpoint it was a sight gag. Not meant to convey secret Xander
powers (that's my theory and I'm sticking by it). Part of Xander's
role in the series is that he's a regular guy-- like Joyce, a
symbol of normal humanity, unlike her, living an abnormal life--
living proof that you can always do what you can to overcome evil,
whoever you are. So no secret powers.
So, by the non-liner thinking that is my brain, it was what it
looked like-- the book itself responded to the Latin. Which makes
a bunch of sense (even if my logic doesn't). Books are capable
of containing power in the Buffyverse (anyone need a reminder
of "I, Robot"?), including the releasing of that magic
by reading it. Xander said "Libris incendere" (sp?),
probably having seen it in the book. (I'm gonna go way out on
a limb here and say, like Oz, he didn't take Latin).
But it does give a valuable clue as to how magic in the Buffyverse
works
Howzat?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Xander as magician? nice catch singedcat -- Aelith,
17:15:46 06/02/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Xander as magician? Or just different theories?
-- Jarrod Harmier, 03:28:54 06/03/01 Sun
This is a partial copy/revamp of a post that I originally posted
to another thread. I revamped it due to your response.
You said that Xander had no powers. However, I still think he
does, just in a different way. Your reply made me think in a different
way. Your post did negate Xander's ability to use magic, it just
changed what kind of magic he can use. Part of this response is
straight out of my original post. I'm just including it because
I feel leaving it out makes it sound weird.
In "Superstar" the group is looking over spell books
and Riley asks if the spells really work and Willow said that
the spells take concentration and being tuned in with the universe.
Then Xander says, "Right you can't just go 'librum incendere'
and expect..." The book bursts into flames. He closes it
to extinguish the flame and Giles replies, "Xander, don't
speak Latin in front of the books." I believed that the power
to make the book burst into flames came from Xander. However,
you reminded me that that there are books that are capable of
containing power in the Buffyverse, including releasing that magic
when read. The example given was the book used to trap Moloch
the Corruptor in "I Robot, You Jane". The problem with
this example is that even though it contained magical power itself,
the book had certain restrictions on its use. The book could only
trap Moloch when a ritual was performed. If the book Xander read
from contained magical power, it is probable that it had similar
restrictions to its use. So, what type of magic was Xander using
when he unleashed the magic from the book? Your theory is that
ere are two kinds of magic in the Buffyverse: Hermetic magic and
Shamanic magic. The first possibility is that he was using a type
of Hermetic magic. This is a possibility that it could be Hermetic
magic because the ritual used to trap Moloch unleashes the power
of the book. However, it is doubtful that Xander used this form
because Hermetic magic requires both concentraion and preparation
and, when he read the Latin, he had neither. The second possibility
is that he was using Shamanic magic. This is very different from
Heremetic magic because, as you say, "Either it drops on
you or it doesn't." This is a more reasonable explanation
than Heremtic magic. This leads to several objections and two
questions. The first objection is that Xander is not in tune with
the universe because he would be aware of it. Not necessarily.
I believe that Hermetic magic requires a more explicit understanding
of the universe, while Shamanic magic requires an implicit understanding
since Shamanic magic utilizes intuition more than intellect. Xander
would not not need to be aware of being in tune with the universe
to utilize his abilities. I'll get to another reason why he might
not be aware of his abilites later. The second objection is: If
most magical books require Heremtic rituals to unleash their power,
then Xander could not have unleashed the power from the book using
Shamanic magic. This is incorrect. Because Shamanic magic is intuitive
rather than intellectual, Xander would have an implicit understanding
of magical "shortcuts" that others do not know. That
is not to say that he is the only one who knows them. Most of
the characters on "Buffy" who have constantly studied
with a focus on the occult (Giles) or with a focus on the magical
arts (Amy, Tara, and Willow seem to know these shortcuts on an
explicit level because of their constant study. The question is:
If he has access to Shamanic magic, where did he get this power
from? One is that the constant research for the Scoobies has caused
Xander to remember some of this information on an unconscious
level. When he read the book, he accessed some of it on an implicit
level, thus allowing him to perform the spell with ease. This
might be part of it, but I don't think it's the whole story. I
think the Powers That Be (PTB) instilled in Xander some an implicit
understanding of the magical shorcuts that others must read about.
This, in combination with the research he has done, allowed him
to pull off the magical feat in "Superstar". The second
question is: You said that there is another reason why Xander
might not be aware of his abilites. What is it? The reason Xander
may not be aware of his abilities is his self image. [Information
about abuse deleted because it's on my original post.]
Somethin I'm adding because it just occured to me: Using Shamanic
magic, Xander releases the power inherent in the book. What other
kind of power can he unleash? I'm not talking about the power
to level mountains or anything. I'm talking about the power to
affect situations so the results favor the Scoobies, maybe in
a coming apocalypse. In fact, he as already done so. When the
Judge needed to be defeated in "Innocence", Xander was
the one who gained access to the army base. Sure, he knew the
codes and procedures because be became a soldier because of the
cursed costume (or costume part) that he bought from the costume
shop that was being run by Ethan Rayne, but he out just the right
weapon to destroy the Judge. In part 2 of "Becoming",
Willow asks Xander to tell Buffy that she is trying to restore
Angel's soul. When he has a moment alone with Buffy, Xander looks
like he;s about to tell her when he says, "Kick his ass."
Some people saw this as a moment of moral weakness, but I see
it as a moment when Xander implicitly knew that Buffy's reaction
would to try to keep from killing Angel, this lead to explicit
knowledge that she needed to focus on the fate of thwe world rather
than the fate of her boyfriend. In this way he is very much like
the like Giles in "The Gift" because he knew what had
to be done and he did what had to be done. According to Lovely
Poet on a post way nack when (last year), in "Doomed"
it was Xander, not Giles, Buffy, or Willow that figured out that
the demon's themselves were the sacrifice. This may be incorrect,
though. I'm not quite sure if this is an example. Xander's implicit
knowledge helped in an even more direct manner in "Primeval".
In "Primeval", it wasn't Giles or Willow that came up
with the basic premise of the plan to defeat Adam, it was Xander.
Xander was the one who mentioned to Giles that what the Scoobies
needed to defeat Adam was a super Buffy. I'm kind of stretching
it here, but what if his abilities in Shamanic magic allowed him
to know on an implicit, very general level what was needed (more
likely) or what if his Shamanic magic allowed him to have implicit,
specific knowledge of the general existence of the joining spell
(much less likely)? His almost flippant response could be his
reaction to knowing what was needed without knowing how he knew.
Remember, Xander's jokes are his defense mechanism against the
pressures of world--even if those pressures come from the inside.
I know if I knew something and didn't know how, I might freak
and get anxious and joke around.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Xander as magician? Or just different theories?
-- purplegrrl, 09:00:50 06/04/01 Mon
Hmmm. Interesting theory, good arguments.
I'm still not sure I believe that Xander is anything more than
Everyman (i.e., a magic user or summoner), but your arguments
give me something to chew on.
Of course if Xander is intuitive (predicting it would take a super
Buffy to defeat Adam, etc.), that doesn't necessarily mean the
source of his intuition is magical. Since we're still not sure
how the brain works, it could just be some electo-chemical function
of Xander's brain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Xander as magician? Or just different
theories? -- Jarrod Harmier, 12:14:37 06/04/01 Mon
I was thinking about what your reply. What if his destiny is like
one of the two possiible interpretations of "The Matrix"?
The possible interpretation that I prefer is that Neo doesn't
have a destiny in the strictest sense of the word. First, when
he went to the Oracle, she told him that being the One is like
being in love because you just are and that Morphesus would sacrifice
himself. This may lead people to think Neo does have a destiny
in the strict sense of the word. However, in ancient times the
oracles used vague language to cause the people they consulted
to find the answers they sought in themselves. Also, who wouldn't
think that Morpheus would sacrifice himself for the person he
bellieved to be the One? Second, the resistance had access to
several possible candidates. It's just that Neo was the one of
Morpheus believe to be the One. And think that's the catch. Morpheus
believed in Neo and made it clear in both his words and his actions.
This would lead to Neo believing in himself. Also, when Neo went
to free Morpheus, he did so because of who he is as a person.
He created a destiny because he "walked the path."
What does this have to do with Xander? (Some of this is a much
shorter version of something I put in another about Xander's destiny).
Well, let's say he does have an implicit knowledge of magical
shortcuts. Let's say he's feeling better about himself after balancing
his strongest and weakest qualities. What kind of destiny would
he have? The kind of destiny Neo had. The kind of destiny that's
not strictly out of his control. Since we're saying that he does
have some magical ability for the purposes of this discussion,
let's also say that he learns about it in the future. What would
he do with it? He would help his friends, of course. He would
have to because of who he is. Maybe that's what destinies in the
Buffyverse really are: Individual journeys being on coaxed by
the Powers That Be, but dependent on personal choice.
This also holds if we talk about Doyle from "Angel",
Angel, and Buffy. Doyle fullfilled his destiny in "Hero".
No one forced him to take the action he took. He decided on that
course of action by himself. Angel hasn't fulfilled his destiny
yet. His actions were headed away from that, but now they are
headed back to that. There have been many times when Buffy wanted
to give up, but because of who she is she still fights the vampires,
the demons, and the forces of darkness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Oops -- Jarrod Harmier, 14:28:04
06/04/01 Mon
One correction and one addition:
Correction: It's just that Neo was the one that Morpheus believed
to be the One.
Addition to the end, right after "...forces of darkness":
Also, because there is personal choice involved it holds for individuals
who did turn their back on the forces of good such as Faith. She
was destined to be a Slayer. However, she made personal choices
that altered what she did with her abilities. She is on her way
to redemption, but she had help.
730 -- Paulo, 05:32:30 06/02/01
Sat
Hi, I'm a huge buffy fan and so i was hopeing 4 a refaracne to
730 in the gift as it was a season ender and i think it explaned
730 compleatly.
i paused my video when 'doc' looked at this watch and the time
on it was 7.30(am) (well i think it was, it could have been 6.25
i surpose)
but this makes sence as all the other 730 refs have been about
dawn (little miss muffet)
and then the dawn came up as buffy died.
that is 730 over and done with. (plus it was 2years (730 days)
since 730 first appered in graduationday part 2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 730 -- SingedCat, 06:45:27 06/02/01 Sat
Cool! I was just wondering about that the other day-- thanks,
Paulo!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 730 -- Cactus Watcher, 06:51:18 06/02/01 Sat
The sun was just beginning to rise when Buffy died. Given the
time of year, it couldn't be anywhere near 7:30. I think the revelation
about what 7-3-0 means will be obvious and will be sometime yet
in the future.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 730 Cynthia ur dumb -- Dark Phoenix, 14:26:12
06/02/01 Sat
730 IS TWO YEARS! DO YOU HAVE TO BE SLAPPED IN THE FACE WITH INFORMATION
BEFORE YOU UNDERSTAND IT ?
5-2=3 SEASON S WHEN FAITH FIRST SAID THE 730 QUOTE IT WAS MEANT
TO HAPPEN IN SEASON 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 730 Cynthia ur dumb -- Cactus Watcher, 21:17:20
06/02/01 Sat
Sorry Phoenix, but 2000 was a leap year. That makes 731 days.
I think Joss gotcha.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 730 Cynthia ur dumb -- Vickie, 11:27:40
06/04/01 Mon
Um, perhaps tapering off the caffeine is indicated?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 730 -- Cynthia, 06:52:09 06/02/01 Sat
If the watch 7:30 a.m. and it was California time, and I'm assuming
that it's June is Sunnydale, the sun would have been up for over
nearly two hours.
Now doc's watch could be wrong or keeping the time in another
time zone or time dimension, but of all the events and items that
make this number relevant I find this one to be the weakest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 730 Help! -- Aelith, 17:01:39 06/02/01 Sat
Oh dear, oh dear, someone please give me a refference to this
thread. I've never had anyone to talk to about Buffy before and
this is all new to me.!!!
Aelith
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 730 Help! -- Boxdman, 18:00:42 06/02/01
Sat
Check out the psychic dream from Graduation Day. I hope that helps.
=)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 730 revealed! -- darrenK, 22:16:46 06/02/01 Sat
In Intervention, Buffy tells Giles that she's becoming hard, unable
to love, that slaying and killing are making her inhuman.
Giles asks her how serious she is. She says "10. Serious
to the power of 10."
This sparks Giles to suggest the vision quest where Buffy discovers
that "death is her gift."
The numbers 7, 3, and 0 add up to 10. Buffy is dead to the power
of 10.
Of course, 730 is also roughly the number of days between the
dream and Buffy's death.
The whole thing is a numeric game, dreamlogic thrown in to screw
with our heads. It gives the plot a pattern and a chaotic coherence
while not contributing much to the actual meaning of the event,
except-of course-to shroud it in the glow of mystic prophecy.
730 is a coincedence, meaningful because Buffy is so central to
the very survival of her universe, but not actually a great revelation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Making things more confusing -- darrenK, 22:52:44
06/02/01 Sat
Just to show the depth of the patterning in the show, I thought
I'd point out that 7 Scoobies battle Glory.
Buffy Giles Xander Anya Willow Spike Tara
There are also 3 Buffy's present at the battle
The "real" Buffy The BuffyBot and Dawn, who is revealed
to be part of Buffy at the beginning of the show
As far as the zeros go, well, the most notable one I found is
death, the big Zero. Zero could also represent Glory at the end
of the show. She keeps shouting, "that witch made a hole!"
What else is a hole than a zero?
Yes, I know, 730 is two years--hey, did anyone notice that Glory
is really two people?
dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Making things less confusing -- AK-UK, 04:53:11
06/03/01 Sun
730= days in two years. Yes, 2000 was a leap year, but when we
talk about years, 365 days is the standard measurement (and no-one
is suggesting that the battle with Glory happened two years to
the day of the Faith dream). Joss has CONFIRMED the two year =
730 theory in an interview (i'll try and find a link, can anyone
else help?) but feel free to post more weird 730 points.
Oh, and Cynthia, you are not dumb. Hope we have been of help :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Making things less confusing -- Cynthia,
06:21:45 06/03/01 Sun
Thank you for acknowledging that a prior post may have hurt my
feelings.
I must admit I don't know why it was directed at me to begin with
since the only post I have made to this thread was in regard to
a prior post about the time on doc's watch.
Anyway, on to the next discussion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Cynthia's OK -- Cactus Watcher,
08:14:00 06/03/01 Sun
Cynthia - Sorry for not changing the message subject when I replied
to Dark Phoenix. AK-UK - Thanks for a level-headed rehash. There
is a school of serious literary criticism that insists that the
work must stand on its own. In graduate school, we worked on the
assumption that if we have to go running back to the author, the
work wasn't clear enough in the first place. But, of course, that's
not the only way to approach literature.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> 7 scoobies, 3 buffys and glory the big 0 --
Paulo, 12:14:47 06/03/01 Sun
errm i really love big epic depth in stories (and especally buffy)
but don't u think that is pure conicidence?
and i relly don't see how buffy made the connection that meant
her death would be as good as dawns at stopping the portal
and r u saying that glory was some how linked to ben?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: a far stretch -- Sam Raimond, 14:49:26
06/03/01 Sun
I completely agree with you, they went pretty far on the edge
to prove that Buffy's blood could sub for Dawn's. I guess the
monk worked a kind of cloning mojo to bond the blood. now that
I think about it does this mean Joyce(if she was alive ) or Hank
could have sub'd for Dawn too?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: a far stretch -- Cynthia, 15:33:29
06/03/01 Sun
Well being that Joyce and Hank are each only half of that is Buffy,
I would doubt they could be a substitute.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: a far stretch -- Sam Raimond,
17:58:23 06/03/01 Sun
Doc said that Dawn had strong genes, is that because she is the
key or because she is the slayer's "sister"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 730 -- vampire hunter D, 13:55:55 06/04/01 Mon
I thought 7-3-0 was the day Dawn arrived. Remember, on Buffy's
birthday (which is either late January or early February) Buffy
told Dawn that the monks created her "about six months ago).
That would put Dawn's creation late July or early August. Late
July. July 30. 7/30. Get it?
But the one thing it can't be is the number of days between the
dream and Buffy's death. Even if the were two years apart, remember
that 2000 was a leap year, which would make it 731.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Argh, vampire hunter D :) -- AK-UK, 15:48:03 06/04/01
Mon
Yes it can be the number of days between the dream and Buffy's
death because;
a) the fact that 2000 was a leap year makes NO difference. 730
days later is still 730 days later, whether the 730 days happen
to equal two calender years or one calender year and 365 days.
As long as Buffy's death occured 730 days after the dream, 730
makes sense.
and more importantly
b) Joss Whedon SAID that that was the meaning of 730. Honest.
That doesn't mean to say that 730 can only have one meaning.....in
fact, I like all the different instances of 730 being spotted
in BtVS (yours is another good one), but the 730 days between
dream and death is the one that Joss had in mind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Argh, vampire hunter D :) -- darrenK, 08:00:48
06/06/01 Wed
What AK-UK said and...
730, or ?) if you accidently hold down the shift button while
you're typing, is dream logic. It's part of a pattern that gives
cohesion to the story, so every instance of its appearance is
both valid as a true coincedence in Buffy's life and a bit of
an illusion in that it doesn't necessarily signal anything other
than Buffy's acute sensitivity to the forces of the universe.
It also gives Buffy's life the type of mysterious wholeness that
we experience in our own lives. We dream portentious dreams of
things that seem to come to pass. Patterns emerge. Coincedences
seem to point the way to destiny, then don't. And as we try and
make sense of it all, life happens.
If you read over this whole thread it turns out that Joss stuck
us with 7's, 3's and 0's that appeared all through the season.
It's nice to see a tv writer so concerned with detail. dK
Season 5 Disillusionment -- Virgill Reality, 12:15:57
06/02/01 Sat
I have to say that I was very disappointed with the way season
5 ended, especially seeing as it coincided with the 100th episode.
Joss has said on occasion the reason he doesn't do end-of-series
cliffhangers is because he likes to wrap up everything he includes
in the season so that he can start afresh, and yet so many intriguing
questions were left unanswered.
Who exactly were the knights of Byzantium and the monks who gave
the scooby gang their memories of Dawn? What did their respective
religions entail?
For what purpose was the key ("even older than the Beast
itself")created, and by Whom?
Who were the other two hellgods?
The Knights served God... did He have a hand in the fight against
Glory?
I don't know if the rest of you were satisfied, but I certainly
wasn't. I would like to think that now Dawn has a place as a regular
character for S6 that some of these questions might be answered,
but I still think Joss could have wrapped the season up better.
Virgill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Season 5 Disillusionment -- DARK PHOENIX, 14:33:07 06/02/01
Sat
YOU DIDN'T MENTION A SINGLE FACTOR THAT WOULD HAVE AFFECTED THE
STORYLINE, THEREFORE THEY DIDNT NEED TO ADD ANY MORE MYTHOS ABOUT
THESE CHARACTERS
ALSO THE KNIGHT SERVE a GOD, MANY RELGIONS HAVE ONE GOD, DOESNT
MEAN ITS THE JUDO-CHRISTIAN ONE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Season 5 Disillusionment -- Virgill Reality, 07:24:24
06/03/01 Sun
I wonder in awe at the extent of your mentality given that you
wish to type in nothing but capital letters, you are either a
very juvenile or very neurotic individiual.
**ALSO THE KNIGHT SERVE a GOD, MANY RELGIONS HAVE ONE GOD, DOESNT
MEAN ITS THE JUDO-CHRISTIAN ONE**
Goto
http://home.4w.com/pages/btvs/53.html#512
because you obviously haven't beeen paying attention. Also, it's
spelt JUDEO-Christian, genius. Get it right, my life already,
or get some tuition before you reply to my postings. I haven't
really got the time to indulge uneducated idiots.
As for the rest of you peeps who replied to my original post (apart
from that sarcastic guy whose response was also cynical, albeit
to a more sophisticated standard), thanks for the comments. I'm
sure you agree with me in that there are still quite a few gnawing
mysteries that need solving.
Virgill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: That was a little harsh ... -- Dedalus,
09:27:46 06/03/01 Sun
I personally think it's funny when people type in all caps, but
that's just me.
And yes, many questions are left unanswered, but none that were
crucial to the fast-paced final episodes.
Also, the Key is not older than the Beast. "Well, it's not
as old as me, but yeah, it's just this side of forever,"
Glory said in Blood Ties.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: That was a little harsh ... -- Sam
Raimond, 14:44:30 06/03/01 Sun
Despite the harsh way Phoenix attempted to get its point across
I do sorta agree. The plot points that were left out weren't really
plot points because they would only have slowed the speed of the
last group of episodes in Season 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: That was a little harsh ...
-- Dedalus, 10:57:27 06/04/01 Mon
I meant that Virgil whoever was being a bit harsh. Not Phoenix.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: "I personally think it's funny...
-- Lazarus, 13:04:46 06/04/01 Mon
...when people type in all caps, but that's just me"
They always remind me of the character in the Dilbert cartoon
(his name escapes me) who always yells everything... lol...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Disillusionment of rude posters -- Liquidram,
23:50:24 06/04/01 Mon
Vent time ....
"I haven't really got the time to indulge uneducated idiots."
As compared to who, Virgill? A polite and considerate - you?
Regardless of if we agree with you or not, this board is for discussion
of everyone's opinion - not an English lesson or hand-slapping.
Lighten up and let everyone feel free to express their opinions,
which may or may not agree with you without getting insulted.
What a boring bunch we'd be without the diversity of our ideas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> You go, girl! Couldn't have said it better...
;o) -- Wisewoman, 19:41:04 06/18/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Season 5 Disillusionment -- LoriAnn, 15:19:08 06/02/01
Sat
Right, and Joss also didn't tell us Dawn's middle name, the name
of the jewelery store where Xander bought the ring, and whether
Joyce went to heaven or hell. Besides all that, who put the stuffed
bunny in the Magic Box's basement? I expect to lose many hours
of sleep over that one. But then again, this is only a TV show,
if a thing doesn't move the plot along, what difference does it
make? The Knights did what they had to do. They complicated the
plot, kept Buffy from running, provided some action while Glory
was busy trying on new pumps, and in their dying, provided a way
to demonstrate Glory's viciousness. They served their purposes
well, but were otherwise disposable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Intentionally left blank -- darrenK, 21:58:55 06/02/01
Sat
Just because Glory is dead doesn't mean that Dawn now becomes
any young girl. She's still the KEY and there are other baddies--including
the hard to kill Doc--who might want to use it's power.
Dawn herself might want to know more about her mysterious origins.
Or it might be that bringing Buffy back requires some use of of
the KEY.
The Buffy storyline never starts from scratch and any of these
likely scenarios might require that we learn more about the Knights,
Monks and anyone else possibly associated with Glory's world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Season 5 Disillusionment -- cknight, 22:07:03
06/02/01 Sat
Hey take it easy on the guy. I think this season wasn't exactly
on also. I felt as few others on this board, that even though
it was a good season there seemed to be something missing. There
could have been better attention to details this season. I really
felt the contract war with the WB did effect the show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Agreed -- AK-UK, 04:37:47 06/03/01 Sun
Yeah, season 5 has been dissappointing, and the plotholes in the
season finale really are too big to ignore. ah well, fingers crossed
for season 6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Agreed -- Dedalus, 09:30:57 06/03/01
Sun
What plot holes would those be? People seem to be having a tendency
to make The Gift more complicated than it really is. It worked
fine from what I could tell, and was perfectly consistent with
what came before. Like Joss said, it's been set up for at least
thirteen episodes now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Plotholes -- Cactus Watcher, 09:55:11
06/03/01 Sun
If you can't see the plotholes without help, you can classify
yourself as a fan not a critic. Nothing wrong with that. But,
many of us hoped for more on other levels than you did. Most TV
is garbage. We look to Buffy as something better. Maybe we're
asking too much. But, there is a difference between doing something
OK and doing it right. I really like grape juice, but fine wine
is better.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Plotholes -- Dedalus,
10:22:48 06/04/01 Mon
Uh, I expect an awful lot from TV. Buffy is one of the few shows
I do like. What I like about it is that you always know you're
in good hands. And yes, I know all about criticism. But to be
honest, a lot of critics out there can't even grasp the most rudimentary
of plot points or understand anything about symbolism or foreshadowing
or irony or anything else. That most of them like Buffy is a miracle.
Some of you look for more on more levels than I do?
God, I actually thought this was a nice forum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Agreed/plot holes -- AK-UK,
11:12:44 06/03/01 Sun
Plotholes like:
1) No matter what way you cut it, Buffy wasn't the key. Her blood,
no matter how "genetically" similiar it was to Dawn's,
shouldn't have been able to close the portal. The only reason
Dawn's blood was special was because it was the KEY'S blood.
2) The point was made repeatedly that Glory would bleed Dawn slowly
because she would need plenty of time to get through the portal.
Yet, at the same time, it appears that once the portal is open
the only way to shut it is to stop the blood flowing. Huh? Either
the portal needs to be constantly supplied with blood to stay
open or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.
Those are my major beefs with the finale, minor ones are:
3) The sphere of.....errrr, forgotten what it was called. The
sphere which repelled Glory. Made sort of a late appearance, didn't
it? All this time the SG had a magical weapon which repelled Glory
and they didn't use it? They didn't bring it with them when they
fled Sunnydale? What the hell was up with that?
4) After making such a HUGE song and dance about how Glory was
different, and how just beating her up was not an option, Buffy.......beats
her up. Not sure if that is a plothole or just a source of disapointment.
5) I saw Xander get hit with that Troll God's hammer......twice.
If this hammer is such a powerful weapon that it hurts Glory,
shouldn't it have, like, killed Xander?
6) Lets face it, the whole "the blood must stop flowing"
to close the portal is shaky. In what sense does Dawn's blood
stop flowing? Must it stop flowing through her veins, or flowing
from her wounds. Could they have just bandaged her up?
7) So, how come this key, with near limitless power, can only
open the door between dimensions so infrequently ( apparently
Glory would have to wait aeons for the next oppurtunity to use
it ), and following on from that.......
8) Glory points out that this is her one oppurtunity to use the
key, as she is trapped in a human prison which will die in 60/70
yrs, barring accidents. So why the hell did the monks make the
key a 14yr old girl living on a hellmouth? Hmmmmm, personally,
I'd have gone for the "lets make it a piece of rock in the
centre of the moon" option myself. Or the "how about
making the key a 26 yr old bloke with super strength/speed/incredible
magic powers who knows that a nasty hellgod is after him and can
thus run away and hide if he needs to". Or..........submit
your own suggestion. Anything which prevents Glory from getting
her hands on the key before she and Ben die.
Oh, and yes, I know that at one point Buffy cut herself and let
some of Dawn's blood mingle with hers, but that still doesn't
make her the key. Her blood is still not Dawn's blood. Using the
season 5 finale's logic, Glory could have cut Dawn and kept a
pint of her blood, poured a bit of it into some hapless human
victim pulled off the street and Viola! we have a spare key.
And I'm glad the monks made the key into Dawn, I really like her.
She has been an excellent edition to the show, but still........
And yes I can just "forget about picking the show to pieces
and just enjoy it for what it is", but if the subject of
plot holes comes up, you can bet I'll be here to stick my oar
in :)
P.S. any answers to questions I've raised will be gratefully recieved
(but I'd prefer pizza :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agreed/plot holes -- Cynthia,
15:50:43 06/03/01 Sun
Maybe I'm wrong but I got the impression that the monks didn't
have every much time to come up with solution to hiding the key
to say nothing of thinking out the consequences. Perhaps they
didn't believe that Glory would ever gain power and control over
her human prison cell and were taken by surprise. Perhaps the
number of monks who were able to make the transformation wasn't
enough to complete the change with what they might have planned
and settled for what they could complete.
Oh, make my pizza with achovies and ricotta cheese.
Siphoning off blood may not have worked because maybe it would
quickly lose potency and power. Maybe a host has to be attached.
The first question does have a interesting point. But I got the
impression that to close the portal it needed the blood not necessarily
the key. Blood and the key were vital components of opening up
the portal but they were not necessarily one and the same things
until the monks made it so by the creation of Dawn. The question
did lead to make me wonder thou: Is Dawn the Key? Or has everyone
been lead to believe it. Perhaps she is a decoy. Maybe the monks
were aware that there was more than one God and that the only
way to fool them all was to fool Glory?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agreed/plot holes
-- AK-UK, 16:32:26 06/03/01 Sun
Ok,can just start by saying "anchovies"? What is the
appeal of those nasty little fish? You might as well just pop
a ball of salt in your mouth!
Anyway, back on topic, I can't really buy into the "Dawn
is a spell the monks through together" theory. I mean, whats
easier; turn the key into a rock, or turn the key into a living
14yr old girl, implant said girl with false memories, and then
change the memories of everyone who would have interacted with
her (Joyce, Buffy, the SG, school teachers etc).
If the keys blood isn't required to shut the portal, just sombody's
blood, we are still left with two problems; why did Buffy jump
off the platform (she could have just thrown a minion off) and
why did Glory make such a big deal about needing to bleed Dawn
slowly to keep the portal open? It also leaves Giles looking a
bit stupid too.
Whilst I like the idea of the monks pulling a fast one, if Dawn
isn't the key, then I wonder how the portal was opened in the
first place.....
Keep those theories coming.......:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agreed/plot
holes -- Anthony8, 20:05:11 06/03/01 Sun
If you ever worry about the real ramifications of consuming anchovies,
I suggest you take a listen to the J. Geils Band song 'No Anchovies
Please.' Just let me put it this way...you'll never look at a
bowling ball the same way again.
Oh yeah...The Key...The Blood...etc.
I think you're reading way too much into this alleged plot hole
(is that one word or should it be two?). Most likely, the religious
texts that Glory, Giles, and Doc derived their information, like
all religious texts, were subject to interpretation. It was obvious
that the "blood stop flowing" phrase was intended to
mean when Dawn is dead. If that weren't the case, then Glory could
have killed Dawn, drained her blood, and stored it in nice hermetically
sealed blood bags for use at the required time. Remember the Key,
like Glory, supposedly was only viable as long as its human host
was alive. That's why the Knights wanted to kill Dawn. They were
never able to identify Glory's human host, so they settled on
the little girl.
Next, Buffy's realization that Dawn was literally a part of her
(that Buffy was Dawn's template) was intuitive, not scientific.
Her intuition, it seems, was helped along by the various clues
presented to her by fate (the events shown in her flashbacks)
and the supernatural forces of light (The PTB?) who communicated
to her via the Spirit Guide in the desert. Also, we know that
JW and the BtVS writing staff plot story arcs over multiple seasons
(remember 730? 'Restless'?). It was no coincidence that the episode
in which Dawn discovers she is the Key was titled 'Blood Ties.'
Like the images in 'Restless,' the whole "Summers' blood"
dialogue was there for a purpose. It was a cryptic clue at the
time we just didn't know how crucial it would be.
The only plot hole that bothered me a bit was the whole Dagon
Sphere thing. They made such a big deal out of it in 'TNPLH' and
then forgot about it until Anya refreshed their memories in 'The
Gift.' You know, at the very least, that the Watcher's Council
would have come across it when they inventoried the Magic Box
in 'Checkpoint.'
I let the whole Knights of Byzantium issue slide because we're
talking about Sunnydale after all. I mean it's a land inhabited
by a Ghora Demon that looks like Rodan and moves like the octopus
in an Ed Wood movie, and all sorts of nasties, none of which ever
even think to use long range firearms to take out the Slayer.
Not to mention the fact the every demonic thing that is bipedal
automatically knows martial arts. IMO, Suspension of disbelief
is a small price to pay for our weekly dose of top rate writing.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agreed/plot
holes -- Cynthia, 20:15:22 06/03/01 Sun
Don't worry about the anchovies. I always order a small individual
pie when I go for pizza with others.
As for the taste? Well, cravings aren't always logical. :o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agreed/plot holes -- Malandanza,
18:19:36 06/03/01 Sun
I am in agreement with everything you've said -- I have been unhappy
with the inconsistencies throughout the season and have a few
minor nagging concerns as well. But here are the best suggestions
I can come up with to try to patch the gaping plot holes:
First, points 1,2 & 6 (the ritual bloodletting and Buffy's sacrifice):
I propose that it required a single drop of Dawn's blood to open
the portal (provided that it was applied at exactly the right
time). Glory intimated as much when she told Dawn that if Buffy
showed up, it would be to kill her since the quicker she died,
the better for the Buffyverse. Glory didn't seemed troubled by
the possibility that Dawn could die before the ritual was completed
(she would have been gone by then.) So why kill Dawn? Well, for
one thing, she's a Hell God (not known for mercy). The sacrifice
also had a great deal of ritual attendant upon it (the anointing,
the robes, etc.) -- it may be that this is the way Glory's minions
perform every sacrifice to her. Also, once Glory is through the
gateway, she might have wanted to close the doorway behind her
-- total chaos would be difficult to rule. To close the portal,
I believe, required not merely stopping the flow of blood, but
a life. Not necessarily Dawn's life -- perhaps any would suffice.
We saw something similar to Angelus opening the hellmouth and
Buffy shutting it with Angel's life. Maybe other restrictions
were placed upon it -- like the life of a pure individual (so
tossing Doc into the gateway might not have worked).
"3) The sphere of.....errrr, forgotten what it was called.
The sphere which repelled Glory. Made sort of a late appearance,
didn't it? All this time the SG had a magical weapon which repelled
Glory and they didn't use it? They didn't bring it with them when
they fled Sunnydale? What the hell was up with that?"
My feeling about the Dagon Sphere is that Buffy unwittingly contributed
to the demise of the monk and security guard when she removed
this protective device from the grounds. I also remember Glory
visiting the magic shop, yet the sphere did not seem to phase
her.
"5) I saw Xander get hit with that Troll God's hammer......twice.
If this hammer is such a powerful weapon that it hurts Glory,
shouldn't it have, like, killed Xander?"
I think Olaf was just playing with Xander. Even it had been just
a regular hammer, with his troll strength, he should have been
able to crush Xander easily. I also think that the reason Buffy
was able to injure Glory with the hammer was because Glory had
been weakened by Willow and the Dagon Sphere first.
"7) So, how come this key, with near limitless power, can
only open the door between dimensions so infrequently ( apparently
Glory would have to wait aeons for the next opportunity to use
it ), and following on from that......."
I don't have a problem with this one. With big powers come big
limitations. Also, waiting for the stars to be in alignment has
a sort of Lovecraftian feel to it.
"8) Glory points out that this is her one opportunity to
use the key, as she is trapped in a human prison which will die
in 60/70 yrs, barring accidents. So why the hell did the monks
make the key a 14yr old girl living on a hellmouth? Hmmmmm, personally,
I'd have gone for the "lets make it a piece of rock in the
centre of the moon" option myself. Or the "how about
making the key a 26 yr old bloke with super strength/speed/incredible
magic powers who knows that a nasty hellgod is after him and can
thus run away and hide if he needs to". Or..........submit
your own suggestion. Anything which prevents Glory from getting
her hands on the key before she and Ben die."
Let's say that making the key a piece of extraterrestrial matter
is beyond the ability of the monks, and let us also say that they
cannot tap into the powers of the key to make a superhero (after
all, the KoB did say that the monks had tried and failed to use
the power of the key). Is an inanimate object better than a human?
Glory and her minions found their way to Sunnydale rather quickly
-- they had some way of tracking the key location -- at least
its general location. Glory created a magic snake to track the
key down from there -- if the key had been inanimate her greatest
difficulty would have been some sort of mining operation. By making
the key the younger sister of a superhero, the monks got a better
guardian for the key than they could either create or provide.
Here are a few trivial plot holes that have been bothering me:
Where did the monks and knights come from? The Buffyverse or Glory's
dimension? If they are from the Buffyverse, how is it that Glory
and Gregor were on a first name basis? Wouldn't she just have
massacred them all? And are the knights all dead? My feeling is
yes -- Glory killed every last knight. Otherwise, next season
more will show up to kill Dawn. And what about the monks? Are
there none left? If any remain, what will they do about Dawn now
that she is no longer needed?
What happened to the Watcher's Council? They came all the way
from England just to tell Buffy that Glory was a god, then gave
her no further support.
I'm sure there are other issues, but I have a habit of forgetting
my most cogent points as soon as I sit down to write about them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agreed/plot holes -- Dedalus,
10:55:50 06/04/01 Mon
Sorry it took so long to get back. I've got one heck of a cold.
Anyway, on to the alleged plotholes.
For questions one and two -
No, Buffy wasn't the Key. The whole ritual worked something like
this:
The Key was living energy that had to be poured into a specific
place at a specific time. That was why the tower had to be built.
Dawn's blood had to be used to open the portal, and it was her
blood that had to keep feeding it. That was why they had to bleed
her slowly. The longer the blood flowed into that direct spot
in space, the larger the portal got, until it engulfed everything.
But it had to be a steady flow.
So the ritual was started. Dawn's blood opened the portal, but
only a drop or two. That was enough to start a chain reaction,
but not enough to sustain it. The portal would have stayed open
as large as it was until the blood closed it, it just wouldn't
have gotten any bigger. So Buffy grabs Dawn and pulls her away
from the hole. She is still bleeding, but her blood is no longer
in the right space. The ritual is effectively stalled. But still,
the portal is open and sending out dragons and stuff. It never
said the portal has to be constantly supplied with blood to stay
open, either on the show or in the script.
Obviously, you had to have the power of the Key to open the portal,
and that was activated by Dawn. However, what do we know about
magic rituals in the Buffyverse? If you remember what Willow said
in The Replacements, the spell doing all the work was what was
keeping the two Xanders apart. It was their natural state to be
together. Ending it was a simple thing. Same thing with the Key
ritual. It was the natural state of the universe for the doors
to be closed - the Key had to release quite a bit of power and
it was doing all the work of keeping the dimensional portals open.
It was established that Buffy and Dawn have very similar blood.
And that "she was me." How did Buffy know this? Intuitively,
just like someone said. She was going on gut feelings and instinct,
the same thing she's relied on for five years. It was a psychological
realization, and a profound one. The ritual would not stop until
the blood stopped flowing. And it has been established that killing
Dawn would destroy the Key. Therefore, obviously the ritual meant
the blood would stop flowing when the vessel was dead. One didn't
need the power of the Key to lock the doors. A lock is not the
same as a Key. Buffy's blood worked because she faked the portal
out. She pulled a fast one. She didn't have to be the Key. As
we have seen before, as in The Replacement, and it's just common
sense with a spell of this magnitude, that it would be relatively
easy to short circuit and get things back in their natural state.
The Key was doing all the work pulling the universe apart. And
then once Buffy jumped down in it, she died, and thus no more
blood was a'comin' to feed the portal, and that was that.
Hopefully that cleared up your major problems.
3. Yes, the DAGONS sphere made sort of a late appearance. I had
forgotten about it myself. I thought that was cool they tied that
in, but I guess some people didn't. And obviously, it didn't do
all that good a job in repelling Glory, it was only after Willow
brain zapped her that it had some major effect.
4. Buffy couldn't beat Glory before because she didn't have the
need to do so. When she realized how important Dawn was to her,
she was capable of anything. She's the Buffy. And also, ALL the
Scoobs had to help out. And Willow had just put together that
spell for sucking the brain power out, which had considerable
effect.
5.As someone mentioned, Troll guy was obviously toying with Xander.
Buffy could hardly take him. He could have crushed Xander without
a second thought. Now you're just being picky.
6. Dawn had to die. The blood had to stop flowing in that specific
spot to stop feeding the portals, and it had to stop flowing in
her veins to close the portals.
7. Because Joss said so. Come on, rituals always have really wierd
limitations and loopholes. If that is a problem for you, maybe
you shouldn't like the show at all.
8. I have no idea what was going through the minds of monks who
are now dead. We know they thought they were doing the right thing.
And though sheer speculation, I think we don't have all the info
on the Key yet. Next year. Also, on a practical level, if they
had sent it to be a rock on the moon, we couldn't have had a season
five, and for some of us, that was the best season yet.
And I don't think you should just have to turn off your brain
to enjoy the show for what it is. Your questions no doubt bothered
a lot of people, and I thank you for asking them. I hope my answers
helped a little.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agreed/plot holes
-- Andy, 12:11:53 06/04/01 Mon
> 8. I have no idea what was going through the minds of monks
who are now dead. We know they thought they were doing the right
thing. And though sheer speculation, I think we don't have all
the info on the Key yet. Next year. Also, on a practical level,
if they had sent it to be a rock on the moon, we couldn't have
had a season five, and for some of us, that was the best season
yet.
My assumption as to why the monks didn't do the "practical
thing" is that they probably felt, being monks and apparently
quite idealistic and pious, that turning the Key into an innocent
human would be a more glorious expression of the Key than the
form of some inanimate object, and that that would lead to a more
rewarding end (especially since fiction is always telling us how
gosh-darned swell it is to be human :)). Seeing how the world
didn't come to an end it would appear that they did okay picking
the shape of the Key :)
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting
Andy -- Dedalus, 12:58:50 06/04/01 Mon
Yeah, I was thinking something along those lines as well. It makes
mythic sense if nothing else, the Key made Flesh, and all that.
I also had this theory (which I read a few pages back here) that
the power of the Slayer is in fact the power of the Key. Why make
it human? For that matter, why send it to a Vampire Slayer out
of all the other superheroes that no doubt lurk in the Buffyverse?
And the fact that Faith and Buffy both knew about it in their
dreams long before the fact point to the possibility that the
Key and the Slayers are connected in some way.
And also, it would forever chill the arguments of all those saying
that Buffy shouldn't have been able to close the portal (though
I think it already makes sense personally).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting
answers Andy and Dedalus -- AK-UK, 14:29:21 06/04/01 Mon
The only problem I have with Buffy closing the portal is that
it requires us to invent key bits of information which contradict
information given in the actual show. Now, of course Buffy was
able to close the portal, we all saw that, but when it is stated
time and again that the key must die to shut the portal, and it
is the key's blood that must stop flowing.....well, it makes the
finale look like a bit of a con. I just find the argument that
Buffy was able to 'con' the portal with her similiar blood kind
of weak. In "A new man", where Giles is turned into
a demon, it is expressely stated that only a silver weapon can
kill him, Buffy stabs him with what appears to be a silver letter
opener, but is in fact pewter. He doesn't die. Pewter isn't silver,
and Buffy blood (no matter how similiar) isn't Dawn's.
And, on the subject of Dawn, I LOVE the fact that the monks made
her. She is a cool character. Giving the key life could well be
seen as a glorious expression of love (although it could equally
bee seen as incredibly blasphemous, guess it depends on what religon
these monks belong to). But I do think making her a 14yr old girl
was a bit silly (from a survival point of view) although, hopefully,
we will see her investigating her nature in season 6.
The Dagon sphere was a blunder, which ever way you cut it. To
just, forget about it for sooooo long...no, I don't buy it.
Still, it's always great to hear other people's theories. This
place really does attract a smarter class of Buffy fan :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Interesting answers Andy and Dedalus -- Dedalus, 15:36:17 06/04/01
Mon
Thanks, AK-UK.
I think I could have worded my last post a bit better in some
places, but I'm glad to see it more or less got the point across.
I may be wrong here, and feel free to correct me if I am, but
it seems to me the critics of this episode are the ones who are
inventing bits of information that never existed in the show.
"When it stated again and again that the key must die to
shut the portal, and it is the key's blood that must stop flowing
... "
Um, where did it distinctly state that the Key must die to shut
the portal? We know the show has stated again and again that killing
Dawn would most certainly destroy all access to the Key, but I
don't recall the ritual ever saying that the Key itself had to
die. "When the blood flows, the portal opens, and the portal
closes when the blood flows no more." Or something to that
effect. And then Giles adds that "When Dawn is dead."
The books don't say that. Giles did. He wasn't getting the connection
between Buffy and Dawn. All that the texts said was that the blood
of the Key was required to stop the ritual, not the Key itself.
And Buffy and Dawn DO share the same blood. I mean, the monks
were so meticulous about everything, it seems obvious that of
course they would give her Summers blood. Buffy, who we know has
had visions and prophetic dreams of all kinds before, had some
moment of revelation and realized that the monks made Dawn OUT
OF HER. Again, the blood tie was established in ... well, Blood
Ties. She is a part of Buffy. She is Buffy.
Anyway, that does not diminish the significance of the Key. The
physical incarnation of the Key, whatever it was, had to be set
at a specific place. The blood had to flow to open the portal.
Buffy is not the Key, and Buffy could therefore not have opened
the portal. And the monks, who seem to know more about the Key
than anyone, stated that "It opens the door." Nothing
about how only the Key can close the door. Opening and closing
are two different things. All that is ever stated in the show
(unless I'm mistaken) is that the portal requires the Key's blood
to close, not the Key itself.
You mentioned earlier that GLory could have just grabbed Dawn
at some point in the season, took out a pint of blood, and then
go into hiding until the big day. But keep in mind, she didn't
know Dawn was the Key until the beginning of Spiral. And then
the group was on the run the entire time. All those eps took place
over one night. And it seems to me that she didn't know blood
was always the crucial element. It wasn't until after she had
Dawn that she said, "We found out your blood is the key to
the Key." They had just found out. That's why she said earlier
that it could have been anything.
It is my opinion that the Minions had been in contact with Doc,
and he had been doing some research, and he had found the book
that told Glory and company blood was the Key. They probably got
their info out of the very book the Scoobies did. And if he was
an acolyte of Glory, it makes sense.
So you don't have to invent new information for the ending to
make sense. All you have to do is except the fact that the monks
made Dawn out of Buffy, and that all that was required for the
doors to close was their blood. Both were stated clearly in the
episode.
And I'm glad you love Dawn. She rocks. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Interesting answers Andy and Dedalus -- Rufus, 16:08:32 06/04/01
Mon
It was pretty clear in Blood Ties that it was important to establish
that Buffy and Dawn were of the same blood line. This was made
stronger when Doc took a bit of Dawns hair and was able to state
that her mothers DNA was strong. So on a biological level Buffy
and Dawn are family as well as in the manufactured memories. Then
you have to consider that what Buffy did by leaping into the portal
constituted a leap of faith. Buffy had to believe that she was
a substitute for Dawn in this situation. Perhaps the belief as
well as the genetics made it so. It also made Buffy become more
than the killer she feared she was becoming. In The Gift Buffy
freely gave the gift of death so Dawn could live on. So as much
as this is a story about genetics it is also a story about love
and faith.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Interesting answers Andy and Dedalus -- AK-UK, 16:42:44 06/04/01
Mon
Ooooh, I'm enjoying this :). It's helping me gain a clearer understanding
of the season finale, but I still say the same plot holes remain
(although i will go back and check the episodes again).
Firstly, we have problem's with the blood. Dawn and Buffy's blood
is not identical. If it were, Dawn would literally be a clone
of Buffy.....you would see a 14yr old Buffy. Dawn ISN'T Buffy.
Dawn has Summers blood, but she doesn't literally have Buffy Summers
blood. Different hair, different features, different blood.
Secondly, you said "All that the texts said was the that
the blood of the Key was required to stop the ritual, not the
Key itself". Well, Buffy isn't the Key, so her blood is not
the Key's blood.
Thirdly, I believe that it's pretty clear that Glory new the significance
of the Key's blood before she caught Dawn. She made a point of
tasting Tara's blood when she thought that Tara was the key, and
new instantly that Tara wasn't the key after tasting it, so Glory
recognises the importance of the Keys blood.
Forthly, yes it is Giles who says that Dawn must die, and it is
her blood that must stop flowing, to shut the portal. But if we
follow your argument we have to believe that Giles was; right
to say that only the Key's blood could open the portal, right
to say only the key's blood could shut the portal, yet wrong to
say that only the specific blood of the Key could shut the portal,
yet right to say that that the person with the Key's blood had
to die to shut the portal, yet wrong to say that the person with
the Key's blood had to be Dawn.
Hmmm, so Giles is right in all the ways that support your argument,
but wrong in all the ways that support mine. That's just NOT playing
fair :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: DAMN YOU AOL!!!!!! -- Dedalus, 17:40:43 06/04/01 Mon
I SWEAR! I had just typed up one of the BEST DAMN POSTS OF MY
FREAKIN' INTERNET LIFE, complete with philosophy and religious
allusions and references and quotes from the script, and I lost
my connection and the DAMN THING IS ERASED! Damn you, AOL CONNECTION!
DAMN YOU TO HELL!!!
Okay, the high points -
Rufus, AWESOME POST.
AK, if I can call you that for short, it still makes sense to
me. Maybe it's because I'm just doped up on antibiotics, but it
really does make sense.
That last paragraph made me laugh. I typed up two pages of dialogue
from the script to prove my point, but since that's gone, my point
was the book Giles was quoting from made no reference to Dawn's
death. That was not a quote.
Good catch about Glory with Tara - not sure I buy it, but it might
work.
Look, maybe I'm just missing something, but it seems obvious that
Buffy's blood is Dawn's blood. As Buffy said, the connection went
even deeper than that. I don't mean they're genetic clones ...
we're dealing with science, not magic. I mean they MADE HER FROM
BUFFY. Of course they would have the same blood. I'm beginning
to feel a bit like Spike trying to explain the GLory/Ben connection
to everyone. j/k
It's like this:
Dawn made from Buffy. Buffy have Dawn blood. Dawn blood close
portal. Buffy dive into portal Crouching Tiger-style. Buffy heart
stop pumping. Buffy blood no flow. Buffy die. Portal think Buffy
is Dawn. Portal stoopid. Portal close. Bye, bye, Mr. Portal.
That's breaking it down to the lowest common denominator, but
hey, I'm sick.
I'm guessing you're a fan. Probably a big one. I assume you think
Joss is a pretty smart and talented guy. You know and I know he's
had this ep planned for two years. This is the 100th, the biggy.
Do you really think he would just tack on some ending that didn't
make sense?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Dawn made from Buffy -- Scout, 07:51:35 06/05/01
Tue
Hello there all. First of all, may I say how delighted I am to
have found this board. It's definitely a good one from the look
of it.
I was going to lurk for a while longer, but something you just
said in your last message, Dedalus, is making me de-lurk, and
that's the "Dawn made from Buffy" comment. A lot of
people just swallow this without question. A lot of other people
(and I'm one) want to know *when* and *how*. Did the monks just
turn up in Sunnydale one day asking Buffy for a DNA sample? Doing
a little breaking and entering to take hairs off her pillow? I
don't think so.
If you're going to say it happened when Dawn and Buffy cut themselves,
sorry, it doesn't work that way or else I'd still be carrying
my best friend's DNA after we decided to become "blood sisters"
by pricking our fingers and mixing our blood when we were 9 years
old. There's no way Buffy could have Dawn's blood, and if the
portal needed *Dawn's* - the Key's - blood to close, then it shouldn't
have closed simply because Buffy hurled itself into it out of
love for someone she considered to be her sister. It was a beautiful
gesture but that doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't have
worked.
Those of us who feel this way *also* feel like Spike trying to
explain the Ben/Glory relationship. Our sticking point is that
this is something that was never explained other than Buffy saying
"the monks made her out of me", something she had no
way of knowing and that had never been indicated before in any
way.
Personally I've alway considered Joss Whedon usually to be above
using the old deus ex machina to get himself out of a plothole
he's fallen into, but that's exactly what he's done this time
with the Gift. It doesn't detract from the beauty of the episode
(I cried buckets) or the first rate acting, but I just wish it
had been handled differently.
Because I'm now becoming convinced that JW is sending Buffy on
the mythic hero's journey and that he decided she should undergo
a literal rather than a metaphorical death on the way, I'm dealing
with the plothole aspect a little better. Having said that, though,
I hope Joss realizes that there are many fans who, while we happily
suspend our disbelief to watch BtVS (and love it), also expect
better exposition than we've received over the last several weeks.
With luck, things will become more clear in Season 6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Dawn made from Buffy -- Dedalus, 09:21:22
06/05/01 Tue
Whatever. IT'S MAGIC. How did Jonathon create an alternate universe?
I don't know. Did he go about collecting everyone's DNA? What?
I think people who don't "get this" are simply unwilling
to suspend their disbelief any more.
It's nice to know that, if I accomplish nothing else in life,
I know how to make people de-lurk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Dawn made from Buffy -- rowan, 14:57:35
06/05/01 Tue
I don't know. I guess I must have a tough constitution or a thick
skin or a gullible mind. All along, I've been thinking, "well,
how do garden variety monks make a human? I mean, it's the last
veil, right? Only God can make a life..." Then when Buffy
articulated how she felt, I thought, "gee, this feels right."
The spark of life must have come from someone, and since the monks
selected Buffy on purpose, they somehow used her mind, her memories,
her spark, to mold Dawn's energy.
But hey, I'm no scientist. But maybe, just maybe, knowing too
much about cloning can detract a little from the enjoyment of
fantasy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> DOT filling plotholes -- rowan,
20:55:22 06/04/01 Mon
To me, Buffy is myth. Can Daphne turn into a laurel tree as she
flees Apollo? Yes, because it's a myth. Does this make scientific
sense? No, humans don't become trees. Here's why some things worked
for me.
"1) No matter what way you cut it, Buffy wasn't the key.
Her blood, no matter how "genetically" similiar it was
to Dawn's, shouldn't have been able to close the portal. The only
reason Dawn's blood was special was because it was the KEY'S blood."
Buffy's capability to substitute herself as a sacrifice for Dawn
was foreshadowed in many episodes before The Gift ('Summers blood',
'death is your gift,' 'the monks made her from me' just to name
a few). From the standpoint of the Buffyverse, this isn't a plothole
because it didn't come out of the blue with no foundation in other
events. It's just that some people didn't like the explanation
(not that the explanation doesn't hold water).
The Buffyverse we've been shown allows this substitution to be
valid on a symbolic and magickal level. No scientific basis is
required. No where is an exact DNA match posited as the test to
determine if Buffy can substitute for Dawn: that's our bias that
we're bringing into the story. IMO, we can't arbitrarily impose
a scientific test on a magickal act and fault it for not meeting
the test.
Plus, this is one of the incalcuable effects that happened once
the monks decided to make The Key human. That's why I think this
storyline is so brilliant. Once the monks changed The Key's status
from inanimate object (or animal, I suppose) to human, they introduced
the complications of free will, human life/death, etc. They both
made The Key more fragile and stronger at the same time. After
all, Dawn could have been hit by a bus and killed, right? or become
victim to a brain tumor? or killed herself in despair when her
mother died? Another unanticipated effect of The Key's humanness
was that The Key now existed in relation to others in a way it
didn't when it was inanimate -- it now has kinship. That kinship
made the sacrificial substitution possible.
"2) The point was made repeatedly that Glory would bleed
Dawn slowly because she would need plenty of time to get through
the portal. Yet, at the same time, it appears that once the portal
is open the only way to shut it is to stop the blood flowing.
Huh? Either the portal needs to be constantly supplied with blood
to stay open or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways."
The portal is opened by one drop of Dawn's blood. We saw that
clearly in The Gift. The bloodletting ritual was discovered/understood
by Doc (the ritual text he was perusing was in the box Spike and
Xander retrieved) in order to release the energy of The Key, which
needed to be poured out on a specific place at a specific time.
The search for and discovery of a bloodletting ritual only occurred
once it was known The Key was human. The minions confirm this
and we see it through Doc's actions.
During the release of energy, the portal remains open. When the
release stops, the portal closes. Glory can't slash Dawn's jugular,
because she needs time to get through the portal back to the hell
dimension. Arterial bleeding might cause Dawn to expire before
Glory can get through the portal. Glory could care less how long
Dawn bleeds -- she just acknowledges that the SG will want to
kill Dawn quickly, to stop the 'bleeding' of alternate dimensions
into each other.
Again, the ritual text spells out that Dawn must die to stop the
release of energy. Giles, Glory, and the minions accept this as
true. Why? I'm guessing that it's because Dawn's blood would still
be flowing (in her veins) after the portal is open by the drop
of blood and until it's stopped, no closure.
"3) The sphere of.....errrr, forgotten what it was called.
The sphere which repelled Glory. Made sort of a late appearance,
didn't it? All this time the SG had a magical weapon which repelled
Glory and they didn't use it? They didn't bring it with them when
they fled Sunnydale? What the hell was up with that?"
It was an early ep where it appeared. They forgot about it. Their
encounters with Glory were sporadic at first, so they weren't
exactly holding on to the sphere waiting for her to show up. They
were also silly enough to sell her the fixins' for a giant serpent
creature that could sniff out The Key, too. They make mistakes
sometimes.
"4) After making such a HUGE song and dance about how Glory
was different, and how just beating her up was not an option,
Buffy.......beats her up. Not sure if that is a plothole or just
a source of disapointment."
Regular human strength, vamp strength, and Buffy's Slayer strength
couldn't hurt Glory (except after Willow's spells). The Troll
hammer had incalcuable power -- remember how it staggered Buffy
to be hit by the hammer?
"5) I saw Xander get hit with that Troll God's hammer......twice.
If this hammer is such a powerful weapon that it hurts Glory,
shouldn't it have, like, killed Xander?"
When did this happen? In Triangle? Maybe Buffy wielding the hammer
had more power behind it than the Troll wielding the hammer. That
makes sense, since Buffy has Slayer strength, while the source
of the troll's strength was all within the hammer. Buffy plus
hammer is stronger than troll plus hammer.
"6) Lets face it, the whole "the blood must stop flowing"
to close the portal is shaky. In what sense does Dawn's blood
stop flowing? Must it stop flowing through her veins, or flowing
from her wounds. Could they have just bandaged her up? "
See above.
"7) So, how come this key, with near limitless power, can
only open the door between dimensions so infrequently ( apparently
Glory would have to wait aeons for the next oppurtunity to use
it ), and following on from that......."
It seems pretty usual to me that magickal events require an appropriate
correspondence to certain astronomical events.
"8) Glory points out that this is her one oppurtunity to
use the key, as she is trapped in a human prison which will die
in 60/70 yrs, barring accidents. So why the hell did the monks
make the key a 14yr old girl living on a hellmouth? Hmmmmm, personally,
I'd have gone for the "lets make it a piece of rock in the
centre of the moon" option myself. Or the "how about
making the key a 26 yr old bloke with super strength/speed/incredible
magic powers who knows that a nasty hellgod is after him and can
thus run away and hide if he needs to". Or..........submit
your own suggestion. Anything which prevents Glory from getting
her hands on the key before she and Ben die."
The monks wanted to choose someone to protect The Key. They felt
that by making The Key human, they would create an ideal situation
for protection because of the emotional committment the chosen
protector would feel for The Key. They chose someone with super
strength (both mental and physical endurance) as their choice.
And they were right.
Also, since when can anyone but God create life? Why would the
monks be able to give Dawn a spark of life? I think Buffy's idea
that the monks made Dawn out of her makes tons of sense, since
they couldn't create from a blank page so to speak -- they needed
already living material to work from.
"Oh, and yes, I know that at one point Buffy cut herself
and let some of Dawn's blood mingle with hers, but that still
doesn't make her the key. Her blood is still not Dawn's blood.
Using the season 5 finale's logic, Glory could have cut Dawn and
kept a pint of her blood, poured a bit of it into some hapless
human victim pulled off the street and Viola! we have a spare
key."
There are two elements here -- the shared blood, but also the
kinship of sisterhood and of motherhood (Dawn made by the monks
from Buffy).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> PERFECT Explanations,
Rowan! -- Rob, 11:24:03 06/05/01 Tue
Thanks for writing your post, Rowan. I agree with you completely,
and would have said much of the same sort of explanation for all
of that stuff...but you beat me to it. LOL. (You also said it
far better than I ever could...)
I'm sick of people jumping so quickly to call something a "plot
hole"! Sometimes the problem is people taking things too
literally or scientifically, not in the terms of the rules of
the fantasy world. Joss, as usual, followed the rules for his
world perfectly, if you carefully examine everything that happened.
As you said, we already know the troll's hammer could beat the
Slayer. Therefore the Slayer weilding it could beat someone up
to enormous effect, especially it being the weapon of a god. The
Dagonsphere was there. Tara's brain-renewal was fair, too...Willow
in essence reversed Glory's spell. We already knew that Glory
sucks brains to gain energy, so therefore it follows suit that
if the energy is taken away from her, she will weaken, maybe even
act crazy like her victims. Glory was beat not by a deus ex machina,
but by clues that were all carefully placed throughout this year
in the show. And, from a scientific point of view, who is to say
that Dawn doesn't have the exact genetic blood of Buffy? After
all, for all intents and purposes, she shouldn't exist in the
first place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: PERFECT Explanations,
Rowan! -- rowan, 15:01:07 06/05/01 Tue
Okay, now I'll let you in on a secret. There is one thing that
really bothers me because my mind does not naturally produce an
explanation. It's gnawing at me like a sore tooth (kind of like
these other things bother other people).
How did both Dawn and Buffy know that jumping into the portal
would kill them as well as end the flow of blood? Did we have
any clue about that one at all? Both came to this conclusion very
quickly and naturally during the last scene, but I'm not sure
why.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> My explanation...
-- Rob, 13:20:31 06/07/01 Thu
I thought that Buffy and Dawn jumping into the portal was as simple
as this:
(1) Whichever one of them died, it would have to be done quickly.
Neither sister would have been able to kill the other psychologically,
and so, since they are at the top of a high precipice, jumping
seemed the easiest way to end their lives.
(2) By instinct, perhaps Buffy and/or Dawn decided that jumping
straight into the portal would make it close faster. Perhaps they
figured that it would speed up the death and occur right at the
root of the evil, perhaps closing the portal faster. I'm not sure
if jumping into the portal is actually what did it...I kind of
think it would have closed right away no matter how Dawn or Buffy
was killed, but that's just what they chose to do.
Does that make any sense?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not perfect, but
pretty good Rowan :) -- AK-UK, 16:18:47 06/05/01 Tue
Firstly, lets make something very clear. If we say that BtVS should
be treated as myth, then NO criticism based on plot, continuity,
or character can ever rightfully be made. Ever. If you want to
take that view, then fine. I don't agree with that view, so I'll
call it as I see it.
Ooooh, that sounds really harsh. Didn't mean it like that. Sorry
:)
Now, on to Rowan's answers
1) No-one has disputed that Dawn and Buffy share blood, that was
well foreshadowed, the question is "is the shared blood enough
for her to close the portal"? On this we disagree. The power
of the key was in the blood, so if Buffy can close the portal,
does she share the power of the key? If she displays some of this
power in season 6 than this plot hole disappears. And there isn't
really anything scientifically arbitary about asking about DNA.
2) Good point. I like your explaination.
3) Oh come on Rowan! How stupid do you think the SG are??? They
unwittingly sold Glory the ingredients for that spell; do you
think they would have done the same thing if they had known who
she was? That Buffy, Giles, Willow, Tara, Xander and Anya should
all forget about such a useful weapon........it's just silly.
4) and 5) Like I said, that wasn't a plot hole. but "Buffy
beats up the major bad guy/girl" is getting kind of boring.
And I would just make to points regarding the hammer. First, I
don't see why the hammers ability to stagger Buffy makes it a
weapon of incalcuable power. A good punch to the face from a vampire
can stagger her. Secondly, if you are right, then Xander should
really have been hurt more by it.
6) See above :)
7) You're right again.....but there just seems something a bit.....no,
it's just me :)
8) This one will never sit easy with me. They gave her to the
Slayer and the scoobies, which so nearly resulted in disaster
(hell, this bunch was so useless they forgot about the Dagon sphere
:) Dawn was completely incapable of defending herself. Why didn't
the monks make her stronger, faster etc? We are talking about
the Key here, a thing of almost limitless power, capable of destroying
the world! Give her some powers! As I've said a million times,
I love Dawn, she is a great, and I'll happily sacrifice logic
for wonderful characters like her....I just wish I could have
both.
I'm slightly baffled by your second to last point. Who says no-one
but God can create life?
And Rob, seriously, if you are getting sick of people going on
about plotholes, it's probably a good idea to avoid threads with
the word "plotholes" in the title :)
Anyway, thanks for the intelligent answers. I've got some warm
salty water if anyone wants to de-cramp their fingers after all
that typing:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not
perfect, but pretty good Rowan :) -- rowan, 17:14:54 06/05/01
Tue
Hmmm...well, usually I hate these plothole debates because they
make me crazy (because I liked this season so much), but you put
your points in a way that doesn't trigger my craziness impulse.
Thank you. Let's see if I can respond rationally to your very
rational points. ;)
"Firstly, lets make something very clear. If we say that
BtVS should be treated as myth, then NO criticism based on plot,
continuity, or character can ever rightfully be made. Ever. If
you want to take that view, then fine. I don't agree with that
view, so I'll call it as I see it."
Who says you can't criticize a myth? Not me. After all, every
story needs to have some internal, logical order to it (James
Joyce aside!) or we wouldn't enjoy it IMO (now I'll probably have
the post-modernists after me...). I guess my point is just that
these things were not so worrisome to me because the story arc
was really speaking to me so strongly on another level.
"3) Oh come on Rowan! How stupid do you think the SG are???"
Well, they must be pretty stupid, because they had the Dagon Sphere
for months and didn't use it. ;) Seriously, though, I didn't get
the impression in The Gift that the sphere was really affecting
Glory very much, since she caught and crushed it easily. My impression
was that Willow's brainsuck did the real damage.
Also, these people are selling the parts and pieces of some very
powerful magickal rituals. Shouldn't they take a few minutes to
think about what they're selling? And they did know Glory's description,
because later they figured out it was her. So I do charge them
with befuddledness.
"I'm slightly baffled by your second to last point. Who says
no-one but God can create life?"
Well, I guess what I'm saying is, who are these monks to just
create people? Generally, when you're seeing a mythology unveiled
before your eyes over a period of time, you start getting some
hints about things like -- where did life begun? is there a higher
power? if so, what does it do? And creating life tends to be one
of those things that the average joe can't do in alot of myths
-- it tends to be the province of the "higher power",
whoever that may be -- and those that dabble in it get burnt.
I mean, can just anybody mix up a person? where would they get
the soul? catalog shopping?
So for me, my mind was already racing about how the monks could
have "made" a person long before The Gift.
"8) This one will never sit easy with me. They gave her to
the Slayer and the scoobies, which so nearly resulted in disaster
(hell, this bunch was so useless they forgot about the Dagon sphere
:) Dawn was completely incapable of defending herself. Why didn't
the monks make her stronger, faster etc? We are talking about
the Key here, a thing of almost limitless power, capable of destroying
the world! Give her some powers! As I've said a million times,
I love Dawn, she is a great, and I'll happily sacrifice logic
for wonderful characters like her....I just wish I could have
both."
Maybe Spells R Us store sent the monks the wrong Make a Human
from Energy Spell Kit -- they got weak innocent instead of burly
strong guy. :)
Now can someone explain to me why Buffy and Dawn knew to jump?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
How the Monks got Buffy's Blood -- Brian, 09:40:44 06/06/01 Wed
I think this was posted somewhere else on this board. But if you
recall Buffy vs Dracula (that very strange and surreal opening
episode), Dracula drank Buffy's blood. Dracula was an agent (
an illusion) of the monks. Remember that Buffy couldn't kill him.
So, he just dematerialized, and went back to the Monk's lab where
they continued to put Dawn together. Therefore, Dawn's blood,
etc is Buffy's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not
perfect, but pretty good Rowan :) -- Masquerade, 14:18:27 06/13/01
Wed
Yes, I think a distinction needs to be made between a show breaking
the rules of the real universe (e.g., magic is against the laws
of physics) and a show breaking its own internal rules.
It was well-foreshadowed that Buffy and Dawn both had "Summer's
blood", but what made Dawn's blood "special" was
that it was blood transformed from the Key's energy, not that
it was genetically Summers'. Buffy was not transformed from Key
energy (as far as we know). So it was the "Key-like"
properties of Dawn's blood that gave her the ability to open and
close portals, not the "Summers" qualities.
Buffy's blood should not have been able to close the portal Dawn
opened.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Not perfect, but pretty good Rowan :) -- Rufus, 14:57:11 06/13/01
Wed
When I thought of the scene in Blood Ties, I figured there was
a big point to having it there. With all the talk of DNA it made
sense that Buffy would connect the family ties and act upon it.
The fact that she mentioned that Dawn was part of her made that
tie stronger. The reason it worked is that Buffy believed so much
in her tie to Dawn that her jump into the portal worked. We may
never be able to fully understand why, but, not all questions
get answered. So I look at the results.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Not perfect, but pretty good Rowan :) -- Justin, 16:15:49 06/14/01
Thu
Might have been interesting if Buffy hurled herself off the precipice
gracefully and splattered messily on the concrete below and the
portal stayed open. Buffy would have looked PREEEETTTTY silly.
As to their jumping, Rowan, I thought that it was Dawn's original
idea just to JUMP. Not in the portal. But the fall WOULD have
killed her. The fall, on the other hand, would NOT have killed
Buff. Cause it didn't kill Spikey. So Buffy had to come up with
SOME way to kill herself, right? Icky pukey on the throat slashing.
Portals is such a LUUVELY way to die. Justin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes,
but... -- rowan, 09:19:29 06/16/01 Sat
How can you separate the Key properties of Dawn's blood from the
Summers' properties? Once the monks "made Dawn from Buffy",
they created a link between then whereby Dawn and Buffy now shared
blood. The first effect was that they both had Summers' blood.
But the unintended effect of that was to also now endow Buffy
with Key blood. This is part of the tremendous mystery of the
making of the Key into human flesh. As I mentioned early in the
season, the monks could not possibly have foreseen all the consequences
of this clothing the Key energy in flesh. They both made it more
fragile (the Key could be killed and the energy released unintentionally)
and more powerful.
If a=c and b=c, then a=c means that if Dawn/Key = Summers and
Buffy = Summers, then Dawn/Key = Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Yes, but... -- Malandanza, 12:38:15 06/16/01 Sat
"If a=c and b=c, then a=c means that if Dawn/Key = Summers
and Buffy = Summers, then Dawn/Key = Buffy."
I think you meant "if a=b and b=c, then a=c" (transitive
property of equality) :)
Transitivity doesn't hold with every relationship. Consider "is
the first cousin of" as an operation:
George is the first cousin of Rebecca, Rebecca is the first cousin
of Hubert; therefore, George is the first cousin of Hubert? George
and Hubert could be brothers, or totally unrelated: the transitive
property fails.
If we write the propositions using the language of logic, we have
"All people to be referred to as Dawn are Summers" and
"All people to be referred to as Dawn are Keys," the
best conclusion we can come to (using the laws of logic) is "Some
Summers are Keys" -- which tells us nothing about a particular
Summers, like Buffy.
I agree with Masquerade -- if the death of the key was required
to close the portal, then Buffy's death should not have closed
the portal. To me, the interesting part of this conditional (if-then,
for you computer programmers :) statement is found by examining
the contrapositive: If Buffy's death closed the portal, then the
death of the key was not required. The contrapositive is logically
equivalent to the original statement, so if the original statement
is true, the contrapositive necessarily must also be true. Thus,
Dawn's death was not a specific requirement to close the portal.
Perhaps anyone's death would have sufficed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Yes, but... -- Scout, 14:52:52 06/16/01 Sat
I agree with Masquerade too, but you've now put it in a way I
can understand, sort of (as an English graduate now grappling
with programming). Thing is, either you buy it or you don't. If
you don't, then you get yelled at by the people who buy it no
matter if it makes sense or not because it's "magic"
and thus it's easier to swallow without question.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Yes, but... -- rowan, 17:24:57 06/16/01 Sat
Sorry if you think I'm yelling...I don't mean to be. I'm really
not trying to convert anyone, either. I can certainly see both
sides of the coin here. I was just trying to elaborate on why
it works emotionally for me.
I too, have some problems with a couple of things in The Gift
(as I mentioned above). I'm not quite sure where this "jump
into the portal and close it thing" came from, other than
Dawn and Buffy's instinct.
Overall, though, I found this season so powerful emotionally that
I can accept some inconsistency or doubt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Yes, but... -- rowan, 17:22:21 06/16/01 Sat
Sorry typo in my equation! You must be a teacher or an editor
unable to pass these things by without noting them. :)
Of course, I'm of the radical opinion that Hank and Joyce's blood
would have also closed the portal, unless we are to take Joss's
words that "the monks made her out of me" very, very
seriously.
My basic case is this (and it's not really based on the logic
equation, by the way, I just threw that in for good measure).
When the monks created Dawn six months ago, they created her in
a way that she was inserted into everyone's lives as if she had
always existed. Because of that, at the time of her birth (not
her creation by monks, but her birth into the Summers family)
she did share blood with Buffy's family. Therefore, they became
key-like as well, since they had to have key-like properties in
order to produce Dawn.
That's one argument.
Another is that because Dawn was made out of Buffy specifically,
and then the whole "create the lifetime of memories"
thing happened, the essence of the Key became shared by Buffy.
Another argument is that because Buffy believed that she could
substitute for Dawn, it because either symbolically or empirically
possible. I believe it, so it is.
Another argument is that the PtB found the substitution acceptable,
so they allowed it (a little less aesthetically pleasing as a
solution).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Yes, but... -- Malandanza, 20:18:06 06/16/01 Sat
"My basic case is this... when the monks created Dawn six
months ago, they created her in a way that she was inserted into
everyone's lives as if she had always existed. Because of that,
at the time of her birth (not her creation by monks, but her birth
into the Summers family) she did share blood with Buffy's family.
Therefore, they became key-like as well, since they had to have
key-like properties in order to produce Dawn."
Are you talking about going back in time? That Dawn was physically
born to Joyce instead of just appearing out of thin air? (I hate
time travel!) Even then, Dawn should only have shared blood with
Joyce, not Buffy. Even supposing the Monks went further back (to
conception) that would mean that Dawn shared much of the same
DNA with Buffy, Hank and Joyce, not that Buffy, Hank and Joyce
shared "Keyness" with Dawn. There is no reason to believe
that Buffy or her family somehow became spare keys simply because
Dawn's mortal form was drawn from them. Also -- this theory suggests
that Dawn is, in fact, real and her memories are real. Buffy saw
with a spell that Dawn is part of a false reality imposed upon
her by the monks.
"Of course, I'm of the radical opinion that Hank and Joyce's
blood would have also closed the portal, unless we are to take
Joss's words that "the monks made her out of me" very,
very seriously...Another [theory] is that because Dawn was made
out of Buffy specifically, and then the whole "create the
lifetime of memories" thing happened, the essence of the
Key became shared by Buffy."
