March 2003 Archives

March 2003 posts

Previous March 2003
More March 2003

Fred and Fitzgerald (Angel Odyssey 3.4)(sp. The Great Gatsby) -- Tchaikovsky, 09:43:16 03/10/03 Mon

In my kitchen there's a mug, which says on its side, 'What did I do to deserve this?'. My housemate is very smug when he occasionally brings me a cup of tea in it. Now if Angel Season Three was a drink, it would be perfectly justified in bringing itself to me in the mug. Five episodes in, I loved everyone. The new dynmaic is excellent, this season is possibly the funniest so far, and there's still the good old angst simmering away underneath. I think the end of 'Fredless', possibly one of the cheeriest ends to an episode ever, is a sure omen that things are about to take a really bad turn for the worse. But for the moment, I'm really enjoying the group dynamic, which as I mentioned before, is a little like the Scooby Gang around the time of 'Family'. So here goes with the next two episodes.

3.4- Carpe Noctem

This is probably the only place where I might be proved wrong on this, but I believe the play on words in the title comes originally from the Latin aphorism 'Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero', which roughly translates as 'Seize the day, and pay the least attention possible to the future'. So 'Carpe Noctem', seize the night, is at its most simple level a re-enforcement of Angel's nocturnal life. But in light of the full sentence, it goes a little further.

It is not necessarily true that the writers are dismissing this sentence, but certainly the results of the old man's transmigration were very bad. He 'seizes the night' while in Angel's body, and in consequence manages to alienate nearly everyone in double quick time. Including Lilah after one of those moments which pays homage to far-fetched fan fiction. The body switch is interesting, because it highlights some of the things that Angel ignores completely. The behaviour is so much more blatant than, for example, Faith's in 'Who Are You?' however, that it doesn't take to long for the gang to figure out what has happenned, although it does take Wesley finding books about vampires, so it doesn't come automatically.

There are quite a few parallels between the old man in Angel's body and Faith in Buffy's, and these are presumably deliberate. Angel's magnetism in the nightclub strongly parallels Faith's in the Bronze scene, where she plays out that sweltering scene with Spike. There is a shot of Angel in the old man's body, looking at the mirror, which has a dual purpose. Firstly, we again compare it to Faith trying out Buffy's persona- but also there is the eternal slight excitement that Angel gets from having a reflection, even in a different body. It really does symbolise something important to him. Finally, there is the suspicion that the old man could completely destroy Angel's life and relationships before he comes back. He is implicitly racist to Gunn. And, due to the sheer shallowness of his obsession with women, he manages to almost break Fred's heart again, in a scene possibly even more disturbing than Willow's discovery of Xander and Cordelia in 'Innocence'. Amy Acker can do big eyedness too, even if she's not quite in Alyson Hannigan's league. Her face just melts.

The scenes between the old man and Cordelia are interesting. We have been seeing a build-up in trust and understanding between the two this Season, and yet, as Angel changes violently and seems completely distracted, Cordelia continues as normal. It is as if the last year has taught her that violent swings in Angel's mood are to be expected.

There's a lot of good old Shakesperian mistaken identities going on, and Lilah's reaction to Angel is really quite telling. Just like Spike to Buffy early on, through the adversarial nature of their relationship, there shines through a fascination which can border on obsessive passion. She does appear genuinely hurt though when she realises ANgel didn't mean anything by it. One of the reasons I like Lilah is that there is an essential humanity under her evil. The despairing cry in 'Reunion' summed it up well. There's a real, vulnerable person underneath the cold, manipulative lawyer.

Then the final few lines: and well, if you've been reading these for any length of time, you'll know I can't refuse over-analysing literary references. In the touching final scene between Fred and Angel she says, :'It's like something out of Fitzgerald. The man who can have everything but love'. This is clearly a reference to the eponymous Jay Gatsby. He lives a luxury lifestyle in the relatively bohemian America of the 1920's, but his obsession with the idealised version of a woman he knew, Daisy Fay. He finds not only that he is happily married to a rather mundane man who he despises, but also that he can't stand the real Daisy. He only ever loved the idealised, distant woman he had in his mind. How this relates to Angel and Buffy is anyone's guess. It is clear what Fred thinks of Angel, and how she is ultimately wrong. Angel doesn't really have everything but love. His life has numerous other flaws of well. It may have eluded Fred's reading that Gatsby also, despite having a fervent belief in the American dream, makes much of his money illegally. Everything that Gatsby idolised is ultimately a lie. That's the philosophy behind the tragic story which leads to his death. Gatsby doesn't just lack love, he is a hollow man, even if a very giving one. Whether Angel is ultimately hollow is a big question. Ultimately, the answer is probably no, because he is fighting for a cause in which he believes, and he is good at it. But Gatsby has more troubles than his fantasy love, and so does Angel.