This is the theory that I adhere to. The monks took a great big
slice o' Buffy and wrapped it around the key. The fake memories
appear fake (like Dawn being brought home from the hospital).
Other memories seem too real -- Buffy telling Giles how Dawn cried
when her father left, the seashells gathered on vacation, etc.
I believe that these memories were stolen from Buffy's childhood
and given to Dawn to make her seem more real. It may also help
to explain why Dawn was so young -- Buffy's distant childhood
memories might not be missed, but if the monks had removed parts
of Buffy's recent hopes, traumas, and aspirations, she might have
noticed the holes in her mind. So I accept that Dawn may have
a bit of the Slayer in her, but not the other way around.
"Another argument is that because Buffy believed that she
could substitute for Dawn, it because either symbolically or empirically
possible. I believe it, so it is."
So reality is subjective? I must say that I find it implausible
that Buffy is enough of a masochist to dream up a life for herself
filled with every imaginable hardship :)
"Another argument is that the PtB found the substitution
acceptable, so they allowed it (a little less aesthetically pleasing
as a solution)."
Definitely not aesthetically pleasing! The PtB are too apathetic,
anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Reality is *collectively* subjective -- OnM,
20:55:39 06/16/01 Sat
Little late joining in, but since this particular theory is one
that I share, and in fact postulated quite some long time ago,
I just wanted to chip in with my thoughts.
*** "So reality is subjective? I must say that I find it
implausible that Buffy is enough of a masochist to dream up a
life for herself filled with every imaginable hardship."
***
Most theories of reality being formed by an act of mind or will,
allow that it is almost impossible for a single individual to
form or even slightly alter said reality-- it is the *collective*
will of thousands of sentient entities that forms the reality.
This isn't a perfect analogy, but think of reality as a beach,
made up of trillions of grains of sand. Even in the grip of the
fiercest storm, moving one single grain won't significantly change
the makeup of the beach.
Now visualize the grains as sentient living creatures. That's
the collective universe. For one creature to have a significant
effect on the rest of the *universe*, it would have to be an extraordinary
creature, i.e. had 'godlike' powers. In the mythological Buffyverse,
like in many other SF and fantasy universes before it, the appearance
of such a powerful being is a tried and true storytelling device,
one recent example being one of Joss' favorite films, *The Matrix*,
where Neo plays this role.
Buffy is Neo, just not quite as far along yet. Whether her blood
is an exact match for Dawn's isn't a requirement. Buffy can alter
reality to the slight extent necessary to make her blood able
to close the portal opened by Dawn's blood.
This reality-bending behavior on Buffy's part has been demonstrated
a number of times before, so there is significant backstory available
on it.
So, very much not a plothole for yours truly! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Reality is *collectively* subjective
-- Malandanza, 06:23:22 06/17/01 Sun
The big problem I have with subjective reality on BtVS is that
it invalidates Buffy's sacrifice. Essentially, what you are saying
is that Buffy's death closed the portal because Buffy believed
her death would close the portal. Her sacrifice becomes meaningless
-- if she had convinced herself that chopping off Ben's evil head
and tossing it into the portal would close it, that should have
worked just as well (or if someone else had convinced her -- like
if Giles brought out his hypnotic crystals from helpless). Taken
to an extreme, if Buffy believed that a handful of miniature marshmallows,
blessed by a priest, tossed into the portal would shut it down,
that would work, too. It shows that our heroine has a distinct
lack of imagination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Or just a death wish! -- Masq, 09:43:42
06/17/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent Point! I have no
rebuttal :) -- Malandanza, 14:04:59 06/17/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Blood Ties -- Rufus, 21:42:48 06/17/01
Sun
The gift of death was only for Buffy. If you go back to the blood
thing remember the memories of Joyce giving birth to Dawn are
built. If they in fact made Dawn from Buffy and only Buffy their
blood tie would be the strongest. Even if she was made from Joyce
and you could consider Hank, Joyce, or Buffy a substitute then
you'd have the problem of Joyce being dead, Hank being wherever,
and Buffy still being the only other option to Dawn at that moment.
Also if you still aren't clear about the blood tie to the key,
I thought that as Dawn was human the compostion of the key became
human, with human blood, still the key but in human form. That
would make it so Buffys blood could be accepted as a replacement
for the key. If you consider a paternity test you can get it down
to over 99% a genetic match. Buffy may not have been what the
key originally was but Dawn is now a genetic match for Buffy.
Buffy used that when she referenced the memory from Blood Ties.
Dawn has Summers blood. The blood that dripped into the portal
was Summers blood. Human blood that matched the blood that opened
the portal was needed to close it. Imperfect science that you
may question, but the results speak for themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Squares and Rectangles --
Malandanza, 05:15:15 06/18/01 Mon
"Also if you still aren't clear about the blood tie to the
key, I thought that as Dawn was human the compostion of the key
became human, with human blood, still the key but in human form.
That would make it so Buffys blood could be accepted as a replacement
for the key. If you consider a paternity test you can get it down
to over 99% a genetic match. Buffy may not have been what the
key originally was but Dawn is now a genetic match for Buffy...The
blood that dripped into the portal was Summers blood. Human blood
that matched the blood that opened the portal was needed to close
it. Imperfect science that you may question, but the results speak
for themselves."
I accept that Dawn has Summers blood -- and that a DNA test would
prove that she is a very close genetic match for her sister (perhaps
significantly more than the usual 50% for siblings). But that
doesn't mean Buffy's blood should have the same metaphysical properties
as the Key's. Here's a math analogy: think of Dawn as a square
and Buffy as a rectangle. Squares have all the same properties
as rectangles (and are merely special rectangles) so every theorem
regarding rectangles also works for squares. I wouldn't have had
a problem with Dawn sacrificing herself in Buffy's place for a
Slayer prophecy or giving blood for Joyce's operation (or even
donating organs). The converse is not true, however. Theorems
involving the special properties of squares do not hold for rectangles.
Similarly, Buffy should not have been able to substitute herself
for Dawn in the sacrifice involving the unique nature of the Key.
Which brings me back to this proposition(unless you accept the
whole subjective reality concept -- which I do not:):
If the death of the Key was required to close the portal, then
Buffy's death should not have closed the portal, . and its contrapositive:
If Buffy's death closed the portal, then the death of the Key
was not required.
I think that Buffy and the Scoobies were caught in a big deception
-- Dawn's death was never mandatory. Ancient scrolls about the
key made human (a Key that had been human for six months)? I don't
believe it -- someone, or something, wanted Buffy to kill Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Squares and Rectangles
-- Masquerade, 09:18:39 06/18/01 Mon
"I think that Buffy and the Scoobies were caught in a big
deception -- Dawn's death was never mandatory. Ancient scrolls
about the key made human (a Key that had been human for six months)?
I don't believe it -- someone, or something, wanted Buffy to kill
Dawn."
That's the best explanation I've heard so far. I was never comfortable
with the logic behind what Giles read from the scroll, for one
thing. "The key opens the portal", "to open it,
they have to let her blood flow into the portal", "to
stop it, the blood flow must stop", "ergo, we must kill
Dawn". I always thought--"Why don't they just put some
bandages on Dawn's cuts and get her the hell out of there? That
would stop the flow of blood into the portal, too."
Recall that they got these scrolls from Doc, who went out of his
way to draw Spike's attention to them under the guise of protecting
them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Squares and Rectangles
-- Rufus, 15:24:30 06/18/01 Mon
For whatever reason Buffys blood was accepted as a replacement.
I understand that you think that the key wouldn't have died but
the form of Dawn would have been and that is what Buffy was out
to save. She was out to save the reality that was Dawn. I agree
that Doc had a reason to want the key reverted back to pure energy
so it could be used as he wished. Even Glory said that the forms
or bodies that Dawn and she inhabited were rentals. The key may
not have died but Dawn would have and Buffy couldn't live with
that. This reminds me of what we spoke about when Angel was able
to enter Kates home to revive her, no answer was given and we
may not get an answer to why Buffys jumping into the portal worked.......season
six won't come too soon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Blood Ties -- sssaaammm,
12:55:16 06/21/01 Thu
Even as sisters, it would still be possible for their blood to
be as different as B's being type A and D's being type O. The
portal did not need blood to open it but the key's energy. Having
similar genes to the key does not give you the key-energy Dawn
has.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Yes, but... -- rowan, 10:51:55 06/17/01
Sun
You know the whole intellectual problem with this Buffy substitutes
as Key thing -- it brings up all these issues of the time dimension.
What is real of what the monks created and what is not? How did
it affect the present day characters? If Buffy feels that her
memories of Dawn are real, do the Scoobies feel the same? I mean,
once you start messing with the past in the future, then what
happens? I can get my brain all tangled up by movies like Frequency
and The Devil's Advocate where two timelines are being presented
at the same time. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Yes, but... -- AK-UK, 19:29:40 06/17/01
Sun
Man, I really must remember that no thread ever dies on this board
(and that's a GOOD thing).
Suffice to say I agree with everyone who says that Buffy's death
shouldn't have closed the portal, and that she did have a death
wish.
And, like rowan, I wonder if the pre-Dawn SG are the same as the
post-Dawn SG. For example, in "Superstar" Jonathan's
presence meant that Buffy hadn't crushed the bones of the Master.....maybe
hadn't killed the Master in the first place. Life changing moments
in Buffy's life hadn't happened. Now, what effect has Dawn's presence
had on BtVS history? Maybe Xander is stupider than he should be,
maybe Willow is more powerful than she would have been. Buffy
was pissed with Jonathan for screwing with everyones memories,
but was pacified by the fact that reality returned. So, why is
no-one asking whether they can have their old memories back this
time? I know the monks are dead, but I'd still be looking for
a spell that could get the real me back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> In case anyone reads all the way
down here. :) -- mundusmundi, 11:24:16 06/18/01 Mon
>>Now, what effect has Dawn's presence had on BtVS history?<<
Well, of course there's the old idea that even so much as stepping
on a bug would alter the entire history of the world. (Hilariously
spoofed in a Simpsons' Halloween ep way back when.) I s'pose one
could argue that Jonathan's spell was deliberately designed to
make him an influence on everything, whereas the monks made sure
the Dawnster's presence didn't affect the present or anybody personally
in any way...Buuuuut, that'd be diving back into the intellectual
quagmire those guys left us, and *nobody* wants that! ;)
>>So, why is no-one asking whether they can have their old
memories back this time?<<
I would guess b/c they all love Dawn and they love their memories
of her, fictitious or not. This is a great question, though, one
I hope gets explored next season. I'd love to see some scenes,
"Back to the Future" style, of old episodes, refashioned
with Dawn in them. Dawn and Angel, Dawn and Faith. Lotsa possibilities
there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Just so you don't feel like
a tree falling in a woods with no one there to hear it, I read
this! :) -- rowan, 15:07:29 06/18/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thx, Rowan. Always
enjoy your posts, BTW. -- mundusmundi, 15:15:35 06/18/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Right back at
you! -- rowan, 15:37:09 06/18/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Heya, make that two of us
who read it! :-) -- Solitude1056, 16:50:39 06/18/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm content to peer
over your shoulders....... -- Rufus, 17:18:04 06/18/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> There's always good stuff
lurking at the bottom of the page! -- Wisewoman, 17:28:04 06/18/01
Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Buffy's blood, Buffy's sacrifice -- Rahael, 14:34:10 06/21/01
Thu
On another website, I read a great theory about Buffy's death
(apologies for not being able to give credit). Pointed out the
similarities between the Gift and 'THe Lion THe Witch and the
wardrobe' - where Aslan has to die, in order to allow Edmund to
escape - it was simply an ancient law, going back to the dawn
of time. Blood for blood.
I think blood as a motif in season 5 is much larger than a literal
Buffy = dawn blood. THe series starts with Buffy tasting blood,
its power, it ends with her sacrificing hers. Other people may
see a plot hole about how Buffy's blood could stop the portal
- I find it perfectly satisfactory, and it doesn't involve suspension
of belief. Blood signifies both life and death - the themes of
Season 5. It also stands for kinship, another theme. Buffy's death
draws all of these ideas together. Its a metaphor.
I don't know how well I have expressed this! Maybe someone else
can do a better job :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Buffy's blood, Buffy's sacrifice -- rowan, 20:16:23
06/21/01 Thu
I agree -- blood for blood. If you read a little further down
on this thread, OnM talks about subjective reality (with a little
magick commentary from me). If the closing of the portal was "magickal",
for Buffy's sacrifice to have enough efficacy to accomplish it,
a blood sacrifice would be the thing that could do it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Buffy's blood, Buffy's sacrifice -- Dedalus,
09:13:32 06/22/01 Fri
Well, I brought up The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe on this
site. Alas, only got one response. But it seems to work. Especially
when you take into account Willow did that for her book report
in Restless.
I think Joss is rather fond of it. I've seen him mention CS Lewis
several times.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Season 5 Disillusionment -- cjc_36, 12:01:46 06/03/01
Sun
When Joss said the comment about not liking cliffhangers, I laughed.
He what?
I think he was putting us on. The man behind Becoming pt. II not
only likes cliffhangers, he's a fan of them, I dare say.
Season 5 has plot holes. Okay. I'll give them these, but they
aren't catastrophic. The acting and the dialog writing in The
Gift were there, big time. And as long as I think Buffy believed
her blood would close the portal--which, of course, it did--then
it still works for me. A stretch? Yeah. But not a hugely bad one,
especially based on past X-Files mythos plot disasters. Now if
they start doing it all the time, then I'll have a problem. But
now, this once season, it's fine considering the emotional 'notes'
they played and the fine acting that was done by all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Season 5 Disillusionment -- Countess Karnstein, 06:38:57
06/05/01 Tue
And please add the whole Buffy/Spike storyline to the list of
plot holes, in this instance a huge one. Where did THAT come from?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Season 5 Disillusionment -- Q, 12:21:48 06/09/01 Sat
Personally, I think Joss respects our creativity and intelligence
enough to not patronize us. He could have spoonfed us all of that
information, but there is a point where the audience has to come
up with interpretations on their own, and decide what is happening
without it being dumped on us letter for letter.
A lot of people are smart enough to figure out things like that
on their own, or devise their own theories, some are not. It is
obvious by your very mean and condescending reply to DARK PHOENIX
(especially in regards to his/her education) that you are *very*
insecure in your own education and intelligence and need to deal
with that before getting personal and taking it out on other board
posters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Amen to that, Q!! -- Rob, 11:32:40 06/15/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Season 5 Disillusionment -- George Avalos, 17:11:34
06/11/01 Mon
Those are all perfectly legitimate questions. Some may be more
important than others.
But surely, if unanswered questions cause you so much disappointment,
then you must have been in a towering rage in years past.
For example, after 'Becoming 2,' we didn't know... --where did
Buffy go? --would Buffy ever return? --what happened to Angel?
--what was in the note Buffy wrote to Mrs. Summers? --what would
be the consequences for Xander's lie? --what spirit possessed
Willow? --would Spike keep his promise to leave forever?
There also were plenty of unanswered questions raised by the 'Restless'
dreams.
I just wonder if you're applying the same standards to these other
two seasons, which left quite a bit up in the air.
--George
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Season 5 Disillusionment -- mundusmundi, 14:51:19
06/18/01 Mon
>>For example, after 'Becoming 2,' we didn't know... --where
did Buffy go? --would Buffy ever return? --what happened to Angel?
--what was in the note Buffy wrote to Mrs. Summers? --what would
be the consequences for Xander's lie? --what spirit possessed
Willow? --would Spike keep his promise to leave forever?<<
Very true, all those questions were unanswered at the end of Becoming.
However, because most of them were incidental or irrelevant to
B2's plot arc, I'm not sure they make an accurate analogy with
what Virgill's talking about.
Maybe a better analogy would be if, say, nothing about Angel's
soul had ever been mentioned, or we never saw Jenny Calendar save
the curse to disk, or we weren't told that Angel's blood could
close the portal just as it opened it. *Then* there might have
been a lot of head scratching and debates along the lines we're
seeing here.
Not to dive into all of it again -- my nitpicks have already been
mentioned, and more succinctly, by many others above -- but IMO
Joss did a less effective job 'splainin' things in B5 than he
has in seasons' past. For me, there's a difference between plot
threads that *should* have been sewed up better pre-"Gift"
(e.g., Buffyblood, the Byzantine knights, the collective amnesia
over that daggone Dagon Sphere), and threads that were largely
irrelevant and can be left hanging a while longer (the hellgods,
the power of the Key, Dawn's klepto impulses).
Mostly, though, I enjoyed this past season. And I would still
argue that, for all the loose ends, Joss doesn't do cliffhangers.
A cliffhanger to "The Gift" would have ended with Buffy
jumping, followed by a freeze-frame as she hangs suspended in
mid-air and an annoying voiceover ominously intoning, "Will
Buffy survive??? Will Anya be in a coma??? What *is* the deal
with Spike's hair??? Tune in, in four months, and find out!!!"
Overall, "The Gift" was a nice conclusion to the season.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Season 5 Disillusionment -- rowan, 15:11:24
06/18/01 Mon
"Mostly, though, I enjoyed this past season. And I would
still argue that, for all the loose ends, Joss doesn't do cliffhangers.
A cliffhanger to "The Gift" would have ended with Buffy
jumping, followed by a freeze-frame as she hangs suspended in
mid-air and an annoying voiceover ominously intoning, "Will
Buffy survive??? Will Anya be in a coma??? What *is* the deal
with Spike's hair??? Tune in, in four months, and find out!!!"
Overall, "The Gift" was a nice conclusion to the season."
Amen to the cliffhanger comment! The thing is, with Buffy's death
if (God forbid) no other ep is ever shot, the story arc would
be complete. Sure, we wouldn't ever know the future of all the
characters, but the present would at least be resolved.
I'm thinking there's actually alot to be learned by tracing the
evolution of Spike's hair and his accent against his change of
identity. Notice that when he's trying to be tender with Dawn
the hard Cockney (?) accent is just not there? ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Stress and accents -- Rufus, 15:35:13
06/18/01 Mon
You would think that with the years of living in the States that
Spike would pick up some of the speaking habits. But it makes
sense that when he is being who he really is not the pose, his
accent would revert back to the original.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Stress and accents -- rowan,
17:34:32 06/18/01 Mon
I agree. That's how I can tell when he's saying something heartfelt
-- that belligerent, in-your-face accent goes away. "I'm
drowning in you, Summers." It's all in the tone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> It is all tone...... -- Rufus,
17:45:26 06/18/01 Mon
I like how they have done that cause when I've spoken to people
with accents when they are stressed or being very serious they
sound different...then there is the part where if something happens
extremely stressful the way they speak can totally revert back
to the language or accent of origin. When my grandad died my grandmother
started speaking like she just got off the boat from Scandinavia,
she had almost no accent before he died then after you couldn't
understand her. So I wonder with the stress of Buffy being dead
how Spike will sound?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Speaking of S6...let's
gossip a little -- rowan, 18:09:36 06/18/01 Mon
"So I wonder with the stress of Buffy being dead how Spike
will sound?"
Now, here's what's puzzling me a little. Joss usually keeps to
Realverse time in his Buffyverse as far as the year goes, right?
So when we return to the SG, three months will have passed (or
so) since Buffy's death. So some burning questions will have already
been answered.
1. Where will Dawn be? I mean, Buffy is buried, so there's a death
certificate. That means the school will know that Dawn is without
a guardian. I've heard the theory that they'll either use the
BuffyBot to impersonate Buffy or that they'll keep Dawn under
DCFS's radar, but I don't buy that.
Will Hank take her? I could see Dawn somewhere other than Sunnydale,
with Spike as her loyal vampire companion. But what happens then
when Buffy returns (how will she ever get guardianship back, BTW?)?
I remember Joss mentioning that involving Hank gets way too complicated.
I don't think Giles could be her guardian because would the courts
grant custody to a single man of 45? Willow and Tara probably
can't do it, because I assume our world isn't that liberated yet
(although maybe I do us a disservice). Xander and Anya seem like
the best possibility -- they're both employed and planning to
marry.
I assume that Spike would let Dawn live in his crypt (and Dawn
would probably love that, the little ghoul), but Spike can't support
her and he'd probably want her to have as normal a life as possible,
to fulfill what Buffy would want (plus the SG would go ballistic).
I guess these questions are a little pointless (like discussing
where Angel's money has come from) but enquiring minds want to
know!
2. Will Giles already be relocated back to England? Unless he's
Dawn's guardian, it seems as if his role as Watcher is at an end,
and he would be called back.
3. Will Xander and Anya be on the verge of marriage? They'll have
had several months to plan their wedding.
4. Spike...I figure Spike will have picked up nightly patrols
(along with others in the SG, but with him as the main guy because
he'll think that's what Buffy would want in the absence of a Slayer
in Sunnydale). I also figure that Spike will be within shouting
distance of Dawn at all times (because she's still theoretically
in danger as The Key). He'll be bereaved, guilty, but still trying
to be good for the sake of Buffy's memory and Dawn.
5. I suspect the gang will be very strongly bonded as a result
of Buffy's death. I think they will take her last wish "love
each other...be strong...live for me" very seriously.
What does everyone else think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Speaking of
S6...let's gossip a little -- Rufus, 18:44:41 06/18/01 Mon
The issue of custody could come up, I can see that the best option
may be Anya and Xander, but will Anya want Dawn as part of the
Xander package. They think Buffy is gone forever and unless they
find Hank they could have to scramble to find someone to take
charge of Dawn. I feel that Xander could end up in the Summers
home cause it would be Dawns home now. It was bought with Joyces
money so Hank would have no claim. I can see Giles as being inconsolable
about Buffys death. He had conflicted feelings about Dawn so he
would not be the best choice to take care of her. Plus, how much
cookie dough can a middle aged man eat before he goes nuts? Spike
will be the one to watch. He could turn evil because he sees nothing
left in the world to value, but I doubt that will happen. I do
see him perhaps getting a bit suicidal and acting out a death
wish of his own by continuing to kill demons. Plus he has had
his life complicated by a promise to a lady that I think he will
attempt to keep. I don't think they are going to find Docs body
so Dawn is indeed in danger from a man that may be the opposite
to the monks. The monks were attempting to harness the energy
of the key to work for the purposes of light, Doc may be a guy
that wants to use the power of the key to continue to do evil.
As the season starter has Buffy coming back in the second half
of the season premiere I think the gang will have attempted to
stay together to help Dawn live in this world. So that would mean
that their energy would be focused on preserving the Summers home
and keeping Dawn as secure as possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Speaking
of S6...let's gossip a little -- rowan, 19:20:49 06/18/01 Mon
"As the season starter has Buffy coming back in the second
half of the season premiere I think the gang will have attempted
to stay together to help Dawn live in this world. So that would
mean that their energy would be focused on preserving the Summers
home and keeping Dawn as secure as possible."
Yes, I think they'll try to hang on to the house too, to keep
a firm family base. I could see perhaps Xander and Anya living
there with Dawn (or maybe Willow will try to take the lead). Tons
of fanfic has Spike living in the basement. I mean, really...why
the basement for goodness sake? If he's going to live there, can't
he have a bedroom?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Xander
is a carpenter......... -- Rufus, 20:05:52 06/18/01 Mon
They could give him an upstairs bedroom with inside shutters to
block out the sun in the daytime. I do wonder if he prefers a
firm matress.....? But for the blood....well....when he eats may
I suggest he clean out the mug right after his red entree.....blood
starts to smell pretty quickly. But,....yes if they don't build
a basement suite for the vamp they could adapt a room for him.....of
course he would probobly spend hours in Buffys room so he could
smell her clothes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Xander is a carpenter......... -- rowan, 20:15:06 06/18/01
Mon
Okay, I've officially lost it.
"They could give him an upstairs bedroom with inside shutters
to block out the sun in the daytime. I do wonder if he prefers
a firm matress.....?"
He probably prefers female mattresses. Oh God, did I say that?
Can he bring the lastest Harmonyclone home with Dawn in the house
(well, I guess Buffy brought Riley, so...)
"But for the blood....well....when he eats may I suggest
he clean out the mug right after his red entree.....blood starts
to smell pretty quickly."
Yes, that's pretty gross. I always wondered how Buffy could stand
kissing Angel, frankly. I mean, blood breath might be worse than
even coffee breath or garlic breath.
"Of course he would probobly spend hours in Buffys room so
he could smell her clothes."
He'll probably refuse to let Dawn throw them out, which will be
a good thing, especially if the PtB return Buffy naked.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Buffys naked return.......... -- Rufus, 20:38:42 06/18/01
Mon
Now I'm killing myself laughing here........Spike wouldn't be
bringing home any floosies with Dawn in the house he was after
all a Victorian male....he would just have to be content siffing
sweaters......I suggest they hang on to Buffys robe in case of
a naked return...and a soft pillow to break Spikes fall when he
beholds a naked Buffy.
As for the blood.....I do think too much and remember just how
quickly blood gets to smell....awful......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Buffys naked return.......... -- rowan, 08:51:33
06/19/01 Tue
He'd better fall backwards and not forwards or he'd definitely
sustain a soft tissue injury. LOL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> soft!? -- Solitude1056, 10:30:57 06/19/01 Tue
Ok - ROFL - I'd better shut up now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Well, sometimes. LOL -- rowan, 11:09:17
06/19/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> You guys are right out of control! I love
it!! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 11:38:46 06/19/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> They are out of control aren't they,
must be the fact that Sol is part demon....:):):):) -- Rufus,
17:48:43 06/19/01 Tue
I'm sure that if Spike sustained a nasty fall the rowan would
be there with bandages and a few volumes of poetry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: They are out of control
aren't they, must be the fact that Sol is part demon....:):):):)
-- rowan, 18:19:10 06/19/01 Tue
I'm good with soft tissue injuries, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Now you made me spray
pop on the screen...naughty........:):):) -- Rufus, 19:50:03 06/19/01
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Pop goes the weasel....:)
-- rowan, 20:12:22 06/19/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Darn, now
how do I stop these bad evil thoughts?????:):):):) -- Rufus, 20:29:20
06/19/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Season 5 Disillusionment -- Rob, 11:50:50 06/15/01 Fri
I for one am glad that Joss didn't tie everything up with a nice
pink bow. He kept things open for discussion, for imagination.
I believe it would be much less fun to watch or to analyze Buffy
if Joss were to reveal every single reason for every single thing
that happens in the show. In real life, not every question is
answered. As far as I'm concerned, every important point was brought
up and resolved in "The Gift"...and who is to say that
Joss will not explain more in the next season? I believe that
in all probability any left-over questions from this season will
have something to do with how Buffy is restored next season. I
also think it was wise of Joss to leave questions unanswered,
particuarly this year. Even at the start, he did not know the
show's fate, regarding what channel it is on. Especially on a
season finale where a show is moving channels, it is important
for the viewers to really want to watch next year, enough to switch
channels. The other part of the so-called "plot holes"
argument I don't agree with is the use of the term "plot
holes." Just because it is not immediately understood or
explained doesn't make it necessarily a "hole" in my
opinion. I'm sure Joss has an explanation in that brilliant mind
of his for everything on the show. A hole is what happened in
the finale of "Xena" in the 3rd season. Gabrielle fell
into a pit of lava, and apparently died. At the start of the next
season she was apparently saved. They never explained how, why,
or anything like that. That is a plot hole. (Actually, they made
up for that this week in the episode "Soul Possession"
where they actually answered that question, proving, I believe,
that very few plot holes are too huge to find some way to later
cover or explain them.) Buffy's blood closing the portal? Not
a hole, but an amazing occurence that can be analyzed to find
an explanation. This is the difference: In the case of the "Xena"
episode, one would need to create more PLOT to explain what happened.
In "Buffy" filling this "hole" merely requires
analysis and discussion of the rules of the Buffyverse that have
already been set out. In my opinion, Buffy's blood "tricked"
the portal. That's what I assumed from the moment I saw Buffy's
death in "The Gift." It was only when I went online
that I saw some people had a problem with that explanation. While
not identical enough to open the portal, its very similar nature
caused the portal to think it was Dawn's blood and then close,
much like the way a person's immune system and the idea of a vaccine
works. A person is given a very low non-harmful version of a disease
and the person's blood cells attack it. Once it is vanquished,
the next time a person might be introduced to that disease, it
is instantly fought by the blood cells as if it were the vaccine,
just as the blood cells fought the vaccine as if it were the disease.
Dawn's blood could be seen as the "vaccine" that opened
up the portal, so when Buffy's almost identical blood is introduced,
the portal knows its time to close.
Of course that's only my interpretation, but that's what I love
about Buffy: It's so open to interpretation, as is every part
of the Buffy mythology, from Spike's chip to the true nature of
the Gypsy curse on Angel. Joss didn't leave any plot out of the
story but some explanation. As can be evidenced by the huge amount
of "interpreters" online however, his full explanation
is not yet needed, although I think it would probably fall somewhere
between my interpretation and the idea that because Buffy's belief
was so strong, it made it so. In my opinion, both are plausible
explanations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Buffy's Naked Return & a MINI-POLL on *Magic* & still more
Subjective Reality Stuff (oooo!) -- OnM, 20:50:57 06/18/01 Mon
S'cuse me, I was just going to amiably hijack this (unfortunately)
bottom-dwelling thread to get it up near the top again, but I
can see that it's ALIVE! ALIVE, I TELL YOU! Bwahhahaha!
( Oh, sorry... where was I? Oh, yeah... )
These discussions about the portal, and the need-- or not-- for
Buffy's blood to close it continue to be very thought-provoking.
All that, and now this, too:
ITEM NUMERO UNO-- A MINI-POLL!
What are your feelings about *magic* in the Buffyverse? Do you:
A > Pretty much accept it without much thought. Whatever happens
is cool.
B > Accept it as long as there are some 'rules' that apply
so that just any old thing isn't allowed to happen whenever it's
convenient.
C > Accept it but attempt to apply some degree of scientific
logic to it, for example, magic as a manifestation of technology
or biological evolution that can alter our 'reality as collective
subconscious?'
D > Dislike the magic elements of the Buffyverse, but accept
it 'cos you love the show for other reasons?
*******
ITEM NUMERO DOS-- If you answered 'C', you're in my camp. If so,
read on. If not, read on at your own risk! ;)
Those who are interested might look up my previous post on 'Buffy
and the Collective Unconscious' in the archives, it was posted
on or about Jan. 14, 2001. In it I go into some detail on this
concept of how the Buffyverse seems to be predisposed towards
having certain entities-- Buffy included-- who are powerful enough
to 'alter reality', be it consciously or unconsciously. If for
some reason you can't find it, let me know and I can always e-mail
it to you.
*******
A couple other comments that may support this general line of
thought:
In 'Earshot', Oz makes an interesting comment after discovering
that Buffy can hear his, and that matter, everyone's thoughts,
reasoning that since Buffy is now hearing his thoughts, he is
now Buffy, he no longer exists as Oz:
"No one else exists, either. Buffy is all of us. We think,
therefore, she is."
In my old 'Kwisatz Haderach' post from last year, I noted the
following (among a lot of other stuff, of course! ;):
"At the 4th season's end, Buffy, in joining with her friends,
and calling on the power of the First Slayer, enables a level
of power far more Godlike than human, suggesting she really doesn't
yet understand the eventual power she may wield. The fact that
she turns Adam's weapons into birds, ripples of water (things
of beauty/purity?) may have significance (turning dark to light).
"
Then, back around April sometime, I wrote this:
"There was quite a lot of board bantering here last fall
after Dawn first appeared as to whether her appearance was the
result of a spell that just altered peoples' perceptions to accomodate
Dawn's presence, or whether we were dealing with an alternate
reality/timeline a la *The Wish* or *Superstar*. At the time I
voted for the alternate reality scenario (as did several others)
and Masquerade (and several others) sided with the spell. After
the monk revealed the story to Buffy, we then generally accepted
that it was a spell, and not an alternate reality. Of course,
one could still debate this, as the writers always manage to leave
some ambiguity lying around loose.
"But let's assume it was a spell. To make the thing work
in a reasonably logical fashion in my own mind, I developed the
following presumptions:
"1 > The spell acts like a virus, traveling (metaphysically)
from peson to person as the need arises to reconfigure the universe
around Dawn. So, initially, only Buffy, her mother, the Scoobies,
Spike, etc. fit into the universe. Every other person they or
Dawn contacts afterward has the 'virus' enabled in them, and their
memories are reconfigured to adapt to the new Dawn-inclusive universe.
This makes the spell self-perpetuating, just like a computer virus
that steals your address book and mails itself to everyone in
it.
"2 > The memories of a 14 year old girl were not created
directly by the monks, the spell/program/virus borrowed the DNA
of Buffy and her mother to create the raw human physical form
of Dawn (so, yes, she really is their sister/daughter biologically)
and the memories are then inserted into the newly formed brain.
The virsu begins propogation into Buffy (who you will recall is
the first to see Dawn) and then into Joyce, and then onward.
"3 > So Dawn may contain a link to 'The Key', but I do
not believe that it literally resides within her human, corporeal
form. Someone possessing the same magical (programming) skills
as the monks (such as Glory) could access the link and retrieve
the Key. Whether this would cause the destruction of the human
Dawn is still unknown."
*******
OK, so consider #3 in particular. Was anything shown that would
keep this from being the case? That is, is Dawn both *physically*
Dawn and the Key *simultaneously*, or is her physical body (and
it's blood) a *link* to the Key, which actually resides in some
other dimension or 'vibrational matrix', whatever?
If this is the case, then having 'Summer's blood' could indeed
be enough to cause a link to the Key, especially if as stated,
Dawn was 'made from Buffy'. This could therefore enable Buffy
to close the portal.
Anywho, just some additional grist for the mill. Personally, I
still go with the ability of Buffy to subconsciously alter reality
enough to imbue her blood with the 'Key' properties, and therefore
have no problem closing the portal, but I've loved reading the
other theories.
Must say, the idea of the 'blood-ties' being a ruse by Doc to
get Buffy killed is an interesting one, though-- have to give
it some space in the cerebral melange.
That's all for now! Let me know how you all feel on the 'magic'
concept, too. See ya!
OnM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy's Naked Return & a MINI-POLL on *Magic*
& still more Subjective Reality Stuff (oooo!) -- rowan, 21:07:06
06/18/01 Mon
"S'cuse me, I was just going to amiably hijack this (unfortunately)
bottom-dwelling thread to get it up near the top again, but I
can see that it's ALIVE! ALIVE, I TELL YOU! Bwahhahaha!"
I don't know if bottom-dwelling refers to the positional location
or the subject matter, but I can only say, I resemble -- er, resent
-- that remark. ;)
Hmmm...I think I need a choice E. I accept the magick in the Buffyverse
as natural energy harnessed by will for a purpose. It's efficacy
is therefore directly related to all three elements: how it is
harnessed & directly, by whom it is directed, and why it is purposed.
I don't accept it without question, but nor do I apply scientific
principles to it. I accept that magick can alter reality and the
only rules I lay upon it are that it not be easy or without consequence.
I do subscribe to your brilliant theory, BTW, that Buffy can alter
reality. Damned that portal's sinister attraction!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Yes, the Ruby Slipper theory....... -- Rufus,
21:52:00 06/18/01 Mon
Remember at the end of The Wizard of Oz (the movie version with
Garland) where all she had to do was think there is no place like
home........Buffy believed that she would be able to replace Dawn
to close the portal, her love as strong as a wish to go home.......she
believed it she it happened.....she could have altered reality
with her thoughts......or something more like in Angel could have
happened......in the end Buffy will end up home...just via death.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I don't know if bottom-dwelling refers to the
positional location or the subject matter... -- OnM, 21:57:37
06/18/01 Mon
Re: Question in post title-- Yes!
;)
Re: Magic Poll-- Well, from your description, you don't really
need an 'E' option, 'B' pretty much covers it. You accept it,
you just expect there to be limits on it and it's results.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Can I pick "all of the above"? --
Solitude1056, 09:40:50 06/19/01 Tue
I'd normally go with C, but I agree with rowan's added commentary,
that "I accept that magick can alter reality and the only
rules I lay upon it are that it not be easy or without consequence."
Very well put. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy's Naked Return & a MINI-POLL on *Magic*
& still more Subjective Reality Stuff (oooo!) -- Wisewoman, 10:48:18
06/19/01 Tue
"I accept that magick can alter reality and the only rules
I lay upon it are that it not be easy or without consequence."
I'm with her, gimme an *E*!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy's Naked Return & a MINI-POLL on *Magic*
& still more Subjective Reality Stuff (oooo!) -- mundusmundi,
06:49:53 06/19/01 Tue
Hmmmmm, actually I got big probbos with the Buffy-can-make-things-happen-by-wishing-it
theory. First, there's really no precedent for it. (Oz's comment
is funny, but I see it as just Oz-speak and not Joss telling us
what's what). Second, and most important, it goes against the
whole concept of the show, which is 1) bad things happen in this
world; and 2) wishing they'd go away won't make it so. The SG
is so appealing because they've been depicted as young people
with a heads'-up on life: They've seen evil, experienced it, and
know that sometimes, even with a Slayer around, there's nothing
you can do about it. If Buffy could close the portal just by wishing
it, what's to stop her from wishing Joyce back, or Jenny Calendar
or anything else? There have to be limits, even for a Slayer.
So, in sum, I guess I'd pick "B." :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Subjective reality does not equal 'wishing'
any more than magic equals 'wishing'. -- OnM, 10:28:08 06/19/01
Tue
I guess I'm not doing something right in my explanations so far,
have to figure out what. Anyone out there on my side of this theory
care to have a go at it? I find it puzzling that people accept
Willow 'casting a spell' and Glory teleports somewhere (for example),
but someone exercises a directly mental process to do the exact
same thing, and it's 'I don't buy that'?
Usually avoid the Trek analogies, but think about 'Q'. Now think
of Buffy as a very primitive 'Q'.
Does that make more sense?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Subjective reality does not equal
'wishing' any more than magic equals 'wishing'. -- rowan, 11:04:20
06/19/01 Tue
Maybe Masq could make her board magick happen and move this post
closer to the top of the board. ;)
OnM, I think you're being clear, but I live a magickal life everyday
in the RealVerse, so my perception is probably clouding my ability
to see this issue.
To me, I see Willow's ability to harness energy in order to alter
reality by moving Glory as the same thing as Buffy's ability to
close that portal by jumping into it. It's power that's being
exercised. Perhaps we're struggling because Willow is explicitly
"practicing magick" and Buffy is not? Are our expectations
that Willow has power of this kind but not Buffy (or Xander for
that matter)? Technically, IMHO, if Buffy can sustain the mental
concentration necessary for a vision quest, she has at least some
basic skill to harness energy to tranform reality.
Some might ask, why couldn't Buffy have closed the portal with
a bicycle pump? Well, I guess theoretically she could have, but
I doubt her chances of success. Magick needs a few things. First,
it needs energy to harness -- and that energy was in the Key's
blood. Will is needed to focus and drive the energy. Buffy didn't
believe a bicycle pump would do it. She believed Dawn's blood
could do it. Once she was able to believe her blood could work,
she gained sufficient will to achieve her purpose by harnessing
the energy.
Finally, magick requires acceptance of consequence. Buffy undertook
alot here. Whether you're a shaman, a green witch, a ceremonial
witch, or none of the above, if you accept magick in your life,
you usually accept the Threefold Law or the Law of Return. What
you send comes back. Buffy was choosing to alter the life of another.
In order to do that, she needed to accept the consequences. These
consequences were steep -- she had to sacrifice her life.
Could Xander (or anyone) do magick? Again, with will and purpose,
theoretically yes. But we're talking in particular about the Slayer.
Buffy has already surpassed the usual expiration date, hasn't
she? Although her initial powers have leaned towards the physical,
Giles has attempted to show her the more spiritual side of Slayerness.
Who knows what her mental/spiritual capabilities are? I think
we've only scratched the surface.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> No prob with the explanation....:) --
mundusmundi, 11:28:11 06/19/01 Tue
Your explanations are fine as always, OnM. I may have been just
a little slow, and my eyes too glazed, in my morning comprehension.
(Not for the first time. :))
Hope I'm not being irksome, however, if I still say...nein. However
one chooses to define it, Buffy has never exhibited that skill.
Willow can transport Glory, make stuffed animals dance, and turn
her eyes that really cool black color b/c she's been seen working
at it for a very long time -- and even then she's still getting
the kinks out of her spells. (I wouldn't have believed Willow
capable of closing the portal either.) Buffy has many great powers,
but I just don't see this Q-ish talent as being one of 'em.
On the other hand, if next season Joss explains the blood issue
more thoroughly, or gives us a glimpse at some of B's hitherto
hidden talents, then maybe it'll make more sense to me. Though
I don't really like this "retroactive explanation" gambit
either, since it gives him too much leeway in terms of playing
by his own rules. ("Oh, the blood! Yes, well, you see, what
happened was....")
Sorry, don't mean to be difficult. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: No prob with the explanation....:)
-- rowan, 11:35:32 06/19/01 Tue
Okay, but how about the SuperSlayer stuff, plus the vision quest,
plus that thingy she did when she saw that Dawn wasn't really
her sister, etc.? Aren't these all part and parcel of this type
of power?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No prob with the explanation....:)
-- mundusmundi, 12:19:56 06/19/01 Tue
>>Okay, but how about the SuperSlayer stuff, plus the vision
quest, plus that thingy she did when she saw that Dawn wasn't
really her sister, etc.? Aren't these all part and parcel of this
type of power?<<
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the SuperSlayer (from Primeval,
yes?) was the result of a Willow spell and a little help from
their friends; the vision quest prompted by Giles doing the hokey-pokey;
and even the spell-thingy from NPLH was from Wil's suggestions,
wasn't it? You could add Buffy's prophecies as another of her
talents. I guess my point is -- there's a point? ;) -- that Buffy
has never demonstrated any *independent* powers that would lead
her to believe that she could close that portal.
Maybe that's what's really bugging me. Not so much that she closed
the portal, but that she seemed to *know* it would work (ditto
Dawn). Almost like there's a deleted scene somewhere, a prophecy
privy only to herself. (I know, Joss showed that quick montage
from Blood Ties, etc., but it didn't cut it for me. I felt like
I was watching a magician trying to distract me with the cards
while pulling an ace out of his sleeve.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No prob with the
explanation....:) -- rowan, 13:13:34 06/19/01 Tue
"Maybe that's what's really bugging me. Not so much that
she closed the portal, but that she seemed to *know* it would
work (ditto Dawn)."
Yes, this is one thing I struggle with -- alot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> She's always has
these instincts. They usually seem to emerge in times of extreme
stress. -- OnM, 17:22:59 06/19/01 Tue
What about her 'instinct' not to kill Spike? Or for that matter
Angel when he returned from hell? Or that she could somehow face
the Master and not die, even though it was fortold with absolute
certainty? What about her instinct to not allow Dawn to be killed
even if it would save the world by denying Glory access to the
key powers? Her instinct to prevent Angel from killing himself
in *Amends*? Her instinct that if Angel drank her blood to save
himself from the vamp poison, that he would be able to stop in
time?
She 'just seemed to *know*' that all these things would work,
even though most of them greatly defy logic and common sense.
Ask yourself why in *The Gift*, Xander wasn't terrified that the
world would end, while everyone else seemed to be sure that Buffy
was hanging on to a desperate hope in trying to defeat Glory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: She's
always has these instincts. They usually seem to emerge in times
of extreme stress. -- rowan, 18:22:11 06/19/01 Tue
Wow, you're good. I think that Buffy acts on what she believes
to be instinct, but probably is the more spirtual/magickal side
of her nature. She doesn't yet seem to be consciously aware of
all her power. She equates and feels comfortable more with the
physical side of Slayerness.
We've noticed that Willow's power seems to increase faster than
what we can explain at times. Buffy's might well be the same.
What is that theory of evolution called? punctuated equilibrium?
You know, the one that posits that evolution takes place in large
leaps forward followed by two steps back, rather than a steady
evolutional pattern. Magickal evolution in the Buffyverse seems
similar to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great
point about the physical side of herSlayerself... -- OnM, 20:24:50
06/19/01 Tue
...she has always been far more comfortable with that than with
her intellect or general mental/spiritual capabilities. This is
unfortunate, because it's been demonstrated over and over again
that she has a very fine logical mind to go along with the obvious
physical strengths she possesses.
I believe, in fact, that that has been a weakness in that she
doesn't always trust herself to 'think', she feels that she has
to 'react' instead. That may be why she trusts the 'instincts'
so much, in that they seem to bypass conventional rational thought,
which she feels is not her strength.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
We just have a mutual admiration society going today...;) -- rowan,
20:37:36 06/19/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Slayers
may die, but great topics don't.... -- mundusmundi, 16:08:30 06/20/01
Wed
>>What about her 'instinct' not to kill Spike? Or for that
matter Angel when he returned from hell? Or that she could somehow
face the Master and not die, even though it was fortold with absolute
certainty? What about her instinct to not allow Dawn to be killed
even if it would save the world by denying Glory access to the
key powers? Her instinct to prevent Angel from killing himself
in *Amends*? Her instinct that if Angel drank her blood to save
himself from the vamp poison, that he would be able to stop in
time?<<
I guess we're defining "instinct" in different ways.
To use just one example from above, B's decision to not stake
Spike is informed by previous experience: 1) Their tenuous alliance
in Becoming; 2) The fact that he's defenseless; and 3) Maybe some
kind of attraction she acknowledges only unconsciously. It's a
psychological profile, nothing mystical/magical about it, nor
in any of the other examples, IMO. (Also, as we've seen plenty
of times, Buffy's instincts aren't always honed in properly and
are often left ambiguous. The stuff w/ Angel particularly.)
>>Ask yourself why in *The Gift*, Xander wasn't terrified
that the world would end, while everyone else seemed to be sure
that Buffy was hanging on to a desperate hope in trying to defeat
Glory.<<
Not sure what you mean here. I suspect Xander was optimistic b/c
of his unshakable confidence in Buffy, or perhaps he didn't want
to worry Anya more than she already was. Whatever the case, I
don't see this as being anything magickal/mystical either.
Someone else mentioned evolution. People who believe in evolution
or any other scientific theory do so b/c they accept the evidence
-- nobody says, "Ahhhh, I can feel it." That's a statement
of faith (not Faith), and perfectly fine as such. I have faith
in Joss, but I'm also an "evidence" guy and I like my
favorite fantasies to be empirically sound, to a certain extent,
even in the Buffyverse.
Having said that, I think we could apply Occam's Razor and say
that the simplest reason may be the best -- that Buffy interpreted
"Death is your gift" to mean what it meant, and she
trusted the prophecy enough to do what she did. I just hope we
get a little more info next year and not a scene with Giles asking
Buffy how she knew it would work and Buffy answering cryptically,
"Ahhh, I could feel it." ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Slayers may die, but great topics don't.... -- rowan, 17:31:51
06/20/01 Wed
"Someone else mentioned evolution."
Okay, now, that was me...just to clarify...the reason I brought
up the theory was to demonstrate that forward, evolutionary progress
may be achieved by a series of two steps forward, one step back,
rather than a steadily increasing sequence. This principle seemed
to me persuasive (not on a scientific level) but as a comparison
to how Willow and Buffy's powers might be maturing -- not to prove
the existence of magick by measuring it against the scientific
method.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> You're not being difficult, I was
concerned I wasn't explaining my intent very well. :) -- OnM,
17:08:57 06/19/01 Tue
Rowan seems to get it pretty exactly, though, so at least I'm
not totally out in left fireld, her explanation is excellent.
Disagree all you like, my friend, that's one of the things that
makes this such a great board!
I do think there *is* substantial precedence for the 'Q' Buffy,
though.. I'll do some further digging, to see if I'm correct or
just imagining. In the meantime, off the top of my grey matter:
Consider one scene from back in the fall, it's actually the one
that got me thinking of the SR stuff in the first place-- Buffy
is escaping with one of the monks, trying to get away from Glory.
She grabs the monk, hugs him to herself, jumps out (apparently)
a second story window, **lands on her back, still carrying the
monk**, and gets up afterward, obviously in pain, but also obviously
without a shattered spine! I think this extraordinary feat (Slayer
strength or not!)was possible because she *believed she could
do it*, and reality was altered sufficiently to permit it. Also,
the fall off the RV in *Spiral*? Withstanding the blows from Glory?
Wielding the Troll Hammer effortlessly which Spike could just
barely lift? Causing Glory to bleed? (Especially that-- think
about it-- she made a *god* BLEED!)Defeating Adam as UberBuffy
in Season 4 (spell or no spell, that was some wicked reality-altering)?
Those are some things that come to mind quickly. I will research
the earlier seasons and see if I can gather some more supporing
data, maybe post it next week sometime.
Anyways, thanks for listening to my rants, I appreciate it!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> The thing about precedent
is that you have to have an originating event..... -- Rufus, 18:03:43
06/19/01 Tue
Just because Buffy hasn't exhibited these powers before doesn't
mean that she hasn't always had the potential. Buffy seems to
get enough power to deal with each situation, the powers growing
with the needed response to a given situation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You're not being difficult,
I was concerned I wasn't explaining my intent very well. :) --
Malandanza, 20:36:21 06/20/01 Wed
"Disagree all you like, my friend, that's one of the things
that makes this such a great board!"
Well, since you asking us to disagree... :)
I'm still not a fan of subjective reality (or collective subjective
reality) so I'll make yet another attempt at debunking it.
First, Masquerade derailed my last attempt by bringing up the
possibility that Buffy's subconscious desires and fears (i.e.,
her Death Wish) can alter reality. This idea would be in keeping
with your vision of Buffy as a primitive version of Q -- she has
not yet learned to truly harness her ability.
We caught a glimpse of Buffy's subconscious in WotW -- and it
is a grim place (dwelling on her mother's death, suffocating her
sister). We have also seen Buffy's dreams, on occasion. Dreams
of being drowned by Faith, of killing Angel, the disturbing Riley/Psyche
Class dream -- all manner of violence (and these are just the
dreams we have seen). If Buffy's subconscious were truly altering
reality, then perhaps the evil in Sunnydale is there because she
dreams it there (which would explain why the demons and vampires
keep coming there in spite of the prospect of a sudden, painful
death). With Buffy dead, will Sunnydale suddenly become a safe
place? Somehow, I doubt it.
By the way, OnM, I once again urge you to read "The Mysterious
Stranger," by Mark Twain -- there's some subjective reality
stuff in that book that will have you joining me in hoping that
it isn't true (while supporting your own position).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Now that's an interesting
idea... -- OnM, 21:07:35 06/20/01 Wed
*** "If Buffy's subconscious were truly altering reality,
then perhaps the evil in Sunnydale is there because she dreams
it there (which would explain why the demons and vampires keep
coming there in spite of the prospect of a sudden, painful death).
With Buffy dead, will Sunnydale suddenly become a safe place?"
***
I doubt it too, but what a great story idea!
Some big bad comes to town, and tries to convince Buffy that *she*
is actually the cause of Sunnydale's evil, because in Anyanka-like
fashion, she has been thinking/dreaming it, and so the subconscious
is made real.
Turns out to not be true, of course, but oh, the angst if they
managed to convince her even to some degree!
Some possible fic for our upcoming sister-site?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oooo! Ooooo! More
thoughts! (Gee, whatta surprise... ;) -- OnM, 21:20:42 06/20/01
Wed
That's it! This is all part of Doc's evil plan!
Season 6 starts and everyone is baffled that demonic activity
and evilness in general is way, way down-- in fact, nearly non-existant.
Since if anything, Buffy's death should have had the opposite
effect, this is extremely disconcerting.
Turns out that Doc orchestrated things to get Buffy to jump into
the portal, thinking she had to do it to save Dawn, but that she
really didn't. (Some other posters here have already wondered
about just exactly that line of thought).
Now, he has made a pact with the forces of darkness so that they
are holding off, while an effort can be made to convince people
that the Watcher's Council (he arranges to reveal their existance
to the world, or at least Sunnydale) and their 'instruments',
the Slayers, are actually creating evil by allowing 'monsters
from their ids' to transmute in reality. If the Council and the
Slayers could be exposed and discredited, then evil would be setting
itself up to take over the human dimension again. (The eventual
apocalypse we've been hearing about on A:tS?)
Oh man, if only I had the time to write all this stuff out...
(~sighs~)
Thanks, Mal! Good one!! Anyone out there interested?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You're not being
difficult, I was concerned I wasn't explaining my intent very
well. :) -- rowan, 21:11:58 06/20/01 Wed
"We caught a glimpse of Buffy's subconscious in WotW -- and
it is a grim place (dwelling on her mother's death, suffocating
her sister). We have also seen Buffy's dreams, on occasion. Dreams
of being drowned by Faith, of killing Angel, the disturbing Riley/Psyche
Class dream -- all manner of violence (and these are just the
dreams we have seen). If Buffy's subconscious were truly altering
reality, then perhaps the evil in Sunnydale is there because she
dreams it there (which would explain why the demons and vampires
keep coming there in spite of the prospect of a sudden, painful
death). With Buffy dead, will Sunnydale suddenly become a safe
place? Somehow, I doubt it."
Wow. Now I'm seeing Buffy as as Jonathan, albeit unconsciously
creating her reality (and a frightening one it is, too). Remember
the end of the television show St. Elsewhere? Didn't it turn out
the whole show was the daydream of an autistic child looking at
a snow globe?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, that's right.
I thought that was so brilliant, but a lot of people hated it.
-- OnM, 21:40:47 06/20/01 Wed
Ah, most beloved *St. Elsewhere*. Great art does seem to have
a polarizing effect at times, s'pose that's just the nature of
the beast.
Now that's another show I'd like to see remastered and issued
on DVD! BTW, remember that ep where Fiscus died (temporarily)
and had that meeting with God, who-- looked just like him?
"Well, I created you in my image, didn't I?"
Now *That* was must-see TV for it's day!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Vote me in as the queen of "B" -- Masq,
defender of internal consistency in the Buffyverse, 11:39:58 06/19/01
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> B and Q -- AK-UK, 16:39:31 06/20/01 Wed
I think we are in danger of streching things to cover up inconsistencies
in the Buffyverse. The fact is, characters strengths vary continously.
Buffy jumped out of window and landed on her back in one episode,
but gets stabbed with her own stake by a normal vampire in the
other. Why? Because the writers had a good story to tell which
required her to get beat. i mean, look at Angel, in the AtS episode
"Sanctuary (I think) he practically FLEW from a flight of
stairs, through a sun roof and onto a helicopter.....talk about
power upgrade. Is he a primitive Q too?
I definetly think Buffy is getting stronger, but the show would
become very boring if she can alter reality and think herself
into becoming a key substitute. If that's the case, what the hell
is so special about the key? Couldn't someone else just give themselves
it's powers by changing reality?
As you might be able to guess, I have serious problems with Anyanka's
previous demon abilities (sooooo, you have the power to permanently
alter reality, just by wishing? And this was a gift of the lower
beings? Wow.......makes you wonder what the higher beings can
do. Makes you wonder how the hell demons ever lost control of
the planet with power like that.........ah well, mark it down
as another case of "Writer has cool story to tell, so screw
consistency" :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I'm not a consistency monger of that calliber.
I mostly -- Masquerade, 16:52:14 06/20/01 Wed
try to find nice explanations to cover things that the "Plot
hole!" whiners harp on the most. And I admit defeat sometimes.
There's just no way to patch up Joss's math-suckage, for example
: )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm not a consistency monger
of that calliber. I mostly -- rowan, 17:34:06 06/20/01 Wed
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds(did I quote that
correctly? it's been a long time). Maybe math is the hobgoblin
of little minds. Or maybe little minds like mine can't do math
as well as hobgoblins. Or...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Well, pretty much any kind
of goblin would be at home in the Buffyverse, right? -- OnM, 20:46:15
06/20/01 Wed
Consistancy has it's limits. If the story's good enough, I let
'em slide a bit. If you hold the writers up to a near-perfect
standard, you'd get far less entertainment.
A lot depends on whether they're *trying* to be especially clever
or innovative, and mostly succeed. It's the same when I look at
movies, like in 'Moulin Rouge', where some scenes run perilously
close to being over-the-top. But I don't care-- the entity as
a whole is just so completely original, minor quibbles are just
that-- minor quibbles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: B and Q -- rowan, 18:52:08 06/20/01
Wed
"I think we are in danger of streching things to cover up
inconsistencies in the Buffyverse."
I hear your point and respect your different opinion. But what
I'm saying is that I think the altering of collective reality
is occurring through magick and that's why I don't see inconsistencies,
not: I see inconsistencies, so let me find a theory that covers
them. As a Wiccan, this theory we're discussing isn't that far-fetched
to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> What is inconsistency? -- Masquerade,
19:32:04 06/20/01 Wed
The inconsistencies I try to find resolutions to on my page are
not inconsistencies of the Buffyverse with the physics of the
realverse. That is the essence of science fiction (most of it
anyway) and fantasy--it doesn't follow the rules of the real world
and wouldn't be much fun if it did.
The inconsistencies I try to find resolutions to are when the
show breaks its own rules. In one episode, it is crucial to the
plot that a vampire's mind casts no reflection--Buffy can't read
Angel's mind and find out his true feelings for Faith and so she
must take his word for it. Then in later episodes, we take trips
in a vampire's dreams, see vampires getting their auras read,
see someone seemingly talking telepathically with a vampire.
As long as we are given plausible explanations about why these
things can happen once a rule has been set, I consider consistency
met. I.e., Willow didn't read Spike's mind in the Gift, she just
appeared to, or Willow found a special wiccan spell that allowed
her to enter Spike's mind in a way Buffy didn't (with no such
spell) in "Earshot".
Sometimes, writers will break their own rules (or forget them)
for the sake of something they want to do in a new episode. Writers
have a phrase for that.
It's called "lazy writing".
Other times, it's called "plot holes" or "Deux
ex machina" where an unforeshadowed something or other pops
out suddenly at the last minute to save a character's problem.
I try to cover their butts on my site when I can through fan theories
about how the rules can be legitimately broken in this case, and
I do it as a fellow writer who tries to live by the constraints
I've set down for myself in my own fictional worlds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Well said. -- rowan, 20:03:42
06/20/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Another thought.... -- rowan,
20:07:07 06/20/01 Wed
"As long as we are given plausible explanations about why
these things can happen once a rule has been set, I consider consistency
met. I.e., Willow didn't read Spike's mind in the Gift, she just
appeared to, or Willow found a special wiccan spell that allowed
her to enter Spike's mind in a way Buffy didn't (with no such
spell) in "Earshot"."
Is that why Spike had to speak out loud in response to Willow's
telepathic words? She could put thoughts into Spike's head, but
she couldn't read his (just as Buffy couldn't read Angel's) --
he had to say them out loud, then her spell amplified them so
she could hear (and he knew he needed to do this?!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> That was what I presumed--
that it was a one-way thought-casting process. -- OnM, 20:55:58
06/20/01 Wed
And so, no inconsistancy for me in that instance.
You know, an interesting future poll to do at this board might
be to ask what our various background histories are regarding
what we prefer in genre fiction, for example, as I've mentioned
before in many posts, I come from mostly 'straight' (but not 'hardcore'-science)
SF and fantasy backgrounds in my reading, so my opinions are heavily
shaded by that preference.
Feel free to poll that if you want, rowan, since you seem to be
taking charge of all things poll-ish here of late! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That was what
I presumed-- that it was a one-way thought-casting process. --
rowan, 21:09:22 06/20/01 Wed
I will add that to my list. I have about 14 topics written down
on a legal pad that people have either suggested or that have
occurred to me as I'm reading things -- I'm trying to spread out
the 1st Anniversary Fun polls for each week until S6.
Since we're hiding down here at the bottom of the board, I'll
let you in on a secret - next week's post. It will be about Eye
Candy (we had ear candy this week). I'll ask everyone to post
their favorite image/moment (without words) from BtVS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That
was what I presumed-- that it was a one-way thought-casting process.
-- Masq, 21:38:39 06/20/01 Wed
Ooh, goodie, that one's easy for me. I've archived my favorite
visuals with the pics I pick for my website. (Buffy weilding the
Hunga-munga in Anne... you go!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That
was what I presumed-- that it was a one-way thought-casting process.
-- Rufus, 21:38:41 06/20/01 Wed
Oh...I guess my favorite image can't be of my cats????
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well,
only if your cats were spotted eating Canadian chocolate in a
recent episode -- Masq, 13:59:49 06/21/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
If you look really closely, in Triangle Rufus was one of the victims
at the Bronze....:):):):) -- Rufus, 14:32:47 06/21/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Another thought....
-- verdantheart, 11:20:59 06/22/01 Fri
As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is how I interpreted it.
We assume Willow can cast her thoughts telepathically via a spell.
There's no reason why Spike, even though his mind might not "cast
a shadow", can't have thoughts cast into his head. And assuming
Willow can create a telepathic spell, why does she have to pick
up Spike's responses from his mind? She can pick them up from
any of the Scoobies nearby, who can clearly hear Spike's words.
An additional amplification spell would then be unnecessary. Why
doesn't she transmit to all of them? That might be more difficult,
and might cause confusion, as she was talking directly to Spike
not to them. Just my thoughts. I didn't think this was much of
a stretch to cover a plot-hole.
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> verisimilitude -- verdantheart,
12:14:31 06/22/01 Fri
Thanks, everyone, for a very interesting discussion. I'm late
with my comments (as usual) but here I go anyway.
I'm going to put myself in the B camp as well, interpreting it
as follows.
What you're talking about is "verisimilitude" (the quality
of appearing to be true or real). The question is, "Is the
work of drama self-consistent enough to feel real?"
I don't feel that there needs to be a scientific basis for phenomena
in a story. Heaven knows I've seen enough people bending what
we know of physics into pretzels in order to somehow explain the
latest bit of Star Trek technobabble. For me, the question is
not "Does this obey physics?" or even "Is this
*completely* consistent with earlier technomythology presented
on this series?" but "Is this so out of context that
it pulls me out of the story?" It is best when the work is
completely self-consistent, but it's unrealistic to expect this,
especially of a TV series, which has contributions from multiple
authors.
For example, John McClane happens to be at just the right spot
to be squirted out a manhole by the wall of water that is coming
at him, and this happens (conveniently) at the same time that
his buddy Zeus is driving by (Die Hard with a Vengeance). Do I
buy it? NO. When my credulity is strained to this extent, my enjoyment
of the work suffers.
Did the Willow/Spike telepathic exchange pull me out of the story?
Even if I didn't have an alternative reading of the exchange other
than straight Willow-Spike telepathy, it wouldn't have bothered
me. In fact, I didn't even think about any problems with it until
afterwards.
Does it bother me that Spike called Angel his "sire"
and then it later turned out that Drusilla was his sire, Angel
only his mentor? I'm sorry that this wasn't worked out ahead of
time, but as of the current situation, the story works out better
dramatically if Drusilla vamped him. The fact is that TV series
are written as they go, so sometimes history is re-written to
fit dramatic needs. Considering that Spike was only supposed to
last several episodes, I can hardly fault the writers for failing
to work out his origins more thoroughly.
What would bother me (probably more than inconsistencies in magickal
rules, for example) is if a character acted out of character.
For example, take the original Star Trek. In season 2 Vulcans
rigorously avoid discussing their mating rituals. In season 3
(speaking of disasterous seasons) we find Spock casually discussing
this subject with a woman he barely met in The Cloud Minders.
Yuck and double yuck.
We believe in Spike's transformation because we were led through
it by the hand by the writers and Mr Marsters' nuanced performances.
If he went straight from Buffy vs. Dracula to The Gift, would
we believe it? No. I don't think that even Mr Marster's could
have made me buy that one.
OK, now I'm losing track. Anyway, what I'm saying is if the combined
effect of all the little flaws in consistency ruin your enjoyment
of the show, then for you, the series' verisimilitude has been
destroyed.
Personally, I don't see a lot of major flaws, but then I haven't
been it in for the entire duration and am catching up by means
of transcripts (can't wait for FX to run them!). I'll let you
hash out whether the verisimilitude of BtVS has been compromised
or not.
Meanwhile, thanks again!
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: B and Q -- AK-UK, 20:42:11 06/20/01
Wed
Hey, I'm a chaos magician, so I'm very open to the idea of the
individual being able to alter reality with magic, BUT I don't
think that that is what is happening in the Buffyverse vis-a-vis
the closing of the portal. Whilst such a theory might tie in neatly
with our own beliefs, I just don't see much evidence for that
theory in the show.
To be honest, I'd prefer it if Buffy didn't develop such powers,
but I think that discussion belongs in a different thread.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: B and Q -- rowan, 21:02:03
06/20/01 Wed
This thread just keeps getting better and better. A few posts
ago, I was creating a story to fit the inconsistencies, now I'm
forcing the inconsistencies to bend to my beliefs.
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: B and Q -- OnM, 21:34:49
06/20/01 Wed
I can see that topic go either way, and it can be done credibly.
I'm thinking though, that if the theme of S6 is 'Oh, grow up',
then it very possibly will deal with a more powerful Buffy. After
all, power brings with it the need for responsibility, and greater
power means greater responsibility. And all that certainly resonates
with the theme of 'growing up'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Amen -- verdantheart,
11:22:18 06/22/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Anyanka's Realities -- Malandanza, 20:06:23
06/20/01 Wed
"As you might be able to guess, I have serious problems with
Anyanka's previous demon abilities (sooooo, you have the power
to permanently alter reality, just by wishing? And this was a
gift of the lower beings? Wow.......makes you wonder what the
higher beings can do. Makes you wonder how the hell demons ever
lost control of the planet with power like that.........ah well,
mark it down as another case of "Writer has cool story to
tell, so screw consistency" :)"
I'm not sure Anyanka's power rises to the level of Q. Consider
the source: D'Hoffryn. Why did D'Hoffryn offer power to Willow?
To right wrongs? No -- because she had demonstrated an ability
to inflict torment upon the people she most cared about. I am
sure the case was similar for Anya -- D'Hoffyrn was not interested
in avenging scorned women (no matter what Anyanka's job description
said); rather, the women were tools to inflict suffering on those
around them. The wishes Anyanka offered to the scorned women were
of the "Monkey's Paw," "Bottle Imp" or Evil
Genie variety.
Could Anya permanently alter reality? We see no real evidence
of this. Perhaps the realities exist along the Buffyverse and
her power was merely that of opening a gateway for her supplicants.
Perhaps they were the inherently unstable realities like Jonathan's
universe -- remember, Adam was unimpressed by the false reality
and decided to let it run its course and collapse on its own rather
than intervene. I suspect that most of Anyanka's women ended up
just as dead as Cordelia in "Wish" (had the amulet not
been broken, Cordy would have remained dead). In any event, these
realities were not permanent.
How did they lose power? There seems to be a rule restricting
the use of power. Human cooperation appears to be a requirement
for some of the biggest powers. Hence, the demons' interest in
corrupting humans. They can channel mighty powers through their
human thralls, but they cannot use those powers directly (the
Mayor, a host of minor powers and creatures -- like the Hellhounds
-- from earlier seasons, Yeska from "Guise Will be Guise"
and the Paranoia demon from AYNOHYEB). I think the Buffyverse
has been fairly consistent in this area.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> All this good stuff way down here
at the bottom of the board...:) -- rowan, 20:09:57 06/20/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Anyanka's Realities -- AK-UK,
05:44:26 06/21/01 Thu
What has D'Hoffryn's motivation got to do with the streength of
the power of the wish? I agree that Anyanka was an evil genie,
but doesn't that make her very powerful?
I think there has been a clear distinction made between Jonathan's
spell (which fell apart quickly and failed to fool Adam......or
Buffy, for that matter) and Anyanka's wish (which utterly altered
Sunnydale, resurrected the Master and turned Willow and Xander
into vampires). From what we've seen, Anyanka could have wished
Glory away just like she wished Buffy away.
We have clearly seen that Anyanka's powers create changes in this
reality (rather than transporting the wisher to an alternative
reality); when the jewel is destroyed we travel back in time to
when Cordelia made her wish, and the Anyanka of THIS reality loses
her power (rather than an alternate universe Anyanka).
On another point, I know that demons have to channel their powers
through humans now, but what did they do before humans arrived?
How were they kicked off the earth if they have such awesome powers?
But like I said, if I have to have accept plot inconsistencies
to get episodes like "Doppelgangland" then I'll gladly
do so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anyanka's Realities --
Malandanza, 07:00:47 06/21/01 Thu
"I think there has been a clear distinction made between
Jonathan's spell (which fell apart quickly and failed to fool
Adam......or Buffy, for that matter) and Anyanka's wish (which
utterly altered Sunnydale, resurrected the Master and turned Willow
and Xander into vampires). From what we've seen, Anyanka could
have wished Glory away just like she wished Buffy away. "
Jonathan changed everything. Anya's spell altered Sunnydale. Maybe
Anya could have wished Glory away -- but I think her powers were
limited to "aiding" scorned women (so unless Ben had
used and abandoned some young, vengeful woman, Anya would not
have been able to affect Glory). By contrast, Jonathan (as the
leader of the initiative) new exactly how to destroy Adam. In
fact, he knew everything so it's hard to see how he would have
failed to defeat Glory. I'd say Jonathan's spell was more powerful.
"We have clearly seen that Anyanka's powers create changes
in this reality (rather than transporting the wisher to an alternative
reality); when the jewel is destroyed we travel back in time to
when Cordelia made her wish, and the Anyanka of THIS reality loses
her power (rather than an alternate universe Anyanka)."
"Dopplegangland" (and Anya's repeated references to
other realities, almost identical to the Buffyverse) suggests
that Anya made no changes in the Buffyverse -- if "The Wish"
had physically changed the Buffyverse (instead of catapulting
Cordelia into an alternate reality), where did VampWillow come
from? And the after effects? If Anyanka had sent Cordelia a nightmare,
it would have had more lasting effects -- at least Jonathan was
able to help facilitate a reconciliation between Buffy and Riley
after his reality began to disintegrate; Anyanka's spell had no
lasting effects at all. No time travel -- merely a projection
of Cordy's consciousness into Alternate Cordy's mind. Only the
Oracle could do time travel.
"On another point, I know that demons have to channel their
powers through humans now, but what did they do before humans
arrived? How were they kicked off the earth if they have such
awesome powers?"
The dinosaurs ruled the Earth once -- how did the mammals take
over? Some sort of climatic change or a mass extinction (caused
by a catastrophe). Things change -- the demons that couldn't adapt
fled to more favorable realities. Some of the demons (like the
Senior Partners) cannot even exist in this plane in their true
form. Others (like the First Evil) can only affect things by suggesting
and encouraging their potential victims.
"What has D'Hoffryn's motivation got to do with the strength
of the power of the wish? I agree that Anyanka was an evil genie,
but doesn't that make her very powerful?"
D'Hoffryn wasn't offering Anya limitless (Q magnitude) power to
with as she pleased. He offered her serious power with serious
limitations. D'Hoffyrn's motivations are important because they
reveal just how constrained Anyaka's power really was. Anyanka
couldn't simply wish away anything she pleased -- she could use
her powers only to "help" scorned women -- and only
to wreak havoc. If a woman had asked Anyanka to make her boyfriend
come back to her so they could live happily ever after, would
Anyanka had granted this wish? Or if she did, would it have been
in such a twisted manner that the woman would have ultimately
regretted her decision? In specific circumstances Anyanka was
very powerful -- but outside her sphere of influence, I doubt
she could have done much. The Buffyverse has been consistent on
the issue of big powers having big limitations -- or serious consequences
(perhaps what made Glory a god instead of just a demon was that
she had very few restrictions about how to use her power).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anyanka's Realities......sorry
Malandanza...... -- AK-UK, 14:03:07 06/21/01 Thu
Sorry to put your ideas down like this, but you are very wrong
on a number of points.
"Jonathan changed everything, Anyanka changed Sunnydale".
Wrong.
In fact, the reverse is the case. Jonathan merely changd the perceptions
of the people of Sunnydale, and he didn't manage that very well.
Adam wasn't fooled, and Buffy soon pulled herself out of it's
influence.
From "Superstar"
Willow: Jonathan did an AUGMENTATION spell.....(which effects)...HIM
AND HOW WE SEE HIM.
and later in the script:
Buffy: He starred in "The Matrix" but NEVER LEFT TOWN.
When the spell is broken, perceptions slowly change, people's
memories return, they begin to see things as they truly are. Even
with the spell, things are pretty much the same. Riley is still
with Buffy, Adam is still on the loose.......the events that happened
in earlier seasons (like the master's bones being crushed) still
happened, but now the SG believe that Jonathan did it.
Anyanka spell changes EVERYTHING. Her spells ressurect the Master,
makes Willow and Xander vampires, makes Angel a torture victim
who hasn't even touched Buffy. Anyanka's spell isn't limited to
Sunnydale either. In "The Wish" Giles talks on the phone
to Buffy's watcher, and we discover that she fights demons in
CLEVELAND. She has never even been to Sunnydale before.
"No time travel-- merely a projection of Cordy's consciousness
into Alternative Cordy's mind. Only the Oracle could do time travel."
Wrong and wrong again.
Anyanka's powers clearly alter time. I wish that wasn't the case,
but it is.
From "Doppelgangland"
Anyanka (to D'Hoffryn): Give me another chance. YOU CAN FOLD BACK
THE FABRIC OF TIME. Send me back to that moment (the moment her
power centre was destroyed) and I'LL CHANGE IT.
Note that Anyanka is not asking to be transported to a different
reality, but to a different TIME in THIS reality. Also note that
she clearly states that D'HOFFRYN has the power to fold back time.
In fact, Anyanka continues on, and seeks out the help of Willow.
From "Doppelgangland"
Anyanka (to Willow): I need a secondary to create a TEMPORAL FOLD.
a fold in time, which Willow SUCCEEDS in doing, but the spell
goes wrong and instead of retrieving the power source, they accidently
retrieve VampWillow. Sorry, but you are wrong on this one. Like
I said, I prefer the alternate reality theory too, but it's just
not right in this case.
As for the magnitude of Anyanka's powers, I think we are arguing
at cross purposes. The scope of Anyanka's power is limited, but
it appears the depth of her power is near limitless. But that
doesn't address the problem. So what if D'Hoffryn put limits on
Anyanka's powers......what limits are there on D'Hoffryn's powers?
How powerful were the demons who used to inhabit the earth? Do
the demons who left this planet wish to come back? How did they
lose their grip on this planet? These are questions I'd like to
see answered in the next season.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anyanka's
Realities and LOTR -- OnM, 21:16:39 06/21/01 Thu
It's been a very long time since I read The Lord of the Rings,
but wasn't there something written in it that referred to the
older inhabitants of that reality losing their 'purchase' on the
world because humans were becoming the predominant residents of
the Earth, and they didn't believe in the existance of the old
ones? And therefore (in SR fashion, actually) the old ones gradually
cease to exist.
Couldn't that be the same situation here? If humanity collectively
disbelieves in 'magic', for example, then it gradually gets weaker
and weaker.
One of the questions that hasn't been answered to date (as regards
the Buffyverse), are there demons and 'old ones' and magic *everywhere*
on our current-day Earth, or just in scattered spots like L.A.,
Sunnydale or Cleveland?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anyanka's
Realities and LOTR -- rowan, 21:41:05 06/21/01 Thu
Okay, I'm going to grossly oversimplify for speed. In the Silmarillion
(backstory to LOTR), the Elves are the First Children of God.
The Elves live in paradise with the lesser gods (Vala and Maia),
and develop an intense bond with these gods. A group of fallen
lesser gods who have turned evil also come to Earth to rule. Eventually,
some adventurous Elves move out into Earth to dwell, still retaining
their love of the gods and their memories of paradise. They come
into conflict with the fallen lesser gods, even as they spread
beauty & wisdom on Earth.
Eventually, God awakens his other children, Men (humans). They
have long life spans, but eventually die, unlike the Elves, who
never age and never die. They do not at first get along with Elves,
and they never develop the close relationship to the gods that
the Elves have. In some ways, they are bitter, because they have
been given the "gift" of death. The lesser gods cannot
explain why God chose in his wisdom to give death as a gift. Some
Men begin acting against the lesser gods, and they are punished
with diminished lifespan.
Eventually, the two races combine forces with other free peoples
(hobbits, dwarves, etc.) to defeat the great evil (fallen lesser
gods). As a result of the sacrifices required, the Elves grow
weary of their time on Earth, and they return to paradise, leaving
Earth in the hands of Men. Many beautiful things pass away as
a result, but the sacrifice was necessary in order to defeat the
great evil. Slowly, the other free peoples decline, until Men
are left.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Anyanka's Realities and LOTR -- AK-UK, 07:40:27 06/22/01 Fri
OnM and rowan, I think that in the LOTR the Gods actively withdraw
their powers from the world, in some way taking the "magic"
with them (Gandalf returning to the west is symbolic of this,
I think).
The idea that human's belief helps perpetuate magic is similiar
to the concept of the "Cycle of Faith", explored the
fantasy novels of Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman and the "Sandman"
graphic novels by Neil Gaiman.
In their works, Gods gain power by attracting believers: the more
people worship them, the more powerful they get. In the "Sandman"
graphic novels, God's who lose believers slowly lose their powers,
eventually fading away and becoming myths, at which point they
enter the Sandman's realm (the realm of dreams and the imagination......the
realm they were created in).
Was the encroaching power of humans based on their ability to
just ignore all that was around them, and that places like Sunnydale
contain large numbers of people who are willing to believe what
they see, hence the demon activity? That could tie in nicely with
the "reality is a collective subjective reality" theory
posted above.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Power linked to believers? -- Little One, 09:15:51 06/22/01 Fri
Just to give another example of this Believers Make Gods theory,
try reading Small Gods by Terry Pratchett. Pratchett and Gaiman
collaborated on several novels, so perhaps they created this theory
together. In Small Gods, as a god's followers diminish, so does
its power until the god eventually dies (is forgotten). Some gods
are able to stay rooted in folklore and so maintain some small
semblance of power (such as being able to cause a small breeze
instead of its former mighty gale).
This theory relies on the principal that the more believers a
god has, the greater his/her power and vice versa. If we apply
this to the Buffyverse, it would mean that the demons are much
less powerful than in the past. Few people currently believe in
demons and magic and so they must therefore be weak compared to
when many people believed in it. My question is if magic and demons
are now in a watered down form and it takes the combined energy
of slayer, Council of Watchers and an increasingly powerful Scooby
gang to keep it in check, what powers were necessary when the
demons had believers/power? Were the first slayers more powerful
than current ones? Is the First Slayer more powerful than Buffy?
I would say yes, since she seems much more spiritually and mentally
capable than Buffy. Afterall, she's been dead for eons and yet
she could communicate with those who woke her (Restless).
Now, just to muddy the waters a bit, does this mean that the more
people who believe in Buffy increase her strength and powers?
Kendra reveals that it is in the slayer handbook that slayers
normally do not have friends, family or socialize in anyway, devoting
themselves to their craft. They keep their powers secret from
the rest of humanity. Could this be why Buffy has managed to live
past the standard slayer lifespan and why her powers are increasing?
Because constantly more and more people are added to her list
of believers? In S4, the entire Initiative was let in on her secret.
Perhaps it is not coincidentally that in S4 she became stronger
and wiser than before.
Sorry to ramble.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Anyanka's Realities and LOTR -- rowan, 11:10:42 06/22/01 Fri
"OnM and rowan, I think that in the LOTR the Gods actively
withdraw their powers from the world, in some way taking the "magic"
with them (Gandalf returning to the west is symbolic of this,
I think)."
Actually, the gods in The Silmarillion (not much evident about
gods in LOTR) never had much to do with the world, which is strange.
Iluvatar (the creator) created the demigods (Vala and Maia), but
after that, seems to disappear. Now the Vala and Maia had much
to do with Illuvatar's First Children (Elves) and the Valar's
attempts at children (Dwarves), but much, much less to do with
Men. And all this contact was in the Blessed Realm (Undying Lands),
not on Earth. Only one Valar and a few Maia went to Earth to deal
directly with Men.
So, I agree that the gods were not a direct presence in the lives
of most on Earth. However, the Elves carried the "magick"
of the gods into the Earth and all that it entails. Once the great
evil arose, the Elves then sacrificed that magickal presence in
order to purge the evil, giving way to the rise of the non-magickal,
human dominated world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anyanka's
Realities......rebuttal, AK-UK -- Malandanza, 22:24:51 06/21/01
Thu
"In fact, the reverse is the case. Jonathan merely changed
the perceptions of the people of Sunnydale, and he didn't manage
that very well. Adam wasn't fooled, and Buffy soon pulled herself
out of it's influence."
Jonathan did not merely change people's perceptions. Let's look
at a few minor examples of Jonathan artifacts and real knowledge
that he gained through the spell: trading cards, magazines, posters,
the swimsuit calendar -- all real. He was able to easily beat
Giles at Chess and outfight the vampires with Buffy. Perhaps you
can argue that Xander, Giles and Anya were looking at other things
and imagining Jonathan (like a Michael Jordan poster and seeing
Jonathan or a magazine with Bill Gates with Jonathan.com instead)
but the knowledge he gained was real. Look at a scene where the
initiative works with Jonathan:
Colonel: "For those of you who don't already know my name
is Colonel George . I'm commanding officer here until such time
as the facility review is completed. This review does not mean
our primary mission is changed in any way. Recovery of the hostile
known as Adam is our first and most important job. To this end
I've asked our tactical consultant here to address us today. Mr.
Levinson."
Jonathan: "Thank you, colonel."
Graham [aside to Riley]: "It's about time we brought out
the big guns."
Jonathan unfolds a schematic of a skeletal structure and spreads
it on the table.
Jonathan: "Men, before we can locate Adam we need to understand
him better. And there's something that's bothered me almost from
the start. He doesn't eat. We've known him to kill but never to
eat the kill. So I've pulled some of Professor Walsh's original
design schematics and I've found something - his power source
is not biological at all. It's here" [points to center of
chest in the skeletal schematic.] "The design attempts to
hide it, but I believe that there's a small reservoir of uranium
235."
Riley: "Sir, how long will it last?"
Jonathan: "Essentially forever. It also means that cutting
off his head is useless. Killing Adam means annihilating him completely.
But first we have to find him."
This knowledge was real. In fact, Adam did have a nuclear power
source which Buffy had to remove in order to destroy him -- it
was not merely a question of the Initiative soldiers perceiving
Jonathan as knowledgeable.
You quoted Willlow on the Augmentation spell; here is what Adam
had to say: "These are lies. None of this is real. The WORLD
has been CHANGED. It's intriguing but it's wrong." Note that
Adam did not say that "Our PERCEPTION of the world has been
CHANGED." It was real. But is that possible? Buffy asks ex-demon
Anya:
Buffy: "But someone could wish the whole world to be different
right? That's possible?"
Anya: "Sure, alternate realities. You could uh, could have
like a world without shrimp. Or with, you know, nothing but shrimp.
You could even make like a freaky world where Jonathan's some
kind of not perfect mouth breather if that's what's blowing up
your skirt these days. Just don't ask me to live there! Now if
I, uh, could just have book back you could be on your way someplace
else?"
We are back to the idea of an alternate reality -- a world created
out of nothing to suit an individuals needs. Furthermore, even
Willow acknowledges that the Augmentation spell created some real
changes since it changed (this is the rest of your Willow quote)
"Him! And how we see him. This spell TURNS the sorcerer INTO
a sort of paragon, the best of everything, everyone's ideal."
A physical change -- not merely the altering of one's perceptions.
Here's Riley's response: "So if this is the WORLD HE CREATED,
what's the real world like?"
Finally, as the alternate reality gives way to the real world,
here are some final comments by Buffy and the Scoobies:
Willow: "I can't believe we believed it"
Riley: "It seemed so real."
Buffy: "Well, in THAT world, it was REAL."
Okay -- let's look at Anyanka and the Wishworld. You say:
"Anyanka's powers clearly alter time. I wish that wasn't
the case, but it is.
From "Doppelgangland"
Anyanka (to D'Hoffryn): Give me another chance. YOU CAN FOLD BACK
THE FABRIC OF TIME. Send me back to that moment (the moment her
power centre was destroyed) and I'LL CHANGE IT.
Note that Anyanka is not asking to be transported to a different
reality, but to a different TIME in THIS reality. Also note that
she clearly states that D'HOFFRYN has the power to fold back time."
Star Trek technobabble aside (the temporal folds and such), Anya
is not asking to be sent back in time in this reality. Her power
center was never destroyed here -- none of the events of the Wishworld
actually happened in the Buffyverse. After Anyanka's amulet was
destroyed, the Buffyverse picked up EXACTLY where it left off.
Anyanka's alternate reality had NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER even on Cordelia
who made the wish. Going back in time to the moment the amulet
was destroyed in the Buffyverse is impossible -- it never happened.
Clearly, Anya and Willow reconnected to the alternate reality
where the amulet was destroyed -- since they brought VampWillow
(who also never existed in the Buffverse) into the Buffyverse.
Also interesting to me is that when Cordelia returned to the Buffyverse
it was to the exact moment that she had left. When VampWillow
returned to the Wishworld it was also to the exact moment that
she had left. Time in various alternate realities seems to behave
differently (although I still hate time travel -- total agreement
there). Since these alternate realities are created by spells
and fade quickly, I have less of a problem with D'Hoffryn manipulating
"temporal folds" in pet universes created through his
own magicks than I would him being able to alter time in the Buffyverse.
"As for the magnitude of Anyanka's powers, I think we are
arguing at cross purposes. The scope of Anyanka's power is limited,
but it appears the depth of her power is near limitless. But that
doesn't address the problem. So what if D'Hoffryn put limits on
Anyanka's powers......what limits are there on D'Hoffryn's powers?"
I do not believe the "depth is limitless." Anya's Troll
spell from her pre-vengeance demon days had more of a lasting
effect than the alternate reality she sent Cordelia to (or created
for Cordelia, depending upon your point of view). As for D'Hoffryn,
I don't think he can have much of an effect on the Buffyverse
himself -- like the Senior Partners or the First Evil he must
rely on his human intermediaries. How powerful he is on his own
plane of existence is largely irrelevant if he cannot use those
powers in the Buffyverse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> When you're
right, you're right (NT) -- Slayrunt, 23:51:06 06/21/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Anyanka's
Realities......rebuttal, AK-UK -- AK-UK, 07:01:27 06/22/01 Fri
Sorry to come back like this, but I think you are misreading the
quotes provided. firstly, I'll open concide a point to you. The
effects of Jonathan's spell were greater than i stated in my first
post. Jonathan is clearly more powerful than he was before. That's
obvious from his enhanced fighting skills. However, I still dispute
that his spell changed the world. How the heck would the SG know
what effect the spell had outside of Sunnydale? When Riley uses
the term "world" he can only be refering to the small
part of the world he was experiencing at the time. Sunnydale.
Buffy even makes the point that Jonathan "starred in "The
Matrix" but never left Sunnydale". Whereas, in "The
WIsh" we are given clear information from Giles's telephone
call, and Buffy's appearance from out of town that Anyanka's powers
have a greater range than just Sunnydale.
Now, as to the whole time debate, you once again misconstrue what
is going on in the Buffyverse. Anyanka grants Cordelia's wish;
the world changes as a result of this. Anyanka's power centre
is destroyed and time folds back to the moment Cordelia made the
wish, only this time Anyanka cannot grant it. Anyanka goes to
D'Hoffryn asking him to fold back time to either the point at
which she granted the wish or the point at which her power centre
was destroyed. D'Hoffryn refuses, so Anyanka asks Willow to help
her. They do a smaller spell which aims to create a smaller fold
in time through which Anyanka can retrieve her power centre before
it is destroyed. They succeed in creating the fold, but pull through
VampWillow instead.
The argument that this couldn't happen because the events in "the
Wish" never happened is clearly false. We are dealing with
(sci-fi) time travel here. The events did happen, but then the
power centre was destroyed and events were rolled back to the
point at which the wish was made. Hence all the talk of creating
folds in time.
We've been here before. In the AtS episode "I will remember
you" Angel is turned into a human by some demons blood. He
eats, shags Buffy etc etc, but realises he is now to weak to be
able to fight evil effectively. He goes to the Oracles (in tha
same way Anyanka goes to D'Hoffryn) and asks them to fold back
time (same again). In this case the oracles, unlike D'Hoffryn,
grant Angel's wish. Time is folded back, and the events of the
episode never occured. Except they did. Which is stupid, and defies
realverse logic, but heck, this is a tv show. Joss and Co played
fast and loose with the laws of time in "I will remember
you" in the same way they did in "The Wish" and
"Doppelgangland".
I'll say it again, I PREFER the parallel dimension theory (heck,
I wrote a kick ass BtVS spec script based on that premise) but
it's not true.
Who knows how powerful D'Hoffryn's is? He can change people into
demons, pluck them from their own dimension (ala Willow in "Something
Blue") fold back time and who knows what else. Like I said,
I'm not arguing about that. I'm just saying I would like to see
some stories dealing with the early demons, the "arrival"
of humans, the creation of the first slayer etc etc. 5 seasons
have gone by now........and after episodes like "Primeval"
"Restless" and "Buffy v Dracula" (*groan*)
set the stage for some major revelations I hope we see some in
season 6.
Are we going to have
to watch PBS? -- cknight, 22:10:50 06/02/01 Sat
The new show planned for Giles... is there a way it will be seen
in America? Or is there a really cool person in England willing
to start the VCR running? :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Is the Show Really going to happen then?? -- Emcee003, 09:26:37
06/03/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Is the Show Really going to happen then?? -- Sam
Raimond, 14:52:17 06/03/01 Sun
You know what confuses me? How on Earth are they going to make
a spin off about Giles that is interesting? I don't mean to insult
Giles fans but I just don't understand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Is the Show Really going to happen then??
-- Rufus, 15:26:44 06/03/01 Sun
Oh please have you not been paying attention since season one?
Giles is way more than meets the eye. He has a background that
warrants looking into. First, like a slayer he had no choice in
becoming a watcher, it seems to be a familial thing. Then he went
into major rebellion mode and became a sorcerer. He has changed
his personality similar to the way Spike did. He pretended to
be something he wasn't. He also got into enough trouble in the
magic department to have a demon chase him after years of rejecting
the magicks he did in his youth. Then you have to consider how
they train the watchers. Some seem to be strictly academics and
then there are the squads of soldier types that clean up problems
in the most brutal way. Add to all this Giles actions in the Gift
there is lots to build a story around. They could always bring
Ethan into the mix.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Is the Show Really going to happen
then?? -- cknight, 17:48:00 06/03/01 Sun
I agree. I think Giles is based on John Constantine the character
from DC comics "Hellblazer" comic.
They've said his show would have a slower pace and be more adult
in tone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Is the Show Really going to
happen then?? -- Brian, 07:06:06 06/04/01 Mon
Cool analogy - John Constantine is a favorite comic book character
of mine - However, I hope, Giles won't take up smoking after he
moves to England.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Is the Show Really going to happen
then?? -- purplegrrl, 08:48:13 06/04/01 Mon
Yes, Ethan, the villain I love to hate!
Also Giles is probably not currently on the best of terms with
the Watchers Council. I'm guessing that the new Giles spin-off
and BtVS would be running on parallel timelines. Then Giles could
also have some angst about leaving the Scoobies to their own devices
on the Hellmouth. Also he'll need to show up when Buffy returns
from the dead. And there's probably lots of evil things that need
dealing with in the back alleys of London. Maybe Giles as some
sort of supernatural consultant/private detective!!
I think the spin-off will be great. I just hope we'll be able
to get it on this side of the pond.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> BBCAmerica? -- verdantheart, 11:46:11
06/04/01 Mon
I get it on my NetLink lineup on C-Band. Don't know how much delay
there is, though.
Xander and Destiny -- Jarrod
Harmier, 00:41:34 06/03/01 Sun
This is a revamped post. I posted much of this information to
another thread that seaems to have been deleted. I revamped it
to take into account a reply I received from SingedCat when I
posted a portion to another thread about who can be access magic
in the Buffyverse.
I was wondering about Xander's destiny. Even though he does fall
into the category of the Everyman, there are some instances in
the series that suggest that he is slated for so much more than
that. Not to suggest being an Everyman is a bad thing.
In "Superstar" the group is looking over spell books
and Riley asks if the spells really work and Willow said that
the spells take concentration and being tuned in with the universe.
Then Xander says, "Right you can't just go 'librum incendere'
and expect..." The book bursts into flames. He closes it
to extinguish the flame and Giles replies, "Xander, don't
speak Latin in front of the books." I believed that the power
to make the book burst into flames came from Xander. SingedCat
reminded me that that there are books that are capable of containing
power in the Buffyverse, including releasing that magic when read.
The example given was the book used to trap Moloch the Corruptor
in "I Robot, You Jane". The problem with this example
is that even though it contained magical power itself, the book
had certain restrictions on its use. The book could only trap
Moloch when a ritual was performed. If the book Xander read from
contained magical power, it is probable that it had similar restrictions
to its use. So, what type of magic was Xander using when he unleashed
the magic from the book? SingedCat had a theory that there are
two kinds of magic in the Buffyverse: Hermetic magic (the classic
Western method of incantations, components and gestures) and Shamanic
magic (magic that runs off the intuition rather than the intellect).
The first possibility is that he was using a type of Hermetic
magic. This is a possibility that it could be Hermetic magic because
the ritual used to trap Moloch unleashes the power of the book.
However, it is doubtful that Xander used this form because Hermetic
magic requires both concentraion and preparation and, when he
read the Latin, he had neither. The second possibility is that
he was using Shamanic magic. This is very different from Heremetic
magic because it, as SingedCat says, "Either it drops on
you or it doesn't." This is a more reasonable explanation
that Heremtic magic. This leads to several objections and two
questions. The first objection is that Xander is not in tune with
the universe because he would be aware of it. Not necessarily.
I believe that Hermetic magic requires a more explicit understanding
of the universe, while Shamanic magic requires an implicit understanding
since Shamanic magic utilizes intuition more than intellect. Xander
would not not need to be aware of being in tune with the universe
to utilize his abilities. I'll get to another reason why he might
not be aware of his abilites later. The second objection is: If
most magical books require Heremtic rituals to unleash their power,
then Xander could not have unleashed the power from the book using
Shamanic magic. This is incorrect. Because Shamanic magic is intuitive
rather than intellectual, Xander would have an implicit understanding
of magical "shortcuts" that others do not know. That
is not to say that he is the only one who knows them. Most of
the characters on "Buffy" who have constantly studied
with a focus on the occult (Giles) or with a focus on the magical
arts (Amy, Tara, and Willow seem to know these shortcuts on an
explicit level because of their constant study. The question is:
If he has access to Shamanic magic, where did he get this power
from? One is that the constant research for the Scoobies has caused
Xander to remember some of this information on an unconscious
level. When he read the book, he accessed some of it on an implicit
level, thus allowing him to perform the spell with ease. This
might be part of it, but I don't think it's the whole story. I
think the Powers That Be (PTB) instilled in Xander some an implicit
understanding of the magical shorcuts that others must read about.
This, in combination with the research he has done, allowed him
to pull off the magical feat in "Superstar". The second
question is: You said that there is another reason why Xander
might not be aware of his abilites. What is it? The reason Xander
may not be aware of his abilities is his self image. It's obvious
that Xander's parents abused in some fashion. Based on information
provided by Xander, I can conclude that it was probably a mixture
of physical abuse (hitting), emotional abuse ("What good
are you?), and neglect (showing outright indifference). This created
problems because the relationship with his parents was not just
abusive, but inconsistent. He had no way of knowing at any one
point what kind of abuse was going to be used. If an individual
knows exactly which type of abuse is going to be used at any one
time, that individual probably has learned how to avoid it. This
created a sense of learned helplessness which, until recently,
consumed him. Now that he is out in the real world and felling
better about himself, his abilities will begin to surface. The
reason why he is now feeling better about himself is next.
To explain why Xander is feeling better, I must talk about an
episode of "Babylon 5" called "Walkabout".
In it Dr. Stephen Franklin, a memeber of a relatively new belief
system called the Foundation, starts going on a journey called
a walkabout, which is a ritual borrowed from the Australian aboriginial
cultures. Apparently, the Foundation borrows customs and beliefs
from various cultures (from Earth and cultures from other planetsm
I think) in the belief that no one group has all the right spiritual
answers. According to Franklin, an individual takes a walkabout
in order to find himself or self and learn about your character
and your strength. At some point in the past the person taking
the walkabout came to decision that was like a fork in the road.
Some sort of distraction caused part of the person to go one way
and the other part went the other way. In order to be a complete
person, the person begins to walk. The person continues to walk
until they actually meet themselves (metaphorically). After metting
with the himself or herself, the individual has a conversation
with the other half. This continues until nothing more can be
said because the most important things can't be or don't need
to be said (I can't remember which.) When this happens, the individual
goes home. What does this have to do with Xander? Before the "The
Replacement" many people questioned which Xander was the
real Xander: "suaze" Xander or the Xander from "The
Zeppo". In some seasons he was overly brave but has no patience
when it comes to Giles doing research, while in others, he was
scared as hell, but was patient when it came to Giles and his
research. In episodes he was confident, but a little too forceful
when it comes to getting results, while in others he lacked confidence,
but also knew that force isn't always the best way to get results.
In some episodes, he took the job way too seriously, but was also
too judgmental when he thought the others weren't doing to the
same, in others he didn't take the job as seriously as he should
have, but was understanding of the actions of the others. In others,
he was really happy, but didn't have that wacky sense of humor
that we love, in others he was sad, but had that wacky sense of
humor we love. How did this happen? Xander's strongest and weakest
qualities became stronger or weaker to each other season to season
and episode to episode. Later, Xander's strongest and weakest
qualities split off from each other psychologically. This happens
later physically in "The Replacment". When Xander is
split in two, he is allowed to view his strongest and weakest
qualities by themselves and talk to himself. Therefore, after
the reintegration, he will be able to combine his strongest and
weakest qualities and become a more balanced person. If he has
a destiny the PTB would want Xander to have a balance between
his strongest and weakest qualities rather than having them at
war with with each other.
Also, Joss Whedon seems to love using storylines inspiried by
known archetypes, movies, short stories, etc. The end of "Forever"
mirrored the end of the short story "The Monkey's Paw".
In the end of the story, the father uses the monkey's paw to negate
a wish to bring back his son who had been killed in an accident
with some machine. When his wife opens the door, no one is there.
Also, the facts that Glory came from a hell dimension, that she
is a shapeshifter (kind of), and that there were three ruling
hell gods seems like Joss was using the comic book "Hellblazer"
(or possibly "Sandman" as I've recently learned) as
inspiration. In "Hellblazer" (and "Sandman"),
Hell is run by three demons that are all shapshifters and tricksters.
The reason I mention this utilization of other sources for inspiration
is that Joss sometimes uses references that appear to be Biblical
in origin. I only caught this recently, but the fact is that Xander
is carpenter. Not just a carpenter, a damn good one. In several
episodes his work has been shown on camera and it looks beautiful
and functional. I thought that maybe Joss has made Xander a carpenter
to allow the audience to associate him with Christ because Christ
was a carpenter also. On one message board, someone mentioned
that Xander's hair is being allowed to grow longer like Christ's.
I'n not sure about this, but I'm posting it here. I'm not saying
Joss is setting up Xander to be a Christ-like figure like other
people have said, but I do think Joss is using association to
implying that Xander has some sort of grand destiny that isn't
implied by his regular routine. We know that Buffy and Angel have
destinies linked to them their being champions. Xander's destiny
would be linked to something else. At one point, someone thought
that Xander might be the key to averting some sort of apocalypse.
It was an incorrect spoiler for the end of season 4, but it was
interesting. The apocalypse was attributed to Judaism and the
result was decided not in a battlefield, but in the mind of one
person. I tried to do a search but I found only one hit. The site
(which may be incorrect) mentioned something about the death and
destrucion of metaphysical entities in the mind of one person.
This is the kind of apocalypse that I think an Everyman who might
have a more than just a touch of Shamanic magic in him is perfect
for. Of course, he could always go to L.A. and sing at the Caritas.
Then all would be revealed! (I don't know much about apocalypytic
thought being an atheist. Anyone who has information about the
apocaplypse or armaggeddon I'm trying to think of, you have my
explicit permission to email me.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Xander and Destiny -- Brian, 07:34:39 06/03/01 Sun
Very thought provoking post. I really enjoyed it. If Xander is
the Everyman figure in the Buffyverse, then perhaps Joss is implying
that within every person are some seeds of greatness. As Xander
becomes more comfortable and has more understanding of who he
is, then his access to "the magicks" may become stronger.
It also ties in with my belief that every character in the Buffyverse
is on some journey inward as well as outward. That is what makes
them so interesting.
For Xander his "walkabout" has given him a career, and
the courage to ask Anya to marry him.
Are demons more honest than humans?
-- John Burwood, 07:52:12 06/03/01 Sun
Tact is just not saying true stuff - said Cordelia. Since her
departure who have been the 'telling it like it is' characters
- Vampire Spike and ex-demon Anya. Remember Pangs, where Anya
referred to Thanksgiving as 'ritual sacrifice' and Spike to 'kill
or be killed, take your bloody pick' - both in defiance of nice
politically correct attitudes struck by Willow. Maybe demons,
unhampered by tact or convention or fashionable or pc attitudes,
are by nature more honest and truthful in how they see and describe
the world. Anyone agree, disagree, want to comment?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Are demons more honest than humans? -- Lazarus, 09:35:31
06/03/01 Sun
I've got to agree with you, John... Buffyverse demons seem to
be essentially unfettered by the human need for obfuscation and
misdirection in language, and in general seem to be more truly
in touch with their attitudes and who they are as individuals.
Our western culture has seems to have evolved a need to conceal
meaning behind twists in the English language (which, by the way,
seems to be ideally suited for this). This is obvious in, for
example, the 'politically correct' movement where people seem
to believe that changing the verbal label of something somehow
actually changes what is being described... This subject is a
bit of a linguistic sore spot with me and, while I could engage
in quite a rant on it (insert sigh of relief from readers here),
I won't... :)
P.S... For anyone interested, an entertaining yet relevant source
for some excellent commentary on the subject is comedian George
Carlin... If you haven't heard his work it is definitely worth
really listening to...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Are demons more honest than humans? -- Aquitaine,
10:31:56 06/03/01 Sun
I, too, have to agree with you. And I love it that Anya and Spike
can get away with calling a spade a spade. Part of the reason
I had trouble with Buffy's (and Giles' and Willow's) characters
this season, is that I feel that on some level they are not being
completely honest with themselves or with the world about their
true desires. As walking Id's, demons definitely have appeal by
contrast then. They are what they are. Of course, this question
begs another question. Are 'being human' and 'acting human' really
just ways in which we go about rearranging the world to conform
to *our* human-chauvinism. In short, do humans use obfuscation
to control their environments and their 'subordinates'... or themselves?
People who tell the truth get little respect or status in our
society. The better you are at 'playing the game', the more success
you have (in business, in the arts and even in affairs of the
heart). Conversely, honesty - guilelessness - is considered 'childish'
and unrealistic.
::shudder::
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Maybe the question is..... -- AK-UK, 11:28:39
06/03/01 Sun
"Are demons less imaginative then us?". A lie is, in
one sense, a more imaginative way of seeing a particular situation.
Maybe Anya and Spike and other demons lack our creative abilities.
Looking at it that way, aren't you glad we can lie?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Maybe the question is..... -- Greta,
09:02:38 06/04/01 Mon
Anya referred to Bugs Bunny as that "scary cartoon rabbit
running away from that nice man with the speech impediment"
and you question her ability to look at particular situations
in a different way?:)
In fact she's enabled me to be more honest. I never liked Bugs
and I positively LOATHE that $#%F$ing roadrunner. I feel so free!
I think I'll go write a fic about Tweety becoming Dru's newest
pet(evil grin:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Maybe the question is..... --
Brian, 09:51:16 06/04/01 Mon
One wonders - On the plant without any shrimp, are there large,
vicious rabbits with sharpened teeth, and razor-like claws that
give Anya this bunny aversion?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Are demons more honest than humans? -- Jarrod Harmier,
11:28:00 06/03/01 Sun
Demons do seem unhampered by tact or convention more than humans
as group. However, when you when compare demons (as a group) to
a human individual, you realize that a human individual can stop
using convention or tact and say what's what. My example is Xander.
In "Prophecy Girl", season finale to the first season,
Xander forces Angel to show him where the Master's lair is. Xander
does this because no one else will and does this with the knowledge
that there is no way he could survive in a fight with the Master.
However, there are times when human beings. In "The 'I' In
Team" (I think) Xander questions the Inititative's agenda.
Giles questions it first, but I think that's due to experience.
I think Xander voiced his skepticism a bit more forcefully than
Giles did, though. In "Into The Woods", when Buffy doesn't
want to hear about what Xander thinks about what's been happening
with her relationship with Riley, he tells her what he thinks
anyway. He believes it's more important to get everything out
in the open then let Buffy leave it buried.
So, what allows Xander (or another human individual) to change
from "tact mode" to "brutal honesty mode"?
In a reply I posted to another thread, I mentioned a quote by
Robert A. Heinlein that I found on-line: "A human being should
be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn
a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build
a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders,
cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem,
pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently,
die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Human beings
are complex because they have multiple modes that they can utilize.
That is not to say that humans cannot get stuck in one mode because
it is comfortable. Most of the demons we have seen in the Buffyverse
seem to have one basic mode of acting. Spike and Anya do seem
to be stuck in the "brutal honesty mode." However, it
seems that their constant connect with the others has allowed
them to at least begin to develop other responses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Xanders school of etiquette........;) -- Rufus, 13:36:16
06/03/01 Sun
When Anya firs became human she was very blunt, she only had to
keep one being happy, herself. Then she started to date Xander.
Out of all the SG he has the patience to tell the former demon
the subtleties of human living. Demons are quite capable of being
less than honest, but that is never to make anyone feel better
but to get a desired outcome for them. They never have to worry
about the feelings of others. Anya has now learned that to coexist
she has to learn manners and the art of the white lie. She is
getting to be not bad at it, except for the fact she tells you
right away that she was fibbing. As for Spike, he may be blunt
and uncaring to others feelings but he does have more skills than
Anya, he has been a demon for less time and he was used to fabricating
the truth for Dru. He may be blunt, but he is quickly catching
up to us in the art of BS. Demons may seem more honest but it
is only in relation to dealing with us, and they aren't very concerned
about our feelings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Xanders school of etiquette........;) --
rowan, 14:49:37 06/05/01 Tue
"As for Spike, he may be blunt and uncaring to others feelings
but he does have more skills than Anya, he has been a demon for
less time and he was used to fabricating the truth for Dru."
Sometimes, too, I think with Spike it's an active choice to be
so brutally honest. I think the highest compliment Spike pays
to people he respects (and although he loved Dru, I'm not sure
he respected her) is to give them the unvarnished truth and then
to help them deal with it. I look at his contacts with Buffy and
Dawn when I say this. He cares for them the most, and that caring
has developed over time, but it hasn't made him any less blunt
in conversation with them (although he at least has softened his
tone of voice to piss them off a little less).
This is probably one of the reasons I like Spike. I don't feel
that his honesty comes from cruelness. He is just honest about
things; he would never be one to kill with machinations or stab
someone in the back (like Angelus would). He comes right at you,
face to face. A honorable demon. Wow. Strange concept.
Troll God -- Paulo, 12:16:30 06/03/01
Sun
The troll in triangle wasn't a god, why did everyone in the gift
seem to think he was?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Troll God -- cknight, 17:57:47 06/03/01 Sun
He was a enchanted being with a magic hammer. They figured and
rightly so that a magic weapon would deal heavy damage to Glory
and she would not be able to easily heal the damage. During this
season only Willows magic hurt Glory. So the hammer was a cool
choice. I hope we all get to see the troll again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Troll God -- Sam Raimond, 18:04:16 06/03/01 Sun
Yeah, that got me too, Anya even said the hammer was "the
weapon of a god" what was that about?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Troll God -- darrenK, 21:17:02 06/03/01 Sun
The troll doesn't have to have been a GOD to have possession of
a God's weapon...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Troll God -- Lazarus, 05:19:09 06/04/01
Mon
Or perhaps he was a minor god? The Buffyverse seems to have a
plethora of dieties running around being corporeal, so that would
imply some kind of ranking or pecking order among them with some
of them necessarily being at the bottom of the god-chain so to
speak... Like a poor relation from out in the sticks...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Troll God -- Brian, 07:01:50 06/04/01
Mon
Well, could you imagine Anynaka dating some low life troll? Come
on, she's hung with Dracula. I'm sure this troll was some big
wig. After all, Trolls don't have to be bright to be a head honcho,
do they?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Troll God -- Cactus Watcher,
10:02:58 06/04/01 Mon
Time out. Olaf was not a troll when he started dating Anya. She
turned him into a troll for cheating on her. Only Joss knows where
he got the idea Olaf was a troll "god." If Olaf was
a god, it was never explained on the show how he became one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Troll God -- Lazarus,
12:57:04 06/04/01 Mon
Perhaps the god part was part of the curse... From what little
we know of trolls, being one of their dieties may not be the most
pleasant occupation... ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Troll with a hammer --
Brian, 13:02:59 06/04/01 Mon
You're absolutely right. We only have Anya's word that the hammer
is of the gods, and I guess she would know. Apparently Olaf must
have acquired the hammer doing troll things.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: troll things --
Scout, 11:31:24 06/05/01 Tue
:)
"doing troll things"
For some reason that makes me laugh. Olaf. Doing troll things.
(Olaf, telling himself, "Remember, pillage *before* you burn")
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Troll God -- Traveler, 13:07:18 06/05/01
Tue
The fact that the weapon was even the weapon of a god was never
mentioned when Olaf had it. Anya simply said that it was the source
of his power. It IS a little cheezy to retroactively declare it
a god weapon, but I'm willing to overlook it, 'cause that episode
just rocked.
Wouldn't it be funny if... -- LadyStarlight,
15:23:55 06/03/01 Sun
Buffy came back bad & the first one to figure it out was Spike--because:
(the SG is in the Magic Shop. Spike opens the conversation)
S: I'm telling you, Buffy's changed!
Giles: Well, of course she's changed! She was reborn, for heaven's
sake!
S: It's not that...it's (pause) shewantedtohavesexwithme.
SG: Pardon!
S: (deep sigh, clearly embarassed) She wanted to have sex with
me. But she was all Faith-y about it. You know, ride me like a
horse, etc.
Xander: And you said no, I trust.
S: After my brain caught up with my trousers, yes I said no.
Hee hee, if you lived in my head, you'd find this hilarious too.
I suppose now I'm truly obsessed.
(hope this isn't too off-topic. I just thought it was too good
not to share)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Ok LadyStarlight...... -- AK-UK, 15:58:22 06/03/01 Sun
I want to see this episode. I DEMAND that you write it and post
it up somewhere (that fanfiction.net place?). C'mon! I wanna know
what happens next :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ok LadyStarlight...... -- Lazarus, 17:17:09 06/03/01
Sun
Absolutely perfect, LadyS...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Ok LadyStarlight...... -- Sam Raimond, 18:02:25
06/03/01 Sun
But then the question becomes is she evil or just naughty?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Ok LadyStarlight...... -- Dee, 19:26:32
06/03/01 Sun
I hope just naughty-act on those buried desires without all the
analyzing. Write out the whole episode-I loved the "head
catching up to my trousers" line-it's so Spike!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ok LadyStarlight...... -- LadyStarlight, 20:03:13
06/03/01 Sun
Well I've started it. Will you volunteer to beta-read it for me?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Faith-y? -- vampire hunter D, 13:42:46 06/04/01 Mon
I know how nitpicking this sounds but...How does Spike know what
Faith's like? He only met her once (when she was in Buffy's body)
and didn't even realize who she was. Actually, that one line sounds
more like Xander than Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Faith-y? -- LadyStarlight, 15:54:40 06/04/01 Mon
Maybe someone told him....sorry, it just sounded funny.
As anyone made a list regarding
Tara -- Cynthia, 15:57:11 06/03/01 Sun
When I rewatch The Gift last night I noticed that Tara as she
was leaving the shop stared straight at Giles and said "You're
a murderer". A short time later that's exactly what he did.
I didn't keep track of her outbursts while she was affected by
Glory's feeding (I've got to start archiving) but it might be
interesting to gather them together in one place and see if they
lend any insight about next season. Anyone remember any of her
other comments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: As anyone made a list regarding Tara -- Dedalus, 13:19:42
06/04/01 Mon
That's a great idea. All I can remember off the top of my head
is her calling Willow a bitch. And really loudly.
Hope that helps.
:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I'll get right on it -- vampire hunter D, 13:48:21 06/04/01
Mon
That's a great idea. I'll get right on it.
By the way, in response to Daedalus's post, the line was: "Bitch!
I should be working on the factors"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I'll get right on it -- Rob, 08:44:58 06/05/01
Tue
I think the "Bitch" line was a projection of Glory's
feelings for Willow. After all, she's the only one who can hurt
her.
What is all this about Doc? --
Sam Raimond, 18:13:58 06/03/01 Sun
I've been looking at the other posts lately and alot of them have
this dwelling thing with the Doc character. I don't understand
why he can't just be a simple demon that worshipped Glory. I actually
felt his presence was more to drive home the fact that Glory had
farther reaching God-presence than just the hobbit things.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What is all this about Doc? -- Wisewoman, 18:53:37 06/03/01
Sun
I think perhaps part of the emphasis on the character of Doc is
owing to the fact that the actor who plays him, Joel Grey, is
so well-respected. I recognize that many younger people may never
have heard of him, but back in the 1970s he was hot stuff as an
actor, a dancer, and a singer. Added to that, the fact that he's
not done much television, and was noted mainly for Broadway stage
and film work, and his appearance on Buffy is quite remarkable.
Somehow I don't think we've seen the last of Doc...
;o) Wisewoman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What is all this about Doc? -- Nina, 19:19:17
06/03/01 Sun
I second that! Joel Gray is a fantastic actor. Only for that fact
I can't believe he won't come back. What would be the point to
get Doc for 3 episodes and let him go without really knowing why
he didn't tell Glory about the key. He had his own agenda and
we'll know what it is next season (if not well I'll be disappointed!).
He scared me so much that I'm really rooting for him being the
Big Bad next season!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> All us Godless Canadians love him! ;o) -- Wisewoman,
19:36:01 06/03/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What is all this about Doc? -- OnM, 21:59:46
06/03/01 Sun
Agreed-- an actor of his status, appearing on a 'silly kid's show'?
I doubt it was a one-shot deal, unless JG happens to be a big
fan of the show and just requested a guest spot. I mean, if you're
Joss, and JG comes to you and says please, would you refuse? I
think not!
I hope he comes back, such a great and malevolent presence, reminds
me of The Mayor, one minute cheerful, next minute Evil as can
be. (The Mayor is still one of my all time fav Big Bads.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: What is all this about Doc? -- Rufus,
00:44:28 06/04/01 Mon
Hey it would be a big bad with layers. Cocoa slinging grandpa
looking guy....with a long tongued nasty, beat you to a pulp,
nasty worships dead gods, underlayer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: What is all this about Doc?
-- Sam Raimond, 11:02:42 06/04/01 Mon
Well now i see why everyone thinks he will return but in typical
Joss fashion, it would be suprise to the audience if he never
showed up again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: What is all this about Doc?
-- Humanitas, 13:24:54 06/04/01 Mon
Boy, it would be nice to have such an impressive Big Bad. Joel
Grey is the King of Creepy, to me. I had the pleasure of seeing
him on stage in the revival of Cabaret some years ago. I saw the
show in an old opera house in Philadelphia, and our seats were
about a mile from the stage, but even at that distance, his presence
just oozed through the aisles. For any of you who are unfamiliar
with his work, I strongly suggest (hopefully without stepping
on OnM's toes ;)) you rent the film version of Cabaret. I prefer
the stage version, but you need to see this guy in action!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What is all this about
Doc? -- rowan, 20:02:17 06/04/01 Mon
If you don't find JG's Cabaret character creepy, you won't find
anything creepy! ;)
I, too, hope to see JG back next season. I'm thinking perhaps
as a surprise part way through the season (you know, everybody
thinks he's dead, and then suddenly that pesky little lizard creature
is back). I half-wondered if his strange recognition of Spike
in the first ep he was in wasn't somehow precognitive (rather
than memory).
I'd like Spike to get the chance to go up against him and win
the next time (yes, I'm advocating that Spike actually get to
do something heroic next season after his abysmal failure in The
Gift).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What is all this
about Doc? -- verdantheart, 06:30:05 06/07/01 Thu
I'm sort of expecting a bit more heroism from Spike next season
simply because drama tends to work that way. If it should occur
vs. Doc it would be all the more apt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What is all this about Doc? -- Ramo, 17:24:25
06/04/01 Mon
I think Doc is very important. After all, it's his fault that
Buffy died! Glory couldn't even get to Dawn to open the portal,
but Doc, and innocent seeming demon, was the one.
What a perfect entrance for him being on next season!!!
Rumours / Spoilers (?) on Giles'
spin-off -- Marie, 03:56:53 06/04/01 Mon
This is my first post to this board - though I am an avid reader!
First of all, may I add my congratulations to the most interesting
and thought-provoking posters I have found on the Web. I am not
a very articulate person, and certainly don't claim to know anything
about philosophy, but an earlier thread was asking about the Giles
spin-off show, so I thought I'd add my two penn'orth, if you don't
mind.
The latest in the UK is that the show is definitely going ahead,
which means that Giles will be a recurring character, because
of ASH's desire to spend more time with his family here.
The rumours I'm hearing are:
After Buffy's demise, Giles does some reading of the books of
prophecy, and learns that originally there was a Hunter, as well
as a Slayer - they were a couple, and fought as one.
Then came one of the slayer's 18th birthday, and the Council's
test - only she died. The Hunter, devastated, denounced the Watcher's
Council, and left, presumably to hunt alone.
Giles comes to the UK to try and find the latest Hunter.
Of course, I have no idea whether this is true - knowing JW, it's
been put out to throw people off the scent, so if it never comes
to pass, my humblest apologies.
Hope this gives you all something to conjecture about!
Love and admiration,
Marie.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hello, Marie! -- Wisewoman, 07:39:55 06/04/01 Mon
Well I, for one, love that scenario! Can't wait to see if it pans
out (and if we get to see it here in Canada). Thanks for the info
:o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Hello, and thanks for the reply! -- Marie, 07:50:24
06/04/01 Mon
I hope you get the series, whatever it's about - after all, this
is JW's new baby, so it's not going to be bad, is it? I would
be glad to tape it for anyone who doesn't get it - I assume British
VHS tapes work the same as Canadian/US ones??? And if it's a short
series, it should fit on one or two tapes, so postage shouldn't
be too much. Perhaps you could arrange a postal route for fans
and pass them on?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Hello, and thanks for the reply! -- Wisewoman,
08:10:23 06/04/01 Mon
What a lovely offer! I'm sure you'll have a lot of requests, if
we can figure out the VHS tape thing. I know there was a time
when UK/US and/or Canadian tapes weren't compatible, but that's
probably changed by now if they're all VHS.
Please keep us posted on when/how it starts. Even if the tape
thing doesn't work out, it might be possible to set up a message
board strictly for that series, so our UK buddies could let us
read summaries of the episodes. (I am what we call a "Spoiler
Ho," -- I love to read about the episodes before I see them...it's
a curse!)
Cheers, Wisewoman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: VHS & DVD Differences -- Brian, 08:50:06
06/04/01 Mon
I was under the impression that Canada VHS & DVD are a different
format than English VHS & DVD. So they are not interchangable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: VHS & DVD Differences -- LadyStarlight,
09:20:02 06/04/01 Mon
Unfortunately, North American & UK VHS tapes are not compatible.
To play tapes from the UK, you'd have to have a multi-format VCR
(or find someone in the UK to tape them in NTSC format)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: VHS & DVD Differences
-- gds, 15:56:07 06/04/01 Mon
I am so irritated by the fact that UK will have season 3 of BTVS
before we in the US get season 1, I found an alternative I am
seriously considering. In case others are interested, I include
a link to the product. If OnM or someone else who is knowledgable
has any comments about it I would be very interested.
http://www.codefreedvdplayers.com/MSDVD_SMPO_dve-660_DTL.shtml
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> These players are illegal,
you buy them entirely at your own risk. -- OnM, 20:36:26 06/04/01
Mon
This isn't the first player I have seen marketed that is free
of the region-coding firmware that allows a standard player to
play only those discs produced for a given region.
In fact, while I forget the name of the company now, about one
year ago on ZDTV, Leo Laporte of 'The Screen Savers' program tipped
viewers off to just such a machine. Within less than two weeks,
legal action was filed against the manufacturer, and all sales
and production of the machine were halted. All unsold units had
to be recalled and modified to restore the original region protection
in a tamper-proof manner.
The problem in purchasing the advertised DVD player is that if
the same thing happens to the company selling it, you will be
left with an unsupported, orphan product. If it breaks in two
months, and you return it for service, it will be modified to
restore the original protection before returning it to you. Or,
depending on the legal action taken, it may simply be confiscated.
You might become involved in a long and hassle-filled project
to get your machine back.
The situation is similar to 'gray market' goods, but with gray
market goods the legalities are often unclear. Here, that is not
the case-- any general consumer DVD player operating region-code
free is illegal-- period.
The only real recourse you have is to write (snail-mail is more
effective than e-mail, still) or call DVD producers/studios etc.
and complain politely that you are unhappy about not getting to
see programming that others in the world can, even though that
programming originates here first. If enough people bitch and
moan, action may be taken.
BTW, you might mention that you would like to BUY, not RENT the
software in question. Program producers and their bean counters
tend to see renters as 'freeloaders'. I certainly don't agree
with this-- there are people who rent, and there are people who
buy-- but that is the way they see it. You are probably aware
that the main reason for the delay in Buffy DVD's is that Fox
wants to get the money from the syndication market first, they
are convinced that if people can tape the eps 'for free', they
won't buy the DVD's.
This is nonsense-- see rent/buy, above-- but again, that's what
they think. It's what they thought back in the 70's when Sony
was shipping the first Betamaxes. Bean counters never change,
and they run the studios. (Most of the time, anyway).
Vote with your dollars-- wave them in from of those holding your
entertainment hostage. Eventually they *will* get the message.
OK, end of rant!! ;p
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: These players
are illegal, you buy them entirely at your own risk. -- gds, 21:00:03
06/04/01 Mon
I know that the recording industry uses its lawyer clout to threaten
prople, but I am almost positive that it is NOT illegal, just
that major companies find it not worth their while to fight. I
am aware of the case you mentioned and last time I checked the
region free part of the unit was supposed to work (but this unit
couldn't convert signals). The 'surgery' removed the option of
avoiding copy protect.
I know for fact that region free vcrs & TV's have been used all
over the world for decades, and in places areas of the world where
they are not addicted to 1 standard, you can buy them in normal
stores.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: These players
are illegal, you buy them entirely at your own risk. -- gds, 21:22:49
06/04/01 Mon
In my previous post it would be more accurate to replace the phrase
"region free" with "multi broadcast standard"
in speaking of TVs & VCRs. Region coding was something that was
devised for DVDs for the benefit of the recording industry. Whereas
mutiple broadcast standards reflect the inability of the countries
of the world to agree on anything. The TECHNICAL problem with
most region free DVDs is they can't convert signals so that even
though they can read the disks, the TV can't understand what the
DVD sends.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Multi-format
TV's and VCR's -- OnM, 22:18:12 06/04/01 Mon
gds-- you are right about the TV's and VCR's being available in
multi-format, but the main reasons for there being limited or
no legislation as to 'regions' or copying, is that videotape had
pretty much spread en masse over the world by the time digital
media such as DVD came on the scene, so restricting it had become
a largely moot proposition. Also, the differing technical TV/video
standards, as you stated.
You need to realize that what freaks the entertainment moguls
is that:
1 > The performance quality of the media is extremely high,
far higher than tape. This increases the quality of copies.
2 > If you can make high quality copies, there is nothing to
stop you from selling them worldwide, unless the copy contains
a digital code to make that copy useless anywhere else but the
country it was made for.
3 > Like any code, it can be 'cracked'. Therefore, you must
agressively nip all such efforts in the bud, or over time disc
will become like tape-- everywhere, and uncontrollable. Most industry
people feel that this is inevitable anyway, so the best they can
hope for is just to put it off as long as possible. Maybe some
newer, more protectable technology will come into being, and we'll
start all over.
One last note-- it isn't illegal for you to purchase the machine--
it is illegal to MAKE or SELL them for the normal consumer market.
There is, in fact, legislation to this effect.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: These players
are illegal, you buy them entirely at your own risk. -- gds, 22:46:53
06/04/01 Mon
A little research indicates that the REGION CODING is what may
be illegal: e.g. From http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#1.10
"Some people believe that region codes are an illegal restraint
of trade, but there have been no legal cases to establish this."
It is copy protection avoidance which is illegal:
"Movie studios have promoted legislation making it illegal
to defeat DVD copy protection. The result is the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances
and Phonograms Treaty (December 1996) and the compliant U.S. Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), passed into law in October 1998.
Software intended specifically to circumvent copy protection is
now illegal in the U.S. and many other countries."
The case you sited (Apex AD-600A DVD player)has a lot of conflicting
info on the web so I don't know the actual status of this player.
...
After hunting on the web for a few hours, I found NO evidence
that region free is illegal, but plenty that the file industry
doesn't like it - e.g. trying (not very succesfully with "Regional
Code Enhancement (RCE) Program"). I am a technical guy not
a laywer, but the only problems I find are practical - not legal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ah, the
plot thickens... at $500.00 per hr, no doubt! ;) -- OnM, 22:29:09
06/05/01 Tue
Nice research, gds! This really does remind me of Betamax all
over again... years and years of conflicting litigation.
As I said, as far as I know it isn't illegal to own region-free
players. The rest? You got me. I'm a techie also, I can only observe
the legal end of things and shake my head.
The only other observation I can make is that I have NEVER seen
any of the major manufacturers (Toshiba, Panasonic, Sony, Philips,
Marantz, Denon, Yamaha, etc. etc.) make any code-free players
other than maybe in the very first year of player production.
I suspect it's because they just don't want the potential legal
hassles/costs.
Whatever! Craziness, as usual.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> You sound pretty articulate to me! Welcome, please post
again! :) -- OnM, 08:14:54 06/04/01 Mon
If true, that would be a pretty big change in the overall Slayer
mythology, since we are so used to the concept of the Slayer working
alone.
By all means, let us know if you get any more goods on the series,
we're all hoping it will be shown in the U.S. also.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yin and Yang -- Wisewoman, 11:03:47 06/04/01 Mon
Oooooh, OnM, you just made me realize why the idea of a Hunter
appeals to me. I know JW has stated his overt intention to make
BtVS about a girl who has power and responsibility and a role
as a hero (I'm paraphrasing here ;o)) but it seems to me the mythos
needs a polarity. I'm kind of conflicted about this, because I'm
from the generation that used to say "A woman without a man
is like a fish without a bicycle" :o0 and I recognize that
Buffy herself does not need the presence of a man to complete
her as a person (although she may not see it that way!) but maybe
the Slayer did originally come as part of a set.
Buffy was part of the set of "Buffy and Angel" but that
was brief and ephemeral. I thinking more of a fated-kinda two
people who are destined to find each other because in combination
they become greater than the sum of their individual strengths?
Help me out here...does anyone see what I'm talking about?
Aaaaaaaaargh, Wisewoman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> You'd need to find a damn good actor -- abt,
12:06:26 06/04/01 Mon
to play that part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: You'd need to find a damn good actor
-- Wisewoman, 13:31:20 06/04/01 Mon
Hmmmmm. This IS the UK we're talking about. No pausity of sterling
talent there! I figure any young buck from the Royal Shakespeare
Company could give it a go... ;o)
Wisewoman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> ...'Fish without a bicycle' -- That was Gloria
Steinem, was it not? -- OnM, 22:33:43 06/05/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I believe it was... -- Wisewoman, 08:34:51
06/06/01 Wed
I know we all went around wearing T-shirts (over our bra-less
bosoms, of course!) that bore that slogan.
Maybe if I'd thought I would look as good as Gloria does at her
age, I would have given up men altogether! (But probably not...)
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> More Bawdy Variation On Steinem
Quote -- Anthony8, 12:40:28 06/06/01 Wed
A young woman once told me the following joke.
Q: What do you call a woman without an a_ _ hole?
A: Single.
Believe it or not, some people did not get the joke at all and
some women were offended because they thought it was making fun
of a person with a birth defect that made her unappealing to the
opposite sex. Go figure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: More Bawdy Variation ...Takes
me back to my youth, *sigh* -- Wisewoman, 21:20:47 06/06/01 Wed
Spike chip -- abt, 05:37:20 06/04/01
Mon
my take is this. When someone becomes a vampire they are preserved
as they were at the time of their death, but made evil etc. so
dru will always be mad, harmony will never grow up like cordy.
somehow the chip has given spike a space in which to grow up.
even if the chip comes out and he goes evil again, he'd be different
now, more mature.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Vamps growing up -- Morgane, 07:56:37 06/04/01 Mon
I believe that's far more complicated than that! Vamps appear
to stay the same and don't grow up, that's true but I don't believe
that's because they can't but more because they don't have to.
Most of them are loners and doesn't have to live in the society
or with anyone else, they just hang around by themselves and catch
some happy meals with legs when they need to. Some exceptions
actually live with others and/or in society but their all special
cases. Drusilla will probably always been bad but keep in mind
that she's insane! and that's usually for a pretty long time(because
I don't believe she would go thru a complete phsychological therapy
without drinking the phychologist!!) Harmony is another case!
I don't believe that she won't ever grow up, I mean she already
did a little! At first, when she was with Spike, she was quite
a dumb blonde but later, when she was trying to convince him that
Buffy would get upset and kill him if he keeps try to kill her.
That was pretty logic and a little more mature than the girlfriend
who used to hide stake in her bed! You know they all have their
own personnality and I believe that they change, maybe slower
than human but still... It's pretty logic that they don't change
as fast, I mean, they like have eternity (if Buffy doesn't get
in their way) to change and learn things, it's not like they're
in a hurry!! So I don't believe than Spike's chip is the reason
he suddenly grow up, but it probably helped to change perspective
a little for him. But after a little think, he didn't change that
much, I mean, he's not on the same side anymore but that's mostly
all! He has always worked in team well, and had always been very
devoted to his lover (Drusilla back then, and Buffy now) He had
always understood things(especially feelings) that other doesn't,
he still does. So I believe that the vamps don't change much,
more because of their immortality than because of their evilness
or something like that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike chip -- Rufus, 16:00:02 06/04/01 Mon
When vampires are created they become immortal, but they don't
get any smarter or change much in who they were. The big difference
is that when infected with evil, the vampire references the hosts
personal hurts and resentments, and capitalizes on them by acting
out the worst thoughts of revenge or getting the upper hand that
the host may have had. To explain this you only have to go as
far as Angel to see what can happen. Darla wanted a plaything
who could keep her company, she spotted who she thought would
be lots of fun, Liam. Liam was in a situation where he felt stiffled
by family responsibility and expectations, he was in a period
of rebellion where he went the the pubs and drank his sorrows
away. He was in what he thought was a competition with his father.
He thought there could only be a winner or a loser. When Darla
gave him the opportunity to travel and be what he thought he could
be with no restrictions, he jumped at the chance. What happened
after was a mass murder. Angelus was a creature that acted out
all of Liams deepest feelings of hurt and anger. He became the
most monsterous of all the vampires, the worst of them all. He
finally killed his father, he thought that the battle was over
he had won, then Darla hit him with the reality that his father
would live on in his heart. The thing that gave his father power
was the mistaken perception of a young man who felt trapped. His
father may not have been a nice man but he did have Liams best
interests in mind. Angelus had wiped out all the love that existed
in this world at that time. He wiped out what he felt trapped
him, the ability to love. He became an artistic killer because
he couldn't stand being mediocre at anything. Life even unlife
had to have some meaning, even a perverse one. Now, to Spike.
William was a bloody awful poet, but a good man. His start in
unlife was the result of rejection in love, and the feeling that
he was mediocre, and invisible to others. When he became a vampire
he set out to change his persona. He made himself different to
reflect that change. He was considered a wimp in life so in unlife
he became a "manly man". Spike killed to gain attention
and admiration from the other vampires, his new peers. As that
wasn't enough he stalked Slayers to gain the best reputation he
could. Where Angelus seemed to hate and fear love, Spike retained
the ability to appreciate love. Unfortunately for humans this
love only extended to Drusilla. Spike was still a killer to be
feared by mortals(and vamps that got in his way). Then he met
Buffy. Even pre chip he liked her, admired her, chose her. He
lost Dru because she knew what Spike couldn't accept, he loved
the Slayer. None of this would have surfaced if it weren't for
the chip in his head. Spike hated the chip. It neutered him, made
him feel less of a man. Until OOMM, when he discovered what Dru
knew years ago, he loved Buffy. If it weren't for the chip that
may never have surfaced in a way he could have understood. The
chip took him away from the addictive act of killing then consuming
the blood of humans. I don't think the chip had implanted false
emotions but given Spike time away from the hunt to change his
perspective. What consequences the removal of the chip will have
is unknown. One could be the return to hunting humans because
of the rush it gives him, but with his new perspective will that
rush exist anymore?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike chip -- Ramo, 17:16:26 06/04/01 Mon
I agree and think that the chip has allowed Spike to mature because
he has been unable to act on his instinctual evil tendencies since
he got the chip.
I believe it's partly the same for Angel, that his soul definitely
allowed him to grow up. As a person, Angel was a drunkard with
nothing to live for, and it didn't change much when he became
a vampire. When Angel received his soul though, he changed and
found a purpose in life, to save other people's souls.
When it came to Spike's love life, Buffy was Spike's first real
love since his death; he seemed like the lovesick teenager that
was turned into a vampire and has been stuck in it ever since.
Towards the end of the season, I noticed a change in how Spike
had acted towards Buffy, like in Intervention when he showed Buffy
that he'd sacrafice his life for her. Spike was finally being
able to accept things with Buffy in the season finale, and therefore
has matured and grown as a vampire.
Where is Dawn? -- Cactus Watcher,
06:58:23 06/04/01 Mon
Where do you suppose Dawn is right now? Has Hank Summers finally
shown up? Is she in foster care? Has Willow magically tricked
"family services" into letting Dawn stay with her? Did
Dawn get failed for missing the rest of the school year? What
do you think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Where is Dawn? -- AK-UK, 07:18:06 06/04/01 Mon
I would hope that Giles would use his Watcher's Council connections
to pull some strings and become Dawn's foster father (assuming
Hank Summer's absence).
Ooo, maybe Hank will come back and try to get custody of Dawn?
That would be a cool season 6 twist on the previous seasons plot.
You could have the SG commenting on how ironic it is that they
are once again battling to stop Dawn falling into the wrong hands
(Hank's).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Where is Dawn? -- Dedalus, 11:03:18 06/04/01 Mon
Cool thoughts, guys. I wondered the same thing about Dawn's school
work, considering she had already gotten in trouble for cutting
class.
I think Hank is gone for good, and Joss said he complicates things
enormously, so I doubt we will see him next year. Although maybe,
since both Buffy and Joyce are dead.
I would love for Giles to put the Watcher's Council connections
to use for once. I personally think she will wind up with Xander
and Anya after they tie the knot.
AK-UK, I answered your questions about plotholes (I hope) way
down there. Sorry I didn't sooner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Where is Dawn? -- Sue, 22:56:17 06/04/01
Mon
I still think Hank is a Vampire.
The Hank we saw in season one isn't the Hank we saw (or I should
say didn't see) in season five.
Buffy even stayed with Hank over the summer between season one
and two.
Hank is a good father. A caring and loving father. The only explanation
for his absence this year is either he is captured, or he is dead.
If he is a Vampire, will Dawn have to Slay him? Dawn loves Hank
very much, but if he is a vampire that means he is dead and isn't
Hank anymore (here we go again with another can't kill the vamp
scenario).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Where is Dawn? -- Susan, 00:28:08
06/05/01 Tue
Dawn losing her father after losing her Mother, her self, and
her sister?
Do you think this girl is going to want to have any close relationships
after this?
If she does get slayer like powers(if Buffy and Dawn's blood is
similar it would be yet again bending but not breaking the Slayer
succession rules for technically a "new" Slayer can
only be called when Faith dies) she might feel the only "real"
thing that she can count on in her life is the moments before
the kill. The only thing she can rely on is the act of the slay.
Dawn at this point in her life seems to have more in common with
Faith than Buffy. While I am sure she is still upset about Faith
holding her and her mom hostage, perhaps lacking Buffy she will
be attracted towards Faith. Or will she be strong enough to actually
do what her sister was unable or unwilling to do? Buffy couldn't
relate to Faith's life for Buffy's despite the trauma of slayer
duties (sending Angel to hell) still had quite an ideal life for
she was grounded in her friends and her family. But Dawn could
understand Faith better than Buffy ever could.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> DAwn. Where then(S1-4)???? -- Akdov
Kid, 05:19:36 06/06/01 Wed
What if Dawn is the dauther of Buffy and being the first ever
2nd generation slayer. Anyway the Hank thing. I think Hank will
return So to give that trouble in the home edge. As the fights
between Hank and Buffy (Ver 3.0)would tie in with the growing
up and parents leading go, which is said to be harder for a farther(no
mater how part time). So in my veiw the question sould be where
was fake dawn before the 1 thats just gone? As if he was looking
after Dawn theres bound to be a closer relationship between him
and Dawn than to Buffy. Another cause of trouble.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dawn's schoolwork -- vampire hunter D, 13:19:37 06/04/01
Mon
Actually, I don't think Dawn missed any school. As stated in somone
else's post, "Spiral" starts around noon an one day
(you can tell time by the fact that they were having lunch), and
"the Gift" ended at sunrise the next day. No more than
20 hours could have passed over tyhe period of the last three
eps. And since Dawn wasn't in school for lunch, we can assume
it was either a weekend or that she had been suspended (for cutting
classes). either wasy, Dawn didn't have achance to miss more school
(although she didnm't get in any studying for her geometry test).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dawn's schoolwork -- Dedalus, 14:31:46 06/04/01
Mon
Excellent catch, vampire hunter. I was just thinking myself that
it was amazing all three eps took place over a 24 hour period,
but that was indeed the case.
That is good news, and will no doubt make it easier for the Scoobies
to keep Dawn. Still, after going through all that, she can't be
expected to do all that well on her school work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dawn's schoolwork -- Cactus Watcher, 15:06:14
06/04/01 Mon
While it is no accident that most of the action of the last two
episodes takes place at night (to contrast with Buffy's dream
world, and to make the sunrise significant), it's not necessarily
true that the episodes were the same night. It was already dark
when Buffy called Ben. It took time for Ben to arrive at the gas
station. Ben was there for a while before he turned into Glory.
Between driving back to Sunnydale, getting Giles patched up, going
and talking to Doc, reading what Doc was hiding, arguing over
what to do, then finding and fighting Glory, it's a lot to do
in the remaining hours till daylight on one night. More likely
it was at least two nights. Having said that, what you say about
Dawn's school might be right. Anyone else?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Dawn's schoolwork -- Sue, 23:07:31 06/04/01
Mon
Dawn was kidnapped by some crazy religious wackos. Her sister
(who should have called the police, but feared that if she did
so the cult might harm Dawn) took it upon herself in a foolish
but successful attempt to save Dawn from these drugged out wackos.
She lost her life in the effort.
Dawn, greatly tramatized, was allowed to stay with a friend of
the family (Giles) pending notication of the girl's father. CPS
is montoring the situation.
I think the Sunnydale police would buy the story about drugged
out religious wackos (they probably know that isn't exactly what
happened, but is as good as anything they could make up). Who
could expel a child who as been tramatized by the death of her
mother, her own kidnapping, then the death of her sister.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Where is Dawn? -- Susan, 00:06:34 06/05/01 Tue
I know this is just fiction, but the situation that Dawn has been
put into is just so unbelievably sad.
At the beginning of the season we saw a happy little forteen year
old girl. Who went to book club meetings with her mom. Made her
mom tea. Read Harry Potter Books. Had a sister who yes argued
with like all sisters do, but who she adorned and looked up to.
Not that her life was perfect. Like all too many children in America
her parents got a divorce when she was very young. She took that
very hard. Then she had to move to a new area with her sister
and mother. That couldn't have been easy.
But that was a few years ago (yes it really never happened, but
can we get past that). When we see her she shown as smart, clever,
joyous, and inquistive. Being the sister of the slayer you can't
say her her life is normal, but she has a mother and sister who
she can count on, providing stability and seems, although feeling
sometimes overlooked, to really be starting to come into her own.
Finding her own identity and place in this world.
So what happens? Her mother, who she was very, very close to,
someone who she depended on more than anything, and additionally
someone she seemed to do many social attivities with, dies. Then
her sister, who she saw as her own personal hero and role model,
dies as well. Even her image of herself, as reflected in her diaries,
is destroyed.
I remember on Xena when Gabrielle asks Callisto about the death
of her family. Callisto responded "Think back to when you
were a little girl and all you knew were your mother and sister
and your faith revolved around them. (puts her hand over Gabrielle's
eyes) Now kill them."
Dawn has learned that there is nothing to grab hold onto in this
world. For whenever she begins to count on something, anything,
it is destroyed.
Where does a girl go who has learned not to trust? Who believes
(with some reason) that whenever she begins to rely on anything,
anything, as some sort of foundation providing stability, that
will be pulled away.
Now she is without family. She still has her sister's friends,
but can she trust them? What if they leave, die, or whatever?
Perhaps the only one who can provide some stability in her life
is a dead guy with a british accent. No he isn't perfect, but
he has existed for 100 years. That provides some stability doesn't
it? Perhaps not enough. For what Dawn has learned is one you start
relying on anything, that will be taken away from you. Better
not to trust. Trust nothing and no one. Better not to rely on
anything at all. It hurts less that way when it is taken from
you. And it is always taken from you.
How does one live in a world that will disappear on you when you
need it the most? Buffy said it would be difficult. She had no
idea.
The world might not have ended, but Dawn's world has, no less
than three times in one year. How will she have the strength to
carry on and yet again pick up the pieces? How will she re-build
when everything she touches turns to dust?
"Think back to when you were a little girl and all you knew
were your mother and sister and your faith revolved around them.
Now kill them."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> When I was Fouteen, I learned I didn't exist -- June,
00:39:54 06/05/01 Tue
Sounds like how Dawn might start out a new diary.
Poor Dawn.
Buffy's love is strong, even in death, but is it enough for Dawn
to carry on.
"I just want to go home."
But home isn't there anymore. And, there you are Dawn all alone.
But at least when you have nothing, you have nothing left to lose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: When I was Fourteen, I learned I didn't
exist -- Ben, 00:50:33 06/05/01 Tue
Maybe Buffy never existed? Maybe her mom didn't either?
Maybe Dawn was never fourteen? Maybe that whole last year with
all that pain and all that lost never really occured?
How does Dawn know? I am sure she must be thinking that right
now. Maybe it all wasn't real. Maybe I just started out 15 years
old just a few months ago.
More speculations on Doc and Buffy's
return -- Nina, 18:24:46 06/04/01 Mon
I started to have an idea while answering one of OnM's thread
on season 6 speculations. I thought about that idea a little more,
watched Doc's scenes again and came to some conclusions.
1- Doc has is own agenda. He may worship Glory (or make us think
he is), but when he opened the portal, Glory was already dead.
What would be the point? If he wanted to open the portal for Glory
he would have tried to protect her from Buffy so she wouldn't
die. He obviously was there for his own benefit.
2- I believe that Doc was not after Dawn but after Buffy. Why?
We've got quite a few pointers, but they were always hidden. First,
Doc took Dawn's hair in "Forever" and said that her
mother had a strong DNA. We all assumed he was talking about Joyce,
but I think he meant Buffy. Buffy herself felt that Dawn was a
part of her. Her blood. Her DNA. In the original script she refers
to Dawn as being her daughter. Since "Forever" Doc has
in his hands Buffy's DNA, the material he needs to bring her back
(clone her maybe?). Second, In WotW, Doc says to Spike and Xander
"Her day is coming boys, when she returns then you're gonna
see something". Here again we are misled. We're thinking
about Glory. But Glory wants to go home. The one who can return
is Buffy. She will come back because Doc will bring her back and
then we'll see something. Probably a bad Buffy? That could be
a very interesting way to have bad Buffy without having her being
a vampire damned forever.
3- Doc is a time traveler? I don't know. He could be, but one
thing for sure he uses teleport. Spike refered to it in WotW and
Doc answered "I guess". There's no other way how he
could get to Dawn. Giles says that no one went up the tower, yet
Doc miraculously appears. He's all proper and doesn't seem to
have climb his way up (contrast with Spike who was breathing hard
even though he doesn't breathe!). If Doc can teleport himself
in the present, he could well teleport himself in the future or
the past, no?
4- So Doc seems to know about Spike's past (cocoa, China, hair
color), he knows that Dawn his the slayer's sister. He doesn't
tell Glory about the key. He makes sure that Buffy knows about
the blood ritual and puts out a fake fight so Spike and Xander
can feel they got the papers on their own. Doc could have killed
them, but he didn't. He let Xander kill him and didn't went after
them to get the box back.
5- There's something about the blood. Doc made sure to stab Spike
with the knife first before cutting Dawn. If he could throw him
so easily down the tower, why did he bother to stab him first?
He mixed Dawn and Spike's blood to open the portal. Buffy closed
the portal with her own blood. Maybe Doc needed those three blood
mixed somehow!
6- Now the question is, why would Doc go to such an extend to
make Buffy die to bring her back? I don't know. When Doc saw Buffy
coming along he said "This will be interesting...".
It looks like Doc knew what was to come. He didn't put out a fight,
he let her throw him. Okay, slayer strenght, but he wasn't agressive
or anything. He let her do it. Like he let the boys take the box.
His agenda can be anything. He has her DNA through Dawn's hair.
So far he's a potential Big Bad, with a potential way to bring
Buffy back. That's surely could be interesting!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: More speculations on Doc and Buffy's return -- George
Avalos, 18:40:11 06/04/01 Mon
Problems with your theory...
--Glory did want to return home, but with the portals remaining
open for an extended time, Glory also could return to dominate
the Earth with her forces. So the "she" who is coming
back still referred to Glory. And when you look at it in the context
of the fight with Spike and Xander, it all happens so quickly,
and in such a fashion, that Glorificus is Doc's point of reference
--Doc never knew, before Glory found out, who was the key. He
may have noticed that Dawn and Mrs. Summers had strong DNA, but
that alone wouldn't have been a clue to the identity of the key.
--To teleport is different from time travel, in standard sci-fi.
That's the transport of physical objects in a current time frame,
rather than the transport of objects from one point in time to
another. It has to do with physical movements in space, but not
time.
--George
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: More speculations on Doc and Buffy's return --
Nina, 19:00:27 06/04/01 Mon
Love the comments! :) but what about the fact that Glory was dead
when Doc cut Dawn? That one is pretty important, isn't it? I can't
associate Doc with Glory for that one reason! As for Doc knowing
about Dawn. He knew in "Forever". We got the glimpse
of his reptilian tail and serpent construct can recognize the
key. If Doc had been with Glory he would have told her as soon
as in "Forerver". I agree with the time traveling thing
though. It's a poor argument at this point. Doc could be clairvoyant
instead, like Dru! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: More speculations on Doc and Buffy's return
-- abt, 06:47:58 06/05/01 Tue
and what about the sobek stuff in 'shadow'? reptile worshippers?
sobek has a life giving ankh, and doc does resurrection spells?
http://users.erols.com/bcccsbs/komombo.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: More speculations on Doc and Buffy's return -- Cactus
Watcher, 19:13:44 06/04/01 Mon
Interesting indeed. Nice theory!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: More speculations on Doc and Buffy's return -- rowan,
19:55:48 06/04/01 Mon
I loved reading your theories. Doc really puzzles me. On one hand,
I can see him just as a one-off character for this season. On
the other, he's so mysterious that it begs for further exploration
of his nature and background.
1. Doc definitely had a scary way of reading/knowing things about
others. I don't know if that's because he had previous knowledge,
or if there's some type of empathetic/telepathic ability he possesses.
2. I too, noticed the Dawn/Spike blood minging and wondered if
it meant anything. Since Spike was stabbed first, that means that
when Doc cut Dawn, it mingled Spike's blood with Dawn's. Any signficance
to that, or just a minor point? I wondered why Doc didn't cut
off Spike's head or stake him?