The ultimate question to be asked is this: when Angel is told that Buffy is alive, does he race back to see her in a vain hope that the old idealised Buffy he has painted in his mind since her death is there, or does he go more pragmatically? Although we don't have much evidence for the former, it might just be there in Fred's innocent reference? Does Angel have his hopes dashed when he sees an under-the-weather, struggling Buffy? We never see the re-union, but it may be something brought up at the end of this Season. Who knows?

3.5 is really part of this section of posts, but I've got stuff to do, so it may be a few hours.

Thanks for reading.

TCH

[> Saving this thread until you return, TCH -- Masq, 10:46:28 03/10/03 Mon

So glad you're enjoying Season 3. While on BtVS, my heart belongs to Seasons 2 and 3, I'm kind of a Rob when it comes to AtS. Every season I get my new favorite Season. But truth be told, I have a soft spot in my heart for Season 3 of AtS. A lot of it has to do with certain new characters introduced in this Season who I won't go into lest I spoil you. Some of it probably has to do with feeling estranged from BtVS during Season 6, its companion season.

But honestly, I think Carpe Noctem and Fredless were sort of weak parts of the early season, stand-alones (mostly) that were marking time for the angst and plot roller-coasters to come. Plot roller-coasters we are still riding with heart-rising and stomach-plummetting abandon in Season 4.

It's *all* good...

[> [> And here's me thinking these two were great...;-) -- Tchaikovsky, 14:41:40 03/10/03 Mon

[> Re: Fred and Fitzgerald (Angel Odyssey 3.4)(sp. The Great Gatsby) -- yabyumpan, 12:00:51 03/10/03 Mon

Really glad you're enjoying S3 so much but as Masq said, after 'Fredless' it gets to be a rollacoaster ride, so hang on to you seat!
Carpe Noctem: interesting take on the episode, although I'm not as enamoured with it as you. While it's always fun (for me anyway) to see DB acting the clown, I see this episode as a missed opportunity. They had the perfect way to explore mortality, fraility and the limitations of age from Angel's perspective and I think it's a shame they didn't go there. Here we have someone who has lived for 250 years, never experiencing old age, going from inhabiting a very powerful body to being trapped inside one that is very frail, a being who doesn't experience normal human bodily functions inside a body which may well have little control over thos functions. We got brief glimpses - Marcus/Angel staring at the heart moniter after his heart attack - Marcus/Angel looking in the mirror and seeing a reflection - "I gotta pee".....but I do feel they could have done more with it. Granted, it would have meant that the star of the show would have had less screen time but they could probably have gotten around that by having DB voice Angel's thoughts/feelings whilst in Marcus's body. While it was fun, as I say, it was also IMO a missed opportunity.

The scenes between the old man and Cordelia are interesting. We have been seeing a build-up in trust and understanding between the two this Season, and yet, as Angel changes violently and seems completely distracted, Cordelia continues as normal. It is as if the last year has taught her that violent swings in Angel's mood are to be expected.

This is one of the main problems I have with this episode. The casualness with which Cordelia and the rest of the gang took the changes in Angel just didn't ring true. I would have thought that because of what happened last year, the violent mood swings would have rung loud alarm bells. I also in some way negated the 'I know you' from 'Hearthrob'. Cordelia was able to tell that all was not right with Angel on his return, just with small nuances of behaviour and yet major changes like Angel eating or or paying her smarmy compliments didn't raise an eyebrow. It also didn't ring true that she would be so casual about the prospect of Angelus being back.

Saying all that, it is an episode that I enjoy watching, just for the fun that is DB, but I'm dissapointed that they didn't use to opportunity to explore Angel's psyche more.

Waiting patiently for the 'Fredless' review now ;o)

[> [> Actually... -- Tchaikovsky, 14:49:16 03/10/03 Mon

Having just re-read my 'Carpe Noctem' review, it did seem perhaps a little more enthusiastic than I really meant it, although I thought it was a perfectly fine episode. I hadn't really thought of the consequences of seeing more of Angel in the old man's body, although presumably the fact that David Boreanaz is the lead actor and the other bloke was just a long-time was the main reason between favouring Angel's body over his psyche. It definitely would have been interesting to see him feeling the effects of age.