3. I don't think Doc knew that Glory was dead, did he? Or are
you interpreting the "she's a little late" comment as
acknowledgement that Glory is dead? I thought based on the sequence
of events that Doc came to Dawn before Buffy had finished with
Glory and Giles had killed Ben (or else Buffy would have been
up on the platform sooner, like before or during the Spike/Doc
fight). I interpreted Doc as a sort of backup plan to get the
portal open in case Glory was delayed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: More speculations on Doc -- Lazarus, 23:27:43
06/04/01 Mon
"...the Dawn/Spike blood minging and wondered if it meant
anything. Since Spike was stabbed first, that means that when
Doc cut Dawn, it mingled Spike's blood with Dawn's..."
Just had a thought on this...
Doc's (possible) Plan
Perhaps Doc was intentionallly mingling Spike's blood with Dawn's
to make it impure, under the theory (knowledge?) that Dawn's now
impure blood would not be able to close the portal. Then with
Dawn gone, Buffy would be in a negative enough emotional state
to try to close the portal by using her own blood and taking her
own life. By leaping while in a state of emotional weakness like
this, Buffy would leave herself completely vulnerable to his control
when he subsequently brings her back for his own ends.
The Actual/Possible S6 Events In Relation To Doc's Plan
As with most carefully laid plans, Doc's went awry. Firstly, he
didn't count on Buffy being disciplined enough mentally to prevent
Dawn from jumping, and thus Dawn (with the Key energy) is still
alive. What possible effects this will have we don't know. Secondly,
Buffy's leap was made while she was in a complete state of clarity
and peace with herself, which will be the lever she ultimately
uses to break free from Doc's control with the help of the Scoobies.
Any thoughts?
Laz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> (~sniffle~) Oh, Nina.. I'm so proud. Such fine reasoning.
Bless you, child! -- OnM, 20:54:02 06/04/01 Mon
Evil Clone: Oh, quit it already. She would have figured it out
even if you hadn't started the stupid thread. 'Buffy will be black',
yeah, uh-huh. All those words, why can't you just get on with
it?
OnM: Hey! How'd you get in here! I have a firewall on your machine!
EC: Had a firewall, bucko! Now we'll get some real action on this
board... (cackles demonically)
OnM: Oh, no you don't.
(Martial arts ensue. We'll return after a word from our sponsors)
(Happy music plays)
"Ersatz Brothers Coffee-- It's the REAL Thing!"
(More happy music)
OnM: Whew! Sorry about that, folks. Nina! Good goin'! Definitely
puts you in the running for the annual OnM Think-Too-Much Awards.
Nicely reasoned, don't see any obvious flaws yet, have to analyze
it a bit more.
OK, we cookin' now... ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> My evil thought..........:):):) -- Rufus, 20:59:18
06/04/01 Mon
I had this vision of Buffy returning in a similar way and state
as Angel. This time Spike would get to utter the words: "You
naked there Slayer???"
I do have some ideas on how she will return, they have nothing
to do with clones and evil, but pure light.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: My evil thought..........:):):) -- rowan,
21:00:52 06/04/01 Mon
Just make it, "you naked under there, Slayer?" and it's
deja vu all over again!
I'm thinking a reborn Buffy, thrown back by the PtB, dazed, confused,
and not exactly herself right away (very Angel-like).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> So I changed the words a bit...thought
you'd like that one.....:) -- Rufus, 21:07:29 06/04/01 Mon
It was rolling around in my brain for a bit and all this talk
of evil clones and rebirth made me think of how Angel reentered
the world......of course there were no witnesses to Angels return,
my addition of Spike was for dramatic effect.....and I thought
it would be funny. I'm quite sure that after the shock of a naked
reborn slayer wore off...say 10 minutes or so...Spike would be
happy to wrap something around the reborn in the buff, Buffy....:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: So I changed the words a bit...thought
you'd like that one.....:) -- rowan, 04:55:12 06/05/01 Tue
You have an evil, disgusting mind, and great potential for a career
in fanfic. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So I changed the words
a bit...thought you'd like that one.....:) -- Nina, 09:02:01 06/05/01
Tue
Lazarus: I love what you said about mixing impure blood with Dawn's
blood. If there was any reason for Doc to stab Spike, that must
have been the one! I couldn't put my finger on it, but I like
the sound of it!
Rowan: It's probable that Doc didn't know what was going on with
Glory. But if he can know stuff from the past or the future, I
would believe he'd know about Glory. Maybe not though. Lazarus'
explanation is quite interesting in that matter. If Doc intentionally
wanted to open the portal with impure blood it would mean he was't
with Glory who needed clean blood to open the portal!
OnM: LOL!!!!!!!! My god you got me laughing once more! Love that
evil clone of yours. Make sure to offer him some chocolate next
time, maybe while he eats you can have two words in edgewise!
;)
Rufus: I confess I'd prefer to see a light Buffy too. A pure Buffy.
A Buffy returned by TPTB. Confused, but pure. It doesn't mean
that Doc can't try to clone her though... but personally I think
we've seen enough Buffybot and I don't need a Buffyclone on top
of my sunday! I'm just trying to see what was Doc's plan, but
on a greater scale it would make more sense if Buffy was returned
by TPTB!
Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I am always afraid to speculate
too much and not be surprised when the real Buffy will come back.
Let's just hope it was all for fun and that JW found something
else! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So I changed the
words a bit...thought you'd like that one.....:) -- rowan, 11:08:43
06/05/01 Tue
I'm starting to think we may get back not the same Buffy, not
a dark Buffy, but a kind of supernaturally creepy Buffy in the
sense that she might "know" things -- you know, the
edge someone has where they're on the twilight of this world and
the next. Kind of a seer-like quality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> My husband was wondering how
long it would take you all to catch on to my mind......:):) --
Rufus, 20:31:05 06/05/01 Tue
I've been called evil before...I just can't figure out why....:):):):)
As for fan fic I'm not a writer and haven't the patience to do
fiction. I do sling out a few ideas here and there to my writer
friends...they call me evil too...go figure...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rufus, you & Aquitaine
should know I'm dedicating my Classic Movie to you both this week
;) -- OnM, 22:18:49 06/05/01 Tue
Of course, you guys will have to wait 'til Friday to see what
it's about, but rest assured it'll be appropriate.
Actually, the Evil Clone suggested it, and I had to agree for
once!
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh oh! I am quaking
in trepidation... -- Aquitaine, 11:04:17 06/06/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Of course
.....same here....quaking.......:):):) -- Rufus, 21:31:00 06/06/01
Wed
Buffy and the Basis of Morality
-- Dedalus, 18:30:33 06/04/01 Mon
Well, this is my first New Message post. My maiden voyage. Are
you as excited as I am? I thought so.
From THE GIFT-
Giles: She's not your sister.
Buffy: No. She's not. She's more than that. More than family ...
my sister, my daughter ...
Xander: She's your sister and your daughter?
Buffy: She's me. The monks made her out of me. I hold her and
I feel closer to her than ... it's more than physical, it's ...
Dawn is a part of me. The only part that I ...
Now compare with our old friend Schopenhauer -
"How is it possible that suffering that is neither my own
nor of my concern should immediately affect me as though it were
my own, and with such force that it moves me to action? This is
something mysterious, something for which Reason can provide no
explanation ... This presupposes that I have to some extent identified
myself with the other and therewith removed for the moment the
barrier between 'I' and 'not-I.' Only then can the other's situation,
his want, his need, become mine. I then no longer see him in the
way of an empirical perception, as one strange to me, indifferent
to me, completely other than myself; but in him I suffer, in spite
of the fact that his skin does not enfold my nerves."
Wow.
Now, before we go any further, I'm not a Schopenhauer expert.
Let's make that clear. I came across this quote via Joseph Campbell.
So, since this is a philosophy forum, I don't want everyone going
"Ooh, Dedalus quoted Schopenhauer, I'm going to ask him every
time I have a Schopenhauer question." Cause, you know I just
like that one quote.
I do think it is profound. A morality that is not forced by external
means or threats, but one that truly springs out of a spiritual
or psychological realization. It's not a commandment to treat
others as you which to be treated, but rather a living impulse
after which you cannot help but treat others as you which to be
treated because you and the other are in fact one. The self is
transcended and the unity of all life presents itself.
And isn't this really what was going on in The Gift? If it is,
it means Buffy's epiphany is more far reaching than simply what
it means to be a Slayer ... it's about what it means to be human.
And face it, you just don't get that on most television shows.
Thoughts? Questions? Comments? Rotten fruit hurled in my general
direction? Blank faces and apathetic stares?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and the Basis of Morality -- Anthony8, 19:32:14
06/04/01 Mon
No rotten fruit projectiles, blank Frank faces or apathy here.
I've been thinking about the real meaning of the episode's title
'The Gift' beyond the level of "Hero gives life for the cause.
" We must be on similar wavelengths. In fact, in the wee
a.m. hours on a local Bay Area PBS station today, was broadcast
a docu-biography of JC in which he delivers the Schopenhauer quote
you cite above.
Since I generally like to collect my thoughts after I have had
a chance to read a few thread responses before chipping in my
own more extensive two bits, I'll reserve any in-depth response
until this thread has developed somewhat.
In the meanwhile, I came across an interesting episode quote from
'Lovers' Walk' that seems relevant to your thread and strangely
connected to 'The Gift' in light of all the discussions regarding
blood, love and sacrificing oneself for another. In this early
episode, Spike, pining over his loss of Drusilla to the chaos
demon, comes back to Sunndydale to enlist Willow's help (and Joyce's
motherly advice) to get Dru back. Somehow he ends up working on
the same side as Angel and Buffy to get out of a tricky situation.
Anyhow...enough back story. Always the voice or unfiltered opinion,
Spike says "love isn't brains children. It's blood...blood
screaming inside you to work its will." Especially prophetic
when you consider how integral his little blood speech in 'The
Gift' was in Buffy's epiphany? Or am I muddying up your thread?
Sorry--this ended up being lengthier than I intended. Cursed stream
of consciousness (and too much caffeine)!
Once again, great topic. Let's see where it takes us.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy and the Basis of Morality -- rowan, 19:47:51
06/04/01 Mon
So much for plotholes, huh? When observant people like you come
up with stuff like this that seems to foreshadow future events,
I wonder how so many can be so unconvinced by the artistic rightness
of Buffy's sacrificial substitution for Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and the Basis of Morality -- rowan, 19:43:14 06/04/01
Mon
Welcome! And congratulations on your first post: you've picked
something so interesting that I think we could spend quite a long
time analyzing the different levels of meaning in Buffy's feelings
about Dawn. I have a few thoughts to add.
1. It's interesting to note how Joss made some changes between
the shooting script and the final cut. The shooting script (which
you quote) is quite explicit in having Buffy declare that she
is both Dawn's sister and her mother. Yet the final ep omits those
lines. I've puzzled over why. I think the scene is stronger for
the deletion, because it portrays Buffy as struggling to convey
something so profound that mere words aren't quite getting to
it. Was the change just for those (or similar) reasons, or for
something else?
2. Buffy's statement (and her role as sacrificial lamb) of course
beg very obvious comparisons to Jesus. I know that everybody always
compares every sacrifice to Jesus, but bear with me for a minute.
In this scene, I heard echoes of Jesus on the cross, saying to
John and his mother Mary: 'Mother, behold thy son. Son, behold
thy mother' as well as Jesus saying, 'whoever does this for the
least of my brothers does it for me.'
This is the notion of empathy, the great circle of life that binds
us together with silken cords of relationship. Your quote from
Schopenhauer is wonderful, because it defines (for me) the nature
of good as the truly empathetic soul. It's converse would of course
be the truly evil soul.
3. As much as I see very symbolic meaning to what Buffy is saying,
she also is being very literal and personal as well, IMO. She
clearly feels a very real connection to Dawn (not just Dawn as
a symbolic representation of all humankind). That connection is
so strong that she identifies Dawn as a part of herself. So, Buffy's
death can't be considered merely suicide (which would be life
defeating), but it is sacrifice for others in the full knowledge
that she lives on through Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ah! Finally a Schopenhauer expert! I have all these
questions... -- OnM, 20:06:39 06/04/01 Mon
Just kidding!
Seriously, mighty fine first voyage, Dedalus! :)
Yours truly being of a humanist bent as opposed to embracing conventional
Western theology, I applaud the idea that it is possible for morality
and ethics to be established by the collective, long term experience
of humankind, and the basic recognition that there is more in
common than in difference between us. Your Schopenhauer quote
speaks directly to that point, and it does seem to apply to Buffy's
feelings regarding herself and her relationship to her sister/daughter.
Rowan is correct when she notes that Joss omitted the mother/daughter
lines from the final cut. I think this was wise for two reasons--
One, the reason rowan stated, about the concept being so hard
to put into words, (Flashback to *Hush*, anyone?) and that less
is definitely more in a dramatic moment such as this. Two, many
people will hear the line as a reference to Faye Dunaway's situation
in *Chinatown*, and in so hearing it that way, will either be
distracted or amused. Neither of these reactions furthers the
emotional intent of the scene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> roflmao! -- rowan, 20:15:42 06/04/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> A dissenting voice -- AK-UK, 21:05:13
06/04/01 Mon
I believe Buffy's moral development took a great step backwards
in "The Gift". Her choices weren't motivated by an unselfish
love for all humanity, but a selfish love for her sister. She
explicity states that she is prepared to watch the world go to
hell rather than harm her sister, and is prepared to harm anyone
who attempts to save the lives of countless billions by killing
Dawn. In fact, this desire to put Dawn's life ahead of all others
is even more selfish if you subscribe to the view that Buffy see's
Dawn as an extension of herself.
Thank goodness that a way existed to close the portal without
killing Dawn, or the people of the Buffyverse would have been
screwed.
As for a morality that comes from the heart and defies reason,
well, that's all very well as long as all our hearts agree. but
what if the my heart tells me that allowing gay people to adopt
children is wrong, or that a woman's place is in the home? If
my morality comes from the heart and defies reason, how can it
be reasoned with? Maybe an external morality, rationally argued
and with the weight of the law behind it isn't such a bad thing
after all.
And how can anyone deny the clear suicidal impulses that, at least
in part, contributed to Buffy's decision to throw herself off
that platform. Spike saw the desire for death in Buffy's eyes
in "Fool for love", and her life went downhill pretty
rapidly after that. When she saw an oppurtunity to end her pain,
her depression, and her exhausting attempts at world saving, which
would also allow Dawn to live on, she leapt at it.
Hey, I like the poetry of the finale, but also like the internal
logic of BtVS. I just don't see why, to enjoy the former, I have
to ignore the latter (I didn't have to in any of the other season
finales).
Anyway, thanks for such a thought provokng "maiden-voyage".
I hope it hasn't left you feeling sea-sick, or left you sick of
sea-ing me arguing with you ( oh boy, that pun sucked ). I look
forward to reading more of your thoughts on the show :)
Oh, man that pun was awful. I feel like that pun has totally destroyed
my whole argument :(
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> First bad puns. Then comes fungus.
It's all over now, baby blue... ;) -- OnM, 21:43:59 06/04/01 Mon
I had posted at length on this before, when I did my review of
*The Gift*, but I disagree that Buffy would have let the world
end to save Dawn. If you have a tape, cue it to the point that
starts with the SG meeting in the Magic Box. This, as you know,
is where Buffy takes her 'stand' on Dawn having to live even if
it means the end of the world. Follow through until the scene
in the gym with just Buffy and Giles. Listen to them both as they
speak. **Watch Buffy's face** after Giles asks if she hates him
(for stating that Dawn has to die, if that's what's needed to
save the world). If you watch her expressions, you can see that
*she accepts this, intellectually.* (Said it before, will say
it yet again-- SMG was *brilliant* in this scene!) It explains
her verbal responses later, as she and Giles talk.
As she prepares to leave the room, her comment that 'If Dawn dies,
it's over. I quit' is the acknowlegment that it may be necessary
to kill Dawn, or allow her to die (as she turned out to be willing
to do). What makes Buffy the hero is that she wouldn't accept
this 'easy' way out. It was still the course of absolutely last
resort, and that Giles and the world simply had to put their trust
in her-- as they had done so many times before-- to do her job,
to make the right choice.
"To live outside the law, you must be honest".
There are very few truly honest people. That's why we have laws,
religion, collective concepts of morality. You are right, you
can't always trust a single 'heart'. But as Giles states just
before ending the life of Ben/Glory, "Buffy isn't like us".
Real world, and the world we wish was real.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: First bad puns. Then comes
fungus. It's all over now, baby blue... ;) -- Sue, 22:45:20 06/04/01
Mon
No I disagree.
It was really Dawn or nothing.
Buffy would (and indeed should) let the world be destroyed rather
than to allow anyone harm Dawn. She would protect Dawn to the
end, regardless of the cost. Or as she had Spike promise "to
the end of the world".
I think the only thing Buffy was implying to Giles is that if
he somehow did get by Buffy he will not only lose his life, but
Buffy would no longer be his slayer either. She will kill him,
then end it all for herself.
And if Dawn would have died regardless of how (if someone else
kills her or she sacrifices herself, or however) then Buffy will
end it all as well.
Dawn or nothing. Either Dawn lives, or it is all over. Without
Dawn, there really is no tomorrow.
As it should be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting voice -- Sue, 22:34:42
06/04/01 Mon
"selfish love for her sister."
I can't disagree with you more. Buffy's love for her sister transcends
Buffy, and speaks for SISTERLY love in general.
To have Buffy symbolically destroy that love by actively killing
her sister (and it really was her sister, the monks made Dawn
Buffy's sister in every possible way that mattered) would have
been far far worst.
Sure the world would have been saved, but at the cost of sisterly
love. No a sister's love is absolute. Better for the whole world
to be destroyed than for Buffy to destroy that love. Fighting
for the survival of love is more important than even the survival
of the universe.
"BUFFY Then the last thing she'll see is me protecting her."
I found that the most beautiful thing I have ever heard. Consider
the alternative "the last thing Dawn sees is the sister she
loves killing her."
Buffy must protect Dawn. At all costs. But by protecting Dawn
she protects the only thing that really matters anyway. She is
protecting the humanity in all of us.
I honestly would understand. And Buffy wouldn't need to threaten
my life (though I would understand and respect her if she did).
Either Dawn lives or we all die. For it can not go down any other
way.
One for all and ALL FOR ONE!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting voice -- Anthony8,
01:28:10 06/05/01 Tue
AK-UK: I'm not sure if you are playing Devil's Advocate or really
hold the beliefs that inform your opinion here. The whole tenor
of your reply to Dedalus' initial thread seems limited by the
constraints of viewing the world in terms of our own temporal
existence (and the relatively trivial events that occur during
such an existence)and not on the mythological level (which deals
with concepts that transcend time and physical being). Terms like
selfishness, moral development, and reason reflect concepts that
pertain to humans in their political and animal shells and take
differnet forms depending on the local environment and culture.
Moreover the examples you cite (gay adoptions, woman's place in
the home) are straw men. You could have just as easily said that
Hitler's heart told him to kill and torture millions of people.
No,these things are all aspects of "lower being" and
constitute barriers to reaching higher levels of consciousness.
In contrast, the heart I'm talking about is not the one that "motivates"
an individual to do things because of the benefit to that individual.
That's not the heart at all (usually it is some other organ speaking).
I'm talking about the heart that represents pure love. It seems
to me that the love to which you refer is the base carnal love
that exists in one form or another in all animals. It is not unique
to humans, just more highly refined. By carnality, I obviously
don't just mean sexually speaking, but rather the aspect of existence
pertaining to our general physical relationship to other mortal
beings (blood relatives, friends, leaders, etc.)as well. I don't
believe that JW intended for that type of love to be the basis
for Buffy's sacrifice. It would entirely undermine her role as
the Hero. Transcendent (pure) love is a different creature altogether,
as I will explain below along with some other definitions.
I should disclaim here that I do not subscribe to any particular
religious discipline. Consequently, when I make religious references
I am simply using them as illustrative myths to help reveal essential
truths that transcend earthly morality and ethics. It is clear
to me that there are certain truths so powerful that they find
themselves expressed in poetry, art, human psychology (via dreams
and, possibly, hallucinations), and in the mythologies of the
world. Besides, to paraphrase the Great Groucho, I'm not sure
I would want to join any club that would have me as a member.
That having been said, I'd like to point out the contradiction
inherent in your own argument which is best summed up by your
statement regarding poetry vs. internal logic. IMO the poetry
trumps the logic any day. Applying logic to poetry defeats the
whole purpose of using poetry at all, doesn't it?
Yes, it is true that on one level or another almost every human
activity can be explained as some form of selfishness. We are
all bio-genetically motivated to survive/reproduce and use varying
strategies to accomplish this selfish aim. Even the extrememly
cynical could explain how the Schoppenhauer example (total stranger
endangering life to save total stranger) cited in Dedalus' starting
thread could be selfishly motivated. I suppose you could say that
such a hero was motivated by the need for attention, or had a
death wish, or merely gets off on the danger. Of course, that's
small thinking--in such cases we're not talking about a Hero (capital
H this time) at all. With respect to 'The Gift,' we are talking
about the Hero.
To start with, it is called 'The Gift' not 'The Otherwise Apparently
Heroic Act Inspired by Selfish Desires Transparently Disguised
As Noble Deeds.' What is 'The Gift?' Well we know that "a"
gift is the transfer of something from one to another with no
conditions. The only pure gift is unconditional, otherwise it
is commerce of some sort. The pure gift is really not the physical
transfer of something, but is the giving itself. That is, the
act of giving is the poetic expression of the transcendent love.
Vague enough for you yet? Okay how about this illustration? When
the Dalai Lama was visiting the Bay Area some time ago, people
in the receiving line presented him with a numerous gifts. One
of the fantastic things I noticed was how the Lama would bow in
gratitude and then return the physical object to the giver. The
idea expressed there was that the act of giving was in fact the
gift and the object merely the vehicle of expression. The Lama
was recogizing the divinity present in the giver (as the divine
is present in everything in the universe)and acknowledging the
sublimeness of the interaction. The giving itself is a sacred,
transcendent thing.
Okay back to BtVS. You will recall that the Spirit Guide tells
Buffy in 'Intervention' that she is full of love and that fear
is the only thing that keeps her from allowing love to lead her
to her gift. We know that it is her fear of facing the pain of
failing as the protector of humanity (Slayer duty)and protector
of Dawn (sister role)that throws her into a comatose state. Willow
helps her past the fear to face the music, whatever the outcome.
She appears to continue clinging to these fears until she reaches
Dawn on the tower. We know from the shooting script, and her dialogue
earlier in the Magic Box that Buffy has realized that the connection
between her and Dawn is more than a sibling relationship. In fact,
it is the pure love of parent for child. Her epiphany doesn't
occur until the do or die moment with Dawn on the tower and the
Portal. It is in that moment of clarity (all logic and ego stripped
away) that the truth becomes manifest. It has nothing to do with
Spike's rantings in FFL (let's not forget his selfish motivations
at that time--just because he says something doesn't make it true).
It has nothing to do with saving the world. I believe the relevant
quote from the Christian Bible is something to the effect that
it means nothing to save the world and lose your soul. If you
recall from AtS, Holling enlightened Angel to the fact that there
will always be another apocalypse. In fact we know from natural
history, that there have been a number of "apocalypses"
(vast species extinguishing cataclysms) on this planet. Furthermore,
our sun will eventually burn out and with it us, so one way or
another we will have our own apocalypse which none of the Buffys
in this world, real or imagined, will be able to prevent. Remember
Angel's epiphany? Nothing you do matters, so the only thing that
matters is what you do (at this moment without regard to the past
or the future). Consequently, a single act of kindness is the
greatest thing. The single act here is the sacrifice. In other
words, the love for humanity expressed in the act of a sacrifice
for the love of another. That's what the gift in 'The Gift' is.
Finally, I think it is important to further illustrate the concept
of love discussed above. In some translations of the Christian
Bible, it is sometimes to as charity (from caritas. Ah, ringing
some weird Angelic bells here). Not the charity of giving to Goodwill
or the Salvation Army, but something much bigger--okay, let's
say, oh, transcendent. Listen to Buffy's words and be mindful
of the expression on her face and the way that she said them:
"I love you Dawn. I will always love you...Tell Giles I figured
it out and I'm okay." Not eloquent, but pure Buffy--to the
point. No suicidal notions here; no self-conscious heroic deed;
no external morality dictated by local prejudices or irrational
fears; and most importantly--no fear. Total resolve. Total clarity.
Epiphany.
There's a great passage in the Christian Bible that pulls the
whole thing together. Once more, I disclaim any inclination to
be a cheerleader for any one religion. Some day, as I become more
familiar with the Dhammapada, the Upanishads, the Koran, The Tao
Te Ching, etc., I hope to be able to confidently cite examples
from those texts as well.
Anyhow, the passage is from one of Paul's letters to the Corinthians.
And BTW, Joni Mitchell did a great musical interpretation of this
on the "Wild Things Run Fast" album. Keep in mind that
in some translations the word "Charity" is substituted
for the word "Love." Make your own judgment, but I feel
it is the love described here that was intended to be the real
meaning of "the gift" in 'The Gift.' So cynics be damned!
"If I have all the eloquence of men or of angels, but speak
without love, I am simply a gong booming or a cymbal clashing.
If I have the gift of prophecy, understanding all the mysteries
there are, and knowing everything, and if I have faith in all
its fullness, to move mountains, but without love, then I am nothing
at all. If I give away all that I possess, piece by piece, and
if I even let them take my body to burn it, but am without love,
it will do me no good whatever.
Love is always patient and kind; it is never jealous; love is
never boastful or conceited; it is never rude or selfish; it does
not take offense, and is not resentful. Love takes no pleasure
in other people's sins but delights in the truth; it is always
ready to excuse, to trust, to hope, and to endure whatever comes.
Love does not come to an end. But if there are gifts of prophecy,
the time will come when they must fail; or the gift of languages,
it will not continue for ever; and knowledge is imperfect and
our prophesying is imperfect; but once perfection comes, all imperfect
things will disappear. When I was a child, I used to talk like
a child, and think like a child, and argue like a child, but now
I am a man, all childish ways are put behind me. Now we are seeing
a dim refection in a mirror; but then we shall be seeing face
to face. The knowledge that I have now is imperfect; but then
I shall know as fully as I am known.
In short, there are three things that last: faith, hope and love;
and the greatest of these is love."
Any thoughts, grievances, angry glances thrown my way? Any questions?
Any Answers? Any rags, any bones, any bottles today?
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting voice --
rowan, 04:50:46 06/05/01 Tue
I think that the real art of The Gift is evident when you compare
it to Becoming. We now have the bookends which show two different
views of the Buffyverse. In one, Buffy sacrifices someone she
loves "so much" -- Angel -- because it is right to spill
his blood to save the world. She puts the good of the many ahead
of the good of the one.
In The Gift, she decides that she will not sacrifice another that
she loves. The choices stink. She will not live in a world with
these choices. She verges on despair by threatening to give up
her work. She wants her mommy. But through all this, in standing
strong on this point, her mind finds a third option in which she
can both do her work to protect the world as well as her work
to protect an innocent. She puts the one ahead of the many.
We're now left to wonder how both of these events can be "right"
within the context of the Buffyverse. Just in case we're too thick
to get the point, Joss has Buffy make a reference to her sacrifice,
as well as to her loss of the sense of what's right or wrong.
But Buffy definitely met her death thinking she had found that
sense again, judging by her comments to Dawn. Brilliant.
The major difference between the two events for me hinges on Buffy's
determination that Dawn is "innocent." Is this the point
that Buffy's decision turns upon? Angel is not "innocent"
-- he made the choices that resulted in his state. But Dawn doesn't
even know that she's The Key in any real way (other than being
told she is). Remember, Buffy spare Ben as well, who she also
deems innocent. So here we have Buffy saying, "No, not even
to save the world will I take an innocent life."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting voice
(part 1) -- AK-UK, 06:58:35 06/05/01 Tue
Well, a lot of different themes are developing here, and it is
interesting to see the various views held. I'd like to pick up
on them, PURE (higher) love v CARNAL (lower) love As argued by
Anthony8. Carnal love is the love that it ultimated inspired by
our 'lower' instincts, instincts such as self-preservation, fear,
hunger etc. The love of survival, so to speak. Higher love is
the love that is entirely unmotivated by selfish desires. It is
the pure love that comes from unselfish giving, whether it be
the giving of food, shelter, or giving your own life. People like
the Dalai Lama and Christ have exhibited characteristics of this
pure love. Ok, here I my points 1) It can be argued that there
is no higher love. You acknowledge that all actions, no matter
how unselfish they seem, could be viewed as being in form motivated
by selfish desire. That is a valid position to take, and I don't
think it's fair to just dismiss such a philosphical viewpoint
as being essentially narrow minded and unpoetic. However.....
2) Let us agree that there is such a thing as pure love, entirely
unmotivated by selfish desires and that we humans are capable
of experiencing this pure love. Will we all experience exactly
the same thing? You say that someone who says they are feeling
pure love and expresses the view that a woman's place is in the
home isn't really motivated by pure love, that the lower love
is acting here. Well, does this mean that to people act through
pure love couldn't hold different views on homosexuality, or abortion,
or the age of consent, or the use of drugs, or capitailism? POETRY
v LOGIC I feel that there has been a slight misunderstanding here.
When I refer to logic, I mean the internal logic of something.
So the idea of poetry trumping logic just doesn't apply to the
point I was making. Let me explain what I mean. If we look at
a poem, the 'logic' of the poem that I'm refering to is the structure.
It uses verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, commas, exclamation
points, assonance, imagery. It uses language and the rules of
language. Poetry is the PERFECT example of the beauty of the heart
and mind, of logic and emotion, working together, DANCING together,
to produce a work of wonder (can you tell I'm a bit of a poetry
lover?). My point (and it was a very minor point) was that whilst
I can see the (emotional) beauty of the season finale, I didn't
like the plotholes (gaps in the logical flow) in the finale, and
was therefore disappointed with the finale. (please note, that
many of my complaints have been dealt with in another thread,
feel free to add your opinions to that sub-thread. It's the one
that starts Agreed/plotholes). HEROISM, GIFT GIVING, AND BUFFY
What makes a true hero? Anthony8 and Sue make two points, both
showing why they view Buffy's action as heroic. Sue says that
Buffy is a hero beacuse of her unwillingness to comprise on a
pure belief. Her love for her sister is absolute, and it is a
beautiful thing. In a world in which we are all too ready to compromise,
to do things we know are wrong, Buffy's decision to hold true
to her beliefs is a wonderful thing. Not even in the face of death,
not even in the face of countless deaths will she allow this world
to force her hand. To kill her sister would be evil, and a world
which demands her to do evil is a world which doesn't deserve
exist. Anthony8 makes a differnt point. He says that Buffy is
a hero because her actions are motivated by pure love. She recognises,
unselfishly, what is required of her. Death is her gift, and like
any true gift, it must be given freely and unselfishly, without
thought to the rewards you might recieve for such acts. From this
point of view, Buffy's motivation becomes hugely significant.
A wish to end her own pain, her own fear and depression would
just be an expression of the carnal love, the lower love. The
true gift comes from the higher love, the true hero is a hero
because their acts are an expression of that pure love.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting
voice (part 2, short. Honest) -- AK-UK, 07:25:36 06/05/01 Tue
With regards to Sue and Anthony8's arguments, I find I can't agree
with either of them. Yes Sue, I do see that there is something
wonderful about Buffy's uncomprimising stance.....but if that
stance leads to the deaths of billions I can't support it. I'm
not a cold accountant-like utilitarian, balancing up the weight
of happiness and making choices on that basis, but in this case
the overwhelming pain caused by the unwillingness to sacrifce
one life is just too great.
Anthony8, you make some strong points. With regard to the show
itself, I feel Buffy does feel suicidal at the point she reaches
her decision. Not everything Spike says is true, but the look
in Buffy's eyes when Spike tells her she has a death wish, and
her tacit agreement with his views speaks volumes to me, and everything
that follows on from that episode (including the death of her
mother) just adds weight to that view. But that is an argument
of interpretation, and might best be had in another thread.
The real bone of contention is "what makes a hero"?.
And here, my view is quite simple. I demand a lot less from my
hero's than you do. Look at Doyle. He died in an episode expicitly
titled "Hero". What were his motivations? Were they
based on pure love? Were they based by guilt, or self loathing,
a wish to prove himself worthy of respect and love? For me these
questions are unimportant. When I look to see what makes a hero,
the question I ask is "Did they have a way out"? Could
they have side-stepped the issue? Buffy could have sacrificed
her sister and no-one would have blamed her for it. Doyle could
have let Angel make the leap. Neither Buffy nor Doyle had to do
what they did. They could have chosen to save their own lives,
allow others to die in their place.
They didn't.
And that, to me, is the definition of a hero.
Wow. Those posts went on a bit, didn't they? Thanks for reading
through them (I have no idea what happeneed in part 1.......I
swear I'd spaced out my paragraphs but, no, they all seem to have
merged together. Give yourself a pat on the back for getting through
'em :) and I look forward to reading your replies.
And I got through the whole thing without once using a lousy pun!
Amazing!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You
Guys Are Amazing -- Dedalus, 09:55:41 06/05/01 Tue
I'm serious. This is coming from someone who rarely patronizes.
I'm in awe. Every post here reads like some dissertation or something.
It is such a treat to come back after posting something like that
and seeing so many great arguments on both sides. It is even better
when you get an urge to reply to something someone has said, then
scroll down to the next post and find out another poster has said
the exact same thought, probably even better than you could. I
almost have nothing left to say the level of discussion here is
so high. Almost. :-)
A couple of shout-outs.
Rowan, Buffy was totally Christ. I am going to do a post on that
alone sometime. I've already written an article about symbolism
in the Gift, and it is filled with Christ references. Buffy has
been a messianic figure since Prophecy Girl (remember the Master
calling her The Lamb?), but The Gift took it to a whole other
level.
Sue, I am so glad you posted. I completely see your point of view,
and agree with it. It's like you said a page or two ago "And
if that universe to survive that love must be killed, then it
is in chaos regardless. If that love must die for the world to
continue then it isn't a world worth living in anyway." Wow.
Get down with your poetic self. It's just like the Buffster said,
"I don't know how to live in this world if these are the
choices ... if everything just gets stripped away. I don't see
the point." Buffy is on a whole other level. In a world where
"everyone is drinking, smoking, shooting up, shooting each
other, or just plain screwing their brains out cause they don't
want 'em anymore," in a world where everyone seems incapable
of taking responsibility for anything, Buffy shows us what it's
all about. And I agree she did the right thing. Universe be damned.
That's a lot to admit, but I admit it.
AK, my buddy! Sorry, but I don't agree with you here either. Big
surprise, huh? I was referring to a totally transcendent, metaphysical
breakthrough, certainly nothing that could be conveyed with mere
words or logic. Speaking of logic, I understand what you're saying
about internal logic of a poem, but I would argue that the best
poems transcend logic altogether. And no, I can't explain that,
so don't ask me to! :-) It just seems to me, with all your talk
about DNA and stuff, you're trying to fit the Buffyverse in a
context where it simply doesn't fit. I think we can just chalk
it up to a difference in philosophical temperament. The best discussion
I have ever read on why organized morality doesn't work is a book
called The Tao is Silent, by Raymond Smullyan.
I also love Blake's line "Prisons are built with stones of
law, brothels with bricks of religion."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
You Guys Are Amazing (Part 2) -- Dedalus, 10:13:45 06/05/01 Tue
Okay, kids, one more thought before I break for lunch.
I was looking up where that quote came from, and I got to reading
The Power of Myth. Joseph Campbell made an awesome statement that
is very relevant to what we are talking about:
"Schopenhauer's answer is that such a psychological crisis
represents the breakthrough of a metaphysical realization, which
is that you and the other are one, that you are two aspects of
the one life, and that you apparent seperateness is but an effect
of the way we experience forms under the condition of space and
time. Our true reality is in our identity and unity with all life.
This is a metaphysical truth which may become spontaneously realized
under circumstances of crisis. For it is, according to Schopenhauer,
the truth of your life. The hero is the one who has given his
physical life to some order of realization of that truth."
And I don't think it was suicide. It was a spontaneous realization
transmitted by circumstances of crisis. I don't think Buffy was
rushing away from her destiny, but towards it. "This is the
work I have to do." There was a wonderful Campbellian line
about Peter Abelard in the twelfth century, and his interpretation
of the crucifixion. It wasn't about a ransom of sin being paid,
it was about an act of atonement, or at-one-ment, with the human
race. Buffy was embracing the pain of life once again, even through
her death. It was a universe worth saving and living in after
all. I think she was suicidal at various points in the show -
but the time I think she was the least suicidal is at the end
of The Gift. If she had still "wanted a way out," she
never would have come out of her catatonic state in Weight of
the World. "Tell Giles I figured it out, and I'm okay."
Not the sort of thing you would expect to find on a suicide note.
Okay, one more Campbell quote: "The one who suffers is, as
it were, the Christ, come before us to evoke the one thing that
turns the human beast of prey into a valid human being. That is
compassion."
"The human beast of prey?" Sound familiar? "The
blood cry, the penetrating wound. I am destruction. Absolute.
Alone ... No friends! Just to kill!"
So there you have it. Buffy is guiding the evolution of the Slayers
through the regenerating power of love. She isn't "just a
killer." She's a compassionate savior figure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ground
Zero -- Malandanza, 19:27:47 06/05/01 Tue
"With regards to Sue and Anthony8's arguments, I find I can't
agree with either of them. Yes Sue, I do see that there is something
wonderful about Buffy's uncompromising stance.....but if that
stance leads to the deaths of billions I can't support it."
I do not believe that Buffy's decision would have led to the "death
of billions" -- maybe not even thousands. Buffy made the
decision to protect Dawn until one or both of them died if the
portal opened and could not be stopped except by Dawn's death
-- but they were standing atop a haphazardly constructed tower
with monsters pouring forth around them. Buffy was told that the
world would in if Dawn was not killed, Dawn is part of the world,
therefore, Dawn will die either way. Buffy accepted this, but
made the decided she would not be the one to kill Dawn. Dawn would
surely be killed by something from the portal before the destruction
became too widespread. At most, I see much of Sunnydale being
destroyed, either by the initial bolts of energy or in succeeding
days as the monsters ran amuck (at least until the Initiative
boys got back from the jungles).
The Utilitarian argument still holds -- Dawn should have been
sacrificed to preserve the lives of the residents of Sunnydale
-- and the sooner, the better. But I cannot help feel as though
Dawn's life had more value than the lives of the people (like
Giles) who would willingly butcher her to save their own.
Buffy wasn't merely washing her hands of the situation and allowing
Dawn to die -- there almost seems something Nihilistic in Buffy's
initial decision to defend Dawn as long as possible -- to make
her death leave a lasting impression with as high a body count
as possible and I cannot help but think that the First Slayer
was, for perhaps the first time in Buffy's tenure as the slayer,
exultant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting
voice (part 1) -- Anthony8, 14:31:49 06/05/01 Tue
AK-UK, I apologize if my post sounded dismissive of any of your
opinions--that was not what I intended. I could see the validity
of what you (and others who agreed) were saying and I would be
wrong to dismiss such thoughtful analyses. It's my fault for not
being able to type as fast as my brain spits things out.
Anyhow, what I was trying to convey was the role of transcendence
in mythic imagery. Buffy is a mythic figure. Joss Whedon has said
in numerous interviews that that has always been his intention.
The fact that a Hero has fallibility, feet of clay, whatever,
at one time or another does not inform the ultimate deed (sacrifice)
every Hero must perform. Did the fact that Christ had a lapse
of faith on the cross("God has thou foresaken me?")
turn his sacrifice into something less? By definition, that sacrifice
must be symbolic of something transcendent. If it is not, then
it is just one of any number of minor albeit impressive deeds
performed by the Hero (and certainly not worthy of the lofty title
'The Gift') on the way to his or her destination.
By definition, transcendence is beyond logic of any kind; it is
beyond time and the trivial events of temporal existence; and,
paradoxically, it is beyond precise definition. It's transcendent.
Furthermore, by definition, pure love as a transcendent thing
is beyond the world of labels, categories, beliefs and thought
itself. It just is, pure and simple. It's like Nirvana--a state
of pure being and at-one-ment. Issues like the morality of homosexuality,
abortion, capitalism, etc. are matters that live in the physical
world, not the transcendent. An individual may invoke the transcendent
to justify or bolster his or her viewpoints on these matters,
but, in the context of the truly transcendent, these are insignificant.
That's not to say that debating these issues is not important
in our day-to-day existence or how we interact with others in
our community and the world at large. Ultimately, however, they
are issues having to do with corporal existence, not eternal matters
(that is, beyond all matters in the field of time and mortality).
In order to have a chance at understanding these things, an individual
has to break through the psychological barrier that separates
the finite from the infinite, or at least recognize that the barrier
exists. The function of high art, poetry, mythology, and meditation
(or prayer, if you will) is to help the individual to pass through
the barrier and reach a higher level of consciousness. Is this
making any sense in terms of your argument, or am I just repeating
the same old blah, blah, blah? Sorry once again if it is the latter.
Not being a poet, I lack the skills to better communicate these
concepts.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting voice --
WanderLost, 13:18:42 06/05/01 Tue
I completely agree with AT-UK. The emotion behind the finale was
lovely, but it didn't make sense. The logic error did mess it
up.
Even if Buffy's blood was the same as Dawn's, it shouldn't have
worked. The blood of the Key was still flowing, and all Buffy
did was feed the portal even more just-as-good-as-key blood. You'd
think that would make things worse.
Was Buffy right to place Dawn ahead of the universe? I think no.
Some of you have made compelling arguements that she was. The
problem was that I think the writers took the easy out of not
having her make the decision at all. They pulled a third option
out of nowhere that just wasn't logical, in a very basic cause-effect
way. They could have gotten out of it by having Dawn kill herself,
before Buffy could stop her. Then the world would live, the hero
wouldn't have compromised, and the plot would make sense.
That said, I still enjoyed the ep. And I kind of see her death
as a heroic sacrifice AND a cowardly suicide. At the same time.
Which is a cool head trip that only Joss could pull off.
Sorry that my sophmore post was so fricken long. I just thought
more posters would agree w/ AT-UK, especially after all the Noir-Angel
stuff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting voice
(o/t) -- rowan, 14:01:55 06/05/01 Tue
I like your name WanderLost...it reminds me of the Lord of the
Rings:
All that is gold does not glitter, Nor all those who wander are
lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not
reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken, A light from the shadows
shall spring; Renewed shall be blade that was broken, The crownless
again shall be king.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting
voice (o/t) -- Wisewoman, 14:30:42 06/05/01 Tue
rowan, rowan, rowan...okay, I give in! I'm gonna go back and start
reading it again...I was trying to wait for the first part of
the movie trilogy in December, but now you've got me all nostalgic
and I don't think I can wait...
I've just realized that it's been so long since I read it, the
kittens I once named Merry and Pippin have long-since passed away
of old age!
Cheers, Wisewoman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting
voice (o/t) -- rowan, 14:41:45 06/05/01 Tue
I can't believe you named your cats Merry and Pippin! How wonderful!
When I was younger, I used to read it once every year. But it's
been a few years for me. But now I remember why I love it so much
-- it's got everything. I, too, was reading in preparation for
the movie. I don't see how I can wait three years for each installment.
I also gave it to my 8 year old godson to read, so I have to be
ready to answer questions. ;)
It's the only book that can make me cry every time I read it,
no matter how many times I read it. That darn Grey Havens scene
at the end...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Totally
O/T -- Wisewoman, 17:36:51 06/05/01 Tue
I hear you, sister...and speaking of sniffles, have you read the
(short) trilogy, The Fionavar Tapestry, by Guy Gavriel Kay? I
defy anyone with any sensitivity to get through the third book
of that without resorting to the tissues. The first time I read
it I felt like I had drowned, and the second time was WORSE, because
I knew what was coming, so I started sobbing earlier! Gotta love
those fantasy quest novels...
Hey, come to think of it, maybe this isn't so O/T--a random group
of disparate individuals banding together to save the world? Sounds
familiar to me...
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Totally O/T -- AK-UK, 19:04:58 06/05/01 Tue
Oh man, how cold hearted am I? I didn't cry after "The Gift"
and I didn't cry whilst reading the Fionavar trilogy (The third
book was called.....errr....."The Longest Road", right?).
Great story though!
And if you are looking for connections between that trilogy and
BtVS, how about this; both tell the story of a group of friends
drawn into a battle to prevent an evil god from unweaving reality.
There are two female characters, one of whom becomes a kick ass
witch, and the other, though she struggles to be normal, cannot
overcome the fact that she was born different. All the characters
develop some special ability except one, a guy, who, whilst helping
out as best as he can, spends a great deal of time feeling like
a third wheel.
I wonder what the future holds for Xander (if i remember correctly,
the "third wheel" guy in the Fionavar trilogy was a
bit of a "sex viking"..........and look where that got
him ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Oh, Pity the Lacrimationally-challenged! ;o) -- Wisewoman,
19:58:51 06/05/01 Tue
But, y'know, I didn't cry (much!) the first time I saw The Gift,
either. But the second and third times? Wooo-hooo!
And, to extend the analogy, we'd have Buffy as Guinevere? Willow
as Morgan le Fay? Or Ninian? Giles as Merlin?
Oooh, oooh, Angel as Arthur, and Spike as Lancelot...I love it!
Or, hold on, wouldn't Buffy have to be *Arthur*? Well, there goes
the whole theory...
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
A wee bit of limb-dangling here -- Little One, 09:00:46 06/06/01
Wed
The Tolkein thread yanked me out of lurkerdom to add my 2 cents
(Canadian cents, so probably only 0.002 cents US). I can relate,
Rowan. That Grey Havens scene gets me every time. Not to mention
the burning of the Shire seems to make me angrier than any of
the gory and evil deeds previously described. Sure, Gandalf sacrificing
himself to the Balrog made me tear up, but nothing combined to
the chopping of the grand old Shire oaks. Possibly because the
Shire is more tangible at this point. It IS home.
Wisewoman, I like your idea of parallels existing between BtVS
and The Fionavar Tapestry. It made me think that perhaps there
are a few parallels which can be made between LotR and BtVS. Gandalf's
sacrifice (it was even a fall from a great height as was Buffy's)
to save the world, for example. He is reincarnated as Gandalf
the White, the all powerful who weapons can not harm. Perhaps
this is a portend of what might occur in Buffy? She becomes more
than a mere slayer and must deal with not only more powerful demons
(though what is more powerful than a god?) but also with all of
the baggage that power and wisdom bring with it. I'm sure it would
further separate her from the SG as well as the humans she is
saving day after day.
Sauranon, who was the voice of wisdom, is later revealed to have
been evil, his advice to the White Council was simply a means
to further his own ambition: possession of the ring and ruler
of Middle-Earth. Could the Doc perhaps be the Buffyverse's Sauranon?
When Spike takes Dawn to him for advice on bringing Joyce back,
he treats Doc as if he is a long-standing voice of reason and
wisdom. Later it is revealed that he is on the side of evil and
we assume by his words and mannerisms that he is in league with
Glory (as Sauranon is thought to be a servant of Sauron). If this
parallel can be continued does this mean that Doc will be revealed
next season to not actually be a worshipper of Glory but has ambitions
to surpass her as a god himself? His body was not found, so this
leads me to believe that he is next season's big bad.
So if Buffy is Gandalf and Doc is Sauranon, do you think there
are any more parallels? Would Willow be Frodo? A former shy geek
becoming stronger and stronger until her actions can result in
the fate of the world? Now, would that mean Tara is Sam? Hmm...
maybe not!
Does anyone have any thoughts on any more possible parallels between
these two realms? I've probably gone so far out on a limb with
these as to be dangling from a leaf by my fingertips by these.
Any thoughts?
By the way, I just discovered this posting board yesterday after
searching for a sensible and provocative Buffy board. At first
those other boards seemed fun but there's just so many "Angel
is a hottie" and "Buffy is dead?!" 's that one
person can take! Thank you all for providing a lurker like me
with intelligent conversations to overhear and, occasionally,
pop my head into! Cheers!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Welcome! Comparative mythologies are one of our faves, here...
-- OnM, 09:40:08 06/06/01 Wed
...so we're pleased to read your thoughts.
Jump in any time-- the Masq'd Avengers of Buffydom are happy to
mind-meld with ya'll!
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Masq'd Avengers of Buffydom -- purplegrrl, 11:36:59
06/06/01 Wed
***Masq'd Avengers of Buffydom*** indeed!!!
OnM, bad puns like this mean you've been on your computer too
long. Take a rest before something serious happens.
:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Serious? Me? Nahhh... -- OnM, 19:44:13 06/06/01
Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Put down the mouse and step back from
the keyboard, slowly... -- rowan, 20:00:28 06/06/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> They'll get my mouse when they pry
it from my cold, dead fingers!! -- OnM, 20:30:41 06/06/01 Wed
Uhmmm, on second thought, I take that back-- The EC is giving
me a very opportunistic-looking evil glance right now...
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> You leave OnM's puns alone. He is closer than
he appears to be in the mirror -- Masq, 18:39:10 06/07/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Antelope Expressway, 1/4 mile... Antelope
Expressway, 1/8 mile... Antelope Expressway, 1/16 mile... -- OnM,
20:34:52 06/07/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Welcome! Comparative mythologies are one of our
faves, here... -- Brian, 12:36:11 06/06/01 Wed
Danger, danger, OnM - you have exceeded your pun limit per post.
Put down the mouse and proceed immediately to the nearest adult
beverage, or, if you are at work, to a colling, non-caffinated
soft drink :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Warm cockles -- Little One, 13:40:53 06/06/01 Wed
I feel so welcome! Thanks, OnM! You've warmed the cockles of my
heart accepting my humble opinions. Now my mind is consumed with
thoughts of theories, threads and themes (oh my!). I'm abandoning
my work, neglecting my cats in favour of possible posts. And all
due to your support. You've created a monster (insert maniacal
laughter here)!
Hmm...or maybe it's just the unfortunate side affects of too many
PpP (Puns Per Post)... ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Don't those things take care of themselves?
-- OnM, 19:49:15 06/06/01 Wed
Don't let Rufus overhear you say anything about neglecting your
cats!
Rowrrr...
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> I heard that....................:):):)
-- Rufus, 21:26:11 06/06/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Don't those things take care of themselves?
-- Little One, 07:10:19 06/07/01 Thu
Don't what take care of themselves? Cockles or cats? :p
Don't worry, Rufus, Fizban and Pandora refuse to be neglected.
They are a bit pushy that way (well, in every way actually, I
mean, they ARE cats!).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Just makin sure..........:):):)
-- Rufus, 12:34:32 06/07/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: A wee bit of limb-dangling here -- Cynthia, 19:27:19
06/06/01 Wed
If we're comparing Buffy characters to LOTR characters, which
Buffy character gets to say "my precious" around Dawn,
who is the equalivent of the ring in the trilogy?
Sorry, the thought of it made me smile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: A wee bit of limb-dangling here -- rowan, 20:33:18
06/06/01 Wed
Somebody did call Dawn precious at one point...oh sugar, I can't
remember. Argghh!!! It might have been Glory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> She did call her "sweetie".............
-- Rufus, 21:29:08 06/06/01 Wed
Glory called Dawn sweetie that is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Spike/Gollum....Okay so I'm grasping at
straws -- Little One, 06:58:16 06/07/01 Thu
Hmm...for some reason I seem to think that Spike called Dawn Precious.
Spike could be Gollum. Ok, so he's not slimy and cringing (James
Marsters is the antithesis of slimy and cringing) but they both
can't stand the sunlight, both attempt to protect the Precious,
and both like to paw at their respective leader (Gollum is always
pawing at Frodo and, well, we all know Spike has done a wee bit
of pawing at the BuffyBot).
Or perhaps I've simply had too many Tim Horton's Iced Cappuccino's....brain
frozen...must stop drinking...mmm, frosty goodness...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> A wee bit of pawing at the Buffybot????:):):):)
-- Rufus, 12:41:09 06/07/01 Thu
Now, that has me laughing....I'm surprised her batteries didn't
run out with the pawing sessions Spike had with the Buffybot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Well, we know she's not solar
powered -- Little One, 13:13:34 06/07/01 Thu
I agree! She could have blown a gasket! ALERT: dirty mind alert
advises that might have been a poor choice of words! ;p ...takes
a lickin' and keeps on tickin'? (I couldn't help myself, sorry!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dirty Mind Alert!!!!!!!!!!!.......I
love that one.........:):):):):) -- Rufus, 13:30:25 06/07/01 Thu
The ep Intervention was on the edge when it comes to sex. The
smart thing they did was leave so much to the imagination.....solar
powered....LOL.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spike is not Gollum!
Leave my boy alone, please. He's in mourning. ;) -- rowan, 14:59:59
06/07/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting voice
-- purplegrrl, 16:07:41 06/05/01 Tue
***Even if Buffy's blood was the same as Dawn's, it shouldn't
have worked. The blood of the Key was still flowing, and all Buffy
did was feed the portal even more just-as-good-as-key blood. You'd
think that would make things worse.***
But for the blood of the Key to stop flowing, death had to occur.
Since Buffy has the same blood as Dawn (Joss says so, then it
must be so), then Buffy's death will serve the same purpose as
Dawn's. Death makes the blood stop flowing and causes the portal
to close. So Buffy gave herself over to death.
Like you (and as I posited somewhere down the board!), I think
Buffy's death was part sacrifice, part suicide. Now I believe
it was mostly sacrifice - perhaps 99 percent. But that leftover
1 percent is the knowledge that if she dives into the portal,
exchanging her life for Dawn's, that she will no longer have to
deal with the angst and weirdness that go along with the duties
and responsibilities of being the Slayer. Cowardly perhaps (although
I think that may be a little harsh), but understandable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Why is suicide
selfish? -- rowan, 16:51:47 06/05/01 Tue
I struggle with the concept that suicide is selfish. "My
true love hath my heart, but my bones are my own" to quote
Peter Wimsey. Surely if we're allowed to control one thing in
our lives, it would be our own continued existence? Wouldn't it
have been more selfish to deprive Dawn of life?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why
is suicide selfish? -- June, 21:09:17 06/05/01 Tue
"I struggle with the concept that suicide is selfish. "My
true love hath my heart, but my bones are my own" to quote
Peter Wimsey. Surely if we're allowed to control one thing in
our lives, it would be our own continued existence? Wouldn't it
have been more selfish to deprive Dawn of life?"
This was a sacrifice, and therefore not selfish.
But usually suicide is selfish. Others are left to pick up the
pieces.
I wouldn't call what Buffy did 'suicide'. It was a sacrifice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why
is suicide selfish? -- purplegrrl, 07:12:11 06/06/01 Wed
The reason we (meaning Western Culture) view suicide as selfish
probably stems from some sort of socio-religious view point. When
most people lived in small communities where the lives of all
the inhabitants affected all the others, suicide was a more selfish
act because it had a greater effect on the entire community. Also,
in the early days of the Church (particularly before the Reformation)
cardinals, bishops, etc., went to great lengths to define what
was correct moral behavior and what was not. I don't remember
the history of the Roman Catholic Church very well, but I think
there was some sort of edict (or similar writing) against suicide.
Of course, what always confused me was suicide being illegal.
If done properly, you couldn't be prosecuted for your "crime."
Also, I don't think the person committing suicide views the act
as selfish. It is those people who are left behind to contend
with the death that consider it so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Why is suicide selfish? -- fresne, 11:20:54 06/06/01 Wed
Well, from what I recall, (and it's been awhile since I thought
about this) in medieval Judeo-Christian culture suicide was not
only selfish, but seen as a sin. Suicide is a rejection of God's
greatest gift, your life. Even if your life is terrible, you have
an obligation to the gift to live out your life. And of course
the afterlife is where all the good stuff happens anyway.
However, rather than accepting your gift, suicides have chosen
to throw their lives away. As a result of that decision, not only
will they not be passing Go nor collecting $200, they will be
going straight to Hell.
For a particularly chilling view, read Dante's account of the
wood of the suicides in Inferno. Basically, the souls of suicides
are thrown into Hell where they become thorny, knotty, black leafed
trees. Harpies live in the wood and rend the tree's branches causing
them to bleed and cry out. In the final days, all the dead will
retake their bodies, except suicides. Their bodies will be hung
from the branches of their tree body.
To make the issue even more complex, there is the whole martyr
thing. Dying like a lamb for your faith is a good thing. Thus
killing yourself because you feel bad is wrong. But dying to save
someone (in imitation of Christ) is good.
And then there is the whole pile of virgin suicide/martyr stories.
They tend to go like this. A young virgin of a pagan (Roman) family
becomes Christian. Her family wants her to marry a judge, patrician,
Caesar, but she since she has made the decision to essentially
become a nun/bride of Christ, she'll have none of it. Either she
gets tortured, bleeds milk, and dies or (crucially) she kills
herself. But it's okay, because she did it to stay true to her
husband, Christ. Very Rape of Lucretia. See the Third Book in
Christine de Pisan's Book of the City of Ladies for a fairly long
list of examples.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Why is suicide selfish? -- purplegrrl, 11:41:52 06/06/01 Wed
***suicide was not only selfish, but seen as a sin***
That's where I was going, I just didn't quite get there. Thanks.
***virgin suicide/martyr stories***
And then they had the opportunity to become a saint!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Awesome, dude! Great post!
-- OnM, 21:38:29 06/05/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting voice -- Mishka,
10:24:34 06/05/01 Tue
Okay there are many great ideas here, and I`m glad that I was
around to be able to read them.... Here`s some personal opinions,
musings, etc. The Hero Cycle by Campbell is incredibly impressive.
However, there are other discourses that don`t include the hero
myth. For example, Canadian literature and movies almost never
have a hero story at all. The reason being that anytime an individual
tries to extend itself farther than its community, it gets crushed.
The lesson being, that the individual is not more important than
its community, nor can it be allowed to transcend it for true
knowledge of oneself stems from how you regard yourself in relation
to said community.....this is very simplified. Anyway, the point
being that maybe Joss referenced some other view points in 'The
Gift' other than the traditional Hero Myth. I think that Buffy
was exhausted with her slayer role, she hurt when Angel left,
she hurt when Riley left, she hurt when her mother died, and therefore
she decided that she wasn`t going to hurt anymore. I think in
her conversation with Giles she was basically saying, "I
am not sacrificing any more of myself for this crappy job. I`m
tired of being the one who loses everything. It`s not going to
happen anymore. I won`t allow it to." And so I think when
she sacrifices herself, she is actually taking something back
for herself, away from the fates that decided she would be the
slayer, her mom would die, Dawn has to die to save the world.
She only had an epiphany in so much as she figured out a way to
save Dawn. I definately think that there was a little bit of her
deciding to finish her life. I don`t think you can dismiss the
slayer Deathwish so quickly. She was exhausted and this was the
perfect way for Dawn to live and for her to not have to suffer
anymore for being the slayer. When Buffy does come back, (if she`s
not evil Buffy as some suggest), she`ll probably be monkish, ie/
enlightened. She will not be able to be as close to people, she
will have transcended. OR/// She will take everything that life
has to give her, no matter what, cause living her life just in
the slayer role was killing her. So she will be with Angel again
(disregarding the things we already know in real life about networks
and so on), she will relax more, go out, dance, have fun etc.
She won`t accept less than what she deserves anymore, to be a
happy, regular, early-twenties, female human being. Whatever happens,
I think that Buffy will be a very changed person. Mishka
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A dissenting voice --
Dedalus, 12:04:32 06/05/01 Tue
Interesting thoughts, Misha. You have a valid point. Some of us
can get overdependent on the mythic view of things. Although,
I got a question to Joss Whedon published in the Buffy mag, and
he said Buffy was definitely suppose to be mythic.
I definitely agree Buffy will be a changed person. I can't wait
to see how it turns out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Oh no! Us Godless Canadians
are Heroically-Challenged, as well! -- Wiswoman, 20:05:27 06/05/01
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh no! Us Godless
Canadians are Heroically-Challenged, as well! -- Mishka, 07:14:43
06/06/01 Wed
Yes we are....*sigh* English major, forgive me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The Effect of Belief and Reality -- Rufus, 20:31:10 06/04/01
Mon
Buffy: "She's me. The monks made her out of me. I hold her
and I feel closer to her than...it's more than physical, it's...Dawn
is part of me. The only part I....."
Buffy had an Epiphany....her's was one that involved belief...the
belief that Dawn was part of her. A part that even though seperate
was vital to preserve. If Buffy had allowed Dawn to die, a part
of herself would have died with Dawn, a part so vital that Buffy
was willing to die to save it. It didn't matter how Dawn started...it
didn't matter that Buffys memories of Dawn were built...what mattered
was the now...the present where Buffy believed that Dawn was a
part of her she wasn't able to let go of. If Dawn had jumped into
the portal, part of Buffy would have died with her. Buffy would
have felt that indeed she was only a killer, an instrument of
death. Instead Buffy understood her gift of death meant life to
a part of herself(Dawn)that she cherished above all else. It doesn't
matter if Buffys blood isn't a total match with Dawns, what matters
is that Buffy took the Leap of Faith and let her belief guide
her actions. There is no tangible proof that what she believed
was right...the results are what mattered. The world was safe.
Buffy was worried that she was turning to stone, hardened by her
years of killing and losing the people she loved. Her only reward
was an eventual death. Buffy did the unthinkable and chose to
change the nature of the gift of death. Death was no longer an
escape, but a sacrifice to love and family. Buffy died to save
her sister, the world, and that part of herself she thought had
turned to stone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Effect of Belief and Reality -- rowan, 20:58:21
06/04/01 Mon
"It doesn't matter if Buffys blood isn't a total match with
Dawns, what matters is that Buffy took the Leap of Faith and let
her belief guide her actions. There is no tangible proof that
what she believed was right...the results are what mattered."
I agree. I posted something right after the ep about this. Buffy
believes she can substitute for Dawn, and therefore, it works.
It's almost as if she creates meaning out of reality through the
strength of her belief.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Which is a god-like quality, is it not? -- OnM,
21:15:19 06/04/01 Mon
*** "I agree. I posted something right after the ep about
this. Buffy believes she can substitute for Dawn, and therefore,
it works. It's almost as if she creates meaning out of reality
through the strength of her belief." ***
You're preaching to the minister here! ;)
Buffy states (paraphrasing) that if the world has to end for Dawn
to live, so be it (although she knows that can't really be allowed
to happen, she puts that thought into a tiny hidden corner of
her brain, so she can concentrate on making reality bend to her
will).
She fights Glory *until she bleeds*. Stop and think about this--
really think about it. **A god bleeds**.
Should that be possible? But it happens.
Glory asks for mercy-- not with that word specifically, but she
asked Buffy to 'Stop', which amounts to the same thing. This is
the god who could 'crush you like a bug'. Think about it.
Think about in *Restless*, when spirit-guide-Tara shows Buffy
the Tarot cards, with The Hands. Buffy replies "I'll never
use those."
What do you think The Hands represent? I could think of a couple
interpretations, one of which is the ability to bend or mold reality.
Buffy doesn't think of herself as a being holding immense potential
power. But is she right?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Which is a god-like quality, is it
not? -- Rufus, 21:45:47 06/04/01 Mon
From FFL...
Spike: "Death is your art. You make it with your hands, day
after day."
If Buffys hands have the power of death...what other power do
they have?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Which is a god-like quality,
is it not? -- rowan, 04:36:50 06/05/01 Tue
I just love you guys!
I'm starting to think Buffy's return may be a la Gandalf in The
Lord of the Rings. In that book, Gandalf's old life as Gandalf
the Grey burns away in his confrontation with a Balrog (an ancient
godlike evil). He dies and he is sent back by the Powers that
Be. When he returns, his memory of his old life returns slowly
('Gandalf...that was the name...I was Gandalf') although he still
knows his purpose & mission (his work). His personality undergoes
subtle change and his powers have a new brilliance ('no weapon
can harm me.'). He is now Gandalf the White, highest of his order.
He is an inspiration of good to those around him, and those who
are evil tremble.
I'm wondering if Buffy's acceptance of death as her gift, her
active acceptance that she is full of love (demonstrated by her
changed attitude towards Spike and her dying instructions to Dawn)
and her sacrifice will transform her into the next level of Slayer,
who is perhaps endowed with yet another gift (beyond Slayer strength,
love, and death). I know alot of people have commented on the
progress of hero in the heroic cycle. I'm assuming we'll discover
at some point that the Slayer mythology includes "orders"
of Slayers or a progression that a Slayer can follow. Have any
other Slayers ever "evolved?"
Buffy's body is currently rotting in her grave, according to Joss,
and her soul is...wherever. Let's say the PtB create a new Slayer
body for her and place her soul within it. She will retain some
Buffyiness because it is still Buffy's soul, but some of the old
personality remains with the corpse that has died (she's Buffy,
but she's different). Her new body now has some new, further skill.
No other Slayer has made it to this point of transformation to
date, because they've either been killed or have given in to the
Slayer death wish.
So now, her hands, beside making artistic death (God, do I absolutely
love that line -- it's so memorable) may now make something else.
I'm half wondering if Buffy is on the road to immortality -- perhaps
these transformations have the effect of taking away the Slayer
expiration date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh my god -- Dedalus,
12:16:58 06/05/01 Tue
A new order of Slayers? That was the exact thing I wrote in the
posts above this thread! And I honestly hadn't read these yet.
I think that is so right.
Did any of you guys read that magazine article about Buffy about
a year ago, and it had Marti Noxon saying that maybe there is
even a greater extent to the Slayer's power/destiny that even
she realizes? I have been thinking about that since The Gift.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Cookie time again for you..........:):):):)
-- Rufus, 14:20:25 06/05/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> This is getting scary...we
need to disagree more often just for variety's sake. :) -- rowan,
14:43:03 06/05/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Which is a god-like quality,
is it not? -- OnM, 21:53:56 06/05/01 Tue
*** "I'm starting to think Buffy's return may be a la Gandalf
in The Lord of the Rings. In that book, Gandalf's old life as
Gandalf the Grey burns away in his confrontation with a Balrog
(an ancient godlike evil)...
... He dies and he is sent back by the Powers that Be. When he
returns, his memory of his old life returns slowly He is an inspiration
of good to those around him, and those who are evil tremble."
***
BTW, I'm starting to keep a file of Buffy rebirth scenarios that
I really like.
Consider this one entered in that file, rowan! I like it!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The Hands -- jules, 22:49:53 06/04/01
Mon
A long-time lurker de-lurks here. First, I have to add my compliments
to the others heaped upon this board- I've been looking for a
really intelligent, thoughtful fan discussion of BtVS for what
seems like years. I don't know why it took me so long to find
this place!
I have a question for you, OnM, on your statement:
'Think about in *Restless*, when spirit-guide-Tara shows Buffy
the Tarot cards, with The Hands. Buffy replies "I'll never
use those."'
I don't have the episode on tape, so I can't go back and look,
but to my knowledge there is no card "The Hands" in
the Tarot deck most widely used (the Rider-waite deck). I looked
in the shooting script, but it doesn't specify which card Tara
is showing to Buffy. Now there are plenty of other decks out there
that I've never seen which may feature a card with hands, but
I interpreted Buffy's statement as referring to the cards themselves.
But any reference to the Tarot deck is still fascinating to me.
First, because through an odd coincidence I just this weekend
decided to start memorizing the meanings of all the cards of the
Tarot. So I've been reading up on the symbolism and history of
the cards. Second, it's really interesting that a thread that
started with a mention of Joseph Campbell should also bring up
the Tarot, because the Major Arcana (the cool cards like The Lovers,
the Hanged Man, and Death) are often intrepreted as being a Hero's
Journey. Or a Fool's Journey, as the case may be.
You can read a complete description of the Fool's Journey here:
http://www.learntarot.com/journey.htm
The Journey begins with the Fool, an innocent, stepping out into
the unknown. As he moves upward through the Major Arcana, he enounters
mother and father figures, symbols of organized religion, the
Hermit (a symbol for the search for meaning) followed immediately
by the Wheel of Fortune (a symbol for destiny). Later come the
Hanged Man (sacrifice) and Death (transition to a new life). And
that's still only half-way through the series of cards.
Not that there was any doubt that Buffy is on a Hero's Journey-
I just thought I'd toss out that neato factoid.
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Hands -- Wisewoman, 08:51:33
06/05/01 Tue
I'm glad you brought this up, for similar reasons--I don't have
that episode on tape and I can't remember what the card looked
like. I just assumed that the reference was to one of the Aces
in the minor arcana, which show disembodied hands holding a cup,
a pentacle, a rod or a sword.
If that's not it, then I'm really curious as to what deck "The
Hands" belongs to, and what its significance is.
Hmmmmm...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Hands -- rowan, 11:06:45
06/05/01 Tue
This has made me very curious. I'll be out checking various alternative
Tarot decks all day. I had the same thought, that it was a card
of the minor arcana (boy, this could take a while). But, I was
also thinking that if this was a goddess deck, for example, this
card could be in place of the Magician (Mago, maker, etc.). The
Magician has learned the power of all the elements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Hands -- fresne,
12:43:24 06/05/01 Tue
While I am certainly no expert, I've never seen a deck that shows
the hands, or for that matter: heart, spirit, mind by themselves.
One web site that I found useful for visual comparison of various
decks is: http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/. The site both explains
some tarot background and has many, many gifs of various decks.
(Brief explanation, a year or so ago I made a deck using photo's
of my friends from various costume events. Harley Quinn as the
Fool, J. Caesar as the Emperor, Arthur Dent as the Hermit and
so forth.)
Although, now I'm resisting the urge to make a Buffy tarot deck.
No down self (I don't have an evil twin, merely an overactive
idea of my own free time). I have enough projects. Must finish
current load.
I would agree with Wisewoman's desire to see these cards as Minor
Arcana Aces. Perhaps, Heart=Want/Fire, Mind=Cup/Water, Spirit=Sword/Air,
Hands=Pentacles/Earth. Although, you could shift them around depending
on your perspective.
I like Hands=Pentacles=Earth because it places the Slayer (as
opposed to Buffy herself) in opposition/similarity to Vampires.
Vampires are static, undead, parasites who reproduce by taking
over living things. A living being which is a perversion of the
original. Vampires live in the earth, but are not of the earth.
They rise from their graves, while others peacefully decompose
and make new life (American burial rites aside). The Earth/Slayer
is seasonal. The Slayer lives and the Slayer dies. And in the
spring, there is a new Slayer. The Slayerness exists in symbiosis
with a human girl makes a living thing greater than it was. Because
tests are gifts and gifts are tests, it is not always a pleasant
symbiosis, but if the test is taken, if the gift accepted, ultimately
an enriching one.
Anyway, hmm...so (because ARLtR) Buffy rejected the Hands card
in Restless. A bit hard for me to interpret because I see Buffy's
sacrifice at the end of the Gift as the ultimate expression of
her Slayerness as opposed to a rejection of it.
I would have to reiterate that I don't see Buffy's death as an
expression of a Death Wish. Buffy with a death wish, was a Buffy
who did not understand. Heart, Mind, Spirit, and Hand were in
disunity. When, she spoke with Spike in FfL, when she went catatonic
in WotW, even most of the way through the Gift, Buffy was in disharmony
with herself. This was a Buffy who could/would/maybe should have
a Death Wish.
She was faced with soul grinding decisions, and because she wasn't
in sinc, she was only able to cling to a single idea, that she
would not kill Dawn. She couldn't plan. Anya had the ideas. Others
came up with ideas outside the box. Buffy could only focus on
her one concept, defend Dawn.
Here I think, she had a Death Wish. The world was "finally"
going to go to hell (what a relief after all those years fighting
it) and Buffy would die defending her sister. Note she rarely
spoke of succeeding in holding off Glory. (Interesting, that Spike,
cause ARLtS, also thought that he was going to die in the coming
conflict) And then comes the moment on the top of the tower, and
Buffy rediscovers hope. There is a way to save the Dawn and the
world. There is another option.
And here we come to a matter of perspective. If Buffy had died
as a result of a Death Wish, I don't see how her action could
have been a joyous, peaceful action. Slayer Death Wish, according
to Spike, comes not because of something a Slayer does or does
not do, but because they want Death more than they want to act.
Hmmm..I would almost like to go back to Restless and reinterpret
why the First Slayer attacks the Scobbies. Rather than the attack
being an attack of anger, "You've been messing with things
that you shouldn't." Perhaps, it is a test, a gift. Since
the Scoobies have passed a test of sorts, (accessing the kinds
of uber-Slayer magic that they did), the First Slayer's attack
can be seen as a confrontation of internal self that they needed
to go through. Buffy needed to confront the idea that she is more
than just a killer. After which, mission accomplished the First
Slayer leaves, job done. (Well, she was awfully easy to ditch.)
This is a spiritual message that is reinforced in Intervention.
A message that Buffy finally understands as she stands on the
tower. She wants Giles to know that she understands now. The Heart,
Mind, and Spirit finally understand what the Hands must do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Hands
-- rowan, 14:05:19 06/05/01 Tue
This whole discussion made me go back and read the shooting script
for Restless. I can't wait to see this ep again when F/X starts
the reruns.
Anyway, it would be an interesting exercise now to go back to
Restless and see which events foreshadowed in that ep have been
fulfilled in S5. As I re-read, a surprising number of them seemed
to me to be more predictive of S6.
I also thought Pentacles for Earth, or perhaps Swords. Not Cups
or Wands...different feel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The
Hands -- Jac, 16:05:02 06/05/01 Tue
This is my first time posting, mostly I just read all the comments
and insights and think "Wow."
I don't know if y'all are still wondering about what the card
looked like, but since I had that episode on tape, I decided to
share with y'all what it was:
It had two hands crossed at the wrist, palms up. One hand was
clenched in a fist the other hand was open. There were white clouds
around the forearms of the two hands. Also, there was a cresent
moon centered at the top of the card, with the endpoints pointing
down (like an upside-down smiley face). The moon was yellow in
color and the background was blue sky. At the bottom of the card
it said the word "Manus."
Anyway, I know nothing about Tarot cards or their meanings, and
I haven't got a clue what Tara was trying to convey to Buffy,
but maybe someone else does. Hope this helps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
The Hands -- rowan, 16:55:38 06/05/01 Tue
Hmmm...well, I really don't know if this card is actually in any
Tarot deck or just comes from the fertile imaginations of the
writers. But I'll take a crack at interpreting it.
The two hands are Buffy's hands, the hands of the Slayer. One
is closed in a fist, which represents the strength of the Slayer,
the defense against evil. The other hand is open, palm up, representing
Buffy's nature, which is full of love (and therefore giving).
The hands are crossed, because these sides are both forever joined
and forever in conflict. The moon above, which might either be
waxing or waning, represents the goddess power which inspires
Buffy. You can choose if the power is diminishing or growing.
I suspect growing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The Hands -- Wisewoman, 19:01:17 06/05/01 Tue
Awesome interpretation, Rowan! Do I detect the presence of another
Wiccan?
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Absolutely! -- rowan, 19:46:25 06/05/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks
for the clarification! -- Wisewoman, 19:02:38 06/05/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Effect of Belief and Reality -- Dedalus, 12:11:17
06/05/01 Tue
Ah, leap of faith. I like how you phrased that, Rufus. So now
we're on Kierkegaard. :-)
I love the thinking behind this analysis of the situation. I guess
it was a leap of faith, yet a leap of faith that was almost inevitable
since that faith sprang from the very depths of her being. One
of my favorite literary critics, Northrope Frye, defined faith
not as words but as the action one takes in life. One's lifestyle
is what is ultimately indicative of their faith, not just their
alleged beliefs. This was certainly an example of that.
I like the part about how she was saving that part of her that
was turning to stone.
I don't mean to be a quote-o-rama here, but I can't help getting
this in -
"Too long a sacrifice can make a stone of the heart."
- William Butler Yeats
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Lovely quote! -- rowan, 12:29:05 06/05/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> A hearty thanks to everyone! -- verdantheart, 07:39:02 06/07/01
Thu
My sister ... my daughter ... my sister ... my daughter ...
Sacrifice ... suicide ... sacrifice ... suicide ...
Where's that aspirin?
I'm sorry to say that I don't have much to contribute, I just
want to let you all know I stand in awe. I was waiting til I could
sit down and spend some time with this thread since it was huge
(and growing). Thanks to everyone who contributed!
From earnest discussions on selfish/unselfish lower/higher conditional/unconditional
love to discussions of The Lord of the Rings (got to reread that
this summer!) to myth to the Tarot to symbolism to bad puns, there
is so much chewy goodness here I'll be working on these thoughts
for some time.
This is why I hang around this board.
- vh
6 degrees of Kevin Bacon -- Jack_McCoy,
20:40:52 06/04/01 Mon
For those of you who have never played this game, the object is
to connect an actor/actress to Kevin Bacon within 6 trys or less.
For example, Sigorney Weaver:
Sigorney Weaver started with Kevin Kline in "Dave",
who started in "In and Out" with Matt Dillion, who stared
in "Wild things" with....Kevin Bacon.
So far, I have yet to find an actor/actress I couldn't link to
Kevin in 6 trys or less. I just figured out how to connect everyone
in Angel and Buffy to him. Can any of ya'll?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon -- Liquidram, 23:02:49 06/04/01
Mon
Here's three for the price of one:
David Boreanaz was in "Valentine" with Marley Sheldon,
who was in "American Pie" with Alyson Hannigan who is
in "BtVS" with Sarah Michelle Geller who was in "Scream
2" with Neve Campbell who was in "Wild Things"
with .... Kevin Bacon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon -- Mishka, 08:21:07 06/05/01
Tue
Con`t J.August Richards (Gunn) was in Good Burger with Can Schneider
II. Dan Schneider II was in The Big Picture with Kevin Bacon.
Andy Hallett (Host) was in Chance with Shammus Murphy Shammus
Murphy was in Deuces Wild with Frankie Muniz Frankie Muniz was
in My Dog Skip with Kevin Bacon
Julie Benz (Darla) was in Inventing the Abbotts with Billy Crudup.
Billy Crudup was in Sleepers with Kevin Bacon
Juliet Landau (Dru) was in Ed Wood with Bill Murray Bill Murray
was in Wild Things with Kevin Bacon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon -- Rob, 10:57:53
06/05/01 Tue
Sarah Michelle Gellar was in "Scream 2" with Neve Campbell,
who was in "Wild Things" with Kevin Bacon.
Allyson Hannigan was in "Dead Man on Campus" with Tom
Everett Scott, who was in "That Thing You Do" with Tom
Hanks, who was in "Apollo 13" with Kevin Bacon.
Nicholas Brendon was in "Psycho Beach Party" with Lauren
Ambrose, who was in "Can't Hardly Wait" with Ethan Embry,
who was in "Disturbing Behavior" with Katie Holmes,
who was in "Go" with Jay Mohr, who was in "Picture
Perfect" with Kevin Bacon.
James Marsters was in "House on Haunted Hill" with Geoffrey
Rush, who was in "Mystery Men" with Ben Stiller, who
was in "Meet the Parents" with Robert DeNiro, who was
in "Sleepers" with Kevin Bacon.
Eliza Dushku was in "Bring It On" with Kirsten Dunst,
who was in "Interview with the Vampire" with Brad Pitt,
who was in "Sleepers" with Kevin Bacon.
Clare Kramer was in "Bring it On" with Kirsten Dunst...
Michelle Trachtenberg was in "Harriet the Spy" with
Rosie O'Donnell, who was in "League of Their Own" with
Tom Hanks, who was in "Apollo 13" with Kevin Bacon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon -- Q, 09:05:24 06/05/01 Tue
I have the board game of "six degrees of Kevin Bacon"
It's pretty cool because you get names at random to link to him,
which makes it harder. Anyway, we never play six degrees to kevin
bacon, we alway play "six degrees to Buffy" at all our
parties. I'll show you a round.
I roll the dice and the card says: Andy Garcia
1. Andy Garcia was in "When a man loves a woman" with
Meg Ryan
2. Meg Ryan was in "Sleepless in Seattle" with Tom Hanks
3 Tom Hanks was in "Dragnet" with Dan Akroyd
4 Dan Akroyd was in "My stepmother's an Alien" with
Allison Hannigan who is
Willow
The card says: Sissy Spaceck
1. Sissy Spaceck was in "The outlaw josie welles" with
Clint Eastwood.
2. Clint Eastwood was in "The unforgiven" with Gene
Hackman
3. Gene Hackman was in "enemy of the state" with Seth
Green who is Oz.
That's how we play it, anyway!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 2nd degree Eliza -- vampire hunter D, 12:30:23 06/05/01
Tue
Eliza Dushku in "True Lies" with Jamie Lee Curtis Jamie
Lee Curtis in "Queen's Logic" with Kevin Bacon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon -- Bob128, 12:46:44 06/05/01
Tue
Remember, the shortest number of degrees is better, all below
have 3 or less connections:
Alyson Hannigan was in Boys and Girls (2000) with Kylie Bax Kylie
Bax was in We Married Margo (2000) with Kevin Bacon
Nicholas Brendon was in Pinata (2000) with Eugene Byrd Eugene
Byrd was in Sleepers (1996) with Kevin Bacon
James Marsters was in Winding Roads (1998) with Rob Lowe Rob Lowe
was in Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me (1999) with Clint
Howard Clint Howard was in My Dog Skip (2000) with Kevin Bacon
Eliza Dushku was in Soul Survivors (2001) with Luke Wilson Luke
Wilson was in My Dog Skip (2000) with Kevin Bacon
Clare Kramer was in In & Out (1997) with Matt Dillon Matt Dillon
was in Wild Things (1998) with Kevin Bacon
Michelle Trachtenberg was in Inspector Gadget (1999) with Matthew
Broderick Matthew Broderick was in She's Having a Baby (1988)
with Kevin Bacon
Anthony Head was in Rock Star (2001) with Jennifer Aniston Jennifer
Aniston was in Picture Perfect (1997) with Kevin Bacon
Charisma Carpenter was in Timemaster (1995) with Irwin Keyes Irwin
Keyes was in Friday the 13th (1980) with Kevin Bacon
Marc Blucas was in View from the Top, A (2001) with Stephen Tobolowsky
Stephen Tobolowsky was in Murder in the First (1995) with Kevin
Bacon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Here's one -- Jack_McCoy, 16:05:08 06/05/01 Tue
Sarah was in Cruel Intentions with Ryan Philippe, who stared with
Neve Campbell in 54, who stared in Wild Things with Kevin Bacon.
BtVS on DVD--Shelf Life? -- Wisewoman,
21:26:10 06/04/01 Mon
There's a thread below referring to the differences in VHS and
DVD players in different regions of the world, and it reminded
me of something mind-boggling (IMHO) that I read in a local community
(Vancouver) newspaper this weekend.
I quote: "Microfilm lasts for 500 to 1,000 years, but trying
to find specific information in it can be a nightmare. Good-quality
paper lasts just as long...Video and audiotapes last as little
as ten years before the magnetic layer, which stores pictures
and sounds, begins flaking away...with CD-ROMS [and DVDs?], the
stored information spreads over the disk, rendering it next to
useless in 10 to 20 years."
And I was gonna spend my old age mooning over the bleached-hair
guy who shall remain nameless...oh well.
The article also says that Apple records it's software codes on...paper!
LOL!
Wisewoman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: BtVS on DVD--Shelf Life? -- OnM, 21:57:48 06/04/01 Mon
The information you quote is accurate for magnetic tape, although
with today's technology the problem is less one of the oxide coating
flaking off, than the tape's natural tendency to slowly demagnetize
itself over long periods of time.
There is no truth to the 'stored info spreading over the disk,
rendering it useless'. CD's and DVD's are molded from polycarbonate
plastic ('Lexan') and are extremely stable over a *very* long
period of time. CD's have already been in existance for over 20
years, and show no signs of deteriorating. DVD's should be the
same.
There are no known 100% accurate life expectancies for CD's/DVD's,
but 50 to 100 years isn't out of the question.
Even if they would start to deteriorate, being a digital medium,
if you can get a copy made while the disc is still good, there
will be no generation loss, as with analog media.
So fret not. DVD's are one of the greatest pieces of technology
to come along in many a year. We have only begun to really utilize
this medium-- the story is far from over!
And no, I don't work for any DVD manufacturers! (~grin~) Just
your friendly neighborhood A/V technician, here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> What a relief! -- Wisewoman, 08:10:53 06/05/01 Tue
Whoooo-hoooo! Thanks, OnM. Where do the reporters come up with
this stuff? I guess, that's the problem, they don't really say...
I'll happily go back to my fantasies of retirement now...
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I'm glad somebody is relieved -- Dedalus,
15:54:48 06/05/01 Tue
Okay, so I just got my Crouching Tiger DVD today. I can play it
on my uncle's DVD player, but I can't play it on my brand spankin'
new DVD-ROM. Damn it, that was the entire reason I wanted it.
What kind of cruel cosmic justice is this? It will play every
DVD under the sun, but the one that is my favorite, no luck.
What a rip-off.
*Dedalus angrily shakes fist at the sky*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Well, Daedalus... -- fresne, 16:48:38
06/05/01 Tue
As long as you only shake your fist angrily at the sky. If in
a fit of anger you fly too close to the sun, your waxy wings might
melt.
Or given that its CTHD, would that be floating through the air.
Sorry, couldn't help it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Contact the player manufacturer... --
OnM, 20:53:19 06/05/01 Tue
There may be a software update available. If, not, inform them
of the disc or discs you are having trouble playing, they may
have an update in future.
This problem is becoming more common, although it usually afflicts
owners of older machines. It's usually directly related to increased
copy protection on the disc. Discmakers are trying to keep ahead
of people trying to hack the DVD copy protection methodologies.
The idea is to have players play the discs OK, but prevent a digital-to-digital
copy from being made. Sometimes this causes the player to become
unable to read a legitimate disc.
My boss just got a copy of 'Ben Hur' last week, and his machine
(less than 1 year old) wouldn't play it. He brought it into the
store the next day, and it played fine on every machine we have.
He called the company, and sure enough there is an update available,
although this was the first call they had had on 'Ben Hur'.
Hope this helps, Dedalus. Give it a shot!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks Guys -- Dedalus, 12:36:47
06/06/01 Wed
Actually, I did do all the Help Guides and all that, but they
weren't very helpful. There are upgrades available, and you can
send in a complaint, but the form is really complicated and you
have to have all these codes and stuff and I'm all like "Whatthehellijustwanttowatchcrouchingtiger"
and they're like, no fill out all these forms and it was this
whole big thing ...
I can see if it was an older machine, but this is a brand new
DVD-ROM.
Sigh.
Dawn Vs Faith as Buffy's Sister
-- Steve, 06:46:14 06/05/01 Tue
Maybe I am off base here, but I see Buffy's whole relationship
with Dawn as kind of a mirror image of what happened to her with
Faith.
Faith was the first "sister" that fate put in Buffy's
life.
BUFFY Yeah, she's personable. Gets along with my friends, my watcher,
my mom -- look! Now she's getting along with my fries!
ANGLE: FAITH is in fact reaching over and snagging some of Buffy's
fries.
JOYCE Now, Buffy --
BUFFY Plus, in school today, she was making eyes at MY not-boyfriend.
It's creepy.
JOYCE Does anybody else think Faith is creepy?
BUFFY No, but I'm the one getting Single White Femaled here.
JOYCE It's probably good you were an only child.
BUFFY Hey, I... Mom, I'm just getting my life back. I'm not looking
to go halfsies on it.
Buffy didn't want to share her life with Faith. She didn't want
to go "halfsies on it.".
With Dawn she couldn't go even go "halsies". She had
to give her whole life to Dawn.
Now when I say mirror, I mean that it is reverse. Faith forced
Buffy into a situation whereby Buffy almost killed her by pushing
her off a building after stabbing her with a knife (sounds familiar).
Dawn was innocent of the situation, Faith was not. In Dawn's case,
it was Buffy who in the end took the fall.
I realize that Faith and Buffy never really even developed a sister-liker
elationship. But the similarities with how Buffy almost killed
Faith, and how Buffy was supposed to kill Dawn were very similar.
Buffy rejected that type of relationship with Faith out of selfishness
(and yes there were other uncontrolable circumstances as well,
not totally Buffy's fault) but with Dawn she finally got it right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Excellent post Steve. -- AK-UK, 07:32:35 06/05/01 Tue
That "it's probably good that you were an only child"
line is brilliant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dawn Vs Faith as Buffy's Sister -- rowan, 11:01:27 06/05/01
Tue
So clever...that's why I've grouped them together in the character
posting party. To contrast the good sister with the bad sister.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dawn Vs Faith as Buffy's Sister -- Steve, 19:01:34
06/05/01 Tue
Buffy's unwillingness to "halfsies" and not share her
life with Faith set a tone for what was to come.
Faith might have been the "bad sister", but then again
so was Buffy.
Buffy could never forgive Faith. She might have been more good
than the rest of us, but she wasn't perfect. And while I don't
blame Buffy for what happened to Faith, I always have felt a need
for some kind of reconciliation. Forgiving someone who has wronged
you is one of the hardest things to do.
Now that Buffy is gone, perhaps Dawn will be able to do what Buffy
was never willing to. Perhaps in their shared lost some form of
reconciliation can take place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dawn Vs Faith as Buffy's Sister -- Anthony8, 17:02:07
06/05/01 Tue
Great post, but I would disagree that Faith and Buffy never really
developed a sister-like relationship. To me it was a classic older(Buffy)
to younger (Faith) sister relationship, sibling rivalry taken
to its extreme. Buffy was the cautious, more responsible older
sister. She had some respect (well, as much as can be expected
in a teenager) for her parental figures (Joyce, Giles) and worked
for their approval. Faith, the classic baby sister, gets away
with murder (okay, not really) and leaves older sis' to cover
for her with the parental units. Faith is jealous of the things
Buffy has accomplished and sees Buffy's sense of responsibility
as an obstacle to fun. Buffy is resentful of the freedom Faith
enjoys, but understands to some extent the potentially disastrous
consequences that can result from acting without thinking.
Sounds like the Bush twins. No wait, they're just couple of chips
off the old average block. I know--not too deep, but my posts
have been too long lately anyhow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Good excuse for us to all rewatch *Bad Girls* this
week! -- OnM, 21:22:38 06/05/01 Tue
Anthony, thanks for bringing up this point.
Interesting that Buffy began to bond with Faith in a more sister-like
fashion once she started to recognize elements of her own self
reflected in Faith.
Speaking of the above-mentioned ep, was watching *Witchblade*
tonight on TNT. Reminds me oh so much about Harlan Ellison's great
old quote about how without writers, all you have is a bunch of
actors standing around with nothing to say.
Of course, unless you have *good* writers... not here to speak
ill of the dubious, but in one entire program chock full'o'words,
nothing was said that even once matched the simple elegance of,
say,
"Want. Take. Have."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Good excuse for us to all rewatch *Bad Girls*
this week! -- Anthony8, 21:45:19 06/05/01 Tue
Your Harlan Ellison quote made me think about the scene in 'The
Player' where Peter Gallagher and Tim Robbins are discussing the
merits of bypassing the artistic process altogether by eliminating
both the actors and the writers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> LOL! Yeah... that too. -- OnM, 22:45:07
06/05/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dawn's reactions to Faith -- Brian, 08:46:27 06/06/01
Wed
What would Dawn's reaction to Faith really be? I wonder how they
got along in those programed memories? I imagine that Faith, like
Spike, would have some allure. Maybe some hero worship, with some
Buffy grumbling on the side. What would Dawn think about Faith
trying to turn then kill Angel. In fact, did Dawn think Angel
was "cool" or "icky." Ah, specualtion!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Dawn's reactions to Faith -- Cynthia, 12:19:23
06/06/01 Wed
I think Dawn may have liked Angel. Perhaps is mad at him for the
pain and suffering that he has caused Buffy even thou it may have
been beyond his control. Sisterly protectiveness is not necessarily
rational. It also obvious that she likes Spike better.
All this based, of course, on non-existance memories of course
LOL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> We may just find out. -- Humanitas, 09:43:26
06/07/01 Thu
The upcoming BtVS Animated series is supposed to be set during
Buffy's high-school years, with Dawn as a character. Evidently
these are tales not previously told, that have been affected by
the Monks' spell. So we may get to see what Dawn thought of Angel
and Faith.
Buffyish character?!? -- Rob,
08:42:59 06/05/01 Tue
I just read at Wanda's site on E! Online! that yes, Sarah Michelle
Gellar would be coming back to the show in the first episode of
the year, and everyone after that. She also said, yes, she would
be playing Buffy...or at least a "Buffy-ish character."
Any speculation on what that means? Could Joss actually not be
bringing Buffy back next year but Sarah Michelle Gellar as another
character? This show is so amazing and brilliant, Joss is a genius...I'm
sure it could work...but I don't know...Now I'm going even more
crazy waiting for the season premiere. However Buffy returns...or
in whatever form SMG returns next year...I wanna know now!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Welcome to the World of the Spoiler Ho ;o) rotflmao! --
Wisewoman, 09:03:41 06/05/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> could you give a link to this, I can't find it -- abt, 09:06:04
06/05/01 Tue
I found eonline.com, but I can't find the article you describe
thanks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Here's the link... -- Rob, 10:31:50 06/05/01 Tue
http://www.eonline.com/Gossip/Wanda/Trans/Archive2001/010604b.html
It's a little farther than halfway down the page...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Here's the link... -- rowan, 11:00:17 06/05/01
Tue
I saw this too, last night....and wondered. Of course, one must
take Wanda's spoilers with a grain of salt.
But, if Buffy's body is really mouldering in the grave (and if
the show is true to form, we'll pick up 3 months after her death),
and some of a person's personality is related to their body (vamps
retain some personality of former human even after the soul is
gone and the demon takes up residence), then if Buffy is reincarnated
(her soul, new body that just happens to look like SMG) then she
would be a little different...different, yet the same.
This is starting to get a little creepy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> When Doyle Died -- mundusmundi, 13:35:35
06/05/01 Tue
This reminds me of when Doyle died. The very next ep, the actor
(can't remember his name, dammit!) played a Doylish, similar-yet-evil
version of him. Only for one episode, though. And it wouldn't
surprise me if something similar happens w/ Buffy. I can see SMG
playing a variation or doppleganger, but not for too long. The
real-deal needs to come back sooner or later. Right? Hmmmmmm....Maybe
she'll *gradually* come back. (Whatever that means. I dunno either.:))
Anyway, if it's true (a big, qualified *if*), I smell a Joss fake-out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I still think... -- Scott L., 19:02:46
06/05/01 Tue
That SMG will play the Buffy-bot until they can bring the real
Buffy back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I still think... -- Evg,
11:58:26 06/06/01 Wed
That's just dumb
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I still think... -- Shaglio,
13:10:42 06/06/01 Wed
Unfortunately, I think you may be right. I personally would not
enjoy this circumstance and hope that it's not true, but it does
make sense with the "buffyish character." I really don't
like mixing Fantasy with Sci-fi. One or the other is preferable,
but Buffy is currently in the Fantasy genre and things like the
Buffy-bot, the Initiative, and Adam tend to delve into the Sci-fi
realm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Another stupid possibility
-- Shaglio, 13:25:40 06/06/01 Wed
Maybe the PTB will make Buffy a god and she will share Dawn's
body with her. The two could morph back and forth like Glory and
Ben. I'm sure that would certainly kill the show. Can you tell
I'm really bored at work?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Thanks...I'd never heard of Wanda before...
-- Scott L., 19:00:19 06/05/01 Tue
I put her in my Favorites.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Your welcome... -- Rob, 12:58:51 06/07/01
Thu
I discovered her site at the beginning of this season and have
been going to see it every week to read the Monday night chat
transcripts. Glad to spread Wanda-ish goodness to the world! LOL.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: You're welcome, I meant (I can't
believe I misspelled that...I'm an English major!!!) -- Rob, 13:08:39
06/07/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> But, are you a *modern* major,
general? -- OnM, 20:30:19 06/07/01 Thu
So will Tara be added to the main
credits/opening? -- Jack_McCoy, 09:50:53 06/05/01 Tue
Now that Giles is being reduced to a reoccuring character (at
his own request), do you think Tara will now be on the opening
credits?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: So will Tara be added to the main credits/opening? --
Humanitas, 10:21:52 06/05/01 Tue
Alas, Joss has said that Tara will still be a recurring character.
:(
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: So will Tara be added to the main credits/opening?
-- AK-UK, 12:14:00 06/05/01 Tue
Much as I dislike Tara, I do find it amazing that she didn't get
a mention in the opening credits THIS season, so I'm amazed that
Joss isn't putting her in the next seasons either.
Poor girl loses her mind for the gang and she doesn't merit a
mention along side them!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Tara - what's her story? -- Brian, 12:31:13 06/05/01
Tue
Tara seems to be the exception to the rule of the Scoobies' journey
out and in. Perhaps, this why some people see her as boring. Her
character seems established. She is not on any character quest.
She often supplies comfort and understanding to the various characters
in their times of need. As such, she appears to serve an earth-mother
role.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: So will Tara be added to the main credits/opening? --
Bob128, 12:26:37 06/05/01 Tue
I don't think they can give cardboard a credit?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ouch! -- AK-UK, 12:33:33 06/05/01 Tue
That was a bit harsh, wasn't it?
Not that I entirely disagree with the point you are making, but
still......:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: So will Tara be added to the main credits/opening?
-- Bob 128 sucks, 13:22:09 06/05/01 Tue
You're an asshole...how's that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Gee, Bob, think you might be on the wrong board...;-)
-- Wisewoman, 13:52:55 06/05/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Well, you know what they say Bob.... --
AK-UK, 14:09:46 06/05/01 Tue
Assholes are like opinions; every........errr, hold on. that doesn't
sound right :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: So will Tara be added to the main credits/opening?
-- Bob128, 19:47:16 06/05/01 Tue
You read the Handbook for Piffy Comebacks too huh?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Jeez, people don't have.... -- Bob128, 19:56:14
06/05/01 Tue
a fit. Its only cardboard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> They did with Riley -- Tista, 16:45:20 06/05/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> How can she be considered recurring when... -- Jack_McCoy,
16:11:40 06/05/01 Tue
How can she be considered recurring when she has been in every
episode of this season? I mean, recurring character usually means
that the person is in less than half of season's episodes. Oh
course, the same can be said about Broots from the Pretender,
so maybe its just a creative decison.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: How can she be considered recurring when... --
Wisewoman, 17:07:49 06/05/01 Tue
I remember reading a while back on another board that "recurring"
status actually has nothing to do with how often an actor appears
on a show--it's some legality having to do with the number of
regulars the network contracts for and, of course, money, and
I'm sorry I can't remember all the details, but it's not because
they just don't want Amber Benson as a regular. She's certainly
done her time, but then so had Christine Sutherland.
Joss has been quoted as saying he's quite devoted to the Willow/Tara
relationship, but that doesn't mean he won't kill one or the other,
or both of them, off! :-o
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: How can she be considered recurring when...
-- Scott L., 18:55:45 06/05/01 Tue
I can't find my original source, but I'm sure that I read both
Joss and Amber say that she would be a regular next season. But,
I could have misread that.
Joss DID say that Amber has become such a part of the heart of
the show that no matter what happens between Tara and Willow,
he'd like to keep Amber on.
And, I don't think she's cardboard. She's calm and nurturing and
that's a different role for a Buffy female. But Amber shows a
good understanding of characterization and body language.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Excerpt From TV Guide Online - 052401-
Joss Interview -- OnM, 21:05:33 06/05/01 Tue
TVGO: Will Amber Benson (Tara) be added to the opening credits
next season?
Whedon: No, Amber's going to stay at a recurring status. But she
will, like this year, be in most of the shows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: How can she be considered recurring
when... -- Mishka, 07:10:38 06/06/01 Wed
I am unfortunately on the 'I can`t stand the Tara-character' team.
As I`ve said before I find her and Willow obnoxiously sweet, to
the point that I`ve started channel surfing when they have their
cutesy conversations. I personally hope that they nix the character
and pick someone with a little more personality, less whiny person
to be with Willow. However having said that, Amber Benson has
done a great job playing her and she has served her time like
the other actors and actresses. So if its not some union issue,
she certainly is no less deserving of opening credit status.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> This has to be one of those 'agree
to disagree' scenarios... -- OnM, 09:31:44 06/06/01 Wed
I too really appreciate the excellent work Amber Benson has done
in her role as Tara, so we do have something in common!
I really like the Tara character, though, as I've stated previously.
The only thing I can suggest is give it some time-- 'Bout a year
ago, I stuck my (cyberspace) neck out, and pretty much got it
de-rezzed by many other BtVS fans, for saying I really liked the
Anya character, and that I thought the role had great future potential.
Now, there are Anya fans all over the place. The writers work
on BtVS and Angel is kind of like a Bonsai tree - a slow sculpture.
Patience bring rewards-- ya never know!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> I was an Anya fan from the
start, as well -- Rob, 09:28:01 06/07/01 Thu
From the first time Anya showed up in Xander's basement, I was
a bonafide Anya fan. I never understood why she was disliked by
fans, and, now finally, a lot of people love her. But this sort
of thing happens many times when new characters are added. For
instance, Joxer on "Xena." He was hated by many of the
fans, making fun of Joxer lovers, etc. Eventually many people
changed their minds or at least stopped being so vocal against
Joxer fans. I think people should stop being so quick to hate
a new character. All characters should be given time, for after
all, when the show started, none of the characters are how they
are today, not only have they grown, but the actors know them
better. How can an actor new to a show in their first few episodes
know their character perfectly? People should be given time before
they are judged. At the beginning of this year, everyone hated
Dawn. I didn't. I thought "Real Me" was a brilliant
way to introduce her as a new character, and also establish her
relationships with the others, by how she viewed them. But that's
just my 2 cents...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I was an Anya fan
from the start, as well -- Rufus, 12:37:46 06/07/01 Thu
I like Anya, I just don't like what she has done as a demon. So
it took awhile to warm up to her. I go through periods of being
angry at a character for the stupid things they may have done.
I can like Spike but still see his evil acts as cowardly, I like
Anya but hate her actions as a demon. Don't get me started on
Angel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I was an Anya fan
from the start, as well -- gds, 20:49:14 06/07/01 Thu
For Anya's advice to the lovelorn see http://www.palefella.com/duh/agonyaunt.html
The DUH has a variety of mildly amusing Buffy fun while we are
waiting for the real thing to return.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Humm...as the one who is starting the Tara thread for the
Anniversary Celebration... -- Wiccagrrl, 20:05:59 06/06/01 Wed
and as someone who really likes the character...I'm getting the
sense this may be a tough room... ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Humm...as the one who is starting the Tara thread
for the Anniversary Celebration... -- rowan, 20:10:18 06/06/01
Wed
Hey, speaking of, can you switch to 6/14 instead of 6/21?
On the tough room subject...here's what I struggle with. I like
Tara in a couple with Willow. Their relationship has a sweetness
and a tenderness which is quite unique in BtVS. But I have trouble
appreciating Tara as a character because there just doesn't seem
to be much to her. She's not really featured in her own right.
Anya suffers from this as well, but at least we've gotten a little
more backstory on Anya and Anya benefits from being "the
funny one."
I'm hoping through your appreciation of her, I'll get turned around.
I'm wondering if Joss is so high on her because she's filling
the "nurturing earth mother" role that Joyce has vacated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Humm...as the one who is starting the Riley
thread for the AnnCel... -- OnM, 20:24:49 06/06/01 Wed
I expect to get a 'tough room' also.
Don't care - like Riley. Intend to explain why.
My foes shall tremble...
(or not;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Pity me, please. -- rowan, 20:29:57 06/06/01
Wed
No one has volunteered for Xander, but he needs to be done because
he's a core Scooby. He's not exactly my favorite (I just don't
know if I have anything brilliant to say about him because I don't
totally understand him), but I guess I'll have to dive in anyway.
After the recent anti-Xander post, I'm trembling...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Tell you what, rowanificus, most
mighty organizing one... -- OnM, 20:44:40 06/06/01 Wed
Why don't you mail Joss and ask him to do a post? After all, he's
stated on a number of occasions how much he identifies with Xander.
Wouldn't that just be a little coup for us here?
(Yeah, I know, but we can dream, right?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> From the girl who wants the Riley bot...........
-- Rufus, 21:15:56 06/06/01 Wed
You should be pleased to know that there is one fan in the audience.
I like Riley...always did. I can't wait to see your take on the
guy. Bad boys are fun to watch, only watch. I like nice men. With
brains and some consideration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> From the other girl who wants a
Riley bot........... -- purplegrrl, 07:02:06 06/07/01 Thu
I like Riley, too. So OnM, please do the poor boy justice. Of
course Rufus and I will jump in with our own two cents worth of
free philosophy.
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Ah, that's the reality, is it not?
I'm a big Faith fan, but... -- OnM, 20:27:04 06/07/01 Thu
...in the realverse if I met someone like her I'd run like hell
if I had any functioning brain at all.
In the realverse, I'd be looking for someone like Tara. Well,
a hetero/bi-sexual Tara, anyway.
Well, you get the idea.
(ahem..)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Yup, fun to watch.........
-- Rufus, 21:14:56 06/07/01 Thu
Faith.....hmmmm....remember what she did to Xander...not the time
she slept with him then dumped him out the door, clothes in hand....but
the next time when she tried to kill him....Angel mentioned she
forgot the safety word.....Faith has no safety word.......
Your choice of Tara makes more sense, she is kind hearted, will
listen to anything, and she has a cat. Where is there wrong here?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Where's the wrong here...
-- OnM, 21:59:20 06/07/01 Thu
Other than me being 48 and she being 20 you mean? ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Where's the
wrong here... -- Rufus, 23:27:34 06/07/01 Thu
And I thought that you were going to mention the cat. You do have
quite the point and a ship with Tara would be like the Buffy/Giles
stuff out on the net...if she were my kid I'd kinda have to break
your legs...but only in a philosophical way...or is it I'd quote
philosophy to you as I break your legs?????......I did mean a
woman with the temperment of Tara would be more appropriate than
the thrill seeking, butt kicking, leave you outside the door cold,
Faith.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Quote of
the week: "I'd kinda have to break your legs...but only in
a philosophical way" -- Masquerade, 14:55:20 06/12/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just
trying to keep it philosophical......:):):) -- Rufus, 18:27:34
06/12/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Humm...as the one who is starting the Tara
thread for the Anniversary Celebration... -- Wiccagrrl, 20:33:49
06/06/01 Wed
That may be part of it. I also remember Joss mentioning in an
article lately that there were a couple of times when he had plans
for the character, and in writing her, she had other ideas :)
That can be very appealing to a writer- when a character becomes
that real to you.
(I think the two examples he gave were Tara falling for Willow-
he hadn't necessarilly planned a love affair from the word go,
but in writing those early eps in his mind Tara just fell head
over heels for Willow. The other was the demon storyline- he'd
thought when he wrote the spell sabotage scene that she might
be part demon. In writing Family, it came to him that they were
handling it wrong- that they'd just told her that- made her feel
she was evil. Which he said was ten times more interesting than
"Oh, I have wood sprite blood")
It's hard to explain the appeal of a character if they just plain
don't appeal to you. I love Tara, love the quiet strength and
mystery and the different feel she brings to the mix. And I think
they have been doing more exploring of her as a character since
family, and especially since the Body. I think she's beginnging
to come into her own.
And yeah, I guess I can go first. First up's good- nothing for
others to compare ya too :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Thank you, sweetie...you must have wood
sprite blood! :) -- rowan, 20:35:50 06/06/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"1st" pilot thoughts and comments -- cjc36, 21:01:40
06/11/01 Mon
'FIRST' Pilot spoliers! If you've seen it, read on.
Finding that silly thing has been hard. The link I used is now
gone, so the legal-eagles have struck again.
Anyway, it was really, really cool to see the so-called "First"
Pilot (really an internal Twentieth Television Proof of Production
reel).
Tone: at times was more like the movie than what the show would
become. SMG's acting was more glib, and the ending teen-campier
than usual.
LOVED the scene with Xander and Buffy walking thru the hs quad
and naming the cliques. Wish this had made the cut into WTTH.
protoWillow: Lot has been said about her weight. And, yeah, she
wasn't a skinny person. And I'm not gonna sit here and defend
Hollywood and say the prods didn't consider her physcal type in
recasting the role. But to me, the real problem with the character
as played by Rif Regan was the fact I wouldn't have liked her
one bit. This was some whiney wimp who had none of the 'inner
spark' of AH's Willow (Okay, AH could have watched this and seen
what 'not' to do.)
Vamp makeup was there, but the FX was basically 'filler,' one
level up from a "VAMP TURNS TO DUST" title card insertion.
Thank God for AH! I'm wondering how much of "Willow-speak"
comes from her? More than I had thought, I bet.
Hopefully, if legal concerns can be met, this version, or at least
selected scenes, will one day make it to DVD. It's a cool thing
to see this early first draft of Joss's vision, especially considering
what it has grown into.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: "1st" pilot thoughts and comments -- Slayrunt,
21:38:12 06/11/01 Mon
I agree about AH's Willow.
I read about AH's screentest. She talks about the whole we use
to go out until X stole my Barbie scene. She said she wanted to
not be so down on herself so she add "I got most of it back"
as happily as she could to show Willow looks on the bright side.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: "1st" pilot thoughts and comments --
Dedalus, 12:08:45 06/12/01 Tue
I have a copy of the pilot. If you check out any of the comic
conventions that migrate from place to place all over the country,
you could probably pick one up. There's always a few people selling
copies of such things. I got a bootleg copy of Crouching Tiger
two months before the DVD came out.
And the Willow in the pilot ... it would have been something to
see where they went with her. I suppose it isn't right to judge
on just those few scenes, but I just don't see it working. Of
course, we are all biased.
But can you see that girl playing VampWillow?!
"Plus I think I'm kinda gay."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: "1st" pilot thoughts and comments
-- Sam I Am, 17:34:48 06/12/01 Tue
I agree she wouldn't have made a good Willow, but I am disparaged
by commments on the web about her as a person and an actress.
Comments about her size are most prevalent--ok she doesn't have
the cuteness of AH but I thought B fans were a little above making
fun of that. I guess not.
Besides that the 20 min ep was more of a demo reel than anything
concrete like a pilot. And Joss obviously knew of Riff Regan from
Sisters and her one stint on Roseanne of which Joss wrote for.
He must have a good reason for casting her in the role of Willow
in the demo, I don't see him casting stones about it. The actors
in these demos often know they won't get picked up in the actual
show sometime. Heck, I may not have even picked the show up based
on this demo, it was pretty bad, but of course the actors either
ripened or gave it more effort for the actual series.
Becoming and The Gift -- Humanitas, 15:20:06 06/05/01
Tue
Several threads have mentioned the parallels between Becoming
and The Gift, so I went back and re-read the shooting scripts
for both parts of Becoming to see what I could find. This post
is sort of my first attempt at getting some thoughts in order.
Please feel free to comment on, add to, and generally poke holes
in anything I write.
1. Let's start with a nice obvious parallel: as Spike says, "It's
always gotta be blood (TG, Act I)." In B, it's Angel's blood
that opens and closes the gate for Acaltha:
WHISTLER: Angel's the key. His blood will open the door to Hell.
Acathla opens his big mouth, creates the vortex, then only Angel's
blood'll close it. One blow. Send 'em both back to hell. But I
strongly suggest you get there before that happens. --B2, Act
III
In TG, it's Dawn:
GILES: "The blood flows, the gates will open. The gates will
close when it flows no more." When Dawn is dead.
BUFFY:Pretty simple math, here. We stop Glory before she can start
the ritual. --TG, Act I
The language used is almost identical. Angel is even refered to
as "the key."
2. Both stories focus on sacrifice, especially on the part of
the Slayer. Angel plays with Buffy for the season leading up to
"Becoming," terrorizing her and her friends. He kills
Jenny Calendar, and ends up capturing Giles, and seriously harming
both Xander and Willow. The worst loss for Buffy, though, is the
loss of her love for Angel. In Season 5, Buffy deals again with
loss. Reily leaves, Joyce dies, and there is seemingly nothing
that Buffy can do to stop Glory. What is most interesting, however,
is that in both cases, Buffy discovers that she must ultimately
rely on herself:
ANGEL: That's everything, huh? No weapons, no friends. No hope.
Take all that away and what's left?
BUFFY: Me. --B2, Act IV
BUFFY (V. O.): Dawn listen to me. Listen. I love you. I'll always
love you. But this is the work I have to do. Tell Giles I... I
figured it out. And I'm okay. --TG, Act IV
Of course, neither struggle finds Buffy truly alone. She is backed
up by her friends (doing the spell to restore Angel's soul in
B2, and helping in the battle in TG). "With a little help
from my friends" is a recurring theme in the series, especially
Season 4.
OK, I know I've missed stuff. There's more here, but my brain's
a little fried. What parallels or progress do you see?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Becoming and The Gift -- Kerri, 09:19:25 06/06/01 Wed
To me the main difference between these two episodes is hope.
In Becoming Buffy is left with the belief that there is nothing
for her to live for. She lost Angel twice, she lost her mom-in
the sense that she was kicked out of her home, she's kicked out
of school, she lost her friends-because she doesn't feel she can
face them.
At the end of Becoming Buffy is left with no hope. In Anne when
Lily comments that they are in hell and Buffy denies it, Ken comments,
"What is hell but the total absence of hope?" Becoming
leaves Buffy in a sort of hell-believing that she has lost everything
and with no hope.
In The Gift Buffy says to Giles the she doesn't know how to "live
in this world if these are choices. If everything just gets stripped
away. I don't see the point." She then tells Giles, "If
Dawn dies I'm quitting." To me this statement didn't mean
she would stop being the slayer-it meant she would quit life-she
would have to reason to go on. As Buffy tells Dawn in her final
words, "The hardest thing in this world is to live in it."
Without Dawn Buffy sees no reason to live.
Firstly, because she feels like she will have no one. Dawn is
the most important thing in Buffy's life. Buffy needs Dawn-the
two sisters are incredibly close which is the only reason they
were able to get through their mom's death.
Secondly, killing Dawn is killing a part of Buffy, as she tells
the SG earlier in the episode, "Dawn is a part of me, the
only part I..." In my opinion this sentence would be ended
with love, but that's only speculation. So for Buffy to kill Dawn
she is destroying what she sees as the best part of herself: her
humanity.
Thirdly, killing Dawn means that there is no hope. If Buffy had
to kill her sister she would lose her faith in good. In Spiral
Buffy asks the general, "what kind of God would demand her
life for something she can't remember." (sorry just paraphrasing
there) If Buffy was forced to kill Dawn she would lose her beliefs
about good and evil which she needs to fight evil.
So getting to my point about The Gift, Buffy's sacrifice gave
her hope. Buffy felt like there was no hope if was forced to kill
her sister, but when she realized she could sacrifice herself
Buffy was given renewed hope in the world and was glad to give
her life for the world and for Dawn.
When Buffy realized what she could do she had a serene peaceful
look on her face. In that moment Buffy had clarity about her life,
her purpose.
Compare the way Buffy dies to past experiences/conceptions with
regard to death. First there is her death in Prophesy Girl. Buffy
is terrified as the master is about to bite her, paralyzed with
fear; her life is taken from her even though it is her choice
to go and fight. Then there is the idea of the slayer's death
wish-that Buffy will need death as an escape.
Previously Buffy has been afraid of death, but now she meets it
on her own terms and uses it to express her love.
In both Becoming and the Gift there is a death of sorts. In Becoming
Buffy's innocence dies. The end has a somber feeling that is heavily
flavored with loss and despair. The music at the end of becoming
includes the line, "pulled down by the undertow, never thought
I could feel so low. Oh darkness I feel like letting go."
On the other hand Buffy's sacrifice in the Gift allows for life.
It allows for love and hope to flourish in Buffy's heart. Buffy
dies as the sun rises-it is a new day-filled with hope. While
I cried at the end of the Gift there was something almost happy
about it. Buffy had discovered herself. As we see her body we
hear her voice say, "Tell Giles I figured it out and...and
I'm okay." This gave me chills-she died but it was okay because
Buffy gave her life for love, life, and hope.
Thoughts? Ideas? Comments?
Sorry for the ramble.
~Kerri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Becoming and The Gift -- Cynthia, 12:12:37 06/06/01
Wed
If this season has dealt with Buffy struggling to keep hope within
herself and in doing so her humanity despite the lost of love
and bitter choices, I feel it also has been dealing with the rediscovery
of hope and lost innocence and perhaps the regaining of humanity
with Spike.
One is dealing with the overwhelming horror of the knowledge that
they are losing hope and (realizing that is what happened to the
other slayers that Spike killed), Staring into what could only
seem to be darkness,. The other being at first blinded by the
light of hope (love?), not understanding how or when it appeared
but drawn to the many possibilities it opens up, having lived
in sameness (in emotional growth/spiritually) for so long.
Hope this makes a little sense, I'm not a natural-born writer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Becoming and The Gift -- Emily, 09:25:45 06/06/01 Wed
love the parallels you've shown... I think basically TG is a more
mature, more scary version of B2...while Buffy's friends do help
her - they are backup - the climax, the decisive moment is Buffy
and Angel (or) Buffy and Dawn... in both she tells the other that
she loves them and in both she is making her own choice without
any outside influence. also, spike's first turn towards the Scoobies
begins in B2 --- when he aligns with Buffy against Angel, and
it is solid by TG, when even Buffy has defended him to the Scoobies....I
also think that the journey element is recurring here - we don't
know where Buffy is or where she will be next season... kinda
like her getting on that bus at the end of B2.....also - death
of Jenny b/c of Angel... death of Joyce (possibly b/c of Dawn....the
mental stress of the monk's creation???) just some thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Becoming and The Gift -- Sam Raimond, 11:45:17 06/06/01
Wed
It just seems to me that they re-hashed ideas from 3 years ago.
I don't think it was done to draw the two episodes together
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Everything happens for a reason (in the Buffyverse)
-- Malandanza, 21:47:13 06/06/01 Wed
"It just seems to me that they rehashed ideas from 3 years
ago. I don't think it was done to draw the two episodes together"
In Becoming Buffy had to sacrifice someone she loved to save the
world -- this time around... she has to sacrifice someone she
loves to save the world. Ok, it seems like rehash at first glance
-- except that Buffy refuses to sacrifice Dawn.
I think we have to look to the source of the slayer's power --
slayers are not noble warriors of light, fighting darkness on
the behalf of TPTB. They are destruction incarnate, neither good,
nor evil. This was the First Slayer's revelation:
"I have no speech. No name. I live in the action of death.
The blood-cry, the penetrating wound. I am destruction. Absolute.
Alone."
"The slayer doesn't walk in the world."
"No... friends... just the kill... we are... alone."
We also know from Giles that the First Slayer slept on a "bed
of bones" (so was not exclusively a vampire slayer -- or
it would have been a bed of dust). And, of course, we have the
infamous "Your gift is death" line.
Somewhere along the way, the watchers harnessed this primitive
force for their own uses (much as the monks attempted to harness
the power of the key). They are willing to kill off slayers who
become too dark (as the attitude towards Faith demonstrates) --
it is probably easier to train a new slayer than to attempt to
reform a creature who has awakened the dormant First Slayer within.
This season Buffy has been darker (more like Faith) than she has
ever been -- in BvD Buffy had become a hunter, seeking the kill
and sleeping undisturbed thereafter, untroubled by the evening's
destruction. There was the massacre of the vamp pimp and his entourage.
There was her vow to keep Dawn alive even if the world (including
herself and Dawn) must die. For me, however, the event that most
revealed how dark Buffy had become was this scene in Family (from
the shooting script):
"The beast throws Buffy off and goes for the dad -- he stumbles
and falls -- Buffy sweeps its legs out from under it, landing
it with its chin slamming down on the top step, just in front
of dad. She gets to her feet in a blur, plants a foot at the back
of its neck and CRUNCH! -- snaps it brutally."
I remember this eisode -- a second later Buffy was facing down
Tara's father like nothing had happened. It was chilling.
The difference between B2 and The Gift was vitally important.
Buffy was in the same position she was in with Angel yet she managed
to break this cycle of destruction in which she, and every slayer
before her, have been caught. Buffy is special because she broke
the power of the First Slayer and, in doing so, achieved redemption.
I cannot imagine that she will return dark or disillusioned. It
would negate everything that she has striven for.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> That was wonderful................ -- Rufus,
22:21:30 06/06/01 Wed
I think you are right. Buffy has changed the rules of the game
and the terms under which she will work. Buffy has gone from an
instrument to be used to something more. When she comes back I
don't think she will be dark in the way that we saw earlier this
season. For Buffy to be just a killer wasn't enough, and when
tested she chose to give death to herself instead of killing an
innocent. Buffy rejected the notion that the slayer wasn't a part
of the world, it was the fact that Buffy was a part of the world
by her friends and family that kept her alive so long.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Darla's words -- Brian, 09:21:16 06/07/01
Thu
And isn't it wonderfully ironic that Darla's words seem to be
so fitting for Buffy:
....."What we once were informs all that we become. The same
love will infect our hearts - even if they no longer beat. Simple
death won't change that..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Ah ha! :) -- Humanitas, 10:03:07 06/07/01 Thu
I knew there was a reason why my post didn't seem finished! Thanks,
Malandanza, for pointing out the contrast that goes with my comparason.
The growth of the character is shown in the change in her reaction
to similar circumstances. Yea!
Buffy and Wisdom (long, sorry)
-- Wisewoman, 20:39:38 06/05/01 Tue
I've been working on a project for the past several years that
I call "The Seven Keys to Wisdom." In a nutshell, I
tried to come up with a working definition of wisdom that I could
use to try and find out if I ever got any :-)
I looked at definitions of wisdom from lots of different cultures
and time periods, and decided that they all had seven basic things
in common. Someone who was wise would 1)know themselves, 2)behave
ethically, 3)think critically, 4)be mindful, 5)acknowledge the
Source, 6)overcome the fear of death, and 7)live aesthetically.
My theory is that someone who achieves all of these seven aspects
of wisdom becomes either enlightened or, in Maslow's terms, a
self-actualizing individual. I'm not sure which, or possibly both,
'cause I'm no where near there!
I'm trying to place Buffy, as we saw her in the final moments
of The Gift, in this wisdom scenario. She certainly knew herself
better then, than she had before, as evidenced by her saying she'd
"figured it out."
She was behaving ethically both when she spared Ben and when she
sacrified herself.
Thinking critically? Well, I'm not sure. You could say she wasn't
thinking critically when she decided it was better to save Dawn
than to save the Universe (not that I'm saying that was the wrong
choice, just that it wasn't necessarily all that logical).
Mindfulness is something that I think Buffy is still lacking,
as I see it. She's much more action-oriented than mindful of subtleties,
undertones, etc., and I can't remember ever seeing her meditate,
although her workouts could be seen as a form of meditation, I
suppose.
As for acknowledging the Source, Buffy is at least aware of TPTB,
but I don't know that she's acknowledged their influence, or accepted
any other sort of *divine* or numinous Source of her existence.
Overcoming the fear of death, well, she's got that one licked!
And finally, living aesthetically, which in my view has everything
to do with beauty and simplicity of form and function (and involves
all kinds of granola-type things like tree-hugging ;o)) and not
so much to do with clothes and hairstyles, well, I predict we'll
see a much more aesthetically-aware Buffy in S6. She's not just
returning from a near-death experience, she'll have had a totally-completely-mouldering-in-her-grave-dead
death experience.
Okay, enough babble! What do you all think?
Wisewoman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Meditation -- Humanitas, 08:40:25 06/06/01 Wed
Hmmm... Buffy meditating...
The first time we saw Buffy learning to meditate was in Helpless.
That turned out to be a set-up, allowing Giles (on orders from
the WC) to temporarily supress her powers in preparation for the
Cruciamentum. Needless to say, meditation has not been a favorite
thing for the Buffster since.
Lately she seems to have gotten over that, though. In No Place
Like Home she says "I've been practicing concentration skills,"
and indeed is able to enter a trance state, which allows her to
see the traces of the spell which created Dawn. And of course
her vision quest in Intervention may also count as meditation.
I would say that this season has seen the Slayer become more mindful.
In fact, it may be this increased clarity of mind which allowed
her to see the solution to her dilemma in The Gift.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Good Point... -- Wisewoman, 09:34:03 06/06/01 Wed
on Buffy's being justifiably hesitant to meditate.
Normally I would accept the vision quest scenario as a definite
example of a meditative state. It seemed to me in this case that
Giles did the actual "ritual" that brought on the vision,
and Buffy just wandered around the desert for a while until she
saw the *kitty*. Of course, there may be no connection between
what Buffy experienced and an actual vision quest. It might be
something entirely different, applicable only to the interaction
between the Slayer and The First Slayer, that coincidentally mimics
a vision quest.
But yes, I agree, Buffy has been more mindful in S5 than previously...so
she's on her way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and Wisdom (long, sorry) -- Mishka, 12:34:44 06/06/01
Wed
Hmmmm...interesting ideas here. I`m not sure about your 'behaving
ethically' category though. Simply because ethics in general are
a society driven thing. Ie/ your personal moral and ethical code
are dependent on the culture in which you were raised. In other
words you have a different ethical code whether you`re Christian,
Muslem, Jewish, Athiest, American, Parisian, a member of the Dobe
Kung tribe in Africa.....etc., etc., etc....I don`t think that
it is possible to say that one code of ethics or morals is better
or more wise than another. Not logically anyway, since the only
thing we have to base our opinion on is the set of ethics that
we personally were brought up on. But, on every other thing....is
Buffy wise? Not particularily. I find that she is distinctly less
grown up than a person might be under the circumstances. Her epiphany
at the end of the gift was more IMO likened to a person figuring
out a puzzle. She had hints from the original slayer, she had
hints from Giles, she had hints from Spike...etc. Yes she put
them together, she`s smart and has a lot of experience with complicated
world-saving problems, but is she wise? No. Also, I don`t think
that a wise person overcomes their fear of death. I think that
a wise person acknowledges this fear but does what is needed to
be done regardless of said fear. Buffy welcomed death. Whether
it was because she was happy to be able to save Dawn or because
she was happy not to live in her depressing circumstances, I don`t
think we`ll ever know for sure. Sorry, I rattled on, but your
ideas are very thought-provoking. I enjoyed reading them. Mishka
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy and Wisdom and the Bhagavad Gita (Long-Sorry)
-- Anthony8, 13:13:47 06/06/01 Wed
I found some passages from the 'Bhagavad Gita' that seem relevant
to this discussion on Buffy and wisdom. I think they're applicable
in the context of Buffy's journey as the Hero. I also think that
her figuring out the puzzle was a form of wisdom. Ultimate wisdom?
No. A big step along the way? Yes. She may not have become the
epitome of wise but she definitely has achieved a considerable
level of wisdom.
With regard to the Hindu scriptures, I'll present what I feel
are the relevant excerpts and hope that some will chime in and
comment as to whether these ideas resonate with regard to Buffy's
epiphany.
From the 'Bhagavad Gita':
"He whose undertakings are free from anxious desire and fanciful
thought, whose work is made pure in the fire of widsom: he is
called wise by those who see.
In whatever work he does such a man in truth has peace: he expects
nothing, he relies on nothin, and ever has fullness of joy.
He has no vain hopes, he is the master of his soul, he surrenders
all he has, only his body works: he is free from sin.
He is glad with whatever God gives him, and he has risen beyond
the two contraries here below; he is without jealousy, and in
success or in failure he is one: his works bind him not.
He has attained liberation: he is free from all bonds, his mind
has found peace in wisdom, and his work is holy sacrifice. The
work of such a man is pure."
...
"In the fire of an inner harmony some surrender their senses
in darkness; and in the fire of the senses some surrender their
outer light.
Others sacrifice their breath of life and also the powers of life
in the fire of an inner union lighted by a flash of vision."
...
"He who makes pure his works by Yoga, who watches over his
soul, and who by wisdom destroys his doubts, is free from the
bondage of selfish work.
Kill therefore with the sword of wisdom the doubt born of ignorance
that lies in thy heart. Be one in self-harmony in Yoga, and arise,
great warrior, arise."
...
"And do thy duty, even if it be humble, rather than another's,
even if it be great. To die in one's duty is life: to live in
another's is death."
...
"A sacrifice is pure when it is an offering of adoration
in harmony with the holy law, with no expectation of a reward
and with the heart saying 'it is my duty'.
But a sacrifice that is done for the sake of a reward, or for
the sake of vainglory is an impure sacrifice of Rajas."
...
"Quietness of mind, silence, self-harmony, loving-kindness,
and a pure heart: this is the harmony of the mind.
This threefold harmony is called pure when it is practised with
supreme faith with no desire for a reward and with oneness of
soul."
...
"A gift is pure when it is given from the heart to the right
person at the right time and at the right place, and when we expect
nothing in return."
...
"For concentration is better than mere practice, and meditation
is better than concentration; but higher than meditation is surrender
in love of the fruit of one's actions, for on surrender follows
peace."
What do ya people out there think?
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy and Wisdom and the Bhagavad Gita (Long-Sorry)
-- Nina, 15:11:23 06/06/01 Wed
"He who makes pure his works by Yoga, who watches over his
soul, and who by wisdom destroys his doubts, is free from the
bondage of selfish work.Kill therefore with the sword of wisdom
the doubt born of ignorance that lies in thy heart. Be one in
self-harmony in Yoga, and arise, great warrior, arise."
Buffy was doing Yoga in "Family" just before the fight
begun with the Lei-Ach (sp?) demon. We haven't seen her practicing
much, but it was shown at least once.
"A gift is pure when it is given from the heart to the right
person at the right time and at the right place, and when we expect
nothing in return."
That's exactly what Buffy did, didn't she?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The Ethical Behaviour Thing -- Wisewoman, 15:42:01
06/06/01 Wed
My quest to determine what constitutes ethical behaviour is on-going,
but to date I have come up with the following (from a work in
progress):
<<< "It would sure do me good To do you good Let
me help" Billy Swan, 1974
Ethical behaviour is, basically, being a good person. Banal as
it may seem, a great deal of ethical behaviour can be summed up
by something most of us learned as children: the Golden Rule.
The version I learned at Sunday School was, "Do unto others
as you would have them do unto you," but the basic premise
is a part of most major religious teachings the world over:
Hurt not others in ways that you would find hurtful. (Buddhism;
Udana Varga 5:18)
This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause
you pain if done to you. (Hinduism: The Mahabharata 5:1517)
Regard your neighbors gain as your own gain, and your neighbors
loss as your own loss. (Taoism; Tai Shang Kam Ying Rien)
Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you. (Confucianism;
Analects 15:15)
What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. (Judaism; Talmud,
Chabbat)
An' it harm none, do what thou wilt. (Wicca, The Witches' Rede)
All things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do
ye even so to them. (Christianity; Matthew 7:12)
A refinement to the basic Rule includes respect for other's autonomy:
what works for you might not work for everybody. That's why Wiccans
often conclude their spells with "This, or something better,
for the greater good of all concerned." That takes into account
that the spellcaster, while wishing only good for others, may
not necessarily have the information needed to decide exactly
what constitutes "good" for someone else. It's a sort
of failsafe measure.
There's also the biblical "Love thy neighbour as thyself,"
which is pretty much the same idea, but doesn't necessarily imply
the action that "Do unto others" does. Both of them
imply concern and respect for others.>>>
Okay, pretty plain and simple, grassroots stuff, but that's were
I was coming from when I described Buffy's behaviour in The Gift
as ethical. (Sometimes I'm torn between exhaustive investigations
of things, and the beauty of the simplest available explanation
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Ethical Behaviour Thing -- Humanitas,
10:23:26 06/07/01 Thu
There is also Kant's Imperative, for those with a non-religious
bent: Behave in such a way that you would want everyone else to
behave. (Is there a Kantian in the room who can fix my quote?
It's been a while.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Oops - that's 'Categorical Imperative'
-- Humanitas, 10:24:40 06/07/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Thanks! I'll use that one too... ;o) --
Wisewoman, 18:11:45 06/07/01 Thu
Why
Doc is a waste of time to focus on -- Griffin Micheals, 11:53:28
06/06/01 Wed
I just don't see why you people are obsessing about such a one-time-shot
character. For one thing Joel Grey hasn't had a job since about
1975. Of course he's going to do a TV show, he has to work just
like everyone else. Doc was just a distraction and you are all
falling for it hook line and sinker. You come to this posting
board and rant and rave about his significance. Joss is probably
laughing his ass of because of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why Doc is a waste of time to focus on -- fresne, 12:22:19
06/06/01 Wed
Well, it would be nice think that we could give Joss a little
pleasure in recompense for all the hours of pleasure that we have
gotten from not only watching Buffy, but thoroughly masticating
each and every elemental aspect of the series.
Although personally I would prefer that he laugh at some of our
philosophical/metaphysical theories.
And as to why Joel Grey... He was cool. He was creepy. He can
sing. And I want a singing villain for the Big Musical Episode
(which certainly deserves some capitalization). And if I don't
get it, then I'm just going to have to re-watch Pirates of Penance
or maybe Labyrinth in protest (Great examples of leather pants
of evil).
*fresne who has yet to see Moulin Rouge, darn visiting relatives,
darn them.*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Why Doc is a waste of time to focus on -- AK-UK,
12:41:10 06/06/01 Wed
Who needs an excuse to watch Labyrinth again? The beautiful Jennifer
Connelly, David Bowie walking up walls, wonderful songs, sharp
and witty dialogue, amazing sets, romance, action, the bog of
eternal stench, talking door knockers, pesky fairies, the ballroom
scene.........
That film should have made more money then Titanic :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Moulin Rouge -- Brian, 12:42:51 06/06/01 Wed
Just saw this film last night. What a ride! Like being on a rollar
coaster. Filmmaking at its best. See it on the biggest screen
possible with Dolby if you can.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Moulin Rouge -- Liquidram, 14:51:43 06/06/01
Wed
And Lord Almighty, can Ewan sing!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Ever See Emma? -- rowan, 16:26:31
06/06/01 Wed
Ewan sang in Emma (with Gwyneth Paltrow) a few years ago. Just
two songs, but I agree -- surprisingly good voice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> And don't forget Velvet Goldmine
-- AK-UK, 18:35:37 06/06/01 Wed
In which he played the Iggy Pop like character Kurt Vile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And don't forget Velvet
Goldmine -- rowan, 19:05:40 06/06/01 Wed
Oh, I didn't see that one. Ewan seems to be a pretty versatile
actor, doesn't he?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> MOULIN ROUGE!!! SEE
IT!!! -- Rob, 09:17:18 06/07/01 Thu
Just had to butt in here for no good reason but to say that everybody
HAS to go see "Moulin Rouge." I've been to it 4 times
already, and it is without a doubt my favorite movie of all time
(not kidding)! Especially reading a recent article about Joss'
upcoming musical episode of Buffy, you guys should see this one
to whet your appetite! It's amazing!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why Doc is a waste of time to focus on -- Aquitaine,
14:25:50 06/06/01 Wed
Well, I don't know if I'm part of that 'you people', LOL, but
I think Doc is just the *type* of villain the Buffyverse needs
at this juncture. Frankly, where does ME go after having dealt
with the bimbo from hell for the last 17 episodes? Glory was hopelessly
out of tune with humanity. Didn't Spike say something to the effect
that "around here you are just an imbecile"? I'm paraphrasing
...
In the end, she did not understand what made people act the way
they do; she never thought Buffy would kill herself to save a
sister that wasn't hers, wasn't real. Doc understands demons *and*
humans. He is subtle and creepy. I think he scares me more than
even Angelus scared me. Doc isn't insane, isn't an 'Überteufel'.
At this juncture, because we know nothing about him, he represents
the unknown. And *I* fear the unknown. There is something to be
said for "the devil you know"...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Why Doc is a waste of time to focus on -- Nina,
14:45:51 06/06/01 Wed
If Joss wants a laugh he has better things to laugh about in my
opinion! (but hey, if he wants to laugh at my Doc speculations
I'll laugh with him!) I've seen threads elsewhere that I find
useless (lots of them. Tons of them). When I don't like something
I move on and go where I feel home. If you don't like those speculations
you don't have to read them, you don't even have to read the title
of the thread. You are free! As we all are. Speculations are speculations
and that's all they are. It's fun, it makes our grey cells works
a lot, it's good for the body and the mind! As for wasting our
time speculating about Doc it's a personal choice. Time is what
we choose to do with it. As long as I am happy spending my time
thinking about Doc I am not wasting my time. If you don't like
those speculations, then you are wasting your time creating a
thread about a subject you don't even like!
I am eager to read anything you'd like to write about, just pick
something you like and I'll go along with the ride if I like it
too! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why Doc is a waste of time to focus on -- rowan, 16:42:32
06/06/01 Wed
"You come to this posting board and rant and rave about his
significance."
It's funny, I guess everything is perception. I didn't perceive
any ranting or raving going on. What I saw was one or two posts,
very detailed and seriously thought out, which speculated on what
Doc's role was or might be in the future.
However, I can see where some might perceive a negative tone coming
from your posting -- "ranting and raving" tends to have
a pejorative meaning. My suggestion is that if you don't find
a particular post interesting, pass it by. Different strokes for
different folks. Interesting posts usually generate a lot of responses.
Those that are less interesting will die a natural death.
By the way, welcome if you're new to this board. I don't remember
reading any of your posts before (probably senility setting in
on my part).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Why Joel Grey rocks.... -- Wilder, 21:13:09 06/07/01 Thu
I'll give you five words right outa my formative 80's years:
Remo. Williams. The. Adventure. Begins.
... ran out of fingers ... But, C'mon, It's a movie even Capt.
Janeway can be proud of. And the scenes on the Statue of Liberty.
Cutting the glass with that one dude's jeweled tooth. (of course
that was Fred Ward, but you get the point.) That's a lost American
classic. .... And he's Jennifer Grey's father, who is now, unfortunetly
unrecognizable. How's that for a gift with a twist. Watch out
what you wish for....
You think you know what's to come...(Longish)
-- Anthony8, 13:50:09 06/06/01 Wed
I wasn't sure where this would fit within the most current threads
so I'll just put it out there and see what happens. This board
has prompted me to return to my reference material on the Hero's
Journey and I found some passages from 'The Hero With A Thousand
Faces' that seem to provide some relevant ideas as to where JW
and crew may take us next year. The following passages are from
the chapter titled 'The Belly of The Whale.' I may be mistaken,
but I think this is where we stand now as participants in this
adventure.
...
"The idea that the passage of the magical threshold is a
transit into a sphere of rebirth is symbolized in the worldwide
womb image of the belly of the whale. The hero, instead of conquering
or conciliating the power of the threshold, is swallowed into
the unknown, and would appeared to have died."
...
"This popular motif gives emphasis to the lesson that the
passage of the threshold is a form of self-annihilation. Its resemblance
to the adventure of Symplegades is obvious. But here, instead
of passing outward, beyond the confines of the visible world,
the hero goes inward, to be born again. The disappearance corresponds
to the passing of a worshiper into a temple--where he is to be
quickened by the recollection of who and what he is, namely dust
and ashes unless immortal. The temple interior, the belly of the
whale, and the heavenly land beyond, above, and below the confines
of the world, are one and the same. That is why the approaches
and entrances to temples are flanked and defended by colossal
gargoyles: dragons, lions, devil-slayers with drawn swords, resentful
dwarfs, winged bulls. These are the threshold guardians to ward
away all incapable of encountering the higher silences within.
They are preliminary embodiments of the dangerous aspect of the
presence, corresponding to the mythological ogres that bound the
conventional world, or to the two rows of teeth of the whale.
They illustrate the fact that the devotee at the moment of entry
into a temple undergoes a metamorphosis. His secular character
remains without; he sheds it, as a snake its slough. Once inside
he may be said to have died to time and returned to the World
Womb, the World Navel, the Earthly Paradise. The mere fact that
anyone can physically walk past the temple guardians does not
invalidate their significance; for if the intruder is incapable
of encompassing the sanctuary, then he has effectually remained
without. Anyone unable to understand a god sees it as a devil
and is thus defended from the approach. Allegorically, then, the
passage into a temple and the hero-dive through the jaws of the
whale are identical adventures, both denoting, in picture language,
the life-centering, life-renewing act."
...
"Indeed, the physical body of the hero may be actually slain,
dismembered, and scattered over the land or sea...The hero whose
attachment to ego is already annihilate passes back and forth
across the horizons of the world, in and out of the dragon, as
readily as a king through all the rooms of his house. And therein
lies his power to save; for his passing and returning demonstrate
that through all the contraries of phenomenality the Uncreate-Imperishable
remains, and there is nothing to fear."
...
"And so it is that, throughout the world, men whose function
it has been to make visible on earth the life-fructifying mystery
of the slaying of the dragon have enacted upon their own bodies
the great symbolic act, scattering their flesh, like the body
of Osiris, for the renovation of the world."
...
Okay, go forth and discuss. Or not.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: You think you know what's to come...(Longish) -- Sofdog,
14:42:23 06/06/01 Wed
I've been arguing from the heroic journey standpoint on other
boards myself. I very much agree that Buffy is currently in the
descent stage and will be reborn as something more than the Slayer,
ultimately to benefit the world. She will also likely be at peace
with her dark side and no longer trying to deny it. Below are
some tidbits I scrounged out of my hero texts last week:
Buffy vs. Dracula, Dracula's comments about the Slayer's power
being routed in the same darkness as vampires'- "He [the
hero] must put aside his pride, his virtue, beauty, and life,
and bow or submit to the absolutely intolerable. The he finds
that he and his opposite are not of differing species, but one
flesh." - "The Hero with A Thousand Faces" p. 108
Buffy vs. Dracula, Opening clip-segment - "The original departure
into the land of trials represented only the beginning of the
long and really perilous path of initiatory conquests and moments
of illumination." - "Hero" p. 109
The Gift, Speaking to Giles of 'the gift's' meaning, Buffy continues
to struggle with the meaning of 'The Slayer." In taking the
plunge through the portal she faces the reality/opportunity to
embrace the dark side of herself which is the true guiding factor.
- "The voyage to the Underworld is the 'night journey' or
'dark night of the soul'- the second and final stage of meditation.
It is the crucial stage of self-exploration in the face of a life
already lived." - "Mythology: The Voyage of the Hero"
p. 213 --AND-- "The descent into the Underworld is a pilgrimage
which the true hero cannot avoid for only after the pilgrimage
can the new complete self be born in the act of rebirth."
P. 214
The Gift, In support of my ideas on Buffy's death being a stepping
stone in her evolution --"Much of the Underworld myth's meaning
lies in the fact of the hero's return to the inner earth - to
the natural mother. This is the stage of the germinating seed;
the hero must spend the allotted time in the world womb before
he can be born again in his role as divine hero who has truly
broken through the local and national barriers of human life to
become the Son of Man." - "Mythology" p.213
The Gift, On the night-time ritual and Buffy's sacrifice at daybreak
- "On the simplest level, certain times of the day are given
over to or dominated by Otherworldly powers: night is a tenebrous
time when the Other is strong, and to extend a quest past the
onset of night virtually guarantees some sort of supernatural
intervention or occurrence. (A passage through the curtain that
separates this world from the next is very likely to occur at
night.)
Spike's role in The Gift/Kendra's role in Becoming - "The
full or efficient complement for a typical quest ought to be reducible
to four players: hero, heroic helper, the sovereign, and the woman.
...The hero may be backed by a strong-arm warrior or one with
other martial skills [Spike/Kendra], but more often the quest
companion is equipped with tricksterish talents [Spike], and is
a satellite capable of guile and subterfuge - or at least of some
degree of low but effective cunning. Often enough the plot's calculus
demands that a quest companion (especially the almost-sufficient,
hypermuscular heroic helper) fall or fail, leaving the central
hero to take a final test alone..."
The Gift, Dawn: a possible definition for the duality of the sister/Key
- "The woman, we know well, makes up a complex knot of roles
and modes in the quest, but in the simplest arrangement these
will be to act as goal of the quest, as assistant in the quest,
or as enemy (temptress, sorceress, evil queen). In the first role...she
may even be the human prize sought and fought for by the hero.
The intense ambivalence of her intrinsic powers shows up in the
opposed roles of helper and enemy..." -"The Epic Hero"
p.169
A possible Spike Characterization - "With his healthy taint
of the comic and erotic, his odd unbalanced powers and occasional
awful failures, the trickster hero puts spice, contrast, and even
a dimension of our own humanity into the marmoreal perfection
of the hero's presence and story." - "The Epic Hero"
p.260
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: You think you know what's to come...(Longish)
-- Nina, 14:55:48 06/06/01 Wed
Reading all this, one can only wonder if JW didn't plan Buffy's
journey from day one! I'm far from being an expert on the Hero's
journey so I don't have anything to contribute, but it surely
makes my grey cells work again! :) Thanks to both of you!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: You think you know what's to come...(Longish)
-- Andy, 15:19:54 06/06/01 Wed
I believe he did plan it out that way. I think one could look
at Welcome to the Hellmouth/The Harvest as a microcosm of the
journey, or Prophesy Girl, or the first season as a whole, and
then repeat that for basically all of the seasons, and then of
course move further outward and look at the entire series. It's
almost structured like a kaleidoscope (or it is in my head anyway...).
Like Whedon says, Buffy is a story about living life, and that's
what the Hero's Journey is as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: You think you know what's to come...(Longish)
-- Kerri, 15:14:47 06/06/01 Wed
Great ideas! The only thing I don't agree with is seeing Buffy's
sacrafice as embracing her darkness. On the contrary I think she
embraces her humanity which she once though was lost. I do think
that maybe this journey will lead Buffy to deal with her dark
side that Dracula spoke of.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: You think you know what's to come...(Longish)
-- rowan, 19:44:12 06/06/01 Wed
Boy, I really like your analysis. Kudos.
I don't have any brilliance of my own to add to yours, other than
to say that the source of power is a very interesting subject.
Dracula may characterize that vamp power and Slayer power both
come from the same darkness. But I suspect his words, because
he is a demon and therefore I need to be aware that he may be
twisting the truth for his own ends.
It may that their power just comes from the same place or is of
the same magnitude. Again, to continue with my Lord of the Rings
obsession, Sauron and Gandalf are both Maia, of the same order
and power in Tolkein's mythology. Yet the path they allow that
innate power to take marks one as the ultimate evil and the other
as the ultimate warrior against evil.
Buffy, as a Slayer, may face greater temptation to evil as she
increases in her own power (absolute power corrupts absolutely),
which may be another important element of her sacrifice. Because
she gave up power (control over her own life), she may now be
reincarnated, which advances her up the karmic chain to a higher
level. Again, I compare with Gandalf, who, in giving his life
in fighting the Balrog to save the others in the Fellowship of
the Nine Walkers, advanced from the Grey to the White.
I also think your comments on the timing of Buffy's sacrifice
at daybreak are very perceptive. Dawn is a liminal moment when
the veil is thinnest between the seen and the unseen worlds, which
is why it is a common time for the performance of magickal events
(the same applies to midnight, when the day changes). This seems
to give some even deeper meaning to the event, beyond just the
obvious, "it's always darkest before the dawn/Dawn."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: You think you know what's to come...(Longish)
-- Scout, 03:01:18 06/07/01 Thu
I, too, have argued from the heroic journey standpoint on other
boards, but this is the only board I've found where it's actually
discussed seriously (yes, yes, yes, I'm a happy bunny now!). I
find myself wondering how JW plans to deal with the apotheosis,
ultimate boon and various return stages of Buffy's journey, and
whether she will embrace the idea of returning at all, or instead
need some encouragement to come back and share what she's learned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Eeeek.....bunnies...where...where......??????:):):)
-- Rufus, 04:34:20 06/07/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Sixth Season Opener -- Brian, 08:57:23 06/07/01
Thu
If Joss continues his usual approach to the new season, this first
episode will focus on Buffy who will once again reaffirm she is
the Slayer, the Choosen one.
Since she will be coming back from the dead (been there, done
that, didn't like it), I imagine the story will focus on the differences
in how she achieves her re-establishment for her true idenity.
In the past episodes, each time Buffy has returned from the next
level of her inward journey, her abilities have been faster, sharper,
stronger, and darker.
The question will be: Has she finally understood her darkness,and
will move toward the light, or has she only reached a way station
on her continuing dark journey?
The OFFICIAL "Fray"
Discussion (spoilers) -- Dedalus, 14:06:32 06/06/01 Wed
Don't you like it when someone posts a thread to discuss a certain
subject, and then has the audacity to christen it "official"?