On Angel-Cordelia, I agree entirely. I was trying to stretch it back to Season Two, but that really doesn't tally with the exceptionally well-depicted A-C vibe in the first three episodes. Her complete lack of suspicion did seem a continuity lapse, considering the slow groeth of their relationship was not just an incidental but an important theme in the beginning of the Season.

TCH

[> [> [> Re: Actually... -- Dannyblue, 21:27:22 03/10/03 Mon

Cordy's seeming obliviousness to the changes in Angel can be blamed on two things.

1. He's acted weird before. Angel acts weird an awful lot. While Cordy usually comments on it, it's possible she's gotten so used to it that she might let it slide every once in a while.

2. Sometimes, in order for a plot to "work", every characters' I.Q. has to drop several points. This is one of those cases. I imagine that, since this was a "fluffy" episode, ME was willing to be a little lax with things like this.

Also, a note: There actually was more to "Carpe Noctem", an entire storyline that was more angsty and serious, and had to do with Angel's experiences in the nursing home. I don't know if they were written but never filmed, or filmed but left on the cutting room floor. Maybe a little of both. Everyone who reads this abandoned storyline (which was about mortality and family, etc) loves it and wishes it was in the ep. But it seems ME chose to go with the more humorous, "Angel acts like an over-sexed sleaze" storyline.

[> Fred and Fitzgerald ctd (Angel Odyssey 3.5) -- Tchaikovsky, 14:33:36 03/10/03 Mon

I've just been reading Masq's and yabyumpan's replies to the first half of this section. They said that these are the weaker earler episodes of the Season, and it gets much better. Goodness. Here I was about to write a blistering review of 'Fredless', and I wonder whether it's rather like getting to fortissimo when you're still supposed to be mezzo-piano. Oh well.

Incidentally: music on the brain. This review has been delayed by a reheasal for a concert tomorrow. We're singing Prokofiev's Alexander Nemsky overture, and Britten's Welcome Ode. The Prokofiev has given me the opportunity to learn to read Cyrillic, which is very interesting. Unfortunately, there aren't the right letters to start writing Tchaikovsky in Cyrillic on this board, because otherwise it would just be too pretentious for me to resist. The Britten Ode has a very clever musical motif at the end where, to highlight its light-heartedness, the final note is a beat later than the audience is expecting. I realised on the third or fourth time through that it's an almost exactly similar effect to the one Whedon uses at the end of 'I'll Never Tell'. The bloke has the musical nuances as well as speech nuances. Sometimes life's just not fair. Anyway...

3.5- 'Fredless'

Talking of Whedon, one of my favourite Whedon episodes is 'Family'. I like some of the episodes where he's not being so flashy, as mind-blowing as some of his experiments are. 'Family' is just a tidy, emotional story, with that extra flourish which Joss does. And I think this is its counterpart on AtS.

I know it's deeply silly, but I absolutely loved the Cordelia/Wesley acting out of Buffy and Angel. Cordelia's simmering antipathy to Buffy's dramatic life really came through, and it's always good to see an American actor who's character is British pretending to be American, (I think JM's 'Zaaynder' in 'Doomed' still has it, but AD was close). I laughed three or four times, because some of the lines were just spot on. 'I love you so much I almost forgot to brood'. Really funny. It's not really worth breaking down comedy, but two bits added to it. First, the underlying metanarrative that to Cordelia, Buffy made a meal of her life because she wasn't in the position of the audience, so the melodrama seemed overdone. Of course, we saw how hard Buffy's life was, and so sympathise a lot more, (hopefully). Secondly, the flumoxed Fred, who looks on extremely confused by all the in-jokes, ('My soul can go to hell', 'But my gypsy curse', and the 'Possibly more?' line which is so reminiscent of Spike's 'Love's Bitch' speech in 'Lover's Walk'. OK, I'll stop analysing now.