Like in some fragile hope that all other threads discussing the
same subject will somehow be disenfranchised? I always get a kick
out of that.
Anyway, in a follow up to my blockbuster, smash hit first post
(shameless plug) "Buffy and the Basis of Morality" -
which somehow became a discussion of Lord of the Rings - comes
the official Fray discussion thread. Seeing as how it is late
in the day, I'm surprised someone hasn't got one going already.
Granted, they still can, but keep in mind this is the "official"
one, the one all the cool Fray fans will post on, and the other
ones that may exist at some point in the future are pale imitations
in all their un-official capacity.
So anyway, now that the disclaimer is over, I picked up a copy
of Fray, Joss Whedon's newest addition to the Buffy mythology,
this afternoon. I use to love Spiderman as a kid, but have since
gotten away from comics.
Still, I knew I wanted this one, and it is cool. It is set some
200 years in the future, or at least 200 years since the last
Slayer has been called. One of the most interesting aspects of
this project is that all magical beings on earth are now gone
- no demons or anything. Vampires are called Lurks and nobody
knows what a vampire is. Whedon speaks of how "the eradication
really did them in," but we don't know what happened. Still,
it is clear there was some fundamental change in the very nature
of the Buffyverse at some point in the early twenty-first century.
Hmmm ... about the time of Buffy's rebirth.
This issue had a lot of info. I liked Melaka Fray - I wish people
wouldn't call her Mel (I keep having Mel Gibson visions - in a
non-sexual way of course) (not that there's anything wrong with
that), cause Melaka is such a cool name. Several people wrote
in, and she is a lot like battle Buffy in The Wish. She does get
a few good one liners in, and I love her thoughts guiding the
story. Bad day. Started bad, stayed that way.
This would make a cool movie. Cost a lot, but it would be cool.
As Joss has said, you can never have enough flying cars. I like
the terminology, the radies and lurks and uppers and all that.
It takes two reads to get acclimated to it, but I like kinda being
thrown into a world where you don't quite no what's going on yet
but it still feels ... lived in rather than newly created.
I love it when Melaka zapped that guy - "we have a stand-off"
- ZAP! Not. I love Gunther's pad. That would look really cool
on film. And I like his line complaining about why Fray never
visits him in a skirt. LOL.
And I love it when we see that Melaka is not invincible ... she
has a mysterious phobia generating from what we don't yet know
... but she's petrified of vampires. Major psychological block.
She can't even move when they come for her. Great twist, Whedon,
what with she being a slayer and all.
I love the confrontation between her and Erin, her big sister
the cop. It had weight and depth even though we just met them
and don't know what they're talking about. More of a backstory
to be explored.
Assuming the guy standing in a pool of gasoline was a Watcher
.. wow. When Joss said the future Watchers were "babbling
idiots," he wasn't kidding. With two centuries with no Slayers,
they have apparently turned into, well ... complete loonies. Can
you imagine if that Watcher had approached Buffy - "You are
Chosen ... I'm unworthy to stand in your presence ... you will
save us from the scourge ... you will cleanse us by fire"
then whipping out a lighter and setting himself on fire.
And that last demon lurking in Fray's room looked pretty damn
serious. Way to keep us on the edge of our seats. July 5 my arse.
So now, not only do we Buffy fans have to wait until September
to see what happens to Buffy, we Fray fans will have to wait until
JANUARY to find out the end of Fray's eight issue hero journey!!!
Damn you, Whedon.
(It just occured to me I've spent an inordinate amount of time
damning people and things this week - AOL, my DVD-ROM, and now
Joss. Sorry. I'm not usually so confrontational.)
Any other Fray fans preparing to De-Lurk?
Happy pun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The OFFICIAL "Fray" Discussion (spoilers)
-- AK-UK, 16:10:10 06/06/01 Wed
Huh? YOUR smash hit first post? Hey, I claim my share of the credit
for making it such a monster! If it hadn't of been for my well
reasoned disagreement that thread would have been nothing, nothing
I tell you! I was the sand in the oyster, the grist in the mill,
the anchovies on an otherwise-perfect pizza!!!!!
Ahem :)
Anyway, I'm a bit of a comic fan (although my tastes run more
towards the non-superhero stuff) and I will definetly be checking
this baby out. Sounds like it could be a blast. Just out of interest,
who drew the comic? I've seen the cover art, and it looked good.
As this is the OFFICIAL thread for Fray, do I like..........get
a badge or something? Membership card, discounts, regular updates
on all things Fray :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Credit where credit is due. -- Anthony8, 16:44:31
06/06/01 Wed
You both deserve the credit. Without AK-UK's contribution, it
would not have been as interesting a thread though (I probably
would have just lurked quietly in the shadows). I'm not sure that
the anchovies on the pizza metaphor fits in with the other references.
Anyhow, pizzas to both of you! Your choice--Zachary's in Berkeley,
Gepetto's [sp?] in D.C., or Ray's in NYC (or pick your favorite
pie parlor from your part of the world--uh-oh, sounds like another
O/T thread to me).
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Credit where credit is due. -- AK-UK, 18:30:57
06/06/01 Wed
Anchoives on pizza = something that irritates and/or provokes
a reaction (well, they provoke a reaction from me anyway, usually
along the lines of "Get those nasty salty fish off my pizza,
freak!")
And here in the UK we prefer a nice Balti curry, oooooo, with
onion bargi's and naan bread, and.........errr, I feel we've strayed
WAY off topic here :)
Go buy the comic!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Credit where credit is due. -- Anthony8,
22:29:22 06/06/01 Wed
Yeah, I understood the reference, but when you consider that the
sand in the oyster is what eventually yields the pearl (I'm not
sure about the grist for the mill), you can see what I meant about
the anchovies and my comment about the importance of dissenting
opinions in these discussions. Sorry, I have no interest in the
comic at this time, but really, is there any particular food item
in the UK (pizza included)that sparks debate with respect to the
best vendor of said food item? I know my Irish friends over here
are big on arguing the merits of which establishment makes the
best curry fries, is there something similar in your part of the
world?
Sorry for the digression. Really.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Food discussion -- Scout, 03:24:16
06/07/01 Thu
A8, may I stick my $0.02 in? I live between Leeds and Bradford
in West Yorkshire, UK, and just this last year went back to do
another degree at the University of Bradford - a place I had never
been in all my years of living in England until I went to study
there. The only reason I mention this is that I quickly discovered
that Bradford has a huge Pakistani population and, as a result,
many, many balti houses. I can't speak for anywhere else in Britain,
but people round these parts can discuss the best places to eat
curry for what seems like hours on end (or maybe it only seems
so to me because I get bored listening to it).
When I lived in London, it appeared that often folks were more
concerned about how trendy an establishment was than the actual
food on offer, so there was argument about that.
I've had discussions with people (usually other Americans) about
Mexican food in Britain, but they're not really arguments because
we tend to agree that Mexican food is one that the Brits don't
quite know how to get right. I've been to more than one so-called
"Mexican" restaurant that had Jamaican food on the menu.
Go figure.
OK, this is still digression (sorry), but it's an interesting
sidetrack.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Food discussion -- Anthony8,
13:27:33 06/07/01 Thu
Yeah I know my sub-thread had absolutely nothing to do with BtVS,
but considering the diversity of opinions on this site I thought
it would be interesting to see what people think about things
from another viewpoint. Food is such a universal topic and the
discussion of pizza has cropped up more than a few times in the
threads on this board, so I figured "what the hell."
I've rarely ventured out of Northern California (I have lived
in L.A. and Washington D.C. for extended periods) so my contact
with other cultures comes mainly from people who are ex-patriates,
tourists, students staying temporarily in the US, "foreign"
movies or programs on PBS. Sometimes even other cities in California
seem more alien to me than any foreign country. I have friends
and relatives from L.A. and, no matter how many times I visit,
or how long I stay there, that is one strange place. I don't know
how many Americans realize it or admit it, but we tend to live
an insular existence, unless we travel to and live elsewhere,
and our attitudes often reflect that insulation. I have a particular
interest in what people from Canada, the U.K. or Australia think,
and how they live, because so many of the musicians, actors, and
filmmakers whose art I admire come from those countries. It is
apparent that there are at least a few Canadian, British and Australian
visitors to this site, and it has been interesting to read their
opinions on topics relating to one of the few quality American
television programs.
Thanks for your response.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hungry Canadian here.............:):)
-- Rufus, 14:05:55 06/07/01 Thu
Yes we are legion on the board....and with all this talk of good
food....really hungry. Food connects humanity....we talk about
our lives over dinner or lunch....we all have to eat. When you
first meet someone from a different culture the one thing you
have in common is that you eat. To eat dinner with someone is
to learn who they are and break the ice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Canadian Foods -- Little
One, 14:21:51 06/07/01 Thu
I also feel that names given to individual dishes say a lot about
that particular culture. In Canada, we believe Beaver Tails are
a deep-fried delicacy, though other cultures may be repelled when
merely told the name. Vice versa applies here as well. To me any
foodstuff called Blood Sausage does not sound appealing in the
least, though I'm sure to those familiar with it, enjoy it immensely.
I'm sure different cultures have different comfort food as well.
In a recent poll I took of friends, popular Ontario comfort foods
tend to be chocolate (this is international, I'm sure), fresh
baked bread, pudding and mashed potatoes. I'm sure this list would
be extremely different in different parts of Canada as well as
in the US and Britain.
The ethnology of various cultures in relationship to their particular
cuisine is immensely interesting. Thank you for bringing it up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Canadian Foods
-- Anthony8, 16:24:46 06/07/01 Thu
Those all resonate with comfort to me. I would add apple pie and
ravioli (separate dishes, not mixed together). I bet those Fray
people really hate me now--I've polluted their thread with stray
commentary. Oh well. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> To Scout, completely O/T,
but somewhat interesting... -- Wisewoman, 18:03:13 06/07/01 Thu
Yorkshire, Bradford University...hmmm. I guess you haven't been
there long, have you? The reason I ask is we have this mystery,
or rather mystery man, here in Vancouver. In November of 1999
he apparently woke up on the street in Toronto, with a broken
nose and a lump on the back of his head, with global amnesia.
He was tanned, in excellent physical health otherwise, and wearing
expensive clothes with international labels. He got himself to
a hospital where it was discovered that the only identification
left on him was an Ontario medical card in the name "Phillip
Stauben" with the birthdate June 7, 1975. He has no idea
whether he really is Phillip Stauben or not. The thing is, he
managed to save up some money on welfare in Toronto to come to
Vancouver, and a linguistics expert at UBC spoke with him and
determined that his accent was "upper-middle-class, educated
Yorkshire."
This guy can't get a passport to travel back to Britain because
he has no birth certificate, and he can't work because he has
no social insurance number, so he sits in the libraries all day
reading poetry and Latin!
He's been in Canada at least 18 months, he's 26 years old now
(supposedly) and he's contemplating suicide. So, on the off chance
(yes, I know Yorkshire is a big place--my ancestors are from Castle
Bolton ;o)) that you or someone you know has ever heard of this
guy, I thought I'd give it a shot. Nothing ventured, as they say...
Maybe you could mention it the next time you're out with your
mates for a curry?
Cheers, Wisewoman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: To Scout, completely
O/T, but somewhat interesting... -- Scout, 02:44:19 06/08/01 Fri
Wow! I've lived in England since 1986 (I was born and raised in
Atlanta) and in Yorkshire since 1997 and I've never, ever heard
this story! Fascinating, particularly the pinpointing of the guy's
accent - I find some Yorkshire accents impenetrable but, then
again, some of the people here think the same about me (my accent
isn't dissimilar to Fred's on Angel).
Actually, the prospect of living in a place as beautiful as Vancouver
sounds pretty damn good to me, except with my memory and identity
intact.
What a bizarre story. It's strange that someone appearing to be
from the sort of background this lad seems to be would've had
a friend or family member claim him by now, don't you think? Now
that you've piqued my interest, I can see that in addition to
spending a lot of time on this board, I'll also be digging around
to see if I can find any information about missing young men from
the north of England (hey, my exams are over now, why not?). I
love a mystery. If I find anything, I'll let you know.
O/T again, I know, sorry all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks, Scout...I'll
keep my fingers crossed...:o) -- Wisewoman, 17:24:02 06/08/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Curried Anchovies -- Little One, 07:48:07
06/07/01 Thu
Sorry, your curry discussion (somehow morphed from a Fray topic)
made me think of Death enjoying his curry in Ankh-Morpork. Any
Pratchett fans out there? Sorry, I know that is extremely off-topic
from the Fray-ish Curried Anchovies discussion. Just made me smile,
s'all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Lemon Curry? Sorry--old Monty Python
reference.(NT) -- Anthony8, 16:26:16 06/07/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: For AK-UK and his comic needs -- Dedalus, 19:41:01
06/06/01 Wed
Well, tis true, I couldn't have done it without you. You have
helped me clarify my thoughts on the matter, and I think I have
done the same for you. Odd, though, that we're still heading in
opposite directions. :-)
And this is what the credit page says -
Created and written by Joss Whedon
Penciller is Harl Moline
Inker Andy Owens
Colorist Dave Stewart
Letterer Michelle Madsen
Now only the first name means anything to me personally, but it
may be a different story with you.
As for being a member of the OFFICIAL(notice the emphasis) FRAY
DISCUSSION THREAD, you don't get a badge, but you do get a secret
decoder ring.
And also ... I'm not promising anything, but I sincerely hope
to get an OFFICIAL FRAY DISCUSSION THREAD square dancing party
going before it's all over.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'm such a wuss... -- Wisewoman, 18:50:16 06/06/01 Wed
Y'know I really, really wanna read Fray, but a 48 year old woman
with greying hair just can't go into a comic shop and wander around
looking for the Buffy section!
Well, okay, I COULD, if I could get my partner, who is 60 and
has *white* hair, to go with me...what do you think the chances
are?
Pity me, all you youngsters out there...;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I'm such a wuss... -- AK-UK, 19:07:22 06/06/01
Wed
I know comic shops aren't the most welcoming place for people
who aren't teenage boys addicted to reading stories about man
and woman dressed in spandex beating each other up, but TRUST
ME, there are a lot of reasons to make the effort.
Fray being one of them.
( AK-UK is very proud of the fact that he successfully resisted
the urge to post a ten page rant about the lousy state of the
comic industry, the unhealthy effect that superhero stories have
on the comic book medium, and the uphill struggle serious comic
book writers face getting their work noticed in a medium which
is generally regarded as only being suitable for childrens stories
)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I'm such a wuss... -- Dedalus, 19:23:08
06/06/01 Wed
Wusses and non-wusses alike, missing the point.
This is Joss Whedon. Buffy. Big name stuff. Newstand stuff.
Why do people think comics can only be found in comic book stores?
They're everywhere. Bookstores, all over the place.
Just pucker up your courage and go. Look, if I, as a 25 year old
American male can walk in Toys R Us and buy Star Wars figures,
I think you can manage at least a run or two to the comic store.
Ooh, thought. I think I'm having a thought. Oh yeah ... now I'm
having a plan. You know you can order Buffy comics off the net
now too, don't you? The only one who will ever know is your postman.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I'm such a wuss... -- Scott L., 19:22:42 06/06/01
Wed
Wisewoman, you'd be amazed at how many over 40 women I see in
comics and gaming stores nowadays.
But, if you are truly not up for it, I'd be glad to send a copy
to any address or PO Box you name. My treat (your first dose is
ALWAYS friee)
I figure if I entice enough mature women (as opposed to immature
boys) to buy and comment on comics, the medium can only become
a better place for all of us to be.
I might throw in a copy of Promethea too. I just bet you'd love
it.
Scott
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I'm such a wuss... -- Dedalus, 19:25:12
06/06/01 Wed
What is this Promethea stuff? Doug Petrie loves it doesn't he?
I keep hearing about it, but I've never seen it. Is it a graphic
novel or an ongoing series?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I'm such a wuss... -- Andy, 20:00:13
06/06/01 Wed
Promethea is a series published by the ABC imprint of DC Comics.
It's written by Alan Moore and drawn by JG Williams III. The best
way I can explain it is that it's about a girl who transforms
herself into a mythical heroine by exercising her creativity,
and who in the process of becoming this heroine learns about the
nature of magic. It's quite interesting, with beautiful artwork,
but I must admit that when I read it I often feel like I'm being
lectured to by Moore, who is much more interested in his theories
of magic than I am :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I'm such a wuss...Promethea!!!!!!
:) :) :) -- AK-UK, 20:10:42 06/06/01 Wed
Scott L, you rock my world!
Promethea is an absolutely BRILLIANT comic, written by the amazing
Alan Moore. What is it about? it's about a young woman with extraordinary
powers, it's about poetry, myth, buddhist philosophy, tantric
sex, transdimensional demons, high magic, and..........well, about
80 other things that I can't remember. For example; one issue
of this comic uses a tarot pack to explain the evolution of mankind,
each of the Major Arcana representing a period in history. If
you like the philosophical aspects of BtVS ( silly question ),
but also love the fighting and the witty one-liners, you will
LOVE Promethea.
Oh, and guess who happens to be Alan Moore's number 1 fan?
Yep, Joss Whedon!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Oh, and it's also what Andy says
it is :) (NT) -- AK-UK, 20:14:06 06/06/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Uh-huh -- Dedalus, 20:27:32
06/06/01 Wed
Just out of morbid curiousity, how does tantric sex (whatever
that is) fit in with buddhist philosophy and transdimensional
demons?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Uh-huh -- AK-UK, 20:44:23
06/06/01 Wed
Quick answer. Promethea fights transdimensional demons, learns
about buddhist philosophy, and has tantric sex (tantric sex is
sex which expands the mind, in which different sexual positions
are used to produce different states of conciousness).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Uh-huh -- Scout,
02:32:45 06/07/01 Thu
I've read that Sting and his missus get into tantric sex for up
to 6 hours at a time, but if I tried to do that I'd probably just
get cramp in my calf muscles or something and throw off all that
mind expansion...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Scott's Offer... -- Wisewoman, 21:06:25
06/06/01 Wed
...is the nicest thing that's happened to me in days...what a
sweetie!
I actually hadn't considered the possibility that Fray might be
out there on the stands with other magazines, or in bookstores.
I sorta figured comic book collecting was an art form, and you
had to go into those little stores in strange parts of town.
And now, of course, I have to read Promethea, too! So, I'll have
a look around town and see if I can find them in non-scary (to
me) places, and if not, well, boy howdy Scott, I'm gonna take
you up on that offer.
And again, the greatest people in the Buffyverse AND the realverse
are on this list. :o)))))
Wisewoman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Hey, Scott, that is so kind, are you a
Canadian????:):):) -- Rufus, 21:27:41 06/06/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> You don't HAVE to be Canadian to
be kind...;-) -- Scott L., 16:42:20 06/07/01 Thu
Although, I hear it's a lot harder to be mean north of the parallel.
I live in Minneapolis. Grew up in North Dakota, so pretty close
to Canada, actually.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I'm such a wuss... -- Mishka, 07:44:01 06/07/01
Thu
From my personal experience, people are thrilled to see a female
of any age in a comic store. It just shows your amazing diversity
of interest. Plus, it also shows that you can see past the slinky
outfits that most comic heriones don to what is possible to find
once in a while, really great writers. Not to mention sometimes,
some very talented artists. Its definately a blessing to any comic
store to see a female and especially an intelligent one such as
yourself, peruse the selection. Shop away! Mishka
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Thank you, Sweetie...what a lovely thing to
say! -- Wisewoman, 18:54:04 06/07/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I'm such a wuss... -- Brian, 03:37:56 06/08/01
Fri
Hey, Wisewoman, I'm 57, and I hang out in a comic book store.
It's the center of my social life, excluding this board, of course.
Most comic book shops are friendly, warm places with a very liberal
attitude to all their customers. I don't think that you would
have any problem making an appearence to pick up Fray. Just ask
for help. You'll be surprised how warm the response.
Fray is a delightful read. A fitting extension of the Buffyverse,
and being written by Joss is just the anchovies on the pizza.
(I confess I love the little devils on mine.)
The comic has lots of adventure, cool characters, humor, great
lines, and where else are you going to find a character who I
think calls "The Creature from the Black Lagoon" Mom.
Fray is a nice tie over until the new Buffy season starts.
An English friend of mine told me that when in England always
eat foreign. Upon my visit there I ate Indian, Greek, and French.
British food really is a contradiction in terms.
Go Brits! Go Joss! Go Fray! Go Anchovies! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I think I can, I think I can, I... -- Wisewoman,
22:52:05 06/08/01 Fri
I gotta say, you guys are great for instilling confidence and
courage. I mean, after all, I do all kinds of *way* scarier stuff
than going into comic stores (negotiating union contracts, for
instance!)
Buffy Newswire even provided a list of stores in Canada where
Fray is available, and hey, I'm darn well gonna DO it! I'm goin'
into that store, and I'm gonna get me a comic!!! GO ME!!!
(...orifnotI'llgetScotttosendmeone...*sigh*)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Okay, the credit is really due to me! :) -- rowan, 19:24:05
06/06/01 Wed
Just remember, everyone, that I'm the one with the Lord of the
Rings obsession and I turned the thread in that direction, so
much of its success must go to me! ;)
But now I'll make up for that distraction by actually commenting
on this topic. However, my comments are more in the way of shameless
unsupported speculation.
Ahem.
I was waiting for someone to go over this point about it being
200 years since a Slayer was called. I haven't bought the comic
book yet (Same problem as Wisewoman -- I'm afraid of buying comic
books at the advanced age of 35. The men with the nets may come
for me. Although I do watch Batman Beyond, but that's in the privacy
of my own home, so only my Significant Other -- He Who Shall Not
Be Named -- knows my secret and he already knows I'm bonkers).
But I digress.
Do you think it's possible that before Joss rings down the curtain
on BtVS that we will see that The Key can be put to the good use
the monks hoped for it. Will the good use be to somehow suck the
demonic element out of the Buffyverse dimension, thereby negating
the need for a new Slayer to be called? (and as a side benefit,
allow Buffy to experience some type of normal life with husband
and kids?).
This would be sort of like (yes, she's going to say it) The Lord
of the Rings, where the Last Alliance of Men and Elves overthrows
Sauron at the end of the Second Age. But because the ring was
only cut from his hand & lost, not destroyed in the fires of Orodruin,
peace has an expiration date and the shadows once again takes
form, requiring a new alliance of all free peoples....just like
in Fray, where suddenly the evil creeps back and must be fought
again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Okay, the credit is really due to me! :) -- Dedalus,
19:31:08 06/06/01 Wed
Excellent, rowan. Back on target, all thanks to you. And personally,
I have yet to read TLOTR. Actually, I read the Hobbit way back
when, and wasn't all that impressed. I'm more of a Narnia guy.
And Terry Brooks rules. I prefer his stuff over TLOTR. I realize,
with that last statement, you will probably disregard every future
comment I will ever have, but them are the breaks.
In regards to FRAY, in this, the OFFICIAL DISCUSSION THREAD, I
can't believe more people haven't commented on the fact that all
the demons up and disappear in the Buffyverse, and Joss himself
said so. Since he's doing it, I assume it is not apocryphal. I
mean, this is major stuff. With drastic repercussions. It is going
to have something to do with Dawn, or resurrected Buffy, or both.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Okay, the credit is really due to me! :)
-- rowan, 19:53:43 06/06/01 Wed
Dedalus, I say this to you from the bottom of my heart: don't
judge by The Hobbit. I too, read The Hobbit first. While it's
a pleasant enough story, it's mostly just about a quest to kill
a dragon. It only hints at the big story underneath. I waited
a few years before I went back and tried The Lord of the Rings,
and later, I was sorry I had waited so long.
Try this. Read the first 250 pages of The Fellowship of the Ring,
which is the first volume of the three. I sincerely believe you
will be hooked. Tolkien was, among his many accomplishments, expert
in Christian theology, Celtic & Nordic myth, as well as linguistics.
These books are so rich with so many levels of meaning.
I can almost guarantee you will want to read the rest of the LOTR,
as well as the Silmarillion and The Lost Tales.
I will now proceed to whet your appetite with a small poetical
excerpt from The Fellowship of the Ring:
"Gil-galad was an Elven-king. Of him the harpers sadly sing:
the last whose realm was fair and free between the Mountains and
the Sea.
His sword was long, his lance was keen, his shining helm afar
was seen; the countless stars of heaven's field were mirrored
in his silver shield.
But long ago he rode away, and where he dwelleth, none can say;
for into darkness fell his star in Mordor where the shadows are."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Okay, the credit is really due to
me! :) -- AK-UK, 20:36:17 06/06/01 Wed
Man, I thought me and Dedalus had this whole credit thing settled.
A nice, simple 50/50 split. And then Rowan has to go and stick
her oar in :P
Dedalus, do yourself a BIG favour and read LOTR. Seriously. The
Hobbit is a kids book. a lovely story, but aimed at the younger
reader. LOTR is High Fantasy at it's very best. In scope, depth,
detail, and execution it surpasses virtually every fantasy story
written before or since (I would rank The Chronicles of Thomas
Covenant, The Unbeliever, higher than LOTR, but I guess that because
"The Chronicles....." appeal to my dark and gritty side).
And FINALLY, on to the actual thread topic. I find the information
about lack of demon activity very interesting.
I've had this silly theory for quite some time that, at some point,
the scooby gang were going to go on the offensive. Instead of
constantly reacting to some Major bad guy, the SG's were gonna
take the battle to the bad guys. This season has only added to
this belief. Willow is now a butt kicking wicca, Buffy, though
dead, will surely come back stronger, and most importantly of
all, we have Dawn. Dawn is the key, a key that can open AND CLOSE
the gateways between dimensions. And what is the hellmouth? A
gateway between our dimension and a demon dimension. I really
think that Dawn could shut the hellmouth, maybe shut ALL the hellmouths,
thus providing the world with a 200 year respite from demon attacks.
Or maybe I'm just being silly. What d'ya think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Okay, the credit is really due
to me! :) -- rowan, 22:12:29 06/06/01 Wed
I've had this silly theory for quite some time that, at some point,
the scooby gang were going to go on the offensive. Instead of
constantly reacting to some Major bad guy, the SG's were gonna
take the battle to the bad guys. "This season has only added
to this belief. Willow is now a butt kicking wicca, Buffy, though
dead, will surely come back stronger, and most importantly of
all, we have Dawn. Dawn is the key, a key that can open AND CLOSE
the gateways between dimensions. And what is the hellmouth? A
gateway between our dimension and a demon dimension. I really
think that Dawn could shut the hellmouth, maybe shut ALL the hellmouths,
thus providing the world with a 200 year respite from demon attacks."
I agree! That's what I was trying to say, but you said it better.
Last season left us with an unresolved plot thread -- can Dawn
be used for good, as thought by the monks? and what would that
good be?
Let the games begin...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Okay, the credit is really
due to me! :) -- Rufus, 22:24:54 06/06/01 Wed
There may be plots that are unresolved but this one is for a good
reason. The key is absolute power, but we don't know exactly what
for. It is only known one function that she can do, is there more?
I think the monks were smart guys and that there is a very good
reason they were willing to die to let the key live.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Okay, the credit is really
due to me! :) -- Scout, 02:46:28 06/07/01 Thu
"Last season left us with an unresolved plot thread -- can
Dawn be used for good, as thought by the monks? and what would
that good be?"
I'm new to this board, but I'm wondering: Did you long-term posters
here hear that spoiler going around months and months ago (before
it became clear what she was) that Dawn would (hope I'm remembering
this correctly) discover that she could "channel evil spirits"?
We now know, of course that it was a totally false spoiler for
S5, but it does lead me to wonder if next season is going to be
- partly - about Dawn discovering the extent of her power as the
Key, and possibly running into some difficulties learning how
to use/control that power.
The monks believed the Key's power could be harnessed for good;
the Knights didn't want to wait around to find out if that was
true or not. Glory had her own agenda. Dawn herself doesn't know
what she's capable of. It's not outside the realm of possibility
that somebody else in the Buffyverse might want to find out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yup,heard that one........:):):)
-- Rufus, 04:32:13 06/07/01 Thu
It makes sense that there would be something more to the story
of the key than Dawn just turning human. There are lots of people
out there that worship chaos and two of them used to be Giles
and Ethan. So there could be a whole bunch of characters that
can come forward to attempt to figure out a new way to fit the
key into a new type of lock. Welcome to the board.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yup,heard
that one........:):):) -- Dedalus, 17:50:34 06/07/01 Thu
Those Dawn rumors were really stupid in retrospect. People thought
Whedon was going to totally screw the pooch with this, and look
at the storyline we got!
Now we're getting somewhere. I am sure there is more to Dawn than
we know. Surely she will be very instrumental. Also, Whedon did
use the word "eradication" in terms of vamps, so you
know something big is coming.
Backtracking to LOTR, I tried to read the first one, but there
was so much about the lifecycle of Hobbits and maps and everything
else that I don't think I ever made it to the actual story.
For you Buffy fans (and I guess that's everyone within earshot),
you should check out Terry Brooks' Word and Void trilogy. Amazing
stuff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The OFFICIAL "Fray" Discussion (spoilers)
-- Tanker, 02:42:26 06/07/01 Thu
Sure, I'll delurk. I'll even try to avoid all the LOTR discussion
in the rest of the thread (God, I can't wait for that movie! Oops...)
First impression: this baby rocks. That's also my second, third,
and all subsequent impressions.
Start with the writing. I like Joss' dialogue and use of captions.
I thought the conversation between the two demons on the opening
3 pages, done as we see events that lead up to that conversation,
was particularly effective. It appears that all those years of
reading comics actually taught Joss something about how to write
them. You'd think he'd been doing this all along.
Joss also works the necessary exposition into scenes that are
interesting in their own right (i.e. they have a function beyond
simply explaining the plot to the reader). We're left to figure
out a lot of the background on our own, but we have enough to
work with so that it's not too difficult.
I've read that this in penciler Karl Moline's first job. Darned
impressive, if you ask me. His action panels have a lot of energy,
and the whole thing is filled with lots of detail. I like his
use of manga-style motion lines, extreme foreshortening, and the
slight cartooniness. He does facial expressions very well. I also
love the world he's created. You can't go wrong with flying cars
and zap guns (well, except for "5th Element." Which
I enjoyed on some levels. But I digress).
Andy Ownens' inking is also to my liking (I'm a fan of the heavy
outline), as are Dave Stewart's colors.
I got a kick out of the sound effects, both from the fonts used
and their basicness (especially "smash" as Melaka does
the face-plant on the street. p.s. ouch). The most innovative
was the sound effect for Melaka's blaster when she zapped the
guy in the face (which is hard to make out, but it starts with
a K and ends in a bunch of Z's). The Z's blend in with the zig-zag
effect of the energy beam. I just thought that was cool.
That's the bottom line. This comic is cool. Buy it. Buy some for
your friends.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The OFFICIAL "Fray" Discussion (spoilers)
-- Rob, 09:12:52 06/07/01 Thu
I'm 20, and haven't read comics since I was about 14 or 15, but
when I heard about "Fray," I just had to get it. And
let me tell you, I was not disappointed. It just smacked of pure
Whedon brilliance from the first page through to the end...with
that damn cliffhanger! LOL. The dialogue was crisp and realistic,
the character interaction very interesting, and the terminology
great too. My favorite thing about future stories is how the future
terms are used, but not explained, at least right away, leaving
the reader to figure out what they mean. I think "Lurk"
is a particuarly brilliant one. For you poor souls who have not
yet read "Fray," Lurks are Vamps. This comic was also
a perfect introduction to the story, because it brought you right
into the action, but also managed to sneak in a bit of exposition
here and there, and leave you hungry for more information of the
back story. There are tons of questions to be answered: When did
the nuclear radiation disaster occur? Was the guy who set himself
on fire really Mel's Watcher? If he is, how will she be trained
now? What happened in Mel and her sister's past to split them
apart? What are Gunther's intentions with Mel? When the hell is
Mel gonna turn around and see that huge demon in her apartment?!?
LOL. I loved the fight scenes, loved the dialogue. Love the story.
Joss is a genius, pure and simple. I devoured this comic in under
10 minutes...and now I have to wait a month for the next one!!!
Aarrgh!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Great OFFICIAL FRAY Comments -- Dedalus,
17:55:47 06/07/01 Thu
I'm with you. And extra kudos to staying on topic. Imagine, actually
discussing Fray in the OFFICIAL FRAY DISCUSSION thread! What will
you guys think of next? No anchovies, Lord of the Rings, just
pure Fray!
And man, I am counting the days till next issue. As well as the
days till the UPN premiere ... that's a lot of days to count.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The OFFICIAL "Fray" Discussion
(spoilers) -- Sam I Am, 01:25:27 06/08/01 Fri
Pure Joss brilliance? Man, gag me please. I love Buffy but this
whole Joss worshiping is silly. Pick up some real comics like
Preacher or The Authority for good story telling, not just related
merchandise tie ins.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The OFFICIAL "Fray" Discussion
(spoilers) -- Tanker, 10:15:54 06/08/01 Fri
Yes, pick up "Preacher" if you feel like being utterly
disgusted. I like Ennis' other work, though. Especially "Punisher,"
and the recent "Enemy Ace." "The Authority"
is pretty good, although I already spend too much on comics to
get into the Wildstorm Universe. I liked "Planetary,"
for example, but had to drop it.
See, I read "real comics." "Fray" is a "real
comic." It has good story telling. No merchandizing tie-ins
to be seen. Not that there's anything wrong with merchandizing.
I like my "Buffy" action figures, and wish I could afford
all the DC Direct stuff. I wouldn't mind seeing a Melaka Fray
action figure. But I digress. To dismiss it just because it's
written by Joss Whedon is stupid, IMNSHO. Criticize it on its
merits, not on the fact that its creator is a tv guy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The OFFICIAL "Fray"
Discussion (spoilers) -- Andy, 11:28:21 06/08/01 Fri
I like Preacher just fine because while it is disgusting, I also
like Ennis's approach to characters and his themes (although I
admit that I still have to finish Preacher, since I've only got
up through the first four books or so). I wonder if Whedon's a
Preacher fan, since I see a bit of Ennis in the way Spike is progressing,
and I couldn't help thinking that his "until the end of the
world" line was a little homage to Ennis :)
Authority is okay, but it's just about worn out its welcome. All
style and no substance can only take you so far...
I'm looking forward to the rest of Fray. It's a nice, solid debut
by guys who have never done comics before, and as a Buffy fan
I can't help being intrigued by the implications of the story.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The OFFICIAL "Fray"
Discussion (spoilers) -- Sam I Am, 12:26:56 06/08/01 Fri
And yet Tanker, you bought Fray because it was written by Joss,
and no matter that the art is second rate, and its an ok effort
for a first book, and there are tons of better books in my opinion,
you won't admit it, because well, Joss wrote it. As for Preacher
being sick isn't that your problem? Yes, I'll take Preacher over
a laser gun wielding slayer this time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The OFFICIAL "Fray" Discussion
(spoilers) -- fresne, 10:35:10 06/08/01 Fri
Okay, so I just picked up Fray. And on first impression, pretty
good.
I would have to agree that at this stage it raises more questions
than it answers. Well it is issue one.
I'd add to Rob's questions: Why is the sun black? What does that
mean for vampires/lurkers? If there are posters warning people
about lurkers, is there general knowledge that they exist? Do
people think they are mutants? What's up with amulet? What's with
the ceremonial pile of bodies? Are the demons preparing for something?
Why do they want to kill the Slayer? Won't that just call another
one? Who is the boy from Mel's flashback?
Anyway, I liked the art. They made good use of the medium. The
art was well, pretty, but still clearly comic book in style (as
opposed to say the Dream Hunters. Sigh, as I contemplate a truly
beautiful comic. Anyway...) Vertical, rather than purely horizontal
dialog. Images on a page lending significance, via layout to other
images. And I'm not sure what influence Joss had here, but there
were some fairly clear cinematic touches to angles. Cells of Mel
from a low camera angle, reaction shots when Mel hears of her
good financial fortune, etc. Very movie storyboardish.
The dialog was crisp and clearly established characterization.
But really, I wouldn't expect less of Joss. As someone else mentioned,
a nice use of unsaid silences conveying meaning. I definitely
look forward to the rest of the series.
I should probably mention that I read some but not many comics.
Mostly Vertigo. Basically, anything Neil Gaiman writes, because
he is a god. If you want to contemplate a nice rich mythology
over the summer, go to any bigish bookstore and get one of the
Sandman Graphic Novels. Beautiful stuff.
Oh, and make my pizza spinach, lamb, feta cheese, and artichoke
hearts. Perhaps with a dry champagne on the side. It's a meal
that I generally reserve for my first read of a new (long awaited)
book by a favorite author, but what they hey.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Woah! Pizza-mate! -- Wisewoman, 10:54:53
06/09/01 Sat
I can't really believe someone else out there likes artichoke,
spinach, and feta pizza! That's my absolute fave. I've never tried
it with lamb, but I actually don't think you can *get* lamb on
pizza in Canada...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Woah! Pizza-mate! -- fresne,
11:36:07 06/11/01 Mon
Well, you have excellent taste. But then again, of course you
do, because here we are...
Re: lamb, I must admit that technically speaking you can't get
it in California either. I only discovered the combo after I had
a very large amount of leg of lamb leftovers. Lamb sandwiches,
lamb casserole, and lamb on my spinach pizza.
And just so I can pretend to be on topic, what flavors of pizza
would Buffy and crew like (or Fray cause this is the official
Fray discussion thread) and what are the philosophical implications.
I think the big bad should be
a vampire again -- Seraph, 19:40:26 06/06/01 Wed
I know this probably sounds pretty dumb but I think the Season
6 Big Bad should be a Vamp. What creature would be better at recentering
the Slayer when she returns from the dead? Actually most of the
people who respond to this will say Doc but I think the Vampire
Slayer should start slaying vampires again. I think it would be
pretty cool if he (or she as the case goes) were a powerful Sorceror
(bad spelling I know!) Vamp. Maybe some Wicca-wanna-be could accidently
resurrect Aurileus, or St. Vigeous. and wackiness can ensue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I agree. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing a slayer who'd
been vamped. -- Wiccagrrl, 20:15:03 06/06/01 Wed
I think it would give more of a chance to delve into Buffy's slayer
roots, answer once and for all if that was even possible, and
just be generally interesting while returning to the show's premise-
Buffy the *Vampire* Slayer.
The other interesting possibility might be one of the Scoobs gone
bad (Will's magic getting out of control, Anya as a vengeance
demon, Giles being vamped), but I'm thinking that'd be best for
the final season.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I agree. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing a slayer
who'd been vamped. -- rowan, 20:26:38 06/06/01 Wed
"The other interesting possibility might be one of the Scoobs
gone bad (Will's magic getting out of control..."
I can't remember with whom she did the interview, but very recently,
Marti Noxon commented on Willow facing consequences (serious ones)
to her magic through S6 & S7.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I agree. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing a slayer
who'd been vamped. -- Nina, 20:26:50 06/06/01 Wed
You'll say I don't make sense, but I totally agree! I want to
see Doc, but he could stay for the beginning of the season and
then we could have some big vampire coming around. Personally
I'd love for Dracula to come back. He already has a link with
Spike and it could make some great action. I know some people
didn't like him, but I really did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I agree. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing
a slayer who'd been vamped. -- rowan, 20:27:44 06/06/01 Wed
Remember, Nina, we're not allowed to rant and rave about Doc.
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Well, there is usually a "decoy" big
bad. That could be Doc. -- Wiccagrrl, 20:30:23 06/06/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> More Doc can only be a good thing, IMHO.
Let him be the power behind the Big Bad again. -- rowan, 20:34:28
06/06/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I agree. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing
a slayer who'd been vamped. -- Morgane, 06:07:05 06/07/01 Thu
I agree that could be pretty cool because I liked Dracula too,
but I just think it's too late. She had deal with him to much
easily, I mean, it took her only one episode and everything was
over so I believe he's not enough strong to be a season big bad!
He had some special powers that's sure but doesn't seem really
strong. I think he's like Spike said :
"RILEY: But he's not just a regular vampire. I mean, he has
special powers, right? SPIKE: Nothing but showy gypsy stuff. What's
it to you, anyway?"
and anyway, I'm not so sure he really knew him!! I like Spike
very much but he kinda like to brag a little ya know!
Jumping the Shark? -- Shiver,
20:00:54 06/06/01 Wed
Old fogeys like me will remember when Arthur Fonzerelli, wearing
his leather jacket on water skiis, jumped over a shark. We also
agree that Scrappy Doo was the ruination of a good thing.
At what point during a TV show - movie - etc do you say to yourself,
"It's all downhill from here?"
This website asks that question about our favorite TV shows and
Buffy is right up there on the list:
http://www.jumptheshark.com/
Also a good review of some shark-jumping moments in history are
here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/06/opinion/06DOWD.html
My question is - with the death of Buffy, but us all knowing she
is coming back next season - has BtVS "jumped the shark?"
Will Buffy be frozen for 30 years and come back awake so she can
interact with her own daughter now grown? (Oh wait ... that was
Xena ...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Jumping the Shark? -- AK-UK, 21:27:33 06/06/01 Wed
Buffy v Dracula was perilously close to being a shark jumping
moment. Riley and the Initiative had Jaws licking his lips too.
Depending on how it's handled, Buffy's ressurection could be THE
turning point for this show. Lets hope Buffy never learnt how
to water ski
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Jumping the Shark? -- Wiccagrrl, 21:33:24 06/06/01
Wed
Joss has a real way of taking what seem like impossible, kinda
cheesy storylines and making them work. The introduction of Dawn
coulda been a classic shark-jumping moment. But it wasn't, IMO-
mostly because MT is one heck of a talented actress, as is SMG.
The Buffybot also had potential disaster written all over it.
But, again, at least IMO, it worked.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Jumping the Shark? -- AK-UK, 21:53:10 06/06/01
Wed
It's funny, but I never saw either Dawn or the Buffybot as being
potential SJ moments, which is stupid cos they both could have
ruined the show. You're right about Dawn, she works because of
MT's excellent acting and great (non-sexual, totally platonic
etc etc) chemistry with JM.
The Buffybot works (for me at least) because it is fun to see
"Buffy" enjoying guilt free sex for once in her life.
Plus the Buffybot got the best lines of Season 5 "Angel's
lame. His hair goes straight up and he's bloody stupid" :)
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Jumping the Shark? -- Anthony8, 22:21:48
06/06/01 Wed
I agree with you about 'Buffy v. Dracula.' It didn't bode well
for Season 5. Fortunately for me, the rest of the Seson redeemed
itself well. Consequently, I don't think 'B.v D.' would be missed
at all. If anything, it would have made a good Halloween episode--a
bit of comic relief to lighten up the dark mood of the season.
It was kind of a strange episode to start the season though. I
still think that the "jumping the shark" episode hasn't
happened yet, and hopefully the series will end before the writing
ever sinks to shark jumping depths.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Joss Devours Sharks -- Dedalus,
18:02:16 06/07/01 Thu
Okay, I can see the JTS thoughts on the Initiative, or Dawn, or
even the Buffybot, but what about Buffy vs. Dracula? That was
fabulous. Got great reviews, too, as far as I know. Is it because
it played too loosely with the Dracula myth or something?
I really love that eppy and it gets bashed and I feel like I'm
missing something ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Joss Devours Sharks --
Anthony8, 18:35:18 06/07/01 Thu
I'm relatively new to this board (actually this is the only board)
so I wasn't participating when 'B v. D.' first aired. What was
the consensus here? If people really liked it, maybe I was really
missing something that was there but I couldn't see. Like I said,
it just seemed kind of off for a season opener--especially after
'Restless.' All the characters seemed a little goofier than within
my standard suspension of disbelief, although perfect for a campy
Halloween episode or even more consistent with an early Season
1 episode (disregarding all the Slayer destiny dialogue between
B and D). But maybe that was the intent altogether. Set me straight
and maybe I can view it with fresh eyes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Joss Devours Sharks
-- Shiver, 16:14:24 06/08/01 Fri
I thought about it for a while this morning in the shower.
BVD never made much sense to me until the last few episodes aired.
When I began to think of BvD not as a single episode separate
from the rest - as I had been - but as a little piece of the Dawn
puzzle that I had never noticed (because we didn't know Dawn was
coming).
I think BvD was totally a "planted memory" in the Scoobies
heads by the monks. To distract them while they were making Dawn.
A castle appeared in the middle of Sunnydale no one ever noticed
before? Clearly a spell. And where did it go at the end of the
eppy? They never went back to it. Drac turns into a mist and blows
away. Very campy, think the monks were watching too many B movies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Jumping the Shark? -- cjc36, 01:24:20 06/07/01 Thu
I always referred to moments like that as a "Spock's Brain,"
Which was a Shark Jumper, what, eight years before Fonzi did the
deed?
Anyway, BvTS has had some stinkers: Beer Bad, Bad Eggs, Where
the Wild Things Are. But never an episode so bad that it indicated
that a downward spiral was imminent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Jumping the Shark? -- Brian, 06:16:57 06/07/01
Thu
Hey, how can you not like an episode where Xander gets to say:
"Giles, don't make caveslayer unhappy..."?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Beer bad good -- Masquerade, 18:39:53 06/09/01
Sat
I agree. I remember not liking the first four episodes of Season
4. They each seemed awkwardly done to me. Then "Beer Bad"
aired. When the pseudo-intellectual frat guys started running
across campus as cavemen I just laughed. I thought with relief,
"this is classic BtVS allegory" worthy of many Season
1 episodes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Masquerade I think of you when..... --
Rufus, 18:53:25 06/09/01 Sat
The frat boys are speaking and then someone says there will be
no Thomas Aquinas at the table.....it's the reason I always remember
the ep.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I don't know if that's a compliment
or an insult. Hmmm... ;) -- Masquerade, 11:20:46 06/10/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Actually it's always a giggle
moment for me when I see the ep.....:):) -- Rufus, 14:55:26 06/10/01
Sun
I don't know why but when I see those frat boys sloshed going
on about their studies when they tell the one to can it about
Aquinas I think the the spot on your site where you say the same
thing(I thought you were using that ep as a reference). When they
turn into cavemen philosophers I just crack up. My fav moment
is both times Buffy bashes Parker on the head...he did deserve
it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rewatching Season 4
-- OnM, 20:58:53 06/10/01 Sun
In preparation for doing my Riley character essay later on this
summer, I've started rewatching Season 4. As of tonight, I'm up
to the Halloween Ep. I believe 'Beer Bad' is up next. I haven't
seen it for over a year now, and it should be interesting so see
it with a new perspective. Previously, I would have agreed that
it was a 'weak' episode, but as I posted earlier in another thread,
I watched BvsD again just last week-- an ep I also thought was
weak-- and came away impressed, very highly, in fact.
One thing I have noticed already is that looking at S4 so far,
the show now is starting to appear to me like chapters in a long
novel, not like they were individual eps. So far, Riley has had
only a few minutes of on-screen time, I had thought that it was
more. I've also just begun to realize that the relationship of
Buffy & Parker was an enabling factor in Buffy's eventual relationship
with Riley, and that this is another case where an evil action
on one character's part leads to something good happening further
down the line. (Also a counterpoint to Faith-in-Buffy seducing
Riley, but being changed by the experience and eventually seeking
redemption for her deeds. A leads to B leads to C leads to D etc.
etc. Fascinating stuff).
My plan is to eventually re-watch all of S4 & S5, which is going
to take several weeks worth of spare time, but it it already paying
off. I would respectfully suggest to anyone out there who has
thoughts about the value of any given ep to watch it at least
one or two more times. You may come away with exactly your original
opinion-- or not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> See, I told you
to watch BvD again...... -- Rufus, 21:08:17 06/10/01 Sun
Those clever people gave us lots to work with in that ep. In Beer
bad just think it's a representation of our board on a drunken
pub crawl, and Masquerade is giving that Aquinas fellow the toss
for being too verbose. Can I be the one that hits Parker??????Or
the metaphorical Parker?????
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, you
did, and I was thinking of that when I was re-watching it. ;)
-- OnM, 07:08:32 06/11/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Enjoying
some iced tea while watching I'll wager....:):) -- Rufus, 07:11:50
06/11/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Jumping the Shark? -- Scout, 02:26:19 06/07/01 Thu
I've been a regular visitor to jumpingtheshark.com over the last
few years and it's always a good laugh.
Until about two weeks ago, BtVS was one of the lucky few series
firmly placed in the "never jumped" category because
it had far more than the 50 percent of votes needed to place it
there (alongside such classics as "The Dick van Dyke Show",
"WKRP in Cincinnati" and "Fawlty Towers").
Unfortunately, since the S5 finale, BtVS is no longer in the "never
jumped" category. The reason? Under "Jumped the Shark
when...", the category "New Kid in Town (Dawn)"
leads the BtVS shark-jumping poll.
Now, if Ted McGinley ever makes an appearance on Buffy, that's
when we'll know for sure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I hate "Jumping the Shark"! -- Rob, 09:03:01
06/07/01 Thu
Personally, I think that "Jumping the Shark" is the
stupidest website I've been to (and there are a great deal of
stupid ones), mostly due to the fact that they judge shows that
are still on the air. To proclaim that a show has reached its
peak with no way of return is absolutely ridiculous when a show
is still on. Many shows go through weaker periods and recover.
And as far as "Buffy" jumping the shark...it ain't never
gonna happen. Just b/c a main character dies, a younger character
is added, etc does not mean that "Buffy" will follow
the regular television conventions. It never has before. If Joss
kills a main character or adds one, he has a reason. Joss specializes
in taking possible TV cliches and turning them on their head.
He did not add Dawn to have a cute younger character like Scrappy
Doo...He added Dawn as an integral part to the show's overall
mythology arcs, and in so doing created a character who fits in
seemlessly with the show. This character also helps further define
the character of Buffy for the audience. He killed Joyce, not
for dramatic effect but as an examination of what people do when
they grieve. The characters on "Buffy" are so used to
"fantasy" death, in other words, vampires, demons, etc,
that when a beloved person dies of naturally caused events and
is really gone, we really get to see deeper into the characters'
souls. Buffy's sacrifice in "The Gift" was not a stunt,
either...Joss has had it planned for years now, and foreshadowing
can be seen in "Graduation Day," or even as far back
as "Becoming". I believe we've already discussed on
this board how Buffy has grown as a character, how in "Becoming"
she had to sacrifice her happiness (Angel). But in this case,
she saved her "human" side (Dawn) and sacrificed the
Slayer. And a turning point also does not have to be a bad thing.
I believe that Buffy's death and rebirth could be a turning point:
one that will redefine this show in it move to UPN and make it
even more brilliant than it is now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I hate "Jumping the Shark"! --
Scout, 09:28:29 06/07/01 Thu
Hey, don't kill the messenger.
I love Buffy too. I was merely stating what's happened on jumpingtheshark.com
within the last couple of weeks re BtVS. Just because you're happy
with the way Joss is doing things doesn't mean everyone else is
(as for me, while I quibble with some things doesn't mean I don't
trust him in the long run), and it's an undeniable truth that
not all viewers love Dawn. For me personally, I can take her or
leave her, although I do think she will add to cast bloat once
the inevitable younger "friends of Dawn" are added to
give her a life apart from Buffy and the other Scoobies.
Who is the "they" you're referring to? It's not a mysterious
"they" judging shows, it's the people who write in to
give their opinions and vote doing the judging. If some viewers
think a program has jumped, then to them it has. It's purely a
subjective thing. If you disagree, then go there and vote otherwise.
It's not like the site is an official arbiter of a television
program's popularity. It *is* interesting to read what people
have to say though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I hate "Jumping the Shark"!
-- Rob, 12:55:02 06/07/01 Thu
"Hey don't kill the messenger"
I didn't mean for you to take my comments personally. I was not
speaking about your comments in particular, just the entire "Jumping
the Shark" concept.
And, in response to your question of who the mysterious "they"
is, it is in particular, the people who run the website, who are
the ones endorsing these ideas and encouraging people to vote
about when a show has gone bad. I've always found this to be a
very pessimistic point of view. While not all television shows
are works of art, a select few, such as "Buffy," I do
regard as such, and I do not believe in the website's encouragement
in classifying something as "over" or "dead"
just because a similar plot happens in one show as happened to
other shows. Just because a familiar plot might be used that led
to one show's downfall doesn't mean it is for all. Some people
have voted "First episode" for some shows. That is absolutely
ridiculous and small-minded. Give a show time to grow before you
tear it apart.
"They," the webmasters, have made classifications and
lists for different kinds of "jumping the shark". When
you vote on that site, you are first given the option of one of
their previously chosen moments before adding your own. By declaring
"death," "birth," "addition of young
cast member," "they did it," "live,"
etc it is like putting headlights on a show any time a new episode
comes on. Uh oh...a new character is added! The show jumped the
shark! Uh oh! A main character dies and is ressurrected! The show
jumped the shark! Uh-oh! A character gave birth to a baby! The
show jumped the shark!
I was just commenting on how disheartening a site like this can
be to the creative teams who work on such great shows as "Buffy".
You may enjoy going to this site, voting, etc. I am not targetting
you, or calling you "dumb" or anything like that. I
was just saying my opinion of this site. I'm sorry if you took
my comments the wrong way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Nicely said Rob -- Dedalus,
18:12:28 06/07/01 Thu
I agree it is a little pessimistic ... actually, it's sort of
like being a rubbernecker on the freeways, leaning out the window
trying to get a look at the cars that are now crushed like soda
cans via some bad accident. The site is kinda funny from a certain
perspective I suppose, but, you know, I gotta say, for me Buffy
will never jump the shark.
And I don't say that just as a mindless fanboy, it's just that
it has earned so much respect from me. With the continual success
of Buffy, and now Angel ... I think Joss can do anything in this
universe he's breathed into existence.
And that the Gift isn't getting the accolades it deserves is disheartening,
personally. Yes, if it were any show, it would be a stunt, and
in season six we would find out it was really the Buffybot or
Dawn had dreamed it or something. But the death of Buffy was done
so well, and her imminent return will be also. This is a myth,
and one that resurrection is crucial to.
I just got a vision of Joss sitting down at a picnic table, a
checkered napkin stuck in his shirt, a fork in one hand and a
knife in the other, facing down a shark steak.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Jumping the Shark? -- Cleanthes, 11:15:03 06/07/01 Thu
I've visited the 'jumptheshark' website off and on for years -
longer than I've been an avid fan of BtVS.
I think the 'jumptheshark' website jumped the shark two or three
years ago now. It's a dated concept, and thoroughly unwilling
to allow recursively postmodern hermenuetics.
Just thinking about it idly - some things go up-up-up and then
down-down-down. Other things have some highs and then some lows
and then more highs. Still others have some extremely high goodies
and then a bunch of very good moments, but not quite so high.
For example, Gustav Mahler's 2nd Symphony was a humdinger. So,
his music "jumped the shark" with that symphony, because
his later works, though great, were not quite as outlandishly
terrific?
The jumptheshark site has slowly developed a whiney self-importance
that, IMO, is the very mark of true "jump-the-shark"ing,
because once the habit of whiney self-importance has crept into
one's thinking, it's enormously difficult to break such a trend.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Brilliantly stated, Cleanthes! -- Rob, 12:42:42 06/07/01
Thu
Couldn't have said it better myself! It's sad when a site that
claims to be "with the times" is so far behind it...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Oh come on! -- AK-UK, 15:13:33 06/07/01 Thu
It's a joke site. It's called Jumping the shark, for love's sake!
It's a lighthearted poke at the pomposity of over-intellectual
sites that try to examine the nuancies of the A-Team! And, lets
face it, many of the criticisms levelled at BtVS have been echoed
on this board (The Iniative, Tara, Riley, the problems inherent
with killing and ressurecting your leading character).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Oh come on! -- Cleanthes, 15:54:30
06/07/01 Thu
It's *supposed* to be a joke site, true. The question really is
whether it still is.
There's a creeping puritanism all over the place. You know, a
puritan is a person who fears that someone somewhere is having
a good time. This is a trend to much in evidence over there, IMO.
Most _individuals_ follow a thought process of "like it",
"like it more", "love it", "become disillusioned",
"hate it". This is a single inflection point function,
which is what the "jumptheshark" concept adopts.
I wouldn't say that groups (such as the group of fans in the aggregate
of any TV show) or aesthetic appreciation need to follow this
single inflection model.
Of course, I don't want to take myself and my criticism too seriously
either, because THAT would be doing exactly what I'm criticizing.
So, hey, I'll come on wherever!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Still, if Ted McGinley appears in
an ep in S6, I'm heading for the hills! ;) -- rowan, 20:07:57
06/07/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> That would be a wonderfully
evil spoiler rumor, wouldn't it??? -- Scout, 03:15:29 06/08/01
Fri
You know, along the lines of "Giles is going to return to
England and Buffy is going to get a new Watcher played by Ted
McGinley".
The scariest part of all is that if such a silly idea got going
on any one board, any BtVS board at all, it would spread like
wildfire and have additional "facts" added to it along
the way. Then, next thing you know, Wanda would be leaking it
at EOnline...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Jumping the Shark? -- Malandanza, 18:29:27 06/09/01
Sat
"Just thinking about it idly - some things go up-up-up and
then down-down-down. Other things have some highs and then some
lows and then more highs. Still others have some extremely high
goodies and then a bunch of very good moments, but not quite so
high."
I think you're right. the "Jumping the Shark" moment
is even always clear in retrospect, let alone at the moment the
episode airs. For some shows (like Moonlighting) the moment the
show has been ruined is clear; in others (like Happy Days), JTS
is a misnomer -- there was no single defining moment -- merely
a gradual decline. Those of us who remember the old episodes of
Happy Days remember when Henry Winkler played a scary thug --
and we remember in the last episodes when he played a goofy high
school teacher. The transition did not occur in a moment -- it
was almost unnoticeable. The early episodes dealt with adult content
(Richie coming home completely drunk, Potsie coming near to date
raping a girl while pretending to be Richie, etc.), the final
episodes were aimed at a very young audience with almost all sexual
material completely expurgated.
I remember hearing that advertisers spend more money on BtVS with
its relatively small audience than on shows like 7th Heaven or
Touched by an Angel with their enormous audiences -- because of
the demographics involved. Older people are set in their ways
and cannot be tempted to try new products in spite of all the
comercials. Younger people are easily influenced, having no set
preferences. Hence, advertisers get more for their money when
supporting shows with a young set of viewers. As the shows age,
the stars get paid more -- so the need for revenue increases --
so a younger audience is needed. The older, loyal viewers drift
off as the show becomes a series of gimmicks and guest stars to
attract younger viewers. Unfortunately, the younger viewers do
have the devotion of the older ones and as their attention drifts
from one gimmicky new show to another, the series dies.
I see the same pattern in the Xanth novels -- originally swords
and sorcery fantasy novels for adults -- but Piers Anthony discovered
that children were reading his books so began dumbing them down
until it got to the point that they were insipid.
There have been many bad episodes on BtVS going all the way back
to episodes like Teadher's Pet and Go Fish, and recent episodes
(like the one with the Buffybot) but particularly in the latter
half of season 4. However, it seems to me that every time Buffy
was very bad, Angel was very good -- and I think that this contrast
has helped to keep both shows alive -- BtVS has been very good
at (eventually) rebounding and Angel has kept viewers from drifting
during the bad times.
Do they exist -- Mav, 03:21:10
06/07/01 Thu
Ok, now Anya said Santa Clause exists (all be it as a child disembowler)
But do you think she was lying or not? if she wasn't do you think
we'll ever see Santa Clause in Buffy? Or even better yet the Easter
Bunny! That could be a great Anya episode if that exists.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Easter Bunny -- Little One, 08:54:25 06/07/01 Thu
Perhaps the evil Easter Bunny is where Anya's fear stems from.
Peter Cottontail could actually be a crazed egg-addicted psychopath.
Perhaps Anya's phobia orginated in the deep-seeded childhood trauma
of seeing the benevolent Easter Bunny on a raged chocolate-induced
rampage with his posse of machete-toting chicks. Or then again,
I could perhaps need a nap...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Easter Bunny & Shrimp -- Anthony8, 13:37:30 06/07/01
Thu
Maybe the Eater Bunny brought her a basket of vicious shrimp.
Or maybe it's actually a shrimp in bunny clothing. That would
explain quite a bit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I think you are on to something... -- Little
One, 13:47:48 06/07/01 Thu
Or perhaps an army of crime-fighting vigilante shrimp saved her
from the Easter bunny...Can't you just see it?
Anya backed into a brick-walled corner, huddled, too terrified
to quip. Looming over her is a ragged-furred rabbit, eyes gleaming
with malevolence, fangs drooling, shattered remains of eggshells
crunching underfoot. Suddenly (insert inspirational music), they
appear. Hordes of them. Each wearing tiny army helmets, artillery
shells flung over one shoulder. Ok, so shrimp don't have shoulders...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> What have I done (NT) -- Mav, 13:56:25
06/07/01 Thu
Stranger and stranger.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Well you know what they (they who?)
say... -- Anthony8, 16:28:04 06/07/01 Thu
No good deed goes unpunished. Curiouser and curiouser.
What does the chip mean for Spike?
not equal to soul, but something else? -- abt, 06:53:52 05/07/01
Mon
I know that effectively it's a prison. It's not a conscience or
a soul. What it does seem to do is force Spike down another path
altogether, off the beaten track. Where is that? Normally when
people say 'it's not a obstacle, it's an opportunity', I want
to smack them in the mouth. Maybe in the case of the chip it's
true however, in that it gives a breathing space to stop and think,
perhaps even grow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? -- longish, some
spoilers -- verdantheart, 14:07:47 05/07/01 Mon
The way I see it, the chip does not change what Spike is. However,
the limitations that it placed on Spike started to break him down.
Without the ability to prey upon humans, he feels less powerful,
less of a vampire. He was called "harmless" by the SG,
who let him live for this reason (ultimate insult?). He was no
longer the Big Bad.
Then he discovered that he could fight and kill demons. This allowed
him to work out some of his frustrations, but brought him into
more frequent contact with Buffy. I believe that it was these
two factors (the erosion of his self-image and his growing contact
with Buffy) that led his subconscious mind to show him that his
feelings for Buffy weren't hate, but, in fact, love.
Well, that hardly makes him a good guy, and the ways in which
his feelings for Buffy were expressed were frequently negative
(stalking, groping, baiting/tormenting). But the situation put
him at a further disadvantage because he knew his chances with
Buffy were nil. He couldn't admit he loved her; her power to hurt
him was too strong as it was ("Fool for Love"). When
she confronted him, he couldn't help but blurt out his feelings,
but was completely crushed ("Crush"). Her rejection
further tore down what few defenses he had left, but he was still
resilient enough to pretend that he thought he had a chance ("I
Was Made To Love You").
Even this has seemed to have been removed now. The events of "Intervention"
left him beaten and completely exposed. He was actually honest
about his feelings -- although he thought it was the Buffybot
he was talking to.
Now, in "Tough Love" he seems quite fully ashamed of
his actions and was barely able to look Buffy or Dawn in the eye.
He seems to want to behave in human ways (reaching out to pat
Dawn's head), but is afraid to (covering that action). Does he
feel unworthy, or unable to help, or afraid of exposing his emotions
even further, opening himself to further ridicule?
Little by little, his facades (masks?) have been torn away. Getting
back to the chip: I see the chip as a catalyst that allowed potential
change to take place. To continue the chemical analogy, the reaction
hasn't completed and we can only guess where Spike will regain
equilibrium -- if in fact he can.
I suspect that he is near bottom and will have to start rebuilding
himself, for better or worse.
The question is, if the chip were removed now, could he ever revert
to what he was? At this point, would he want to?
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? -- longish,
some spoilers -- Cynthia, 15:22:02 06/03/01 Sun
Just a thought: when I read the questions about this it hit me
that these are the same issues that a recovering addict would
have to deal with. If vampires do not need blood to actually exist
on a day-to-day level, do they drink it because its addictive
and they have a biological predisposition (like some people have
for liquor)that leads to easy addition. After all, it does seem
to give a rush. And its a easy addiction in that supply is plentiful.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? -- longish,
some spoilers -- rowan, 05:03:36 06/05/01 Tue
I like this interpretation. Spike's identity has been eroding
over the course of S5. Slowly, he has been stripped of what he
felt he was, of his identity as a vampire (not just the feeding,
but the reputation, the aura of evilness, etc.). In fact, perhaps
this erosion really started with Drusilla's desertion (the infamous
chaos demon).
As that identity peels away (in layers, like an onion), we begin
to see unveiled elements of what perhaps might be Spike's next
identity in his love for Buffy and Dawn, as well as his desire
to do good for them. In The Gift, Spike hits rock bottom in more
than one way: he loses both his dream of new identity as lover
(albeit platonic) of Buffy and he also fails in his identity as
protector of Dawn (Doc wipes the floor with him).
Presumably, this might be because Spike attempted to define himself
too much based on his relationship to others and not from a core
of self. Possibly he's on the right path, but without enough of
a reason to be on it. The question now is "whither Spike?"
Will S6 be about the development of a real or true identity for
Spike beyond vampire?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? not equal to soul,
but something else? -- Justin, 14:32:11 05/07/01 Mon
I love so many of the analogies Buffy makes for real life. A demon,
or a robot, never seems to me to be really a demon or a robot.
In this case... well I don't know if I can think of one for the
chip.
But I think it's a great device to use to accomplish this:
Spike got to interact in a real way with Buffy and the rest of
the gang. Because he couldn't hurt them, he had to talk to them.
The way Spike's character was built, we couldn't have had this
happen otherwise. I don't think the chip is really so much about
the effects of behavioral psychology, or the reality of a mechanical
soul....
I think that it merely makes Spike more real. And what a great
idea it was.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? not equal to
soul, but something else? -- LURKER, 15:03:46 05/07/01 Mon
This might be slightly off topic, but I have to believe that at
some point the chip will be removed or else, what's the point?
It will have proven nothing except electric shock therapy might
work if used regularly in a Pavlov's dog-type scenario. Actually,
I often wonder if it's there at all or if it was ever there. The
doctor couldn't find it when he operated--or maybe the chip looked
like a penny and really was removed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? not equal
to soul, but something else? -- Rufus, 15:36:34 05/07/01 Mon
When was the last time that Spike tested the chip? He did feed
off that murdered girl in Crush, but when has he done anything
as of late to set the chip off? Has he even wanted to? Is the
chip a factor in his actions at this time?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Really excellent point! -- rowan, 17:22:58
05/07/01 Mon
First, as I've said before, when does government issue anything
work forever? That chip has to be close to having its warranty
expire.
I don't know when Spike last tested the chip (I think you're right
and it was Crush), but do you notice that Crush was the last time
he lamented his state? Since then, he's moved on to another level
of acceptance.
I think the scenes with Dawn are the key (pun definitely intended!).
I said this below, so I won't bore you again, but he's gone from
being horrified that Dawn felt safe with him (in Crush) to attempting
to stroke her hair to comfort her (in Tough Love) -- plus, did
you see the look on his face when Dawn tried to take responsibility
for his bruises & limp? Spike's whole relationship to the SG and
even to himself changed in Intervention when he took that beating.
It's time (early next season) for that chip to come out so that
we can see what's to be seen. Spike is missing a soul, so he doesn't
have that shining star, that internal compass to point him to
true north. So, how does he know what right behavior is? He has
to see it to learn it. The more he sees it from the SG and the
more they reinforce his good behavior, the more likely it is he
can repeat it. Plus, we know that Spike is capable of love &
devotion. That's never been in question. If he forms real attachments
to Dawn and Buffy, would the removal of the chip change that?
I'm not sure, but I don't think it would.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Really excellent point! -- Lyn,
18:00:13 05/07/01 Mon
I have often wondered if there really was a chip. It did seem
to me that the initiative doctor couldn't find it and so substituted
the penny. Could Spike have been so brain washed by his short
time in the lab that he truly believed there was a chip. But didn't
Dru "see" the chip? She's insane so I couldn't tell
if she really "imagined" the chip in his head or not.
I think it would be great if there was no chip. However, what
could push him back to the dark side now so that he would test
the chip? He wouldn't test the chip when Dru came for a visit,
he told her the pain was too bad. I do remember him willing to
endure the pain of the chip when he was going to shoot Buffy with
a shotgun! I loved that whole scene!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Really excellent point!
-- rowan, 18:07:27 05/07/01 Mon
You definitely have to feel a little something for a guy who's
confused enough to fall in love with his sworn enemy!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike?
not equal to soul, but something else? -- Boxdman, 15:11:58 06/03/01
Sun
The last time for sure that we all can agree that Spike's chip
worked was when they were fighting the knights in "Spiral".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> FYI -- rowan, 05:09:23 06/05/01 Tue
I saw a reference in the shooting script for The Gift that said
Spike accidentally hits a "crazy" (brainsuck victim)
and that it activates the chip. I couldn't pick it out on the
ep, though (maybe fight scenes were cut or changed).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? not equal
to soul, but something else? -- rowan, 05:07:14 06/05/01 Tue
Yes, I've often thought that chip will come out at a moment when
everyone (the SG) will have subsided into a status quo of accepting
Spike's change. Then, the chip's removal or malfunction will perhaps
prove a moment of epiphany for both Spike and the SG, as it will
present an occasion where Spike's change can be 'tested' so to
speak -- will he continue to abstain from feeding when the pain
inhibitor is gone, and will he relationship to the SG change (by
reverting them to Happy Meals with legs) or will he struggle against
the desire to feed?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? not equal to soul,
but something else? -- Jarrod Harmier, 13:51:57 06/03/01 Sun
You mention that you view the chip as a prison. It could be seen
as a prison if it is seen as something that takes away Spike's
ability to choose. This is probably accurate if you talk about
his capacity for violence. I do think next season he should be
given the option of having his chip removed. However, I think
it is important that none of the Scoobies know that Spike has
this option because of what I think should happen. This chip removal
would be a real option, not like the fake chip removal that occured
in "Out of My Mind". This is a very tempting offer for
Spike. However, several questions enter his mind: "Will I
be the same?", "Will I go back to being to feeding humans",
and, the most important one, "Will I still love Buffy?"
He has an offer that appears to be everything he could ever hope
for and then realizes it may not be all that it seems and it may
not be what he needs. He refuses to have it removed. Later, when
he has the option to tell the group that he had the option nd
refused it, he doesn't. These actions taken together would be
integral in his path to redemption because they show that has
built character far beyond just keeping a promise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What does the chip mean for Spike? not equal to soul,
but something else? -- Liquidram, 11:51:29 06/05/01 Tue
I have been keeping an eye on this board for quite some time.
I love the logical and thoughtful discussion here vs. the fandom
of most BtVS boards ("Angel is such a BABE!!!!", etc.)
and would love to become a part of it. Please forgive any redundancy
here with previous posts that I may not have read yet.
Yes, Angel is a babe, but I have always been far more intrigued
with the many nuance layers of Spike. Since learning what "William
the Bloody" truly stood for confirmed what I already suspected
of him. Has anyone else noticed that since he has become an integral
part of the group, trying so hard to earn trust and voice his
feelings, he has become more physically beautiful? The harsh angles,
scowls and Sid Vicious camera angles have all but disappeared.
I echo anyone who commends the extraordinary acting chops of James
Marsters. His mastery of subtlety is a joy to experience.
The way I understand it, the chip hurts Spike only if he attempts
to harm a human being physically. It does not stop him from causing
psychological harm, so we cannot "blame" his evolution
on it. In no way does it change his personal make-up, opinions,
feelings (with the exception of causing severe frustration to
him - remember him whacking Zander's head when they are walking
down a hallway. "This is gonna be worth it" as they
both yell in pain and surprise.) He was lonely and alone. Now
that he has acknowledged his feelings for Buffy, as well as Dawn,
he has new purpose, which allows the true William to emerge. His
previous evil deeds are not diminished or forgiven, but surely,
he must be given the same opportunity to rehabilitate as anyone
else in Buffyverse. (Anya, and Giles come to mind, and Angel -
who was far more evil.)
Why would anyone think that having the chip removed would give
Spike the sudden urge to harm the people that he has proven he
now cares for when he has shown time after time this season that
he is willing to give his life for them?
We saw him work through the pain to fight the knights at the gas
station, not to mention Glory's torture. Bottom line is that if
Spike wants to take you out, he will, regardless of the pain it
causes him.
I think that the pressures of not having to be the Big Bad is
giving the true William the opportunity to push back his demon
and exert his true personality. There has never been a question
to me regarding Spike's ability to love (Dru). I don't remember
the episode or exact quote, but didn't someone(thing) say that
Spike and Dru "reeked of humanity"?
A point in case - immediately after Spike escaped from the Initiative,
he went to Buffy's dorm room. When he learned that he could not
harm Willow, he actually tried to console her when she made the
comment about not "being the kind of girl that vamps usually
want to sink their teeth into" by telling her that he had
thought about biting her "a few times". He seemed to
be more concerned about reassuring Willow than thinking about
his own immediate problem.
Well, I've rambled on long enough. Regardless of what Season 6
brings, I personally will be happy to see the continued transformation
of Spike. Chemistry and respect between he, Buffy and the other
members of the SG, plus a vampire who chooses to do good because
of caring and love vs. guilt? Good enough for me. Yep, I love
that beautiful, brooding babe Angel, but give me a volatile, confused,
and emotional Spike any day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Welcome to the board -- Rufus, 16:45:32 06/05/01 Tue
Joss has used Vampirism as an analogy for alcoholism. That being
the case it would make sense why Spike has evolved in the way
he has post chip. First he isn't "drunk" on the killing
and feeding off of humans. This does allow the host personality
the chance to surface more and more. Angel said that being a vampire
is simple in that they don't have to worry about pesky emotions
such as guilt. I think of vampires as being on a big bender of
killing and feeding, not stopping or caring about what they are
doing. Now with the chip, it activates when Spike attempts to
hurt a human, now he has had the chance to detox a bit and consider
his life. The big complication that motivates him is his love
for Buffy. If he were never chipped he wouldn't have stopped long
enough to figure out his true feelings for Buffy, he would have
been concentrating on being the big bad. With the chip he has
first acted out in an obvious way by attempting to get the chip
out, now he doesn't seem to care, his love being his chief motivation
now. It also brings us to the question of why some vampires are
as violent as they are....Angel being the worst vampires had to
offer. The only thing that makes sense is that there is something
about the host that the vampire infection captializes on to do
the most evil acts. If you have a person who was not troubled
or naturally evil, you won't get as violent a vampire. With William
his last memories were of rejection and humiliation turning into
anger, when Dru turned him he had a chance to act out revenge
fantasies for real. Spike is now more interesting because he shows
that vampires are more complex than the Watchers or anyone else
had considered. This doesn't mean we can't destroy a threat to
mankind, but we do have wonder how much of the vampire is the
former host.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Welcome to the board - Good post! - Like
your NetName -- OnM, 22:58:27 06/05/01 Tue
You aren't foreshadowing a soon-to-be-replacement of the regular
solid-state variety, are you?
Inquiring minds... ;)
Pleased to have you join us!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Welcome to the board - Good post!
- Like your NetName -- Liquidram, 23:49:18 06/05/01 Tue
So glad to be here too! This board has been my new late night
obsession .... how frustrating to read old posts that have died
when I have soooo much to say :0)
LiquidRAM is actually my roleplaying character's name in a game
my son created.
I look forward to a long rewarding relationship here and hope
to get to know you all!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Don't be frustrated - if you see
an older post you want to comment on... -- OnM, 09:50:46 06/06/01
Wed
...cut and paste some text, give it a title and start a thread.
If you have something new to add, please do. The archives on this
board are huge, they run back over 9 months. Lotsa good stuff
to mine from it!
Feel free to do so!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Of appearances (Worthy of this board? You be the judge)
-- verdantheart, 08:29:39 06/06/01 Wed
I've noticed that in the last several eps Spike has often appeared
with a bit of "bedhead", that is, hair spiked/mussed
rather than slicked back. This, of course, gives the character
a much softer look, which contrasts with Marsters' naturally defined
and angled features (OK, I like to draw faces, so I notice these
things). This has come hand-in-hand with a softening of Spike,
who has gotten out of Buffy's face and become strikingly William-like
(diffident).
On another note: I don't get out much. Is there a controversy
over whether Angel or Spike is more babelicious? To concentrate
on that would be to miss out on the other qualities of the actors,
for example their acting ability (I won't state my opionion on
that, since you all probably know where I stand on that!).
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Of appearances (Worthy of this board? You
be the judge) -- Liquidram, 08:53:57 06/06/01 Wed
"On another note: I don't get out much. Is there a controversy
over whether Angel or Spike is more babelicious? To concentrate
on that would be to miss out on the other qualities of the actors,
for example their acting ability (I won't state my opionion on
that, since you all probably know where I stand on that!)."
I haven't seen any discussions of this sort on this board which
was my point. I was looking for serious discussion of the series'
vs. a typical fan-type board. I totally agree with your last statement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Of appearances (Worthy of this board?
You be the judge) -- verdantheart, 06:35:47 06/07/01 Thu
And why I'm here too. Just joking, saying I don't get out much
(to other boards) and so am unaware of any raging controversies
of the "Would Kirk beat Picard in a fair fight?" variety.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Of appearances (Worthy of this board? You
be the judge) -- rowan, 16:46:58 06/06/01 Wed
I think the bedhead has been deliberate to soften Spike (and not
just to increase the babelicious factor, which has been a great
side benefit, BTW). Have you also noticed that Spike's English
accent changes depending on mood, and his tone has softened when
dealing with the SG.
Next season, look for clothing changes, IMO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Of appearances (Worthy of this board?
You be the judge) -- bess, 18:52:59 06/06/01 Wed
how true... spike's jibes have definately toned down - it's like
your average teenager, (chip on the shoulder in this case), joking
around with friends, rather than the caged-animal-with-only-nasty-words-for-bite
we saw after "the initiative".... him finishing Giles'
"we few, we happy few..." was precious, and in a strange
way rather revealing.
clothing changes ! gasp ! GAP sweaters ! perhaps a guest appearance
by the hawaiian shirt... hee hee ;)
Joss reveals all...or at least
some stuff that really gets you frustrated LOL -- Rob, 08:52:25
06/07/01 Thu
Here's a link to a GREAT Joss interview. You have to read it--it
has tons of cool tidbits, including how he came to write "Family"
and "The Body"
http://scifi.ign.com/tv/6845.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Joss reveals all...or at least some stuff that really
gets you frustrated LOL -- Dedalus, 18:21:13 06/07/01 Thu
Thanks for posting. That is a great interview. Sarah Kuhn over
at IGN is getting really good at that. And the reviews she writes
mimic pretty impressively the language/tone of the show.
I had no idea about Joss being in that Angel episode. LOL. Oh
man. That was good stuff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Dedalus! Do the "Dance of Shame!" ;o) --
Wisewoman, 18:33:35 06/07/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Are you ment to do the dance of shame for yourself
then?? -- Emcee003, 14:49:00 06/08/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Joss reveals all...or at least some stuff that
really gets you frustrated LOL -- Sam I Am, 01:21:04 06/08/01
Fri
Sorry but Sarah is a butt kisser to the 10th degree. Can't she
do an interview where she doesn't act like Glory's minions?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Joss reveals all...or at least some stuff
that really gets you frustrated LOL -- Dedalus, 09:28:29 06/08/01
Fri
Personally I would rather have a reviewer that is a fan. At least
they know what's going on. It's not like - "Oh, so in this
show - what's it called - Fluffy the Umpire Slayer? - I guess
there's this girl, and does she like kill umpires or something?
Aren't you guys on after Dawson's Tributary?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Joss reveals all...or at least some
stuff that really gets you frustrated LOL -- Sam I Am, 12:23:36
06/08/01 Fri
I agree with having a fan do the interview, but I want one who
doesn't slobber over the person. That's as bad as the non-fan
interview. Her interviews are pretty much for sheeple.
Coffee & Conversation -- Brian,
09:34:55 06/07/01 Thu
This is really a two part concept:
Who in the Buffyverse would you like to have a cup of coffee with,
and what kind would they be drinking?
I think Willow would be fun to converse with. She's funny, knows
lots of computer stuff, is easy on the eyes, and she has lots
of backbone. I imagine she likes strong coffee with lots of cream
and sugar.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- purplegrrl, 10:42:44 06/07/01
Thu
I think I'd like to have coffee with Giles. Although he might
like to have tea instead (hey, I'm flexible just so long as it's
not Tasters Choice - although I did like those commercials!).
We could discuss books and research. Possibly movies and wild
things we did when we were younger.
Maybe I'd invite Spike and/or Angel to join us - if they promised
to behave.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Liam, 10:44:57 06/07/01 Thu
I would like to talk to Giles, as he's very clever, and I feel
that there are a _lot_ of topics that we could talk about.
Secondly, I feel that he would be drinking tea. He would possibly
be drinking it with a little milk and no sugar, so as to get the
proper taste.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Mav, 11:55:45 06/07/01
Thu
Hmm, Being English, I'd love to have tea with Giles, Wesley and
spike, that could be really fun(Please note afternoon tea does
not exist!!!!) We could talk about England beating greece, why
were more understated than americans, how awfull it must be to
live in "the colonies" :)
Or Willow, that'yd be fun, Really sweet, no milk probably, and
it'd be a really wierd yet amusing conversation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Great thread! -- Rob, 12:40:51 06/07/01 Thu
Just had to let you know I love this thread. Very creative and
fun! My choice for coffee and conversation would have to be, without
a doubt, Anya. She has a great sense of humor, but doesn't realize
it, LOL, and I find her view of the world really refreshing. I'd
love to speak to her about patriotism, alternate dimensions...but
of course not bunnies! And if Buffy, Giles, Willow, Xander, Spike,
and Tara could drop by too, I wouldn't complain!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Little One, 13:00:13 06/07/01
Thu
I agree, this is a great question. Personally I would want to
have coffee with Spike, to buck up his spirits a bit after buffy's
demise. I'm sure he would be apt to retire to his crypt and become
a hermit in his grief and an outing could only do him good. Get
him out into the fresh air, surrounded by 'Happy Meals on legs'...it
would probably do wonders in perking him up. Not to mention I
think Spike on a caffeine high would be highly amusing.
I think Spike would drink Espresso. Why drink regular coffee when
you can get the hard stuff?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Rufus, 13:08:13 06/07/01 Thu
I don't drink coffee myself, so I'd have iced tea (summmer you
know). I have a laundry list of who I'd like to have a chat with.
I'll start with Giles, I'd give the man a scotch and get him to
loosen up a bit and get him to spill on those Ripper days, and
why the heck he hung out with that Ethan guy. I would like to
get him to tell me what the Watchers trained for, or if he got
his special skills when he was into his rebel phase. Then there
is Riley, I'm sorry but the temptation is to give him some milk
and cookies and tell him not to worry that there are lots of nice
girls out there for him. Wesley I think I'd give a pint to, the
idea of getting him to giggle like a girl would brighten my day.
Spike would definately be the cocoa with little marshmallows guy,
but I don't know if he will have stopped crying as of yet, he
may need a little anti-depressant as well. Anya and Xander would
be a nice couple to have coffee with, I see them as one of the
frothy concoction types. I could just sit back and watch them
argue about bleach, bunnies, and vengeance. Willow and Tara would
be the herbal tea sort. We could go over recipies(spells) and
figure out just how to get that ball of sunshine working. Dawn,
I'd have her over to eat cookie dough and talk about boys and
eventually drift into her loss of her mother and sister. Of course
I would be planning to have Doc over another time just to kill
him again and make sure the job was done right, how dare he cut
a sweet little girl.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Wisewoman, 18:36:45 06/07/01
Thu
Iced tea!? Rufus, I know where you live, and we haven't even had
SPRING yet, never mind Summer...LOL!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Rufus, 20:59:57
06/07/01 Thu
I like cold drinks and where I am it's been quite toasty, I get
the afternoon sun. I notice no one has commented on the fact that
I plan to murder at least one of my guests. That must mean that
it's okay........:):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I forgot the Host............. -- Rufus, 21:04:16
06/07/01 Thu
He could have any of the fussy drinks he wanted....he would be
a hoot. He could tell me what it's like to know someones destiny
and be unable to help them get there. Then he could explain the
animated head bit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Mishka, 13:15:51 06/07/01 Thu
That`s a toughy. Um...if I could only choose one person, hmmmm...lets
see....I`m an upfront, honest type of person. So I think I`ll
hang out with the girls. Anya and Cordelia. Both have a complete
lack of artifice. What they say is what they mean. It is refreshing
in a non-cutsey sort of way. (cutesy being what made me not invite
Tara or Willow) Maybe Spike too, for the same reasons. Plus, they
more than make up for lack of academic intelligence by their worldiness
and common sense. Anya, coffee, cream and sugar. Cordy cappuchino.
Spike, coffee with a bit of whiskey in the bottom. And it would
definately be late at night.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- SingedCat, 16:46:50 06/07/01
Thu
Hey, everybody stop taking Giles, he's supposed to be my choice,
the eclectic favorite that no one else is into!
(Not on *this* board, I guess..)
OK, Giles is out, we want coffee, not tea (Unless Giles wishes
to be tense, then he drinks that awful stuff in little strofoam
cups). If I wanted coffee I'd have it with Spike-- double espresso,
and be sure you get that black froth goin' on the top, mate; that's
the best part. I'd get him all hyped up on caffeine and flattery
and get him to tell me stories about the good old days when he
was a conscienceless bloodsucker.
Or better yet, Faith-- cappucino, almost no cinnamon, skip the
sugar, pretty boy, I'm sweet enough as it is, thanks. We'd sit
on the outside watching the people go by, making up stories about
them.
But I'd much rather have tea with Giles. I'd get him going on
the museums he's worked for-- does anybody else remember he's
a world authority on ancient relics?
Great idea, by the way! Was I the only one in high school who
fantasized about people I would love to have lunch with? (Hitchcock
was my first choice at the time-- crazy me..)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- bess, 13:44:50 06/07/01 Thu
spike, definitely... i think, secretly, he'd go for the fancy
stuff, the whole irish cream dairy-less creamer shebang. like
the onion flower, one of the finer things in life. it'd be interesting
to get the perspective of someone who lived through things like
the boxer rebellion and the reconstruction, y'know ? plus we could
argue over punk rock and make crude jokes. tons of fun.... ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Humanitas, 15:25:03 06/07/01
Thu
I would love to sit and talk with Spike about poetry and love
from a vampire's perspective. (I'm having visions of "necks
effulgent.") He would probably be drinking cocoa spiked with
whiskey.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Wisewoman, 18:31:11
06/07/01 Thu
Well, good gosh almighty, am I the only one who wants to have
coffee and a chat with Buffy?!?! (Or are we assuming she's not
into caffeinated beverages in her current non-living state?)
Seriously, were she still in a chattable state, I'd probably bore
her silly by trying to impress upon her the fact that she's still
so *young,* and that things will look so much different when she's
older, and she should lighten up and enjoy herself more, and everything
will work out and...well, you get my drift ;o)
And the coffee would be black and unsweetened, and Tim Horton's
rather than Starbuck's (okay, Canadian reference there). Doesn't
anyone else think Starbuck's smells like rotting fish?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation/with Buffy --
Aquitaine, 20:12:28 06/07/01 Thu
I'm glad I read all the posts before responding... Now, those
who know me might think that Spike would be my choice, hands down,
but given the chance I'd rather have a convo with Buffy. I understand
Spike. Buffy is an enigma as far as I'm concerned. She intrigues
me... I want to know more. The show is called Buffy the Vampire
Slayer and I wish I knew more about what was going on in her head
at times. The Season-5 blank-expression Buffy wasn't exactly a
wellspring of knowledge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation/with Buffy
-- Rufus, 21:02:01 06/07/01 Thu
I didn't say her because she is dead and I'm trying to get used
to the fact. I did offer to have Dawn over though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation
-- Bad!Aquitaine, 09:41:10 06/08/01 Fri
Dawn, huh, Rufus? You are such a comfortador:)
Well, I'd invite Wesley and Spike over at the drop of a hat, myself.
Except not for coffee and conversation would be strictly optional
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Optional Conversation...ROTGLMAO!
;-) -- Little One, 10:20:08 06/08/01 Fri
That was hilarious! Mmmmm....Spike....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation
-- Rufus, 15:23:01 06/08/01 Fri
My list just kept expanding......I think I shall have to hire
help just to fit everyone in and keep the drinks coming. And since
I don't want everyone there at the same time...(I could leave
Doc in the room alone with Giles and Spike though).....I think
a social secretary would have to set up some appointments. Dawn
deserves special attention cause she is young and has lost most
of her family in the past few months.
As for your "coffee", with Spike and Wesley hmmmmmmmm,
no talking, what ever else would you do then?????
You will note I failed to mention Angel in my wish list....I think
I could fit him in somewhere(I'm sorry I do insist he keep his
shirt on).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation
-- purplegrrl, 08:19:22 06/12/01 Tue
***You will note I failed to mention Angel in my wish list....I
think I could fit him in somewhere(I'm sorry I do insist he keep
his shirt on).***
Ah, Rufus, you're no fun. I guess Angel will just be getting imperfect
happies from you!! ;-) (just teasing)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Coffee
& Conversation -- Rufus, 16:51:45 06/12/01 Tue
You are just trying to get me a divorce aren't you......LOL.......Now
you have me thinking....exactly how do I explain the convention
of people and demons that I'm having over for tea? And, the little
matter of the dead body of Doc? Makes the shirtless Angel a little
less conspicuous. I do still insist on a no shirt no tea rule,
I blush easily and would get all uncomfortable with a half naked
guy in the house. I can however send any of the guests that arrive
in an uncloathed state over to yours...:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Coffee & Conversation -- purplegrrl, 09:50:27 06/13/01 Wed
***I can however send any of the guests that arrive in an unclothed
state over to yours***
Sounds like a plan - particularly the male guests. ("Tea"
may be the last thing on our minds!)
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I always have a plan........:):):) -- Rufus, 14:51:39 06/13/01
Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation/with
Buffy -- Nina, 12:38:20 06/08/01 Fri
Well I am a little late it seems Aquitaine. I wanted to have a
conversation with Buffy too for the exact same reason! (great
minds think alike?;)
I don't drink coffee or tea. I'd go for orange juice and Buffy
well if I get that conversation with her in whatever place she
is right now, I don't think she'd need anything to drink. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- rowan, 20:24:17 06/07/01 Thu
Tea with Giles, I think (very milky, like nursery tea) so that
we could discuss all the wonderful things he knows about ancient
times and places.
Also, cocoa with Spike (from scratch with real marshmellows, no
stuff from a packet), so that I could lure him into discussing
poetry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Rufus, 21:06:32 06/07/01
Thu
Oh god, give Spike a spiked drink then he will talk poetry for
hours...all about lost love.....sob....I still say give Giles
a scotch....get Giles, Wesley, and Spike together and you just
may have a party...throw in Ethan and they can have their own
scapegoat party.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- OnM, 21:48:45 06/07/01 Thu
Tea with Giles. I'm equally at home with either tea or coffee,
so orange herbal or Earl Grey would be OK down my way. BTW, Rufus,
I can drink iced tea any time of year. Have to watch the caffeine,
but otherwise love the stuff. Orange, lemon and mint are nice
variations.
Why Giles? Two main reasons:
1 > He's about my age. 2 > He has good taste in music.
Female character? Anne. Don't get a chance to talk to many normal
humans who went to hell and then got a life. She has a solidity
to her that I like, kind of where Cordy is getting to of late.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- AK-UK, 03:15:20 06/08/01
Fri
Call me a big soppy git, but I'd want to have a hot chocolate
with Joyce. She seemed like such a good person, and I never really
got to know her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Liquidram, 11:48:03
06/08/01 Fri
"Call me a big soppy git, but I'd want to have a hot chocolate
with Joyce. She seemed like such a good person, and I never really
got to know her."
I would add Dawn, Buffy (leaving her attitude at the door) and
Spike into this mix, along with tiny little marshmallows and see
how the chemistry plays out with them together in the same room.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- cuda8483, 07:52:48 06/08/01
Fri
Tequila shots with Faith. Just make sure that you have great health
insurance. And probably life insurance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Humanitas, 08:28:40
06/08/01 Fri
Those body shots? ;> (ack, OnM! Help! The Evil Clones are spreading!
They must feed on brains addled by summer re-runs!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Rufus, 15:29:00 06/08/01
Fri
OnM, I raise my glass of iced tea to you. I did have to laugh
at the thought of you having Dawn over to listen to boy bands,
eat cookie dough, and talk about boys. Caffeine would be the least
of your worries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> additional thoughts on coffee & conversation -- purplegrrl,
12:43:03 06/08/01 Fri
After reading all these posts (especially Rufus), I figured that
what we really need is someplace where we could all drink and
chat with all the characters (or as many as we pleased) either
singly or in groups. Someplace out of time and space where we
would have this great evolving, revolving conversation with everyone's
drink of choice. No one would get tired. Nor would alcohol or
caffiene have adverse affects on anyone. (And Aquitaine's idea
of no drinking and optional conversation would be discussed on
a strictly one-to-one basis between willing participants!)
I also thought that maybe we could just hang out with some of
the characters. Such as: * shoe shopping with Glory and Cordelia,
and maybe the Host * dancing with Wesley, Xander, and Angel *
Wicca convention with Willow and Tara * museum opening with Joyce
and Giles * clothes shopping with Darla and Drusilla (they'd have
to promise not to eat the clerks, or us) * baking cookies with
Dawn and Riley, and maybe Anya * tai chi lessons with Buffy and
Angel * bar hopping with Doyle * jamming with Oz and Lindsey
And then drag everyone over to Caritas for a big karaoke fun-fest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: additional thoughts on coffee & conversation --
Brian, 13:17:28 06/08/01 Fri
And end with a drive to Venice (we can use that RV)for a moonlight
stroll on the beach with Gerwin's Rhapsody in Blue on the radio,
and Spike can thrill us with some just-right poetry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Can we invite Joss, too? Then it would be perfect...
-- Wisewoman, 18:40:15 06/08/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: additional thoughts on coffee & conversation --
thisbe, 01:23:06 06/14/01 Thu
That list is great, purplegrrl! You really do inhabit the Buffyverse.
My mind races:
* drink warm saki and talk historical perspective with Angel *
get my hair cut with Spike * take that drive with Riley * ask
Willow if Feng shui is real * henna Tara's feet and talk about
her mom * eat Crispy Creams with Xander * get a facial and gossip
with Cordelia * make Giles blush
It's all fun. Oh yeah, and hug Josh for giving them to us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Coffee & Conversation -- Javoher, 17:25:23 06/08/01
Fri
Irish coffee with Wesley to pick his brain about demons, and cappuchinos
with Cordelia on Rodeo Drive to talk girl stuff. Then I'd like
to have milk and chocolate chip cookies with Fred (her stomach
might not be ready for stronger stuff yet). I like her, she probably
has a good brain on her. And some insight into survival.
Joyce Millman review of 'The Gift' -- Anthony8,
17:36:23 06/07/01 Thu
As a general point of interest, I would direct anyone to Joyce
Millman's Salon.com article reviewing this season's tv series
finales, including BtVS. The BtVS section reads like it would
have a comfortable place as a post on this board.
The article can be found at http://www.salon.com/ent/col/mill/2001/05/29/finales_2001/index4.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Joyce Millman review of 'The Gift' -- Dedalus, 18:17:51
06/07/01 Thu
That was a good review. Millman was one of the few critics to
praise the second half of season four.
Still, I have a bone to pick with Salon. I write freelance occasionally,
had a great idea for a Buffy article, queried Salon, they said
it was an excellent query and idea, but Millman is so territorial
about Buffy they don't let anyone else write about it. That is
a bit bogus. Buffy is a big topic, and you know ... essentially
all she writes is reviews. And only about Buffy like three times
a year.
Sigh. Feel my pain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I know the feeling... -- Anthony8, 18:25:36 06/07/01
Thu
Sometimes I feel like Spike on Thanksgiving, on the outside, watching
all the vampires having a communal meal in the comfort of their
crypts...
A really dumb question... -- Stupidwoman
(Evil Clone of Wisewoman), 19:18:02 06/07/01 Thu
Why is it called the "First Anniversary" party? What
is it the first anniversary of? Gee, maybe I should have figured
that out before I volunteered to do Anya...or maybe it just means
I'm the right person for the role!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Only a dumb question if you don't ask it -- Aquitaine,
20:05:10 06/07/01 Thu
It's the first anniversary of this message board:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A really dumb question... -- rowan, 20:06:07 06/07/01
Thu
This board is apparently one year old on 6/14. So it's a birthday
party! I suggested we do something special to celebrate, i.e.
do a special posting on each character.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> OMG!! I'd thought you guys had been doing this for
YEARS! -- Wisewoman, 20:24:15 06/07/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The ATPoBtVS Website itself is older, but the discussion
board is a year now, almost. -- OnM, 20:59:56 06/07/01 Thu
Question to Masq-- Do you have copies of the first day's posts?
Might be a hoot to see them if you do. And who was the very first
poster?
(No, it wasn't me! I lurked for quite a long, long time before
venturing to say anything, some of the posts were pretty intelligent
and I wasn't sure I could keep up. After a while, I figured, ah,
what the hell... Go for it! Other than abject humiliation, what
could go wrong?)
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The ATPoBtVS Website itself is older, but the
discussion board is a year now, almost. -- Cynthia, 04:27:25 06/08/01
Fri
My sentiments exactly about de-lurking. This board as definitely
made me realize that I haven't been reading nearly enough.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The ATPoBtVS Website itself is older, but the
discussion board is a year now, almost. -- Masquerade, 05:21:45
06/08/01 Fri
I can dig up a copy of the first post,*maybe* the first day. I
fly home to San Francisco where my hard drive is today. Nearly
all the posts between June 2000 and Oct 2000 are gone with the
cyberspace wind--eaten by InsideTheWeb.
The first "poster" was yours truly trying to get her
new board kicking by getting visitors to ATPoBtVS to talk about
the BIG topic of June 2000--What the heck does "Restless"
mean, anyway? (and if ANY of you start talking about that again
I'll... I'll... probably read it!)
ATPoBtVS started on Jan 1, 1999. So it took me a year and a half
to attach a posting board to it.
Damn, Alyson looked Hot! -- Jack_McCoy,
07:46:57 06/08/01 Fri
Did ya'll see the MTV movie awards last night? Man, Alyson looked
incredible. If they do decide to make her darker and more forcful
next year, I hope they start dressing her that way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Damn, Alyson looked Hot - Philosophically speaking,
of course! ;) -- OnM, 08:12:48 06/08/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Damn, Alyson looked Hot - Philosophically speaking,
of course! ;) -- Brian, 10:13:41 06/08/01 Fri
At least she didn't look like the rest of the hos that populated
that MTV event - or am I being too harsh - Naaah
I was shocked at just how crude and lewd nearly all the performers
were. And somewhere along the line humor got devolved to - Nope,
forget it, I'm just not going there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Damn, Alyson looked Hot - Philosophically
speaking, of course! ;) -- Sebastian, 11:12:28 06/08/01 Fri
She reminded me of VampWillow from "The Wish" and "Dopplegangland."
But she did look pretty cool on the Award Show. And yeah, Brian
- I agree the performances on the MTV Movie Awards were pretty
lame. With the exception of the "Lady Marmalade" performance.
It does seem as if they have been putting Willow in more edgier
type clothes. She dresses more experimentally than Buffy, Anya
or Tara. There's been a noticable transition in both S4 and S5.
In S4, her dress style was much more relaxed - jeans/baby-tees,
etc. This season her outifts have been pretty distinctive - but
very stylish.
An outfit in particular that comes to mind was in "Tough
Love" when she confronted Glory. The high heel boots, long
coat - it was all very fashionista. ;-)
But then again, all the females on the show seem to have a very
distinct dress style.
Sorry....its Friday and I have tons of free time to contemplate
the characters outfits. :-) I've been tempted to start a thread
on clothing and hairstyles of the characters and it seems to tie
into specific storylines.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Fashion and Philosophy -- Humanitas, 13:09:10
06/08/01 Fri
Ooo, please! There are a bunch of us who enjoy fashion and costumeing,
and such an analysi would be welcome!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Fashion and Philosophy -- fresne,
14:15:53 06/08/01 Fri
Seconding that motion. It would certainly be a different spin
on ye'old "Did you see what she was wearing" thread.
It could be the "Did you notice the philosophical implications
of what he/she/it was wearing" thread instead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Ah-ha! Proof that philosophically-inclined men
have discerning tastes -- Aquitaine, 11:12:58 06/08/01 Fri
Gives us, non-surgically- or silicone-enhanced women hope;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> D'uh! -- OnM, 22:06:26 06/08/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Such eloquence! ROFL! -- Aquitaine,
12:31:25 06/09/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Must . . . have . . . video captures!!! -- Rosenberg, 11:28:39
06/08/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Here you go:) -- Aquitaine, 12:02:52 06/08/01 Fri
Caroline posted these links on the BAPS message board...
*** Alyson Hannigan Stuff:
3 clips available from the MTV awards 2001 ...clips made by legend65
http://www.hanniganfans.co.uk/downloads/alyandalexis-2001MTVMovieAwards-2.avi
http://www.hanniganfans.co.uk/downloads/alyandalexis-2001MTVMovieAwards-1.avi
http://www.hanniganfans.co.uk/downloads/aly-2001MTVMovieAwards-1.avi
3 new video clips of out takes from Buffy The Vampire Slayer...
http://www.hanniganfans.co.uk/downloads/willow_by_mike.mpg
http://www.hanniganfans.co.uk/downloads/believe_by_unknown.mpg
http://www.hanniganfans.co.uk/downloads/Loose_it_by_mike.mpg***
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Damn, Alyson looked Hot! -- Lazarus, 18:28:31 06/09/01
Sat
I've got to agree with you, Jack... If you want an archive of
what has to be just about every Alyson shot in existence go here:
http://www.hannigan.com/main.htm
One of my absolute favoutites (aside from those FHM shots that
could melt the polar icecaps!) is this one:
http://www.hannigan.com/image_base/display.php3?name=images/posed/btvs_promos_cast/promo_aly008.jpg
I cropped it a bit and use it for my wallpaper at the moment...
;) What a beautiful face to have to stare at all day...
Where is Glory now? -- Virgill
Reality, 07:58:28 06/08/01 Fri
Sorry if this has been discussed before, but couldn't Glory have
just committed suicide in order to get back to her world?
It seems to me that everyone is taking for granted the fact that
because Giles killed Ben, Glory is now no more, but it has been
long established that any living creature that dies in the buffyverse
can only die in its form on the earth dimension. When something
dies, its body is left behind as an empty shell while its spirit
moves on to wherever its headed.
We never saw Glorificus in her purest form; what we did see was
a human manifestation which greatly weakened her power (comparatively).
My question is, now that Glory is assumedly in spirit, where will
she go? She is still a god, but does that mean she is capable
of being judged, and therefore has a specific designated hell
to be condemned to?
My mind goes back to what the knight was saying in Spiral, that
Glory was banished from her dimension only because the other two
hellgods battled against her and were only just able to overpower
her(I also find it interesting that where conventional metaphysics
would have it that any divine being who rebels agianst its order
is condemned to hell as punishment, Glory was condemned to this
dimension. Kinda makes you wonder about Angel's conversation with
Hollund Manners in the lift, doesn't it?).
What this means is that since no higher divine power in the thearchy
seemed to have intervened in Glory's perdition, should that be
the case now that her spirit is free to roam to a higher plane?
Or, being free from divine judgement because of her hellgod status,
will she be able to simply return to her dimension and attempt
to regain control?
I don't know about you, but this makes me wonder why she bothered
with the Key at all.
Virgill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Where is Glory now? -- spotjon, 09:01:02 06/08/01 Fri
Here's a recap of the conversation between Buffy and the captured
General, from the shooting script.
GREGOR (cont'd) What do you know of the Beast?
BUFFY Strong. Fast. Hellgod.
GREGOR From a dimension of unspeakable torment.
BUFFY A demon dimension, I know. There were two other Hellgods
that ruled with her, weren't there?
GREGOR Along with the Beast, they were a triumvirate of suffering
and despair, ruling with equal vengeance. But the power of the
Beast grew beyond even what they could conceive -- as did her
lust for pain and misery. They looked upon her, what she had become...
and trembled.
BUFFY A god afraid?
GREGOR Such was her power. They feared she would attempt to seize
the dimension for herself, and decided to strike first. A great
battle erupted. The very bowels of Hell trembled as the war of
the gods spanned a thousand years. In the end, they stood victorious
over the Beast - barely. She was cast out, banished to this "lower"
plane of existence, forced to live and ultimately die trapped
within the body of a mortal, a newborn male, created as her prison.
Her own living Hell.
BUFFY Wait -- male?
GREGOR That was her punishment. To finish an ageless existence
buried deep inside the flesh tomb of a normal average human man.
A man that would grow, age, and eventually die, like all the rest
of us. That is the Beast's only weakness.
BUFFY (getting it) Kill the man, and the god dies.
Assuming that Gregor was right-and I believe he was-whatever the
other two hellgods did to Glorificus was to ensure that she could
never come back. They didn't stuff her into a mortal's body with
the possibility of her being released once Ben was dead. When
Ben died, Glory died with him. Glory is not free, but gone, caput,
pushing up the daisies. I believe Joss said as much himself:
TVGO: Does Ben's death mean Glory is dead too? Whedon: Yeah, it
does (Joss, as told to M. Ausiello, tvguide.com, May 24, 2001).
One of the oddities of the Buffy/Angel universe is that so little
is known about the afterlife. Sure, we see zombies and vampires
and restless spirits haunting places, but we never actually see
what the afterlife is like. All of these creatures we see are
those who have failed to totally move on into the great beyond.
What do those such as Joyce experience upon death, aside from
the occasional resurrection spell? Is there a place where the
spirits of the dead go, either to pain or to bliss? We just don't
know. We don't know what Glory's hell was like, or who it was
for. We don't know for sure that is was designed for tormenting
the hapless souls of humans. Perhaps it was a place where demons
conquered other demons and tortured them. Giles mentions Glory's
dimension in Blood Ties:
GILES That might pose some difficulty. From what the Council has
been able to discover from the Book of Tarnis and other sources,
Glory and two of her fellow Hellgods ruled one of the particularly
nastier demon dimensions.
BUFFY There's more than one?
ANYA There are thousands of demon dimensions. All different.
GILES And all pushing at the edges of this reality, trying to
find a way in.
I think that we will find out a little more about the afterlife
when Buffy makes her way back to the living. I'm sure that the
spirits of the dead go somewhere in the Buffyverse, but we just
don't know where. I assume that Ben has moved on to wherever he's
going, but I get the distinct impression that Glory is as dead
as Ben's corpse right now. There is no afterlife for her, only
nothingness.
There is also the possibility of her being still in existence,
but at the mercy of an even higher power than herself. If you've
ever watched Xena, there's one character named Callisto who came
back from the dead a number of times, a few of them as a god (don't
ask me to explain, it's too stupid). Anyway, at the end of one
of the seasons, where Gabrielle dies for about the third time,
Callisto goads Xena into stabbing her with a knife covered in
the only blood that can kill a god. Callisto was tired of life,
and wanted to die, but she couldn't kill herself, being immortal
and all. Most mortals would go to Hades, but who knows where gods
go when they die? She assumed that it was into nothingness. Unfortunately,
she ends up in a place called "Hell"...
Callisto: "Don't bother. You've already done all the damage
you can to me. Thanks, by the way."
Xena: "For what?"
Callisto: "I wanted to cease existing, and you did your best
to help - but as you can see, it didn't take. They wouldn't let
me off the hook that easy."
Xena: "Who's 'they'?"
Callisto: "I don't know - whoever it is that does the final
judging. They sent me to a place that makes Tartarus look like
- the Elysian Fields. They call it Hell."
from the episode Ides of March
Perhaps Glory is now in a place far worse than she could ever
imagine, in torment at the hands of beings far greater than herself.
However, I don't think that we'll ever know where she ended up.
We can only hope it is a place that makes hell look like, well,
heaven.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Complete agreement -- Little One, 09:44:04 06/08/01
Fri
Those are all great points, spotjon. Exactly what I was thinking
(though you put it much better than I could have).
Thanks for the link to the shooting scripts as well. It looks
like a great resource to back up my fickle memory (as they say,
memory is the second thing to go....can't remember the first ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Complete agreement -- spotjon, 10:48:36
06/08/01 Fri
Thanks for the kind words. If you're interested in a detailed
look at the world of memory and record-keeping, I'd suggest seeing
the movie Memento, which I believe is still in theatres. It's
definitely a movie that will make you think really hard about
how good our memories really are.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Complete agreement -- Scout, 14:22:56
06/08/01 Fri
Yeah, I remember within the first 5 or so minutes, the character
played by Guy Pearce says in a voiceover, "You know who you
are and you kind of know all about yourself", but of course
he doesn't because of his injury. Boy, just the opposite of "you
don't know who you are, etc.", right?
My memories help me to define who I am. I would hate to discover
(e.g. in the Buffyverse) that they were false.
S6 Ideas Wanted -- Little One,
10:09:00 06/08/01 Fri
Wanda has posted (http://msn.eonline.com/Gossip/Wanda/Archive/010608.html)
that she is accepting story ideas for how to start the next season
of Buffy (among other programs) which she is then going to send
off to TPTB at the various networks. I'm sure many of us can come
up with some fabulous ideas and, though I'm certain Joss already
has the episode written, I know I would be gratified to know that
my ideas were being read and taken into consideration. Is anybody
interested in creating some answers to the preseason puzzler of
how to bring buffy back along with various other threads which
were left dangling? My suggestion is that we could post our suggestions
which would then be compiled into an episode to send to Wanda?
Who's with me?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: S6 Ideas Wanted -- Nina, 12:32:47 06/08/01 Fri
I have no idea what JW will do and even though I like to speculate
I surely hope to be wrong so I can be surprised!
Act one, if other seasons are any indicator, should deal with
the aftermath of Buffy's death. I don't know how it will be written
though. But somehow we should see how it affected each and everyone
of the SG. We'll get a glimpse of what the summer has been like.
Sorry that's all I'm coming up with. It's pretty basic and I'm
pretty sure that somehow we'll see it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: S6 Ideas Wanted -- vampire hunter D, 15:32:59 06/08/01
Fri
I've actually been working on a story for Buffy's return (I have
a very boring job that gives me lots of time to think about stufflike
this). Unforunately, one of the key elements of my story would
have been the introduction of a new Slayer. But Joss and some
other writers have already said that that's not a possibility,
so I guess I have to start over again (which sucks, since I already
had a specific girl in mind to be Buffy's replacement).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: S6 Ideas Wanted -- Sssaaammm, 11:16:40 06/09/01 Sat
Perhaps Doyle, as the new TPTB's chosen oracle (after the Angel
1:22 massacre of the originals), could send Buffy back in either
a "Zombied new look" or a "take back the day"
(as in "I will remember you"). TPTB's motivation for
sending Buffy back could also be elaborated on to give an insight
into why Angel was sent back in Season 3.
Should The Scoobs Keep Fighting..(Long)
-- The Godfather, 13:45:04 06/08/01 Fri
I've been thinking about this a lot lately and so I decided to
bring into the board who does more thinking than most computers..;)
At the end of season 2, Buffy ran away to Los Angeles. Heartbroken
and devastated, she gave up the game. In her absense, the gang
continued fighting the good fight. They made it into almost a
game that only kids could do. They were a group of HS seniors,
all around 17 years of age and they had cool nicknames. It was
fun even in the danger. And Buffy was still alive. And out there
somewhere. And they all believed that eventually she'd come home.
Eventually.
At the end of season 5, Buffy died. She decided to give up the
fight by winning the fight for innocence. She laid down her life
for her baby sister, the one tie to her heart who couldn't defend
herself. And Buffy was lost. Now what do the Scoobs do?
Times have changed. Things have changed. The Scoobs have changed.
They're not the same rag-time bunch of misfit kids and they've
really come a long long way.
Consider Xander. As of the beginning of third season, he was still
an innocent sheltered if not opinionated boy. He never really
understood what had happened that made Buffy run. He never really
grasped the Buffy/Angel thing. He was in a playful if not combative
but not terribly sexual relationship. They kissed and made out
and made each other pissed..it was a HS romance in the truest
form. Times have changed. He's still opinionated by he's much
more experienced in so many things. He's taken a long trip, worked
a series of jobs and finally found the one that worked for him.
And damn but he's good at it. Real good and he's proud of his
work. And Xand has fallen in love with someone who's not so different
from Angel..Xander has his whole life in front of him...
Let's look at Wills. At the end of season two she was still mostly
a nerdy hacker. She has JUST started dabbling with magic. She
was dating Oz who was the first love of her life. She had an overly
romanticized view of B/A and she really was little more than Buffy's
absoloute side-kick. Things have changed. Willow is something
of a master at magic..in a very frightening manner. She may have
even surpassed her teachers. She has moved succesfully on in the
love department and may have even found her true love. Willow's
got her own life now..she's in school and about to start her junior
year..yes the magic keeps her in Buffy's world but she has her
own life stretched before her also..
And Giles..at the end of season two he was Buffy's absoloute protector
and guardian. He took the harsh lumps she laid out for him emotionally
in stride but her loss that summer took a heavy toll on her. In
fourth season he seemed to realize that he has lost his place
with her and thus in the beginning of 5th was planning on returning
to his home. Buffy convinced him to stay. It was in this season
that their relationship grew to it's deepest depths(yikes). Could
he really stay in the city that took his daughter from him?
These are the core players. There are also of course Spike and
Dawn. Dawn will have to be guardianed by someone...and Spike..there's
simply too much up in the air to make any really good guesses(at
least from my perspective) about what he would do.
So Buffy died. Lonely and lost. Still reeling from the loss of
her mother. She has decided that if Dawn died, her time was done.
She would give up the fight. But could she have? Xander told Anya
in a line cut from the script that everyhing heroic he has ever
done has been because he learned it from Buffy..I thought that
was very telling and poignant. Just the same, she still died.
Age 20. Dead without goodbye. The VO at the end wasn't real..or
maybe she had left a letter behind for them..I don't know..
I guess what I'm wondering is if you guys really think they would
keep up the fight. For today, tommorow, a week or a month. I know
if it were me, cowardly though I'd be, I'd want more in my life
than to die at 20 years old. Her friends don't have to do this
anymore..they don't have the real weapons to do it effieciently
and they don't have a leader..why would the continue putting themselves
in the line of a fire? As a tribute to their fallen leader? I
can see that but how long until they have to realize that sadly
horribly, she's still dead and the world does go on..
What do you guys thing..
Sorry for rambling..
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: "Yes with an if/No with a but...." -- mundusmundi,
14:44:44 06/08/01 Fri
Great post, very reflective of some of my own thoughts ping-ponging
around in my subconscious somewhere.
You touched on an issue that I think will be paramount early next
season: potential disunity. Yes, we've seen this before, in B4,
with the college stuff pulling apart the SG and then seeing them
slowly brought back together. I don't mean disunity in that sense;
emotionally, B's death will likely bring them closer. I mean it
in the sense of them growing older and moving on to other things,
what with the glue (i.e., Buffy) now gone. Assuming none of the
SG watch the WB or read Entertainment Weekly, in their minds,
her death is permanent. It would be understandable if they no
longer wanted to "fight the good fight."
On the other hand, a Slayerless Sunnydale is a frightening notion.
We may see B6 open with Vamps, Inc. ruling the roost, forcing
the SG to take action. We may also see varying reactions from
the core group -- Xander out of the game and Willow still in it,
or vice versa. As we've often seen in the Buffyverse, if you refuse
to take up the fight, the fight often comes to you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> "The hardest thing to do in this world is to live in
it......." -- Rufus, 15:04:00 06/08/01 Fri
Despite the fact that Buffy died, The Gift reenforced the value
and joy of life. When Buffy killed the vampire in the beginning
of the show she was clearly burnt out by her obligations and was
questioning the value of her "work". On the platform
with Dawn, trying to decide what to do Buffy had her Epiphany,
she figured out why her "work" was so valuable. Dawn
is the flesh and bone representation of life, life that is worth
living and preserving. When you battle monsters every day you
begin to see the world as only containing monsters. Dawn is the
embodiment of the humanity that Buffy has strived to protect but
became disconnected from as a result of her work slaying, killing,
destroying. Because of Buffy, Dawn valued the world enough to
die to protect it. Because of Dawn, Buffy saw the value of life
and her work. To have killed Dawn would have destroyed Buffy,
to sacrifice herself for the chance of the best part of her, Dawn,
to live gave Buffy peace. She understood her gift of death was
for the best part of her, Dawn, humanity, to live.
Buffy: "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."
I think that the gang will continue as they are all each other
has. The monsters won't go away because Buffy is dead, the gang
knows that. But they also will have to live in this world where
they have to go to school, work, live. It will be interesting
to see if they do drift apart as a result of their grief. But
they are first, family and if they do drift they will find their
way back to each other. The Slayer may be gone but the battle
with evil will continue as always.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: "The hardest thing to do in this world is
to live in it......." -- The Godfather, 15:13:13 06/08/01
Fri
But will they see that they have paid enough for being on the
front line and decide maybe it's both the time and their right
to step back and away from every day duty..to maybe go to reserve
status?
-Shawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: "The hardest thing to do in this world
is to live in it......." -- Rufus, 15:26:44 06/08/01 Fri
Sometimes there is no choice as to how long your service will
be. If the monster activity increases so would their feeling of
obligation. Remember, they are family who will someday have little
ones of their own, they would feel the need to make the world
a safer place for their future families. They have put in their
time at the front lines but they also know that they may be the
only ones that understand the nature of the threat in Sunnydale.
Life isn't always fair.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: "The hardest thing to do in this
world is to live in it......." -- The Godfather, 15:38:24
06/08/01 Fri
Obligation gets you dead and burnt out..I am obligated to keep
working because I pay a huge rent but enjoy my peace and quiet
but I am restless and dissatisfied with the work so it's likely
that I make a few careless errors. My point is that it's not their
burden and eventually they will realize that. They are still 20
year old kids..who could blame them if they wanted to step away
and try an ordinary life?
-Shawn AIM?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> WILLOW AND SPIKE -- cknight, 17:41:13
06/08/01 Fri
I think the new season will begin with Willow and Spike leading
the charge, while Giles prepares to return home to England. I
think in a twist he will actually leave before Buffy returns.
Spike will be watching over Dawn and doing most of the slaying
to prove his continuing love for Buffy. Xander will spend a lot
of time worrying just how far Willow has gone into the Dark Arts.
He's going to try and Giles to help but Giles wants out of Sunnydale
and will just leave. prehaps trying to take dawn with him. I think
Giles is the only one Spike would allow Dawn to leave with. Spike,
I think feels after himself Giles has the knowledge and forsight
to truly watch over Dawn. YES...the SG are all growing up but
they're still in the early twenties and are not ready to rise
a child.
Some of you may say hey Willow and Tara could watch her... But
I feel that Willow by mid-season will be the big bad this season.
She's been calling on Dark Magic for a while now and you all know
there's going to be a price to pay.
In the Middle of all this Buffy will be reborn.
If I'm right I hope someone buys me pint at the pub.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> The speech at the end was real --
SingedCat, 19:39:31 06/08/01 Fri
This may enhance your enjoyment of the episode, Shawn--
Someone else may have fielded this, but the speech Buffy makes
at the end is real-- they played it out of place for effect. She
looks at the situation and decides to jump, Dawn tries to stop
her, Buffy refuses--then there is a scene of Buffy talking to
her sister-- you can't hear what she's saying. Then she turns
and jumps-- and as she's dying, you're hearing what she said to
Dawn.
She didn't die lost, Shawn. She figured it out. It was a resolution--
an act of love and hope, not despair. She resolved her life and
her destiny and her love all in one swell foop, and she knew it
would hurt the ones who loved her, but she had to do it-- the
way some of us have to live our own lives even if it hurts.
IMHO,
SingedCat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Should The Scoobs Keep Fighting..(Long) -- Wisewoman,
18:26:00 06/08/01 Fri
*Should* the Scoobs keep fighting? I would say yes. What better
role model could they have than their fallen friend? It may have
seemed like a game to them back when Buffy disappeared for a while,
but it's deadly serious now, and they all know that. Yes, with
the passing of time and their increased maturity they, perhaps,
have more to lose now, but surely that makes championing life
all that more crucial?
During The Wish (S3) we got to see what life in Sunnydale would
have been like had Buffy never arrived. Xander and Willow were
vamped, and Giles and Oz (hmmmm, how did that happen?) led a gang
of fearless vampire hunters. They did the best the could, but
we could see that ultimately they would fail without Buffy. Now
Oz is gone, but we have Spike, Anya, Tara, and Dawn instead--and
Willow and Xander are not vamped and are much stronger in their
own ways than they were back then. And they've had 2 more years
of supporting Buffy through various battles to train and season
them.
That's my $0.02 (Canadian) worth (which I think is actually a
negative amount in American money!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Should The Scoobs Keep Fighting..(Long) -- Wiccagrrl,
18:42:30 06/08/01 Fri
I don't see this as so much a "should" as "what
will they feel compelled to do". Everyone reacts to loss
differently. And it's going to be a combination of the reaction
to Buffy's death and their feelings about fighting the good fight
that are going to determine this. I think the three remaining
core Scoobs are gonna have very different reactions.
I actually see Giles as being the first one to say "The hell
with this" and decide the price is too high, and that it
is just too painful to stay in Sunnydale and continue fighting
the good fight now that Buffy's gone. I think it's likely he'll
go back to England for a while. If he stays, it'll be out of concern
for the others.
As for Willow, I think she's the most likely to continue fighting
the fight because she feels it's the right thing to do- that she
can make a true difference. Might be naive on her part, but that's
my take on how she'll react. It might be a little about Buffy,
but not in large part.
Xander, on the other hand, if he continues to slay/patrol will
be all about Buffy. He's always been led by his heart when it
comes to the slayer. He truly is the heart of the group. And I
think this could be a real tension spot between him and his oh-so-practical
fiance, who would probably going to be very concerned- feeling
it's dangerous and pointless, especially without Buffy. And while
that's probably true, I doubt that'd sit well with a heartbroken
Xander.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The need to fight the good fight -- Brian, 19:33:28
06/08/01 Fri
How you going to keep them down on the farm after they've seen
Pa-ree? When you look into the Abyss, the Abyss looks back. Knowing
that there are things that really do go bump in the night will
make the Scoobies continue the fight. It will be hard. There will
be sacrifices, and pain, external and internal, will be with them
constantly. But a life without the battle to do good would destroy
them. Over the last five years they have lost their innocence,
their naivete, but they have gained invaluable knowledge of the
mystery and wonders of the nether world. They can not turn their
backs on Sunnydale. They can not ignore the battle. They have
taken up the Slayer's cause. There is no returning to an uninformed
status quo; there is only the joy of battle and sudden death (or
worse). You have to imagine them as embattled Sampsons. A smile
on their lips, and a song in their hearts, as the walls come crashing
down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Should The Scoobs Keep Fighting..(Long) -- Trelane,
20:02:56 06/08/01 Fri
if you need an answer look no further than Gunn---he's never met
a slayer, never been around one, and doesn't need one to fight
the good fight. He and his crew and have been doing it pretty
well by their selves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Good post, Shawn. Not a ramble, well thought out. -- OnM,
22:18:49 06/08/01 Fri
Pretty tired now, so I won't comment, have to gather my thoughts
first. Very thought-provoking, though.
Good to see you here again!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Should The Scoobs Keep Fighting..(Long) -- change, 04:30:27
06/09/01 Sat
I know I should come up with some sort of deeply philosophical
reason why the SG should or should not continue the fight, but
that's not how my mind works. I'm too much of a pragmatist. I
should probably find a "Everything Pragmatic about BtVS".
Anyway, my pragmatic mind says that the SG has had to stop 6 world
ending apocolypses in the last 5 years. All six times, they were
they only ones there to stop it. The SG has to assume that a seventh
one will be on the way next year, and if they aren't there to
fight it, everyone will die, become food for some uber vampire,
or some other horrible thing. For the SG, their choices are: Fight
the forces of darkness and possibly die at the sweet young age
of 20, or don't fight the forces of darkness and die at the sweet
young age 21. Not much of a choice really.
So, they are doomed to carry on the fight until they die. Kinda
depressing isn't it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Should The Scoobs Keep Fighting..(Long) -- Rufus,
13:51:03 06/09/01 Sat
It's a case of once your eyes are open, it's rather hard to close
them again. This is the town that these people the SG live in
and how could they look in the newspaper and see vague death reports,
knowing what they really are, and not do something?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> *Will* The Scoobs Keep Fighting-- -- SingedCat,
14:09:05 06/09/01 Sat
I guess it really depends on whether they were doing it because
they thought it was a good thing to do, or more because the were
Buffy's friends.
I just can't believe it was all about Buffy. Maybe that's why
they started, but it's not why they've continued. As I recall
even our relatively uninvolved Cordelia couldn't pass up her chance
to make a difference, even after moving out of Sunnydale.
Remember when Willow was choosing colleges, and she said to Buffy
she wanted to stay in Sunnydale? She said she had the grades to
go anywhere, be anything, and this is what she wanted to do--
fighting evil was what she wanted to do, free choice.
Now before this year they might not have been able to continue,
but now Willow is a powerful witch, even more so with Tara, and
they've all worked together for years.
Now it's true Joss said the theme this coming year will be "Oh,
grow up!" That is to say, the gang will be entering into
adulthood, dealing with more adult problems than schoolwork. Xander
and Anya will probably buy a house, Willow and Tara will move
off-campus, Spike-- well, who knows, maybe he'll get a night job
as a bouncer at the Bronze. (He can throw out anyone who's not
human.;-)--they sure seem to need that..) So maybe in fact there
will be a tension that way, as to whether they can or want to
continue. But it seems to me the slayage aspect isn't just a kid
secret-- it's deadly earnest, a public service, if you like.
But if I may take the logic from the other end of the leap-- at
the end of the day, there's at least 2 more seasons. They're *going*
to continue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Should The Scoobs Keep Fighting..(Long) -- Anthony8,
19:37:25 06/10/01 Sun
All along, BtVS has been a metaphor for the various stages of
our lives. JW has said as much in the interviews that supplement
the commercially available VHS tapes to date. In fact, at first,
the show employed vampire slaying as a metaphor for fighting all
the psychological (and physical) battles while trying to survive
high school. Cliques, new friends, past mistakes, first loves,
and all the geeky, painful awkwardness of getting by during post-adolescence
were examined and confronted with each new episode in the first
three seasons. The Slayer, the forces of evil, The Powers That
Be, and all the various friends and acquaintances that came and
went were projections of similar internal and external forces
we encounter in our own lives. After all the Hero's Journey is
really our own. The myth is supposed to resonate in our own lives
and prompt us to take action rather than be spectators. It teaches
us that while life is harsh, we have a choice to jump in head
first and revel in the whole experience or hide. Either way, our
destination is the same, the wormheap, and ultimately unimportant
if we were asleep during the journey. As John Lennon once sang,
"last night the wife said, 'oh boy when your dead, you don't
take nothing with you but your soul'--think!"
As for whether they should continue The Fight, the answer is obvious.
They have no choice because The Fight is as integrated into their
lives as it was in Buffy's. It is their normality. Everything
they've done in the past five years has made them who they are
today, and any retreat into the world of the mundane would be
temporary at best. Even were they to give up The Fight, at one
point or another, one or more aspects of their past would come
back to haunt them in the form of old enemies. No matter what
we do in life, we never really get a clean slate.
One of the big lessons of Season 5 ('The Body') was that mortality
is random and senseless. It can happen to anyone at any age with
or without warning and without any aid from supernatural forces.
My circle of friends in college had our first real brush with
mortality when, during our sophomore year, one of our group died
as the result of any extremely stupid accident. Up until that
time, none of us, all under the age of 20, ever much thought of
our own mortality. And yet there it was. To this day, news of
the death, the funeral and the following academic year all seem
like a strange dream. However, once you've lost your innocence
you never quite view the world in the same way. You can live a
life of denial or you can press on and use any lessons learned
to fortify your personal arsenal so that you are better equipped
to face the many battles life has in store for you, however long
that may be. There really is no such thing as blissful ignorance.
A hero's journey is never easy. Remember, Buffy is not the only
hero in the SG. Each member of the SG is on their own personal
journey. Theirs is not a curse or a burden to carry. If they embrace
their roles in The Fight, as we should ours, then its The Fight
itself where the joy is experienced, not whether they (we) win
or lose in the end. They've already won by joining in the battle.
Did that make any sense, or was it a babble? If a babble, maybe
someone who gets the gist of what I'm saying could clarify for
me.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
... should be interesting ...(spoilers for The Gift) -- John Burwood,
09:18:34 06/09/01 Sat
... said Doc as Buffy approached. He had expected Glory to approach
after killing Buffy. He had prepared the portal for Glory to dive
and split in two - Glory passing through to the hellfires of home,
leaving her mortal meat sack (Ben) behind, and dead as far as
Doc knew. But Buffy jumped instead. Did it split her, Replacement
style, sending Slayer-Buffy through and leaving the mortal meat-sack
(Buffy-Buffy) behind and dead? If Buffy's souland mind went through
into hell with the SLAYER it would counterpoint Angel being sent
to hell in B2 (very Joss-like) and provide an opening for a Buffyish
character to return just as Angel did. Does this make sense? Any
comments, suggestions, brickbats?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: ... should be interesting ...(spoilers for The Gift)
-- cjc36, 09:29:55 06/09/01 Sat
I'm thinking--though Joss has denied it--that the Portal has something
to do with her rebirth. What you said is as good a theory as any
I've come across.
I'm wondering if he'll fake us all out and come up with something
so off the wall we'll talk about it till the Christmas break (assuming
B is back by the 2part UPN premere)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: ... should be interesting ...(spoilers for The
Gift) -- Dedalus, 17:55:39 06/10/01 Sun
Well, that is a good theory. One of the problems is, we have no
idea what happens to a soul once the body dies. We have Hell,
but hell as an alternate dimension, not as a place you go to after
you die. I was thinking about what Angel said, "The vampire
gets your body, but it doesn't get your soul. That's gone."
But where? I can see Buffy making it to The Powers That Be versions
of Vahalla or something, but I have no idea how it will come out
in the end. We have ghosts and spirits in the Buffyverse, but
I doubt there is any fixed afterlife. Dimensions make things more
interesting ...
I like that thinking though.
New Good Guy -- ALLFORBUFFY, 16:05:01
06/08/01 Fri
After Giles leaves the rest of the gang gets a visit from a ex-watcher
giles knows. Along with him is his protege who himself helps the
gang find a way to bring buffy back. This guy is a necromancer:
in short terms he has powers to raise the dead but that are close
to buffy/willow combination but not as powerful. With combination
of his magic and dawns special connection with buffy they bring
her back. Also in this episode they have to fight a couple of
demons who don't want to see the slayers return. Near the end
of the episode they are all fighting in and near the magic shop
to perform this life giving magic while hold off those demons
and then buffy, spike, and the necromancer finishes them. After
all that buffy is back and should return almost to normal? or
should it?
James Marsters Interview -- Cynthia,
20:13:21 06/08/01 Fri
Found something I thought you all might enjoy.
James Marsters did a short interview at the Univ. of Adelaide
in Australia yesterday (well their's anyway. I always get confused
with time zones).
It's at www.adelaide.edu.au/5UV/buffy/
Note, he's speaking with his own accent, not Spike's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Spike bites... -- Wisewoman, 22:25:21 06/08/01 Fri
...*sound* bites, that is. For all you Spike groupies...do you
know you can download audio files of Spike's most memorable lines
at www.spikespotting.com ? Just thought I'd mention it.
Classic Movie of the Week - June
8th 2001 -- OnM, 21:55:15 06/08/01 Fri
*******
"Uhmmm, you've got kind of a dark side, don't you?"
"No darker than yours, Bruce."
*******
"Meow."
*******
One of the general guidelines that I set for myself when I first
started doing this column was to try to avoid the obvious. This
isn't always easy to do.
Just what makes a movie a 'classic' in the first place? Is it
a timeless theme, or great writing, or talented actors? Is the
cinematography striking, beautiful or audacious? Some conbination
of the above, is what I would suspect that most moviegoers would
venture, and they are right of course-- those are the obvious
choices for a given work rising to classic status. What I personally
look for, though, is something more than that, especially in the
cinema of today.
From a technical standpoint, modern moviemaking has never been
better. Compared to what our forefathers and foremothers worked
with just a half-century ago, we have far, far better film, cameras,
lights, processing technologies, editing machines, sound equipment,
and on and on. Actors have a whole century's worth of talented
predecessors whose work can be carefully studied, and so utilized
to finely hone their own more contemporary craft.
We even have computer technology, the use of which could (possibly)
present us with 'virtual actors', maybe in the not too distant
future. Even if things never go that far-- after all, just because
you could, doesn't mean you should-- all one has to do is watch
a flick like *The Matrix* or *The Cell*, or even *The Legend of
Sleepy Hollow* to see that cyber-cinema has changed what we expect
from the film-going experience.
When I was in my late teens, and working at the food service at
a local college, one of the perks that made up for the lousy pay,
(besides the free food, that is ;) was the luxury of being able
to hang out with talented and intelligent people. I'd learn cool
things from just talking to them, just like I hang out and learn
here, at this board, now. I have always had a fascination with
photography, and an interest in trying it for myself. Since there
were several guys who frequented our dining halls and coffee shop
who were serious amateurs and/or semi-pros, I started showing
them some snaps I had taken with my mother's old Polaroid. I was
somewhat surprised in a rather pleasant fashion when they suggested
I had some possible talent, and urged me to get a better camera,
and see what I could do.
So started about a ten year hobby interest that I derived a great
deal of enjoyment from. I did mostly black & white film, since
I could develop and print it myself, which was even more fun than
taking the shots! I bought books, some on technique, many more
the works of the greats who had gone before-- Ansel Adams, Margaret
Bourke-White, Ernst Haas, lots of others, old and new. I collected
darkroom equipment and supplies. I pretty much had one hell of
a good time.
Time marches on, and the drummer starts wishing for different
tunes. I got involved in working a lot of long hours-- house,
car to pay for, all that annoying stuff. The photography toy kind
of got pushed into the background, finally settling onto an increasingly
dusty shelf with my other hobby interests. It did leave me with
one still-active aspect of its former presence, though-- I had
learned how to 'see' things. See them, that is, in a way most
people didn't. I saw light, shadow and color, form and texture,
movement and stillness as more than a surface. Looking at the
world through a lens made me aware of layers to reality.
Then I discovered movies. Oh, I had always watched them, ever
since early childhood, mostly on TV to be sure. My folks weren't
big-time movie-goers, although we had a cornucopia of wonderful
old-timey downtown theaters in my hometown. (Torn down for the
sake of 'progress' right around my pre-teen years, replaced by
'modern' concrete ugliness, parking lots and the occasional prosaic
suburban muliplex). My interest grew because of a progression
that started with this show on PBS called 'At The Movies', hosted
by these two dudes from Chicago. An interesting idea, not one
movie critic, but two. They'd review 3 or 4 current box-office
releases, sometimes they'd agree, sometimes not. They eventually
distilled their thoughts into a thumbs up/thumbs down evaluation
of merit, but the discussions beforehand had a quality I hadn't
witnessed before in movie-review land-- they were intelligent,
and passionate. These guys didn't just do a 'Consumer Reports'-ish
good/bad pass/fail schtick, they acted like they were discussing
*art*. They began to introduce me to a 'Language of Cinema'. I
started actually going out to movie theaters. I started collecting
videotapes of movies from pay-cable services. I hung out with
my friends (all 2 or 3 of them) and we talked for hours about
Bergman's 'Scenes from a Marriage', Allen's 'Sleeper', Kubrick's
'2001'.
Then my friends moved out of town-- like, several hundred miles
out of town!-- and PBS dumped 'At the Movies', and I also started
working long ridiculous hours for a long long time-- again. Back
to watching flicks on pay cable again, pretty much until the late
80's, early 90's, when two things came together again. Gene Siskel
and Roger Ebert came back on the air in my locale, and they were
not only doing there same-ol' way cool thang, they were excitedly
talking up this thing called 'Laserdisc', and how much better
it was than crappy old lo-fi VHS tapes. They were talking about
movies being originally made in widescreen format, and how traditionally
they were visually butchered to force-fit onto our very squarish
TV screens.
Hummm, thought I. This bears investigating. And so I did, and
then suddenly there was this thing being called 'home theater'
that was showing up at the electronic trade shows. Surround sound,
big screens, scan converters, data-grade video projectors, all
sourced with the pristine visual quality and digital soundtracks
of laserdisc. I came, I saw, I listened. And there it was-- light,
shadow and color, form and texture, movement and stillness as
more than a surface. Again. It was like going home to those glory
days when I rambled the locality with camera in hand, seeing.
So you see, I have no real formal educational background in the
study or appreciation of cinema. Things just sort of happened,
as they sometime do. If you are reading this, and are thinking
that 'This is all very interesting, and I even kinda like it,
but I have *no* idea just *what the hell he's talking about*',
this is OK. It isn't a requirement. It took me literally decades
of learning by osmosis to get where I am now, which is still pretty
ignorant compared to the people who really know this art. I don't
worry about it, I just enjoy, and so should you. That's what it's
all about.
Which brings us to this week's Classic Movie, which is a good
example of how to learn by paying attention to the works of 'The
Masters', since while he's still pretty young, I certainly consider
him to be a master at his craft. Even when his work has flaws,
as this film surely does, those flaws still leave you with a better
experience than a 'perfect' but far lesser attempt at originality.
Comic books have been the inspiration for quite a few films in
the past several years. Translating the 2 dimensional, 'still-frame'
art of the graphic novel to the 24 frame/sec motion picture medium
while still retaining the intent of the original is a challenge
of the first order, and quite frankly, it often fails miserably.
As you know, our beloved JW is doing the reverse at the moment,
taking the movie-mode Buffyverse and reforming it in pen and ink.
Early reports are that he is doing pretty well so far. Joss has
stated his love for the comics on many an occasion, and he has
a lot of creative kinsmen in the entertainment community who have
made their obsession into reality, movie wise. One of those kinsmen,
and an auteur of similar brilliance to our Joss, is the eminently
original Mr. Tim Burton-- and among other things, Mr. Burton has
a thing for Batman.
Tim made two Batman films, the first very good, the second one
better. That film, *Batman Returns*, is both a traditional honoring
of the Batman legacy, and a new twist that changes the conventions
of comics as movies. It's visually/stylistically brilliant, and
the story-- another visit to the theme of the inherent duality
that exists in us all-- is layered on top of a statement on the
nature of gender roles, and of the duality of good and evil in
society as a whole.
Normally, one expects that a film about Batman will primarily
involve, well, Batman. Burton cheerfully turns this convention
on it's head, and uses the Batman character (played here by Michael
Keaton) as a mirror to reflect the other major players in the
film, who actually are what the story is about. One, the evil
Penguin (Danny DeVito in some of the freakiest makeup in the entire
Burton oeuvre), is a case study in monster from the id, while
the other, Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer), could be what a monster
of the superego might look like if there is such a thing.
DeVito and Peiffer pretty much steal the show here, and Burton
seems to want it that way. Both villians are intelligent, a prerequisite
for an involving story. The supposed plot-- the efforts of Penguin,
Catwoman and 'the odious' Max Schreck (Christopher Walken), Gotham
City's criminal entrepreneur par excellance, all attempt to do
in the caped crusader-- is pretty thin, but the plot isn't the
point. We pretty much know that Batman will eventually defeat
Max and the Penguin.
Catwoman, on the other hand, or maybe paw, is another matter entirely.
She didn't start life as a criminal, in fact she was the victim
of attempted murder. She mostly wants revenge against Max Schreck,
the responsible party in pushing her more 'normal' alter ego,
Selena Kyle, out of a rather high office window. Her subsequent
transformation into the Catwoman persona allows her the freedom
to tap into her darker side, and the rage boiling away there.
(Leading to that immortal line, "Life's a bitch, now so am
I!") Batman turns into both a desire for passion and a passionate
reminder of her duality when he reveals his own to her in a number
of gradual steps as the movie progresses. In the end, we are left
with ambiguity, though resolution is suggested at-- perhaps in
the sequel that has yet to appear?
The sequels that *did* appear were not directed by Burton, and
if ever there was a contrast in how to make a comic charcacter
come to life-- and how emphatically *not* to do it-- feel free
to study aas much as you wish. I've seen *Batman Returns* about
7 or 8 times by now, it's still a classic, painted by a master,
and I still manage to see and feel new things with it. I was barely
able to even sit through the sound and fury, but signifying nothing,
sequels even once. Max dreck, methinks.
Such is not the case, nor is it ever, when Burton visits Gotham.
It's probably been a while since you've seen a good catfight.
Now's your chance.
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technical erotica:
*Batman Returns* is available on DVD. The film was released in
1992, running time is 2 hours and 6 minutes. The original theatrical
aspect ratio is 1.85:1, and is presented as such on the DVD. Sound
is Dolby Digital 5.1. The musical score is by regular Burton right-hand
man Danny Elfman, and is his typically intense atmospheric/dynamic
work. (The score plays throughout nearly the entire film). The
screenplay is by Daniel Waters. Production designer is Bo Welch,
and director of photography is Stefan Czapsky. Additional acting
talent includes Michael Gough, Pat Hingle and Michael Murphy.
*******
OK, went on a little long this week, but s**t happens! I did want
to take the time to point out that I'm *not* an expert on this
stuff, I'm just a passionate amateur, and provide a little backstory
on how I got that way. I'm hoping this admission will give perspective
to all those of you who sometimes don't 'get it'. This is cool...
I aim to entertain first, educate maybe second or third. Mostly,
I educate myself by writing this column, and taking you all along
for the ride while I do it.
Speaking of which, I am simply overwhelmed by your many positive
thoughts about what I do here. I am taking into consideration
some of your suggestions, and I'm already conjuring up some hopefully
interesting material to keep you occupied cinema-wise throughout
the summer months. Next week, I'm planning a really bizarre little
turn-- I'm going to *not* recommend a really bad, soul-less movie,
and use it to point you to one of my favorite DVD releases of
the past year instead.
Stay tuned-- and Thanks Again!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 8th 2001 -- Rufus,
22:08:35 06/08/01 Fri
I've actually seen this one.....can't believe I remember it...of
course with that bitch line who could forget it. When you said
you were chosing this movie with Aquitaine and I, I thought, hmmmmmmm
Oh dear lord he is going to pick something like "Dead Ringers".
But you picked a nice dark movie with cats in it. I find it interesting
you picture the superego as the Catwoman. Our fixation with cats
must be doing something to your mind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 8th 2001 -- OnM,
22:33:16 06/08/01 Fri
The 'Life's a bitch' line is the one people remember, but my very,
very favorite Catwoman scene in the film is the one where Batman
and Penguin have just finished their 'things change' exchange,
and they hear this strange sound, and turn to see Catwoman/Selena
doing the tumbling run towards them with Shreck's Dept. Store
in the background. She finishes the run, stands up, breathing
hard at first, then calms herself, staring right at them.
"Meow."
A beat, long enough for her to blink her eyes, and Shreck's explodes
in a giant fireball behinds her.
Just one word, and a world of flaming implications. Language of
cinema, indeed.
G'nite, Rufus-- take care. Back tomorrow!
OnM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 8th 2001 -- Wisewoman,
22:38:38 06/08/01 Fri
Loved the "bitch" line. One of my favourite moments
is when she smashes the neon sign in her apartment so that, instead
of "Hello There," it says, "Hell here!"
Catwoman is right up there with Ripley, Sarah Connor, and Mace
(Strange Days) IMHO ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 8th 2001 -- Andy,
06:09:43 06/09/01 Sat
Heh, I've got to agree with that. While I'm not a huge fan of
Batman Returns, it is my favorite of the live action Batman films
precisely because of Michelle Pfeiffer's performance. Actually,
I loved the whole defacing of her pink apartment, like when she
mashed her cute stuffed animals into the garbage disposal. It
still makes me laugh that parents groups actually protested the
film because of that image :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 8th 2001 -- Andy, 06:15:34
06/09/01 Sat
> OK, went on a little long this week, but s**t happens! I
did want to take the time to point out that I'm *not* an expert
on this stuff, I'm just a passionate amateur, and provide a little
backstory on how I got that way. I'm hoping this admission will
give perspective to all those of you who sometimes don't 'get
it'. This is cool... I aim to entertain first, educate maybe second
or third. Mostly, I educate myself by writing this column, and
taking you all along for the ride while I do it.
That's okay. Speaking as someone who spent a couple of years at
film school, I can assure you that that's basically how you learn
about film (mostly because they don't teach you anything at film
school that you can't figure out for yourself) :) Barring actually
using a film camera, nothing compares to actually watching movies
and pondering them afterward. Or, in the case of dvd's, listening
to commentaries helps too :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 8th 2001 -- Aquitaine,
10:18:10 06/09/01 Sat
*** I saw light, shadow and color, form and texture, movement
and stillness as more than a surface. Looking at the world through
a lens made me aware of layers to reality... ***
That was a lovely and quite poetic feature, OnM.
I really enjoyed "Batman Returns" because of Michael
Keaton's absolutely mind-bogglingly restrained portrayal of what
*could* be a very static character. He conveyed the complexity
and ambiguity of Batman. None of his successors have even come
close to equaling him. And, of course, there is Michelle Pfeiffer's
stand-out performance. I also have a clear remembrance of nightmare/faery
tale landscapes/cityscapes...
Being a Canadian Demon Cat Worshipper , I believe that the movie
really is all about Pfeiffer's character (her clarity of vision,
her strength, her desperation, her pain) in the long run and I
have to admit to having identified with her in a way that made
me a bit uneasy. Certainly the 'drama' of the film revolves around
her as a foil for Batman (games people play and the roles they
adopt to survive) more than around the 'will Batman defeat Penguin/Walden:)'...
***
Question for you OnM: Can you explain how Tim Burton creates what
I call the 'blue sepia' look in this films? Does that even make
sense to you? LOL.
- Aquitaine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: 'Blue sepia' -- OnM, 20:02:02 06/09/01 Sat
I don't know for sure, but usually the director and/or cinematographer
will make a choice of a particular film stock and processing in
order to produce a certain look. The subtle color shadings you
describe are likely due to this.
This has been done in other films, *Three Kings* is one that comes
to mind. I'd have to cue up my DVD copy of this and find the part
of the commentary track where they describe exactly what was done,
but the visual look of the film was very deliberate and done through
manipulating the film chemical processing during development,
as I recall.
Of course, you can also use computer technology to impart pretty
nearly any look you want, but this process is still more expensive
at this point than chemical manipulation of the film stock.
Glad you liked my choice this week. See, you were probably concerned
I'd pick something weird, and of course I did, but pretty conventionally
weird, as Rufus said, a 'nice dark movie about cats'. (~grin~)
So you are unsure whether some of my prior picks are a bit too
intense for your sensibilities? 's'OK, you go where you want to.
A nice safe choice would be *L.A. Story*, I think you would find
it extremely clever and charming. Trust me on this!
Thanks also for your kind words, they are much appreciated.
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: 'Blue sepia' -- Aquitaine, 08:31:33 06/10/01
Sun
Thank you for the information, luv. Big kiss.
To my credit, and having become employment-challenged about a
month ago, I had some time this week to seek out the films you
recommended with the full intention of renting Altered States
and LA Story. However, my newfangled video store had none of the
films. NONE! They didn't even have The Road Warrior. The pimply
youth behind the cash looked at me like I was from Mars and, like,
totally ancient and asked: "What kinda movie is it?"
Sheesh. "You know... Mel Gibson... action-adventure... he's
still alive. Makes movies sometimes..."
::sigh::
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Returning" theories-- yours & mine -- SingedCat, 16:53:46
06/09/01 Sat
It's clear that when it comes to Buffy's resurrection everybody's
got their own theory. With the understanding that no one else
can get in the Big J's head, I'm taking a moment to put forth
my concepts and thoughts on the matter.
First off, I don't think it will be initiated by any member of
the gang (except *maybe* Spike, but I don't think so). They knew
this day was coming , October will find them dealing.