Lorne has a very interesting role in this episode, which reveals a lot about him. It appears that when he tells Fred to run further away, he is taking into account how relentlessly negative he himself is feeling. I suspect that, considering Lorne knows that Fred's parents are normal but are going to be confused by her disappearance, that in his care-free Season Two mindset he might have told Fred to approach his parents. But now, his insecurity about Caritas means that he is unable to face the idea of moving on and resolving issues, and therefore he gives Fred the advice of his mindset. This is of course coupled by his whole experience in Pylea, where his half-hearted attempts at reconciliation with his family failed miserably. Poor old Lorne- which is not something one regularly says.

This particular episode, the more I think about is, is slightly too much like a Polo. There isn't really enough of an A-plot to sustain the excellent B-plot going on underneath. Of course, in Buffy and Angel, the character-driven B-plots are often more important, or even evolved by, the monster A-plot, but in this particular episode, I thought the crystal plot-line was a little too skimpy, meaning that the soap opera aspect had rather a lot of space to fill. I enjoyed it, and it gave Mere Smith the opportunity to show she's a good comic after the relative sombriety of 'Untouched', 'Redefinition' and even 'Over the Rainbow', but it seemed a touch plot-light.

That's pretty much where my criticisms end though, because I was entranced by the main plot. I've pretty much loved Fred from the outside. I love the well-observed timidity but the resilience and obvious intelligence. Her tendency to babble is nicely observed- there's always something substantial in with her para-sequiturs. Amy Acker really plays the childlike aspects of her fear of finding her parents very well. There's the slightly half-hearted mislead of 'Are the parents evil?', which is luckily dispelled early on, instead of being dragged on. Fred's reason for being scared to accept her parents is believable. In blocking out the past, living only in the now of the Hyperion with Angel as her Protector, she can block out the idea of falling into 'a fairy tale', and reside in scientific certainties. Yet in doing so, she also denies her childhood. There's two separate stages to go through for her in this episode. First, she must accept that her childhood happenned. Second, she must realise that even though it's real, she is no longer a child, and must continue with her life. I have to say that she handled the second step surprisingly quickly for me, although not incredibly [in the strict sense] so. It just shows again how perceptive she is when given the chance.

I really look forward to seeing how the veneer of innocence which she has had built for her by the rest of AI breaks down though. She is a grown-up, and despite apparently having the emotions of a girl of around 11, that won't last for long considering her intellect. As with Willow and Dawn, we will slowly see the maturing process start to happen, and it will be interesting to see the character really develop.

Meanwhile, it is nice to see that Fred has no fewer than two good parents, which I believe is a record. Buffy's Mom, (despite some flaws [!]), is a generally well-intentioned parent, but Willow, Xander, Wesley, Liam and Tara all have difficult parents and Cordelia, Anya and Giles appear to have forgotten theirs entirely. The Burkels not only have Fred's best interests at heart- they are also quickly ablke to forgive her for her disappearance, and able to accept that she needs to grow on her own now, (with only that perfectly observed 'We'll stay for a couple of weeks...days then').

Key to the Season as it now hangs is Fred's summation of the team as it stands. 'Angel is the Champion. Wesley is the Brains. Fred is the Muscle. Xander is the Heart'. Interesting how Cordelia has the same role as ex-lover Xander, and that both of them are the every[wo]man of their gang. In this episode, Fred's claims are quite true. In fact, for much of the season, this simplistic roles have fitted credibly well. However, Fred's trouble has already been seing things too simplistically, and here her schematic is rather like a fairy story. And it has to be said that here, 5 episodes into the Season, I feel like I've been going peacefully and happily but with a sense of foreboding up a roller-coaster. It's nice to see the group happy for once, and the five regulars allows a clever camaraderie rather like Buffy, Willow, Xander, Giles and one [Oz, Cordelia, Wesley, Angel etc] in early Buffy. But it's not going to last for long. And by the end of the Season, it's quite possible that any or all of the characters could have completely lost the role that Fred has just given to them. Because on Angel's show, no-one is safe from the jerky, speedy character developments which are really extremely akin to real life.

I want a Wesley episode now please. I've had Gunn, Cordelia, Fred and Angel, so its only fair. Alexis Denisof has been there acting beautifully so far this Season, but he hasn't had a showcase.

And I finish on yet another excellent joke:
TRISH-
I mean, Rog's always had a thing for those
disgusting "Alien" movies all the slime and
teeth. He just can't get enough of 'em.
(thinking about it)
Except for that last one they made
I think he dozed off.

Perfect.

TCH

[> [> I loved Fredless. Loved it -- Rahael, 15:18:51 03/10/03 Mon

Thought it was one of the most moving and affecting episodes I had seen in the Buffyverse. I'm not ashamed to say I cried.