That leaves the idea of initiation from an outside source, possibly
info from the Watcher's Council (I hate calling them the WC..),
the PTB(via Cordyvision? Joss didn't encourage much crossover
hope...), or information discovered by Giles or Willow (or Spike?)
while bent on another task. My pet idea is that, dying at the
gate between several hundred universes, her soul is in a state
of flux, unable to move on. Any such information that makes it
to the gang will have a galvanizing effect, I imagine.
It does stike me that, as suggested before, a trip back in time
to deliver a well-timed shove to Doc would pretty much do the
trick, but that would negate Buffy's sacrifice, her epiphany and
her closure. I'm forced to conclude that this will not happen;
Joss is too fond of what he did with that arc, and rightly so.
While we have Doc here, let me say that I would love to see a
return of Joel Gray as that wonderfully creepy bibliophile, but
I have to agree with the idea (Not the tone!) of the guy down
the list there who said there was no way he'd be the Big Bad next
year.
The Watcher's Council may have a bit to do with the matter--they're
the ones down with all things Slayerish. They may want Buffy over
Faith, since Faith is in rehabilitation. (Or would they see it
that way? Do they even know what their position on Faith is?...)
And/Or there may be a culminating need, or event, generated by
the influx of the season6 Big Bad,-- which is my best guess.
OK, your turn-- anyone else out there with a pet theory they've
been to shy to share yet?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> A return of a Vampire Riley doing resurrection for revenge
on B. -- Akdov Dik, 02:11:30 06/10/01 Sun
In
S6 will Riley or Oz make any kind of a return??? -- Emcee003,
01:05:24 06/09/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: In S6 will Riley or Oz make any kind of a return???
-- Q, 03:13:36 06/09/01 Sat
I pray to God I never see Riley again. Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: In S6 will Riley or Oz make any kind of a return???
-- cknight, 07:59:50 06/09/01 Sat
I hope Oz returns at some point. Riley? I can take or leave. I
did think he was a good character though. Everyone's saying Xander
is the everyman on the show but I felt Riley was truly the everyman
because even though he captured or destroyed monsters...he just
though they were genetic offshoots. It was interesting watching
through his eyes as he discovered just how big the world of the
supernatural is
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> It's my understanding that both Green and Blucas
have been making movies.... -- Rosemary, 09:07:17 06/09/01 Sat
and are too busy to schedule in some Buffy time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I agree, unless he returns as Riley Vampire. Wot do
u think?? -- Emcee003, 10:27:07 06/09/01 Sat
More "Joss speaks" stuff
-- Scout, 05:26:35 06/09/01 Sat
Apologies if this has already been posted, but JW has been talking
to IGN Sci-Fi Online, at
http://scifi.ign.com/tv/6810.html
and
http://scifi.ign.com/tv/6845.html
Joss has intriguing things to say about next season's developments
on both Buffy and Angel. He also gives a bit of insight into how
an idea might start out one way but mutate into something altogether
different by the time it hits the screen (the example given being
the plan to make Tara half-demon originally but instead giving
her some weird family issues). Altogether an enjoyable glimpse
into the great one's head.
New slayer -- Virgill Reality,
06:41:53 06/09/01 Sat
I was intrigued by Godfather's posting below about whether or
not the Scoobies should keep fighting now the Buffy is gone. I
realise I'm probably a bit late to be jumping onto this bandwagon
and that all that can be said on the issue has pretty much been
said, but...
Has it slipped everyone's mind that now Buffy is gone, a new slayer
will have been called? When Buffy died at the end of season 1,
she was dead only for a matter of minutes before Kendra was summoned
by the Powers. Going on this, it can be assumed that a new slayer
will be in combat form by the time S6 starts, and as we all know,
all slayers nowadays are led in some form or other to Sunnydale,
the Hellmouth.
Faith was given a warm welcome into the Scooby gang when she appeard
mid-S3, but I think introducing a new slayer to the group in the
aftermath of Buffy's death would be a very volatile situation
indeed. We all remember the frosty reception Wesley got when he
was appointed as Sunydale's watcher for the simple reason that
his sole purpose of being there was to replace Giles... and remember,
Giles was still walking, talking, alive! Think how the gang would
react to a Buffy replacement! And as a LEADER too!
I suppose it all depends on whether or not Joss feels he is introduced
enough characters into the Scoobies, but you never know. Given
that Joss must be bound by his own central rules, I think it might
be safe to assume we will see a brand new slayer *sometime* during
S6.
Granted, I am making a lot of assumptions here, such as the prospect
that we will actually get to see this new slayer before Buffy
is "reborn," but it would make for some interesting
storyline, do you not think?
Virgill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: New slayer -- LadyStarlight, 06:47:19 06/09/01 Sat
Just a question, wouldn't Faith have to die to call a new slayer?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: New slayer -- Wisewoman, 08:39:57 06/09/01 Sat
I think we kinda hashed this out some time ago...wasn't the deal
that Kendra was called when Buffy (briefly) died. When Kendra
died, Faith was called. This leaves Buffy out of the loop, so
to speak, and her (second) death shouldn't trigger a new slayer,
but Faith's *first* death should? Maybe that's why Faith is still
alive and in jail in LA, even though ED is off having a burgeoning
film career. Though we may never see her again, her continuing
presence makes it unnecessary to call another slayer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: New slayer -- Virgill Reality, 09:35:48
06/09/01 Sat
**Maybe that's why Faith is still alive and in jail in LA, even
though ED is off having a burgeoning film career. Though we may
never see her again, her continuing presence makes it unnecessary
to call another slayer.**
I don't understand your logic. Now I don't pretend to be any expert
on the Buffyverse, I leave that to Masquerade, but as I understand
it: when a slayer dies, another is called. The books say there
is only meant to be one slayer, but Buffy's death screwed the
whole thing up, so now there are two. When Kendra died, Buffy's
"continuing presence" didn't stop the Powers from calling
Faith, so I don't see any reason why Buffy's second death should
stop them from calling another to replace her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: New slayer -- Wiccagrrl, 11:28:09
06/09/01 Sat
Pretty sure Joss has said that the Slayer line now goes through
Faith. My take is that Buffy has used up her "one slayer
dies, the next one's called" clause. I don't think another
will be called.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: New slayer -- Malandanza, 13:25:47 06/09/01 Sat
"Has it slipped everyone's mind that now Buffy is gone, a
new slayer will have been called? When Buffy died at the end of
season 1, she was dead only for a matter of minutes before Kendra
was summoned by the Powers. Going on this, it can be assumed that
a new slayer will be in combat form by the time S6 starts, and
as we all know, all slayers nowadays are led in some form or other
to Sunnydale, the Hellmouth."
"Faith was given a warm welcome into the Scooby gang when
she appeard mid-S3, but I think introducing a new slayer to the
group in the aftermath of Buffy's death would be a very volatile
situation indeed. We all remember the frosty reception Wesley
got when he was appointed as Sunydale's watcher for the simple
reason that his sole purpose of being there was to replace Giles...
and remember, Giles was still walking, talking, alive! Think how
the gang would react to a Buffy replacement! And as a LEADER too!"
While it has already been pointed out that Joss has said that
the slayer line now descends from Faith exclusively, this does
not preclude the possibility that a new slayer will enter the
show. Consider that Faith is locked away in prison without any
weapons, without friends and without any place to flee. the WC
has tried to kill her before -- if they choose to do so again,
Faith will be more vulnerable than she has ever been before. Evil
creatures wanting the slayer dead might also find an imprisoned
slayer easier to handle. If ED chooses not to return to Buffy/Angel,
the writers may just kill her off to add a new slayer to the series.
I'm not sure a new slayer would automatically find herself in
a leadership role (the slayer was never supposed to be a leader
-- she was supposed to blindly follow her watcher's orders). All
the Scoobies are more experienced. A 16-year old girl coming to
terms with vampires and demons might allow herself to be guided
by these older and wiser people (and might be a little intimidated
by meeting two experienced witches and an ex-demon). From the
very beginning, Buffy had the weight of the world on her shoulders
-- she had to come up with the plans and make the difficult decisions.
Any mistake by Buffy would have meant, not just her own death,
but the deaths of her closest friends. The new slayer would be
told what to do and would be rescued when she made a mistake.
As for a frosty reception from the Scoobies, I think the opposite
would be true -- the slayer would not be a replacement for a disgraced
friend, but a scared and timid little girl in need of friendship
and guidance -- and a reminder of their larger than life heroine,
Buffy.
But would the WC place a new slayer with the Scoobies and Giles
in Sunnydale? Their agreement to reinstate Giles was an agreement
with Buffy -- she's dead, so why do they need Giles? Perhaps they
will honor their agreement, in letter, since they are English
Gentlemen, but I doubt that Giles will ever see active service
again. As for the Scoobies, they are uncontrollable. Better a
dozen slayers die early, futile deaths than allow a single slayer
to be misled. So, unless Dawn becomes the new slayer (which would
indicate so sort of genetic predisposition to be a slayer), I
doubt we'll see any new blood with the Scoobies or Giles.
A more interesting group dynamic would be to have Faith return,
penitent, to the fold and try to work with the group. Buffy & Angel
were the only people who gave Faith any sympathy (Willow hates
her with as vindictive a passion as we have seen from her, Xander
has the sex issues, Anya isn't likely to warm up to her, Giles
was willing to let the WC deal with her, and Faith made a very
bad impression on Tara). Think of the resentment of having Faith
replace Saint Buffy...
Family Redefined? (With Apologies
to The Sopranos) -- mundusmundi, 08:43:02 06/09/01 Sat
First, thanks to those below for the links to the Joss interviews.
One in particular caught my attention -- his comments on the inspiration
for "Family." Joss mentions that the point of the episode
was to show the families we create for ourselves, that true families
are about "more than blood." (Not his exact words, but
that's the gist.)
This is an interesting comment, particularly when compared to
what seems to be the theme of "The Gift," which is all
about the importance of blood (and blood, blood, and more blood).
If we analyze these two threads t/out the entire season, on one
hand A) the claim that blood doesn't matter, and B) the claim
that blood matters above all (energy-orbed sister or not), what
are we to make of this apparent contradiction? Moreover, is Joss
now saying that blood ties matter most? Or, is this just a good
example of the show reflecting the messy paradoxes of life? (I'm
geared toward the last, but other thoughts happily welcome.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Family Redefined? (With Apologies to The Sopranos) --
cjc36, 09:10:20 06/09/01 Sat
An example of "Blood mattering": Buffy tells all the
Scoobies she'll stop (kill?) anybody who tries to hurt Dawn.
Not mattering: Willow caring for Tara/All of the Scoobies willing
to die to stop the end of the world.
The reason "blood" mattered so much in "The Gift"
was to underline the fact Buffy now realized Dawn *was* in fact
her kin (child, sister, her own humanity personified). Buffy died
right after she realized Dawn's legitimacy as her own. "They
made her out of me, Giles."
Which to me makes "The Gift" all the more touching.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Family Redefined? (With Apologies to The Sopranos)
-- mundusmundi, 12:41:32 06/11/01 Mon
Well said. Though here's another question: Would Buffy have saved
Dawn if she wasn't a part of her? Or if it was Xander or Willow's
blood? Are there any limitations to this notion of "family?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Family Redefined? -- OnM, 09:20:01 06/13/01
Wed
This is a great, and probably unanswerable question. One difference
I see that could have some bearing on any conjecture is that Buffy
saw Dawn as an innocent.
By this, I mean that Dawn had absolutely no choice in being 'The
Key', it was a duty thrust upon her by others. This resonates
with Buffy for several reasons, but of course the main one being
that she found herself in exactly the same position-- she never
actively chose to be the Slayer.
The SG on the other hand, she tends to see as 'soldiers' in the
battle against evil, but soldiers who have *enlisted*. They *choose*
to fight beside her, and willingly. Go way back to S1, *Never
Kill a Boy...*, when Buffy decides to deal Owen out of the loop,
because he doesn't truly understand what's involved in associating
himself with her cause-- he's just an adrenaline junkie who doesn't
really understand that the danger is real, and often fatal. He
expects the roller coaster ride to end happily, not plummet into
the hellmouth. The SG understands this, so they aren't innocent
in the way that Dawn is, or was.
Scoobies dealing with Buffy's
return -- cjc36, 09:23:25 06/09/01 Sat
How will The Scoobies react when Buffy is back, alive and in their
lives? I'm thinking, and Joss has said as much, that it will be
awkward and weird and not as welcoming of a homecoming as one
would think.
After my own father died years ago, I remember an emotional 'lift'
happening about three months afterwards. I had finally accepted
his death, still missed him and dreamed about him, but realized
that I was still alive and that was the way life is. At this period,
when I dreamed about him, they were nightmarish-I knew my dad
was gone and what was in the dreams shouldn't be there.
If story time stays close to 'real' time, it will be about three
or four months after Buffy's death when she comes back. Okay,
how does one react? If the awkwardness in "Dead Man's Party"
happened after Buffy just left town, think about how torn and
angry and sad and difficult the emotions will be when Buffy returns.
They've already mourned for her! Perhaps they have no tears left
to cry over her next death, and that would be my own reaction
if I were a Scooby. On the surface, I'd be glad to see my friend
again, but I've just been forced to deal with a world that-sad
as it may be-should never contain my friend anymore. Now I have
to 'reset' these emotions and fear letting my guard down and letting
her into my heart again as a living person, only to have to grieve
all over again in some future month of May.
Thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Scoobies dealing with Buffy's return -- mundusmundi,
12:12:18 06/09/01 Sat
"Dead Man's Party" may be the most blistering episode
I've seen, with Xander and Buffy nearly coming to blows the peak
intensity point. The difference there, of course, was that she
chose to leave when she didn't have to, neglecting her mother,
friends and responsibilities. In a sense, she also *chose* to
leave at the end of "The Gift," but it was a choice
with very few options. (The selflessness vs. selfishness of the
act has been debated in other threads, so I'll avoid that here.)
Certainly I don't see her friends reacting to her like they did
in DMP. But you raise some interesting questions about their adjustment
to B's return, not to mention her own.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Scoobies dealing with Buffy's return -- SingedCat,
16:10:36 06/09/01 Sat
Very well put, cjc! I don't think a lot of people are giving that
enough thought-- and I'm pretty suire Joss is. I agree, the reunion
won't be as teary as they thought it would be-- I bet there'll
be at least one episode (possibly a small arc) dealing with the
fact that, well, no one's dealing. I bet there will be some serious
seperation for a while, I think especially from Xander, and second
from Giles.
That's my $.02.
Symbolic Look at 'Buffy' fifth
season; Spoilers; Long: Part One of Three -- Age, 10:11:33 06/09/01
Sat
This posting looks at some of the symbolism of this year's 'Buffy.'
Spoilers. It is Long and in Three Parts. Spoilers also for part
of the 'Angel' arc. Part One.
The big bads are metaphorical representations of what's going
on with the Scooby gang, but especially with Buffy. The use of
metaphor in the series is meant to suggest the deconstruction
of childhood myth, (even patriarchal fairy-tale myth), giving
a metaphorical content to imagery that children take literally.
For example, Glory and Ben represent three things for Buffy:
firstly, the split psyche; Buffy attempts to repress her own mortality/fertility/kinship,
and splits herself off symbolically into Dawn, at the beginning
of the season, the girl Buffy believes she can remain, having
been made aware of her mortality, metaphorically, by licking Dracula's
blood in ep one;
secondly, illusions or myths that Buffy is contemplating(this
is one reason why Ben and Glory occupy the same space, this is
symbolic of Buffy's conflict over how to run away from her own
fertility/mortality; also the conflict is between Buffy's thought
of whether to deny her sexuality completely(the patriarchal way)
or give into it completely(Glory, the beast's way.);
finally, the animal instinct responses to the notion of death
which is inherent in Buffy's fertility/kinship etc: to either
fight or flee: Glory is the predator instinct, to become the consummate
predator, powerful enough to defeat even death and be the immortal
child; while Ben is the herd animal which flees into the crowd,
assuming a career(it is this fleeing into the crowd of career
people that would keep Buffy from having a baby, hence denying
her sexuality/fertility and therefore mortality.) Ben also as
med intern represents the fight against death as an externalized
enemy.
The dichotomy between Buffy/Dawn and Ben/Glory is thus between
the acceptance of the concealed fertility/mortality/kinship which
Buffy has repressed in Dawn(the key is hidden) out of fear of
death, and those childhood myths(Ben/Glory) that we can live forever
and be looked after as Glory is, or simply live for oneself as
Ben seeks to do.
If Buffy chooses either Ben's or Glory's way she will lose two
things: the human race because the next generation will not be
born(the link will be severed); or she will lose her own humanity
by giving into her slayer/predatory or herd animal instincts for
self preservation. By giving up Dawn or not protecting her, Buffy
will give up both the human race and her own humanity, which Dawn
represents as the key, the reproductive link, and as an individual
human being. This is why the apocalypse would turn everything
to demon/animal. Dawn starts off as the illusion that Buffy can
stay a girl forever, but she becomes, as Buffy takes on the mother
role, and starts to accept her own mortality/fertility/kinship
more 'real' until at the end of the season finale, she comes to
symbolize reality and wholeness and life and the next generation
and the individual.
(Note that when Buffy learns from the monk that Dawn is the key,
he is sitting by a link fence symbolizing the reproductive links
in the chain of the human race and our interconnectedness. The
dagon's sphere in that same ep represents wholeness and the womb,
hence Buffy's full nature and female fertility which she's repressed
because that also would mean that Buffy is mortal. When Buffy
finds out that Dawn is the key, she is wearing a top that has
a skull on it to symbolize her own mortality. In ep two Dawn laments
that no one knows the 'Real Me' because Buffy has repressed her
own kinship/fertility/mortality and it gets represented as the
Key(the link) which Buffy later uncovers as what she's repressed
begins to emerge from her subconscious.)
The season arc has been about the movement from illusion/childhood
myth as symbolized by the rewrite of history, the sister Buffy
doesn't have, to a state of reality, where the barrier between
opposites has been deconstructed, black and white becoming gray.
Buffy has been divided against herself, trying to fight a particular
manifestation of her animal nature: mortality/fertility. Buffy
doesn't defeat Glory because she's really fighting an aspect of
herself she can't escape.
The 'Angel' arc is very similar in that the title character is
divided against himself, ashamed of his animal nature because
of his past; and, I think that the two series' arcs are connected,
and that each week their episodes are coordinated with each other
for content, such that they are similar or share major elements
in common as the two title characters share a similar journey:
for example, both Buffy and Angel move into premises representing
their problems at the end of their ep twos; or the mother figures
of both shows, Darla and Joyce undergo 'operations' to clear their
heads, one of humanity, the other of death, becoming the very
things the title characters are trying to be rid of, the vampire,
and later, death as the aneurysm kills Joyce. However, I'm not
getting into this in this posting.
Buffy, out of fear of death, has externalized her own mortality
as the vilified other, the enemy that she thinks she can destroy.
She comes to accept her animal nature, i.e. dying to make way
for the next generation. The split psyche and the fusion into
one, the two becoming one is the central motif. It is the deconstruction
of the binary opposition between the valued good and devalued
bad as Buffy comes to accept all of herself. The split psyche
and/or idea of splitting in two gets expressed in the 'Buffy'
arc as: Buffy/Dawn, Buffy/Joyce as two mother figures; the two
Xanders, Buffy's two suitors, Riley and Spike; Anya and Willow's
fight; the split between Watcher's Council and Scoobies; Ben and
Glory.; Tara and Willow towards the end; Buffy/Buffybot.
The fusion of these characters and the deconstruction of opposites
are the main thrust of the arc: the two Xanders get put back together,
with an allusion to the Star Trek episode in which the 'good'
Kirk and the 'bad' Kirk are put back together following a transporter
malfunction. If nothing else this allusion sums up the theme of
the arc. The good and the bad need each other to be human and
we must accept both in us because they are not really good and
bad at all, but simply different aspects of our whole nature.
In this episode the two Xanders think they are saving Anya from
a demon(from the vilified externalized other) when in fact they
are really saving her from each other. Hence the deconstruction
of the binary opposition.
The two Xanders get back together: two become one; Riley leaves,
and so Buffy's suitors become one, Spike; Joyce dies, and the
two mother figures become one, Buffy; Ben and Glory fuse together
to represent that their ways are really the same, predator and
herd animal; Anya and Willow fight and try to split up Xander,
but he doesn't pick one or the other, the two become one; Buffy
gets the Scoobies together with the WC; Willow and Tara fight,
then get back together; Xander proposes to Anya in the season
finale, symbolically the two becoming one; the unicorn symbol
seen when Dawn is around is a fusion of Buffy the slayer(horn/stake)
and animal, the two become one; the Buffybot gains more of Buffy's
character and then dies, the two becoming one, ie Buffy; Buffy
dies in a cross position representing the two become one; Buffy
dies leaving Dawn to symbolize her, thus the two become one.
In fact if you notice the table the Scoobies sit at in the magic
shop is a combination of two circles, one within the other, representing
the idea of the two become one. The central circle, lit up, represents
wholeness as well. It is also, like the dagon's sphere a symbol
of wholeness and the womb, female sexuality/fertility(and this
is why the table, womb, is housed within the shop that symbolizes
mortality, as all the other shopkeepers have died: fertility and
mortality are one. This is why the dagon's sphere is associated
with discovering that Dawn is the Key(the key represents Buffy's
fertility/mortality that she's tried to deny, and has externalized.)
Incidentally the magic shop also has a death mask on one of the
walls. It is the place of death, symbolizing Buffy's mortality
which she moves into at the end of ep two to symbolize her concern
with death.
The ultimate fusion in the 'Buffy' arc takes place at the end
of the season finale. Buffy fuses with the undefeated symbolic
aspect of Glory(her intention to open the portal is not thwarted,
therefore she remains in a limited sense undefeated, as she has
done throughout the arc to symbolize the idea that Buffy's fighting
against herself.) This undefeated aspect of the beast, Glory's
intention is, of course, the journey; it is the journey of death(the
mortal, animal part of ourselves we cannot escape) which Buffy
takes willingly so that the next generation may have its time,
and so that the human race may continue(Buffy's choice humanizes
what would simply be the act of an animal. This is contrasted
to the death of the two slayers who do die like animals slaughtered
by a predator(ie a human being who has given into his animal instincts,
his humanity killed off. I see vampires also as perpetual teenagers,
symbolizing the desire to escape life and death by staying forever
young. They are the adolescent rebellion against the natural course
of life and death.)
End of Part One.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Symbolic Look at 'Buffy' fifth season; Spoilers; Long:
Part Two of Three -- Age, 10:17:57 06/09/01 Sat
Part Two: Spoilers for Fifth Season 'Buffy.' Part of the undefeated
aspect of Glory's intention is the Key, and Buffy fuses with it
too(thus an aspect of Glory and Dawn fuse, two becoming one: animal
symbol(the beast, Glory) and fertility/mortality/kinship become
one.) In ep one Buffy tasted the blood of Dracula; this represented
three things: death, as Drac was physically made up pale to represent
Buffy's mortality; kinship/family, as he stated that he and she
were of the same root; and fertility as the blood that Drac would
have inside him would be female in origin by his reputation as
seducer of women, and because as symbol of the male dominant fear
of female sexuality as an emasculating force, Drac would suck
out women's sexuality/fertility in sexual conquest in order to
conquer them before they, the women, conquer him with feelings.
Male dominated male/female relationships are simply power struggles.
Thus, this is the blood associated with menstruation, with female
fertility/sexuality. It is repeated in the clothing that Glory
wears, mostly red; it is repeated in the allusion to the 'Wizard
of Oz' in the titles 'There's No Place Like Home' and 'Spiral'(tornado)
(as this film centres on the journey from girl to woman through
the menstrual symbol of the ruby slippers) when Buffy finds out
that Dawn is the key or when, like Dorothy Gail, Buffy tries to
run away ; and is seen in the Little Red Riding Hood name that
Spike calls Dawn when she finds out she's the key and in the blood
that we see when she comes back to ask if she is the key. It is
therefore the blood of fertility, of menstruation that is being
released into the portal in the season finale to open it up, and
which Buffy becomes one with, accepting all of herself, accepting
her fertility, kinship, and mortality(it's all about blood) accepting
but not giving into her animal nature, the beast that Buffy cannot
defeat because its part of her.
(Note Drac does not stay dead when Buffy stakes him at the end
of the first ep to begin the idea of Buffy not being able to defeat
her 'enemy' which is really herself(Drac as animal becomes Glory
the beast.). Also ep one starts off with the carefree childhood
days of frolicking on the beach, the period of innocence before
the fall into the knowledge of fertility/kinship/mortality, before
we fully realize that our role in the reproductive chain of the
human race means we have to sacrifice ourselves in death as Buffy
does in the season finale. We cannot escape it; Buffy realizes
this at the end, and makes her death her own(which it is anyway),
part of her, not the vilified, repressed other, but the gift that
she as human brings to the next generation...she humanizes it
through her choice.
In fact using Drac in the first place is an allusion to the past
in which men dominated society and women's sexuality was feared
as an emasculating force. The vampire 'penetrates' the woman,
sexual conquest, before she can get him to have feelings for her,
drinking her blood to symbolize that he's drained her power over
him, ie female sexuality and blood are paired, hence the draining
of women's sexuality because it's a threat to male dominance and
because it is a reminder that men are mortal, that they are only
half of a sexual partnership; and to symbolize that he has drained
the selfhood(life) out of her.)
This theme of female sexuality is the reason for the dichotomy
between male and female characters: Ben and the Knights, the males,
represent the herd mentality. This mentality would allow the predator
to take the weaker members of the herd while the individual is
safe looking out only for himself in the crowd; this can be generalized
to mean not looking after children or ultimately having children
as they would be the weaker ones that such a mentality would simply
throw to the dogs, so to speak(or as it's 'Buffy' throw to the
vampires.) Ben represents the single life which would take away
female sexuality in the sense that a career would not entail the
woman giving birth, but losing herself in the crowd of individuals
doing her own thing, i.e. not becoming a parent; while the Knights
of Byzantium as patriarchal agents would want to take away female
sexuality anyway. (The Knights go one further...they are willing
to do the job for the predator and sacrifice the weak.)
Dawn, as female, represents Buffy's attempt to stay a child, and
then as Buffy accepts more her nature, this dream of being an
immortal perpetual child gets transferred to Glory. Both Dawn
the Key and Glory are female because they represent female sexuality,
Glory the beast/animal nature that Buffy cannot defeat but which
she cannot give into fully either or she'll lose her humanity
as symbolized by Dawn. Glory is the powerful female to represent
the power that Buffy herself is amassing.
I would also suggest that the female is powerful as a way of deconstructing
the patriarchal notion of the weaker sex; otherwise the concentration
on the human woman as mother of the next generation may be misconstrued
to mean that women may only play that role as is the patriarchal
belief. Whedon through Buffy is deconstructing the myths of male
dominance, and has been from the beginning of the series. I think
he's simply using his title character to illustrate the connection
between kinship/fertility and death. As the latter applies to
both men and women, this has been one of the reasons for the vilification
of women in the past as daughters of Eve(ie in a male dominated
society, women have been the vilified half of the binary opposition
as men seek to deny in themselves their mortality by projecting
it onto women.) Whedon attempts to rehabilitate this view of women
by fusing Buffy's fertility/kinship and mortality with that of
the Christ figure sacrifice; men and women are equally valued
natural human partners.
In fact the deconstruction for Buffy of her animal nature, of
her sexuality from being the vilified other can be generalized
to representing the rehabilitation of female sexuality as a whole
from its 'evil' devalued state.
I might want to add that I don't believe that Whedon is suggesting
that male and females have absolute roles to play, nor that traditional
male traits or female traits are limited to each sex separately.
In fact he's arguing opposite to this by deconstructing the line
between opposites. Buffy's strength and Willow's prowess in math
and computer science are meant to be part of an argument that
dismisses the notion that maleness is simply the province of men,
and femaleness the province of women. We all share traits that
may be described as male and female. Tara and Willow's relationship,
metaphorically only, can be seen as the female taking the role
of the male, hence a symbol of the distribution of male/female
traits. It can also, metaphorically only, be seen, because it's
a lesbian relationship, as a rehabilitation of the female in our
society in two ways: by taking the male's role, ie what a man
can do a woman can also, women are not less than men; and because
both are female this is the display of the female principle being
valued again in our society. Of course literally the two characters
are simply in love with one another, being themselves. Their relationship
is therefore a symbol of accepting ourselves.
In that final scene of the season finale when Buffy goes up the
tower to save Dawn, Whedon is representing the rise to adulthood,
the rise towards ones life, but at the same time the movement
towards ones death, as both are really the same: we are always
moving towards our life, towards growth, until the end which is
death. The dive also symbolizes that life is not a thing, but
an activity. We are moving, living creatures.
This is very buddhist in its thought, and buddhist imagery is
used at key moments in both series to underscore the connection:
the demon that Angel kills in ep one is a buddhist, and Angel
must take his place; the three props in the scene where Dawn discovers
she's the key are the unicorn, the Buddha statuette and the troll's
hammer. Buddhism represents impermanence, deconstruction of opposites,
compassion, insight and the middle way, i.e. not giving into our
animal nature and not denying it either.When Buffy goes through
the portal, takes the journey that Glory should have, she dies,
accepting all that Drac symbolized in ep one: kinship: Dawn is
her daughter, and kinship with the whole world, Buffy and the
world are one as we all are; fertility: the blood of menstruation;
and mortality. The only living representation of Buffy left is
Dawn(as Buffy says, Dawn is me), hence the two become one.
However, the Buffy in the ground becomes a symbol of death as
Dawn remains a symbol of life, hence together a symbol of wholeness
accepting all of Buffy's nature. Dawn as living individual also
represents the individual aspect of ourselves, while the dead
Buffy represents the oneness with the world: individuality and
oneness with the world happen at the same time. The idea of living
wholeness is left in Dawn, the last living symbol of Buffy.
Of course the scene also symbolizes the natural course of events
where the previous generation dies to make way for the next. Life
comes not only from life, but from death too. Thus Buffy in accepting
her fertility, and her kinship, also accepts her mortality, because
they are in the end one and the same. (I think Whedon is using
buddhist imagery and ideas to state his own concepts; I don't
believe he's advocating it.)
Note that the deconstruction of opposites has its imagery in 'Buffy'
in the Troll's hammer, the Buddhist statuette and the unicorn;
not to mention the wrecking ball. The hammer is usually associated
with construction, but Whedon takes pains to have this hammer
associated with deconstruction of the structure of oppositional
thinking, of the binary opposition between the valued good and
the vilified bad. In the episode with the troll Whedon has the
character destroy everything in its path, hence destruction and
deconstruction. This is also associated with Xander not being
split between saying which of Anya or Willow was right or wrong;
and so when Buffy uses the troll's hammer in the season finale
to fight Glory, she's actually symbolically deconstructing the
line between opposites that is inside herself, as represented
by Ben/Glory. End of Part Two.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Symbolic Look at 'Buffy' fifth season; Spoilers;
Long: Part Three of Three -- Age, 10:34:19 06/09/01 Sat
Part Three: Spoilers for Fifth Season 'Buffy.' This deconstruction
is reinforced by Xander using a wrecking ball(symbol of wholeness)
as he breaks down a wall, the wall between opposites. And the
unicorn is a fusion of Buffy and her animal nature(the unicorn
also represents the animal that would not get on the ark, hence
not becoming a herd animal to save himself or gain the world;
also through the sea imagery the unicorn suggests also a creature
who will plumb all the depths of her being even if this means
death.)
The deconstruction meaning of the troll's hammer is the reason
why Spike cannot lift it in the scene with Dawn as she discovers
she is the key; as a vampire(perpetual teenager and metaphor for
the illusion that you can remain human and run away from life
and death) Spike is still too much of a child, still too attached
to his oppositional thinking to deconstruct it. This is why Buffy
lifts the hammer so easily in the season finale: she's ready to
deconstruct the opposites thinking and accept all of her, and
perhaps have an experience of oneness.
This is also the reason why Whedon sends Spike up to rescue Dawn
on the tower in the season finale and fail: as Spike, his intention
is to help, but as a vampire, he represents the desire to run
away from life and death. Whedon sends Spike up to show symbolically
that Buffy(as represented by Dawn) cannot be gotten to or touched
any longer by the desire to flee either life or death. This is
contrasted with the two slayers that Spike killed who didn't embrace
either life or death, but simply tried to escape from life. Their
blood got sucked in by Spike; they thus symbolically became him,
became the metaphor for the desire to run away from life and death.
Buffy however in her dive keeps her blood, and in some sense it
goes on flowing in the living representative of her, the symbol
of the whole living human, Dawn. Buffy thus embraces all of herself,
while the other slayers did not.(The two slayers fled life, becoming
thus herd animals.)
The deconstruction of opposites also occurs in the season finale
as Buffy lowers the barrier to her house for Spike. The barrier
came up because Spike was acting like a patriarchal male stalking
a female in a war of conquest. The basic relationship in patriarchy
is one of being split apart in the illusion that one sex has more
value than the other, and of males taking selfhood away from females
in sexual conquest; the woman reacts and/or is conceived of in
terms of power only as an emasculator/mother. Power, rather than
love and respect, is what is valued in this type of relationship:
males having it and women having it denied in them. Anger usually
gets to be the emotion that dominates in both the male and female
as reactions to both having their humanity repressed.
Once Buffy realizes that Spike is no longer this type of male,
that he respects her and actually loves her, then she lowers the
barrier. This is symbolic of lowering the binary opposition between
men(the boy/sexual predator/vampire) and women(the mother/emasculator/slayer,
phallic symbol stake in hand) in a male dominated society, such
that both are valued equally. It also symbolizes that the two
really cannot be separated, one sex is meaningless without the
other. Just as Spike values Buffy as a person and woman(the vampire
has become human in this particular instance), she values him
as a man(the emasculator/slayer not needed, carrying the phallic
symbol(also a symbol of modern women taking back their own sexuality
as Buffy as slayer acts as deconstructor of the sexual predator/emasculator
roles). I may be a monster, Spike says, but you treat me like
a man.
The season arc is a representation of birth, growth, and death:
Dawn is 'born'; she falls from childhood to adolescence when she
discovers she's the key; Riley falls from adolescence into adulthood
when he discovers that all endings are not happy; and Joyce falls
from adulthood into death. Note that I say fall because in one
of the episodes, the one with the snake, there is an allusion
made through the snake to the garden of Eden fall into death.
This fall is reproduced in Buffy's dive in the season finale;
but I think that's only half of it. Buffy's climb up the tower
also could symbolize the idea of raising oneself to adulthood.
There are thus two movements, up and down, which are one: we are
moving towards our death and to our adulthood at the same time.
I think that Buffy herself moves from hankering for childhood,
for that 'No place like home,' because of fear of death to the
perspective of a parent.
In fact the whole season is the depiction of very thing that vampires(as
perpetual teenagers)are trying to escape: the round of birth and
death. There's a movement from hankering for the past, hankering
for childhood, to accepting oneself completely and ones role as
parent which includes obviously our mortality.(Note that this
fall happens to Buffy too: she learns about the key, she has the
unhappy ending and she dies as well.) Joyce's death occurs when
she's home alone to show that we are not safe anywhere; that all
is impermanence; we cannot escape death because it is part of
us; Joyce dies at home because no matter where you are, you are
there. In fact when we are watching April the robot die, we are
symbolically watching Joyce's death.
If you notice, both Buffy and Cordelia act as messiahs to deconstruct
patriarchy. Cordelia is the political messiah, the deliverer of
a population; while Buffy is the spiritual messiah with her vision
of oneness. If women are evil, then how can they be messiahs?
Hence the deconstruction of patriarchal myth. In fact, Glory as
Buffy's temptation to give into the predatory power of the slayer,
is the logical conclusion of what Buffy would become if she gave
into this power: top of the food chain(as symbolized by her going
to the top of the tower.) But Buffy then jumps off to give up
her life for others, rather than like a predatory animal, devour
those 'below' her. Her dive in a sense is a deconstruction of
patriarchy, the top down mentality that would keep people as children,
devouring, as it were, the human opportunity to grow to adulthood.
The motif of opposites comes with a season of madness. Opposites
thought is perhaps as a kind of madness, a splitting of the human
psyche, a splitting up of the world which is one organic whole.
This splitting up is part of the isolation aspect of the season
arcs. We abstract ourselves from the world and others, and tend
not to cope as well as we could, like Riley or Angel. This abstraction
allows us to deny a basic kinship or oneness with everything.
Let the person die or kill the person, he or she has nothing to
do with me. But this 'me' is just in part an abstraction.
What Whedon may be suggesting is that we are all on the same side
because there are no sides except that thinking makes. Hence the
movement from the self centred child perspective. Or perhaps its
more fundamental than this: if we experience others and the world
as ourselves literally, an experience of selflessness, then we
could no more hurt others than Buffy could let Dawn be killed,
ie Dawn is me. This is the kind of experience perhaps that only
a human consciousness could have. This is why Whedon is saying
that while we accept our animal nature, we don't give into it
fully, but manage it, and remain human. Of course if Buffy cannot
hurt anyone, how can she be the slayer? Well, she may not conceive
others as the enemy, but she can still try to stop pain and suffering.
While Buffy's dive is an act of becoming one with her animal nature,
it is a human act of sacrifice to save the world, seeking to preserve
human consciousness, not let it become demonic/animal. It is a
choice she makes. In this way we as humans neither give into our
animal programming nor simply follow the dictates of a paternalistic
moral code whose premise is that we are all either sinners, morons
or animals, but base our morality on the experience of selflessness
as knowledge of our fundamental condition(the library for three
seasons represented the value of knowledge and insight over myth)
such that we remain human and do not allow ourselves to be animal
or human robots like the Buffybot or Adam.
What Whedon may be getting at is that if we only follow a moral
code, we as humans lose the opportunity to have insight into where
that code comes from. It would be like limiting ourselves to following
the results of insight as a dog follows the dictates of the alpha
male or as the herd follows. We would lose the opportunity to
be human, to exercise our human consciousness.(I'm not suggesting
that Whedon is being naive by possibly presenting the theme of
insight, thinking that a vision of oneness is going to solve all
our problems; Buffy's speech to Dawn about how hard living in
this world shows that one with the world or not, it's a hard place
to live in or remain human. Furthermore he delivers this idea
of insight into oneness with the death of his title character:
this couldn't be any harder to take. But, as an artist, I think
Whedon wants to use his medium to have us think outside the box
as he has his main character when she's faced with the puzzle
of death being her gift.
Perhaps the concentration on love in the season finale, and Buffy's
being full of love, is the emotion that comes from the expression
of the kinship we all have through our being not really separate
from one another. We are all family.
Also, I think that Whedon had Buffy in the season finale 'fuse'
with her animal nature, but in making it a choice, a sacrifice,
she humanized it. Had Buffy given into her animal nature, then
the world would have become demonic/animal. But the opposite happens,
Buffy's dive assimilates her animal nature into her human identity.
This is why Dawn remains to symbolize this. But there is more
to it than this. Despite all the pressures, Dawn represents Buffy's
ability to retain her original perspective, her child-like, not
childish, perspective. Unlike Giles, who's become worldly wise
and despairing, she has retained a basic faith in herself and
the world. She has retained the don't know mind of buddhism or
the child of God consciousness of Christianity. She has retained
herself. Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Excerpts-Symbolic Look at 'Angel' this season,
Spoilers, Long. -- Age, 13:25:03 06/09/01 Sat
My original posting was supposed to include 'Angel', but it got
too long. Here are some excerpts from the other posting, mostly
about 'Angel', but including some 'Buffy' this season. Spoilers.
This year both series have been about the acceptance of our animal
nature: its aggression in 'Angel' and the fertility/kinship/mortality
aspect of it in 'Buffy.' Both arcs followed each other in going
from realization of an aspect that the title characters were either
afraid or ashamed of in ep one, repression of that realization
in the next few eps as the two title characters sought refuge
in the past, in childhood and in the perpetual teenager/animal
life of a vampire, to the uncovering of that realization in the
next eps, resulting in a period of adolescence and finally the
acceptance of a more adult view of life, deconstructing the black
and white, Sunnydale repressive way of dealing with life. Both
arcs as movement from illusion/childhood myth were symbolized
by the rewrite of history in both shows, i.e. Darla(vampire/childhood
past) is alive and human as opposed to being vampire and dusted,
and Dawn(childhood past), the sister Buffy doesn't have, and then,
as reality is restored, where the barrier between opposites has
been deconstructed, black and white becoming gray, Darla gets
vamped again and Dawn becomes a 'real' sister.
In ep one of 'Angel' Angel is reminded that part of his nature,
part of what gives him his ability to defend the weak and help
is his animal nature which he's ashamed of. The demon that Angel
kills in episode one is a buddhist, representing the deconstruction
of opposites. Angel has to assume the role of this demon in order
to help the young woman with child. Symbolically this foreshadows
the idea that Angel has to deconstruct the opposition in himself,
and come to accept the aspect he's ashamed of.
The basic metaphor of Sunnydale is the weather which expresses
the dysfunctional way of dealing with oneself or emotions: i.e.
repressing them into the darkness, the subconscious(the dale)
and putting on a smiling Sunny face in order that one can say
one is in the valued good social group, the angels, while the
others are the vilified devils that get persecuted because they
represent everything that we are trying to repress or destroy
in ourselves. Both title characters are divided against themselves,
trying to fight an aspect of themselves that they fear or loathe
and want to be rid of: their particular manifestation of their
animal nature: this is why Angel's demon shows up in Pylea as
an animal; while Buffy's monster is really her own mortality/fertility.
Buffy doesn't defeat Glory; Angel doesn't defeat Wolfram and Hart(the
predator and herd animals put together) because they are really
fighting aspects of themselves.
The split motif is expressed on 'Angel' as Cordy and Gunn, Lilah
and Lyndsey; Dru and Darla; the split between the Fang gang and
Angel; the decapitation of Lorne; the split between LA and Pylea,
and the Fang gang characters being split between two different
lives/lifestyles: Gunn between his old neighbourhood and his new
friends, between the past and the future, and Cordelia being split
between her past lifestyle as princess and her present 'engaged'
life as vision person. The resolution of these splits shows the
movement of two becoming one. In 'Angel' the fusion imagery goes
something like this: Angel getting back together with the Fang
gang; Lyndsey's leaving, the two becoming one, Lilah; Cordelia
and Gunn coming to an understanding in the ep where she shadows
him; Lorne's head being put together with his body; the land of
Pylea becoming more like LA, the two worlds becoming one; the
Fang gang characters making decisions about their split between
lives; on Pylea the princess and the vision girl get fused together
until at the end Cordelia lets go of her princess myth. And of
course Angel doesn't slay Groo: they are no longer enemies.
In regards to the two series being similar: The magic shop in
'Buffy' has a death mask on one of the walls. It is the place
of death, symbolizing Buffy's mortality which she moves into at
the end of ep two to symbolize her concern with death; Angel at
the end of his ep two moves into the hotel to take the place of
Julie who has been divided against herself and has remained in
the hotel because in trying to conceal her 'monster'(which it
wasn't of course) she externalized it and tried to have it destroyed
in someone else, just as Angel is trying to do by killing demons.
In other words, Buffy and Angel move into the place representing
that which they has to deal with; the mortality that Buffy wants
to repress and the shameful aspect of Angel which he wants to
destroy. Also: In one episode of 'Buffy' the two Xanders think
they are saving Anya from a demon(from the vilified externalized
other) when in fact they are really saving her from each other.
Hence the deconstruction of the binary opposition. In the 'Angel'
episode that aired the same week, Cordelia shadows Gunn (as one
Xander shadowed the other on 'Buffy') believing that she was saving
him from a demon(the vilified other) when it turns out, just like
with the Xanders, that she was saving him from himself(deconstruction
of the vilified other.) I believe I can find significant similarities
or connections in each 'Buffy' and 'Angel' episode set aired the
same week.
This excerpt is part of a patriarchy section: The use of Lorne
Greene's name in 'Angel' is also an allusion to the past, to the
sixties western TV show(cowboys and indians(the villified other))
in which men were real men and women, well, they wore dresses
and looked 'perty' as they washed the dishes and brought up the
children that arrived from who knows where because no one in that
era went to the toilet, let alone had s-e-x. Did I mention sex?
And if you really want to go into the past, well, literally, the
world of Pylea was made to be a medieval male dominated society
where even Lorne's mum was masculine! I might suggest that the
medieval setting was to suggest and criticize the structure of
serfdom as human beings became herd animals, cows, to the patriarchal
masters, the predators; while Cordelia's reference to Hinduism
suggested also its caste system; in fact the reference to the
idea that Hindus don't touch/eat their cows out of reverence,
and cows on Pylea being the lowest form of life, suggests that
he was really making a more obscure reference to the lowest caste
group, the Untouchables, or its medieval equivalent, the serfs.
This was in its own little way a deconstruction of that hierarchal
order by stating that the untouchable cows, untouchable because
they are revered, are actually the Untouchables, in other words,
he's putting the most revered and the most devalued together,
the two become one.)
If you look at both series' arcs they are about family: Angel's
former vampire family which he deserts and his new human family,
which he deserts. Darla is his mother(sire) to begin with, Angel
is hankering for earlier times, for childhood which she represents,
to be looked after; but then the dream ends and Darla, through
Drusilla's(Angel's 'daughter') intervention becomes his 'granddaughter.'
Thus Angel goes from being the son, symbolically, to being the
father as he has been in relationship to his human family, Wes,
Cordy and Gunn, all 'orphans' of a sort he's taken in. He abandons
both of them, which is helpful to the human beings because it
gives them the opportunity to grow up somewhat themselves, but
it does hurt them also. The movement from son to father is symbolic
of the movement of growth into adulthood. But, Angel comes back
to the gang not as their father, but as a brother, as a fellow
adult to symbolize all of their growth. Angel comes back to his
human family more as an equal, having left his vamp family and
what they represent behind(father/vamps as children). This change
from father to brother symbolizes the deconstruction of a patriarchal
thought structure in Angel himself, and this is born out as Angel's
human family could only grow once the father figure left. This
type of thinking is thus associated with the vampires who represent
the attempt to stay as children forever.(Both Angel and Buffy
lose their home sweet home illusions in episodes aired the same
week when Dawn becomes Buffy's mission, fusing slayer duty and
homelife(two become one) and Angel literally watches as his homelife
illusion is taken from him as the actor playing the husband role
is killed, and Darla becomes Angel's mission.)
The idea of unreality, of illusion, of the myth that needs to
be deconstructed finds itself in 'Buffy' in the character Glory.
She wants to get back to a world that's made up in a writer's
mind, i.e. that isn't real. When Buffy saves her world, she is
saving a 'real' world, our world. When Angel and his gang leave
Pylea they leave an illusion behind too, a world that's made up,
to return to the 'real' world, our world. The two series are saying
much the same thing. In fact Buffy's journey through the portal
turns the illusion to reality as she emerges in this world, as
opposed to Glory's fictional world, just as the Fang gang emerge
from their fictional world to LA. (I would add here that the unreality
of the Host's head being able to live on after being severed is
meant as a symbol of how illusory the black and white view of
Pylea(a reiteration of the Sunnydale/child point of view) is to
be taken; I think Whedon expected us to react by thinking this
way: just as there's no way that the head could in reality live
on, so too is the thought system behind Pylea unreal, ie the literal
severing into two of Lorne's body is as unreal as the abstraction
into two that happens in opposites thinking. In fact he imbues
the severing of Lorne's head with more symbolism: it is meant
to be an antithetical parallel to Silas' decapitation. Lorne's
head lives on to express the idea that his point of view is grounded
in the understanding of the value of the people who live in society(the
body of people survives so the head of government survives: the
two are one); while Silas's head would not survive because he
believes that he is the only worthy one, i.e. that the people
don't support him, he and the people are separate. Silas dies
as a symbol that some reality is being restored to Pylea, this
is why he stays dead; while Lorne does not die to show that the
regime and thought behind it are based on illusory abstraction
into black and white.
Both season finales end the same way: Buffy falls through a portal
becoming one with the world and then we see her gravestone silently
announcing her death; the Fang gang come back to the world they
are one with through a portal and then find Willow in the hotel,
silently announcing Buffy's death. The word 'home' gets transformed
into the symbol of impermanence, the dead Buffy, when Angel realizes
Willow's message and mouths her name. Angel thus has the welcome
home mat pulled from under him just as Buffy pulls the mat out
from under her feet when she dives(no permanent Place called home).
The two become one. If the two series are linked together each
week and at the arc level, then, as they are obviously about different
characters, the two series are both individual and one at the
same time, expressing the idea perhaps of our nature: separate
and one at the same time. Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Thanks for all that -- Tanker, 08:24:32
06/11/01 Mon
After seeing some of the initial comments on "The Gift"
at this site, I posted on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer that Season 5
might work very well on a mythic/symbolic level, even if the actual
plot details don't always make complete logical sense (a good
number of the posters to that group are really hung up on logic
and dismissed The Gift, and the entire season, as a complete failure.
But that's Usenet for you). I take your extremely well-written
essays as a sign that I'm on the right track. Although it will
take me awhile to absorb all of what you wrote.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey Tanker -- Dedalus, 18:54:18
06/11/01 Mon
You know, I started out at alt.buffy as one of my very first forums/newsgroups
on the web. I lost access to usenet around the time Restless came
out, and then I got a new computer recently and went back there
and ... Damn. Those guys have gone nuts. Quite frankly, they are
the most volatile and negative group about season five I have
encountered anywhere on the net. And they use to be really intelligent
and fun to talk to. Not anymore.
So are you really Mike Zeares? We conversed once or twice, I do
believe. I was on webtv back then.
How The Gift didn't make perfect sense is beyond me. Sigh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey Tanker -- Tanker,
09:52:11 06/12/01 Tue
Yeah, it's me. There were two threads started yesterday about
how the end of "The Gift" was a "copout" (an
awful lot of people really seem to be ticked off that Dawn isn't
dead [shrug]), while another posed the question of just when did
"Buffy" jump the shark (begging the question of whether
it actually had). I've just about given up, although I did give
my "it works on a mythic level" response. I started
a thread on that a couple of weeks ago after reading some things
here ("Myth vs. Logic"). Some people agreed with me,
but others seem to want the plot to make rigid scientific and
logical sense (like I said, that's Usenet for you, a place where
logic is often worshipped like a god), and if it doesn't they
blow it off as "bad writing." They tend to post a lot
more than the people who still like the show. Well, such is the
way of a Usenet tv group. Atbvs looks like alt.cuddle compared
to some groups.
No one on the newsgroup has posted anything close to the interpretations
that I've read here. If I can fully wrap my brain around it all,
I might try.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey Tanker -- Dedalus,
10:10:17 06/12/01 Tue
Well, nice to see ya again. As a matter of fact, yours was the
first post I read when I visited alt.tv.buffy again. I saw "Myth
vs. Logic," and I was like "Ooh, that should be good."
And it was. I first showed up there ... probably back around the
time after Becoming and the late great "Xander Lied"
posts were rearing their ugly heads - punctuated of course by
the endless crescendo of "Who sang that song at the end of
BII?" - although I personally didn't post for awhile.
And speaking of Becoming, what about Angel's blood? It was the
key for that ritual? Did whoever make up that spell have HIS DNA?!
Did they have access to CLONING FACILITIES?! Huh? Huh? :-)
Anyway, I seem to remember enjoying reading what you had to say.
You should hang out here some more. I've only been around a few
weeks. It's one of the best Buffy forums on the web. The level
of discussion here is amazing. For an example, just go down or
go over a page or two to my epic Buffy and the Basis of Morality
post. I started it, and they took it away.
How's ol' David Hines doing? I bet he's been giving this season
hell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just consider
it "Theft of thought"......:):):) -- Rufus, 16:03:16
06/12/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What
I meant to say was ... -- Dedalus, 16:54:07 06/12/01 Tue
I started it and they took it to a whole other level.
I wasn't talking intellectual property rights. We'll save that
for the fanfic site. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Start
a topic and you never know where it will go.....:):):) -- Rufus,
18:24:55 06/12/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey Tanker: Logic
and Adam; Spoilers for Fifth and Fourth Seasons. -- Age, 17:08:19
06/14/01 Thu
I think that had Whedon not killed Buffy it would have been a
cop out; he had to deliver his message of mortality with her death.
But her death was really dictated by the metaphorical content.
How Whedon brings Buffy back and what this means metaporically
will be the test of Whedon's genius. I'm partial to some of the
suggestions on this board about the hero's cycle(a metaphorical
death), the integration of knowledge gained and the struggle to
impart that vision to others. Also I'd like to know how rebirth
and the cycle of life will be portrayed without suggesting the
established idea of the revolt against life and death in the vampire
metaphor. I have faith that Whedon can pull it off; I just don't
know how.
Okay, what I really wanted to talk about is logic and analysis.
I think that from the beginning Buffy as Vampire Slayer has symbolically
been a deconstructor of myth: patriarchal myth of male dominance
and the belief that somehow we can remain human and yet run away
from life and death. As a female she represents one half of the
partnership in a natural relationship between a man and a woman,
thus suggesting the reality of our equality as human beings and
our mortality etc. As a modern intelligent woman and as a strong
figure, she has acted to deconstruct the myth of the weaker sex(or
at least Whedon has used her to do this.) Also I've thought of
the slayer as a symbolic portrayal of the emasculator/mother/slayer
versus the sexual predator/boy/vampire of male dominated society,
but also very much its deconstruction, as symbolically the interaction
between vampire and slayer results in the myth being dusted and
the human being(Buffy) remaining. She has deconstructed the myth
by introducing knowledge(herself) contradicting it, and the series
has presented a different method of approaching life: research,
knowledge and analysis , as the Scoobies usually do.
This role of deconstructor, as symbolized by the stake tool with
which she makes a point(Buffy being the argument) got changed
in the figure of Adam who not only used the deconstruction tool,
the stake, but had it as part of his body. In other words he was
a creature of analysis who was so attached through programming
to deconstructing myth/gaining knowledge/analysis that he took
it to an absurd(absolute) level by literally cutting living beings
open(analysis turned to dissection) to see what made them tick,
thus deconstructing the very life out of them(the small boy he
meets.) Adam would be the outcome if Buffy took her deconstruction
to an absurd(absolute/black and white, ie if you are going to
analyze you have to do it completely or not at all) level and
reduced life to its constituent parts, ignoring the value of the
function of those contituent parts which is life, ignoring of
course the other aspect to life which is the organic wholeness,
the oneness,ie that the 'parts' don't function only as parts.(If
you noticed last year it was Buffy who went into the Initiative
and began asking questions, instead of just taking in all the
myth; it is she who exposed the myth of Walsh the mother. In one
scene the Scooby gang were watching the roadrunner and Wiley Coyote
cartoon; Buffy comments that it isn't real; she then disguises
herself as a scientist to infiltrate the initiative complex. These
acts reinforce the idea of Buffy the deconstructor.)
In fact my comments about this year's symbolism could be applied
to last year as well. Just as Adam represented the Scooby Gang's
idea that they could either stay together by being alike or face
splitting up through their own personal initiative, he also represented
logic(as it is applied in oppositional thinking, black and white
thinking) which includes the principle of mutual exclusion. In
last year's season showdown/battle the Scooby gang act in two
different ways at the same time, individually and together as
one. Last year's final battle indicated that we are both individuals
and one at the same time. Once Buffy starts to fight Adam she
breaks his stake arm, breaks symbolically deconstruction taken
to a destructive and violent level(ie taken to the absolute level
of complete analysis, to the point where everything is just taken
apart, separate.) She changes his bullets(separate things of destruction)
to doves as symbols of peace, but also as symbols of life. Life
can't operate only in separateness.(Adam cannot conceive that
people can be one and separate at the same time; if people are
to be one, they have to be made 'one' by being made literally
the same, constituent body parts shared by every person. Adam
doesn't value the wholistic effect of the machine/body(the life
itself) because this would be the separate, analyzed parts working(which
are really just like cogs working separately on one another) as
a whole at the same time. Adam puts the body parts back together
not to create a life(the wholistic result of the working parts)
but to create an army of working parts. Walsh as zombie reinforces
this idea because she's actually dead, but Adam is simply using
the body devoid of life. Buffy and the Scoobies contradict this
by acting both separately with their own strengths and skills,
and one together. To reinforce the idea that Adam is a deconstructor,
Whedon had him teach the vampires that their fear was based on
myth. He even deconstructed the myth that one species of demon
does not work with another. But really his rallying of the demons
was in bad faith as he didn't value their lives either, but simply
sought a means of deconstructing them into parts for his army,
ie to make soldiers, cogs in a machine.
Adam himself represents this mutual exclusion: either he's taking
something completely apart to see how it ticks, or he's sowing
everything together as if everything has to be the same, ie everything
is either separate and knowable(knowledge over myth) in its minutest
details, or it is the same. The world doesn't work this way. We
are separate and not at the same time. Buffy tells Adam that he
can't possibly know the source of their power. This is because
his perception of the world is dictated by seeing things only
in black and white as a programmed being(Adam's own power source
is symbolic of splitting up, of coming apart.)(Logically, if I
have a proper grasp of logic, separateness and oneness could both
be wrong, and that our condition is better described in a different
way, the contrary ideas being replaced by a substitute. The two
becoming one.)
That's about all I wanted to say. My inclusion of the above paragraph
was suggested of course by your mention of logic versus myth.
To extend the idea of two becoming one... perhaps Whedon retained
the myth of the cross in order to use Christianity as a basis
for certain metaphorical scenes; however, the cross symbolizes
the reality of the world in the sense of the two become one: that
we are separate and not at the same time: the upright represents
the individual, while the cross beam represents oneness through
the suggestion of outstretched arms. This would be the source
of the vampire's fear of the cross, and why it would burn them.
As the myth that you can run away from life and death and still
remain human, the vampires would be burned(the myth scorched as
it were) by the truth in the symbolism: that no matter what, everything
is interconnected and escape is impossible.
Also, one last bit. I mentioned in another posting Riley's baton(phallic
symbol) being symbolically transferred to Adam via the Polagara
demon's arm and through Walsh's back(mother.)
Here are some metaphorical interpretations:
incestuous(Walsh as mother) thoughts towards Riley on the part
of Walsh resulting ultimately in the monster son Adam;
deconstruction(the arm is a stake) of the myth of Walsh the caring
mother in Riley's mind;
betrayal(through the back) of the individual by a patriarchal
system;
betrayal of Walsh by herself as a female by setting aside her
own fertility(womb) to 'gestate' a 'son' in a laboratory as a
scientist;
the immediate allusion to Frankenstein's monster story and its
meaning;
the portrayal of the idea that sex equals death, the death of
the previous generation which is no longer needed as the new generation
has reached the age to continue the human race(Riley and Buffy's
lovemaking signals the redundancy of the previous generation,
hence Walsh the mother is 'killed');
deconstruction of the illusion , the myth(and yet another betrayal
of herself) that women do matter in a patriarchy with Walsh's
role seeming to be that of a scientist when really she was playing
a glorified mother, the only role a grown woman in that society
could play, ie servant to men(and when her role as mother is not
needed she is not needed or valued, and this gets symbolized by
her death, and by Walsh the zombie servant;
betrayal by Riley of Walsh(in Walsh's mind) when he naturally
goes ahead with a relationship with Buffy;
and finally, Adam's embrace which is to analyze the life out of
everything, or more appropriately, analyze everything to death.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks for all that; Spoilers
Fifth, Fourth and Third Seasons: Buffy -- Age, 20:02:07 06/11/01
Mon
You are welcome.
I believe that from the beginning of the series 'Buffy' has been
metaphorical. Most of the time, the metaphor, character study
and drama work well together, almost flawlessly. But then again
sometimes they do not, and metaphor wins out. This may be the
reason why the posters you mentioned felt the season was a failure.
This series isn't about vampires or slayers or demons. It's about
how we as human animals integrate our animal nature into our human
identity without succombing fully to the instincts we all have.
It's about how we as human beings stop growing emotionally because
we have been damaged by parents who are children or who have been
taught that repression is the only way to deal with ourselves.
The role of the parent is very important in this series: one aspect
of the third season arc is an antithetical study of the caring
strong father figure, Giles, and the self-centred father figure,
the Mayor. Time and again we see what happens when the previous
generation doesn't want to relinquish its hold, and allow the
next generation to have its time; heck, Buffy and her generation
had to literally fight to have their time at graduation to symbolize
this very thing.(This was also a political metaphor for the people
versus the dictator(Dick.)
To give you more of an idea of how the plots are dictated by metaphor,
here is a quick look at the episode, 'Spiral,' in which Whedon
bases the plot on what Dorothy does in 'The Wizard of Oz,' before
she has her Oz dream, except for the one significant difference
that Whedon deliberately uses to create meaning: Buffy no longer
has a childhood home with an Auntie Emm waiting to go back to,
i.e. there's no permanent place called home that we can go back
to and act like children: it's time for Buffy to grow up. Instead
of Buffy meeting a kind travelling salesman as she makes a run
for it, there's no one. In some sense she is running away from
herself at this point, and giving into her animal instinct for
survival which would have meant the death of Dawn(and hence the
death symbolically of her humanity.)The film,'The Wizard of Oz'
is also a work based on metaphor in which the title character
has to figure out if she has the right stuff to become a woman/mother.
Toto represents Dorothy's animal nature with her fertility being
specified in the ruby shoes. Once Dorothy makes the journey from
the land of the little people to the City of Oz, she is able to
change her perspective from child to adult, and deconstruct the
'god' Oz who is really a little man behind a curtain: the veil
of magical thinking which elevates adults to gods for children
is lifted, and Dorothy sees the wizard is really a salesman, the
adult is really just a person. Having brains, courage and heart,
Dorothy figures out that she can fulfil her role as human woman,
and clicks her ruby red heels together.
Here is the metaphor:
Buffy and Dawn represent the split psyche, but Buffy, in the end,
despite all the influences represented by Ben and Glory, doesn't
give into killing herself, her humanity or giving up her fertility
in the form of Dawn, except for one lapse; is anyone perfect?
This is why Buffy meets up on the road with the knights: it symbolizes
that her thinking and theirs(to kill Dawn, another human being
and therefore kill the human being and reproductive link in herself
to save herself from death) have temporarily crossed paths. This
is why both Ben and Glory come to the gas station, and why it
is Buffy who summons them: this is Buffy's own desire not to die
coming out of her subconscious; this is symbolic of Buffy temporarily
giving into her desire not to die; this is why the road and the
gas station are dusty and dead; it is a dead end for her as a
human being, and a symbolic representation of the death of humanity
itself as the link would be severed(as the Knights want) the link
between one generation and the other as symbolized by Buffy, the
mother, and Dawn, the daughter being separated literally from
each other. And we know that out of guilt Buffy becomes catatonic;
but this is also to express the idea that indeed she has temporarily
and metaphorically 'killed' herself, but all is not lost; she
hasn't given in fully, her humanity as symbolized by Dawn isn't
dead yet, and doesn't die.
The gas pump is a symbol of sexual activity as it is a nozzle
going into a hole. That it is empty and barren(the gas station
is derelict and dry) signifies Buffy's wanting first to get rid
of her sexuality as the Knights would want; then the arrival of
Ben confirms this to symbolize how Buffy has thought that she'd
give in and save herself and the world through allowing the innocent,
the girl, the weaker member of our society, the child, the next
generation to pay the price and die; until Buffy swings the other
way and decides not to give up her sexuality: hence the 'arrival'
of Glory. Buffy will either sever the link and lose her humanity(become
a herd animal) by putting her own interests above those of the
next generation. Or she'll give into her animal sexual nature
altogether, bringing forth the next generation, but as an animal
raising an animal. Buffy's sacrifice in the season finale is a
way of preserving both her humanity and the link between generations.
Both Ben and the Knights represent the herd instinct: sacrifice
the one so that the herd as a whole may survive. Ben is willing
to snuff out the insane, the unprotected at the 'edge' of the
herd to clean up after Glory, but really he's making things easier
for himself. Ben goes even further than the Knights in that he
signifies Buffy's desire to get on with her university career
and lose herself in the crowd/herd of those who live for themselves
while thinking not about protecting those who would be preyed
upon. In this way, Buffy would protect herself from death by not
slaying, not getting in harm's way. This ties in with the males
being used to show female sexuality being taken away because the
role of parent entails protecting young, protecting those who
cannot protect themselves. In other words if Buffy gives up slaying
to avoid dying, it would be analogous to giving up being a parent
whose very role is to protect the weak. And the contrary is true
too, if she gives totally into the predatory nature of the slayer,
she just becomes an animal. The link would be maintained, but
between one animal and another, between the 'beasts'. Hence the
world becoming demonic/animal in the season finale when Dawn's
blood opens the portal. The link is maintained, but as an animal.
It is Buffy's choice that humanizes the link which includes of
course mortality by sacrificing herself, and stopping the slide
of her world into animal/demon.
What Whedon is really saying is that there is a natural order
to life; we live because those before us died; they gave us a
gift of life through their death; and we will give that same gift
with our death someday. We have no choice(at the moment at least
because we have little control over our genetics.) But, Buffy
humanizes what is really part of our animal nature, our nature
as an organic structure/activity. She realizes that she is mortal,
and that no matter what, she will eventually die. So, instead
of keeping her mortality as part of her animal nature, and give
into her instinct for survival, she chooses to use her animal
nature in the service of a human choice to sacrifice herself for
the world. Instead of running away from life or death as the other
two slayers did and die like a herd animal taken down by a predator,
Buffy chooses to take her own mortality into her hands and use
it. By dying in this way, she neither runs away from life(she
satisfies her duty as the slayer by saving the world, yet again)
nor runs away from death. She embraces all of herself. In doing
so she validates all aspects of herself instead of vilifying any
as the enemy. She embraces the idea that she is both an individual
human being(she makes the choice); and one with the world(part
of the organic whole which includes being a link in the reproductive
chain.)
Of course why is not killing Dawn so important? It represents
an opportunity to exercise what it means to be human. We have
greater choice than the animals in what we do, but if we simply
do what an animal does, then we are no different. We forfeit what
we have been given as a gift by the deaths of those who came before
us. We might as well be dogs. If we simply follow the herd or
prey on others, we are no different. What makes us different is
our ability to think and to empathize. We may have inherited animal
instincts, but we are human beings, and do not have to act on
them, do not have to simply follow the programming. We have, to
a greater or lesser degree, a choice of what to do with them.
One last thing to conclude with the idea that this series is all
metaphor: Adam last year, represented the Scooby gang's little
secret fear/idea that their personal initiative would split them
up(hence the nuclear power pack as a 'heart'.) Seen a different
way, Adam's constituent parts symbolized the idea that to stay
together, the Scoobies had to make themselves all alike, sticking
bits of one another together. The descent into the complex at
the end of the season was the descent of the Scoobies into their
subconscious to excise this fear/idea from their minds. Also in
season four, the baton(phallic symbol) that Riley is carrying
in one episode gets symbolically transferred to the Polagara demon's
stake-arm; then to Adam and then through Walsh. Symbolically it
is the lovemaking of Riley and Buffy that 'kills' Walsh as the
jealous and domineering parent feels betrayed by the natural actions
of her 'son.' Hence the stake in the back. Also the two-parter
when Faith and Buffy switch bodies is a metaphorical representation
of the restoration of the true Faith/faith which is faith in oneself.
Riley acts as a Christ figure outside the church while the slayers
go in to take it back from the vampire agents of the patriarchal
Adam who represents faithlessness in humanity, and faith in and
or obedience only to the leader of a hierarchy.
Age.to create mPs¨sÏ *FôPÐFèjb@PÐFòHP*F¸PsJsÏ
ÐFð@PÐFòHP*F¸Ps¨sÏ ~þ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Wow ... n/t -- Dedalus,
10:19:53 06/12/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: A Round of Applause for Age -- Dedalus,
18:48:36 06/11/01 Mon
Well, I must say I am most impressed. I saw your posts yesterday,
but didn't really have the time to give them the attention they
deserved so I saved them for later, and now I'm glad that I did.
That was some stunning bits of insight you gleamed from this season.
I particularly liked how you went about showing that this season
was about overcoming binary opposites. I noticed that was a major
theme myself. I was reading into Taoism lately, and about how
one of its principal goals is to "strive for an attention
or consciousness that can embrace two fundamental opposites without
being swallowed by either." Buffy has always had such a strong
foundation in duality. All the characters have two sides, there's
always the struggle between good and evil, high school and hellmouth,
youth and age, male and female ... I certainly see Buffy's actions
at the end of The Gift as transcending the dichotomy of opposites
and bringing about union.
That was so well put. I'm going to print out a copy to read at
my leisure!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Vampires......a gift of chaos to order....... -- Rufus,
14:40:02 06/09/01 Sat
I find the use of vampires in this series facinating. First, I
agree with the vampire being the eternal adolecent. In watching
their actions you can clearly see that they tend to act upon very
adolecent hurts from their lives before. Angel acts out the eternal
battle of dominance between father and son, Spike acts upon the
need to be seen and valued. The most interesting thing about the
vampires in BVS is that they are an undecidable introduced to
create chaos. As an undecidable they are neither alive or dead,
and had been assumed to be evil absolute. They were the parting
gift, made from humanity, from the demons forced to leave our
dimension. They bring chaos to order with their existence and
actions. Buffy returns order to our world by slaying the vampire.
But with this season she has had to question her role in the scheme
of things as we have seen that in the character of Spike there
is something going on proving that he may be attempting to return
order to himself by doing good acts. This allows us to question
our notions of good and evil without putting a mortal face to
the problem. We have to consider the role of the soul and if evil
or good can exist as an absolute, or, for the human condition
to go on, does there have to be the balance of the binary opposition
that are good and evil?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Vampires......a gift of chaos to order.......
-- Virgill Reality, 15:25:44 06/09/01 Sat
**We have to consider the role of the soul and if evil or good
can exist as an absolute, or, for the human condition to go on,
does there have to be the balance of the binary opposition that
are good and evil?**
I've been wondering about Spike's progression back into the acts
of good, and perhaps it could be debated whether or not he now
has a "soul." We all know standard Buff-mythology: human
becomes vamp, human loses soul, demon takes over. But as we have
seen now, Spike's chip prevents him from evil acts, and despite
the fact that he can still hurt demons, he has been subtly coersed
into fighting for the forces of good, and this seems to have supressed
his inner demon.
I digress a little, sorry if none of this seems to be related
to the thread, but it leads me to my point: is a soul something
you automatically have? Alternative philosophy would say that
you're not born with a soul, but that you earn one due to good
acts. Spike is slowly returning to humanity, but as he continues
to do good, he might achieve a soul, if he hasn't already. When
you think about it, a demon in love doesn't make much sense. Although
good demons exist in the Buffyverse, your standard vampire is
a creature of pure hatred, a predator without a soul, and incapable
of love.
An interesting point for consideration might therefore be that
Spike regained his soul the moment he realised he loved Buffy.
Virgill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Very good points Virgill - Spike's humanity
-- Liquidram, 22:40:48 06/09/01 Sat
I'm reading "Spike & Dru - Pretty Maids in a Row" right
now and the Spike in this story is horribly sadistic and evil,
although the reader is constantly reminded that the majority of
his actions stem from his love for Dru. He does not hesitate to
kill in the most brutal fashion, yet his inner-voice is always
thinking of his feelings for her, more often than not, with tenderness.
Without giving anything away in the story, there is a major character
who is drawn to him regardless of his actions and is tormented
by this obsession with him because he once "...kissed her
softly" after an act of violence that personally affected
her.
The only hints of the Spike of today are minor scenes where he
chooses to assist rather than kill and is shocked himself because
of his choices.
In the series, he has become so human that it is hard to accept
the fact that he could turn evil again. Other than his strength
and healing powers, it's hard to remember that he is a vampire.
I have no such difficulty with Angel probably because we've seen
him digress after being "good", plus he keeps a tight
rein on his emotions whereas Spike lets it all hang out.
I agree with your idea that maybe his soul was or is beginning
to be returned to him as he acknowledges his feelings for Buffy.
Many times he has cried out to the SG and Buffy that he has changed
and no longer has the desire to do evil. Because they seldom listen
to him, he has no other option but to show them. As I previously
mentioned in another thread, I believe that Spike's humanity was
always lurking beneath the surface because of the person William
was. His tears in "Fool For Love" was William breaking
through before Spike could get him under control with anger and
retaliation. The fact that he couldn't follow through with that
anger and comforted Buffy instead of killing her proved that his
anger had been more hurt feelings and humiliation suffered once
again at the hands of someone he cared for.
Obviously, I would like to see his growth continued and believe
it would make for a far more fascinating story. Reverting him
to evil after showing us who he is inside would just be a cop-out
IMHO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Very good points Virgill - Spike's
humanity -- Dedalus, 19:03:39 06/11/01 Mon
I agree reverting Spike back to his evil self would be pretty
lame.
Those are some interesting ideas about the soul. We assume people
are born with them in the Buffyverse ... but they also seem to
act as a kind of conscience or moral catalyst, rather than just
that part of us that is immortal.
Are people in the Buffyverse born with souls? Or do they form
via life experiences and choices? Is the Buffyverse a "vale
of soul-making," as Keats would say? And if so, could a vamp
develop and nurture his own soul back into existence again?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Look to the influence of Dawn and
Buffy on Spike.... -- Rufus, 21:06:19 06/11/01 Mon
Not just Spikes lust for Buffy but what the influence of Buffy/Dawn
is having on the demon. There is something happening here and
I think it will continue next season. What is it about Dawn and
Buffy that has drawn the characters of Angel, Dracula and, Spike
to them?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Vampires......a gift of chaos to order.......
-- Cynthia, 18:16:52 06/09/01 Sat
To quote a line from a book I read years ago, "A little bit
of chaos is a good thing."
Seems to me that too much order would make for a very boring,
very rigid world. Even scientists are starting to look at chaos
as a useful tool. Or as Tara might say "lets look outside
the box."
Of course, the realization that chaos, in the form of vampires,
might actually be a necessary would create alot of moral confusion.
And it would by its very fact, make Buffy look outside the box
that she has made for herself. This was pointed out in Checkpoint
when at one point she is arguing with her professor about approaching
history i.e. Rasputin from a different angle. But neither she
or Spike can break sterotyping of each other in the immediate
following scene. (And how many of the gang could the Rasputin
"need to sin in order to be forgiven" line refer to).
Actually, we all have our tortise shells on (or at least nearby
in a corner) in regards to something in our lives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Ack! I meant to say Anya not Tara. NT -- Cynthia,
18:23:37 06/09/01 Sat
Current board
| More June 2001