And the Cordy and Wesley show has so many many levels to it!

Just keeping this alive until I can comment properly on your whole thread tomorrow morning!

[> [> [> I'll keep it around -- Masq, 15:26:06 03/10/03 Mon

I have pull with the boss. *g*

[> [> [> [> You know, it's a good thing you love Angel so much ;) -- Rahael, 15:44:30 03/10/03 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> Well, if I didn't... -- Masq, 04:02:52 03/11/03 Tue

This board would not be a forum where excellent analyses of AtS like TCH's would be posted in the first place.

Now he's got me watching Season 3 again just for the fun of it. Boy, someone is always pregnant on this show, you ever notice?

[> [> [> Continuing to save this thread until Rah comes back around -- Masq ; )P, 13:13:03 03/11/03 Tue

'Cause I want to hear her comments!!

OK, read them.

[> [> [> [> <puff, puff, puff> -- Masq, 15:56:15 03/11/03 Tue

It's very strenuous work keeping this thread on the board, Rah!

puff, puff, puff

Actually, it's staying on pretty well, but maybe won't survive tomorrow night.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: <puff, puff, puff> -- Rahael bashfully appearing, 18:35:06 03/11/03 Tue

I mean to be posting away on this thread today! Unfortunately my boss seemed to have the idea I should be working or something.

[> [> <snigger> -- KdS, 15:59:07 03/10/03 Mon

I want a Wesley episode now please.

Be careful what you wish for...

BWAHAHAHA

[> [> [> tee hee! -- Masq, 16:08:17 03/10/03 Mon

So this is what it's like to be a spoiler trollop and cast your knowing eyes upon the unspoiled!

No wonder they're so full of themselves!

Going back to purity mode now.

[> [> [> [> Stop it... -- Tchaikovsky, 03:31:58 03/11/03 Tue

or I'll slip a completely unsolicited spoiler about Buffy 7.17 into my next Odyssey post...;-)

TCH

[> [> [> [> [> Do it. Do it! (no spoilers) -- Doug, 06:24:30 03/11/03 Tue

Or maybe slip in a 7.19 spoiler, or a few 7.18 spoilers. How far ahead are you spoiled incidentally?

This board could turn into a real feeding frenzy with but a few words let slip.

Just kidding by the way.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Do it, and I'll... -- Masq, 07:28:21 03/11/03 Tue

unapprove that post!

I have special magics.

Mwah hah hah!

; )

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> You don't wanna mess with a woman who ends her name with a 'Q'. -- VR, 08:02:23 03/11/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL- fair enough -- Tchaikovsky, 09:46:31 03/11/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And I promise not to tease you anymore ; ) -- Masq, 09:48:36 03/11/03 Tue

Can't make the same promise on behalf of KdS, though. : )

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Masq....you are abusing your power, leave the teasing to the professionals....;) -- Rufus, 23:09:56 03/11/03 Tue

So you don't want that spoiler about.....in ep 19?...

[> [> [> [> [> [> Well... (no spoilers- promise) -- Tchaikovsky, 09:49:54 03/11/03 Tue

I'm spoiled as far as I can be on Buffy, by basically reading all the lovely tidbits I can get from Rufus' board. So I know quite a bit on 7.19. On the other hand, I'm trying to steer completely clear of all the Angel threads on both boards now- so I don't find out anything more about Seasons 3 or 4 until I watch them. It's a noble ambition- but I don't know if I'll hold out after finishing Season Three.

TCH

[> [> [> [> Pure my ass -- VampRiley, 07:59:19 03/11/03 Tue

We all know you set up another email account so you could sign up for the conversebuffy list.

;-P

VR

[> [> [> [> Hmmmmmm wait a minute.......Hey! -- Rufus, 23:08:13 03/11/03 Tue

If you only knew......;)

[> 'Careless people' -- Rahael, 18:51:30 03/11/03 Tue

ooooh! you know I can't resist literary analyses! I had never thought about the Fitzgerald reference before.

Now I'm wondering who Tom Buchanan is.

Also, I'm wondering if the Fitzgerald line refers to Carpe Noctem's main plot itself, especially since a more serious storyline ended up getting cut. The "careless people" who smash up other people's lives. The man who fakes his identity and lies about who he is. Daisy with her 'deathless song', and also, I am reminded of the wonderful passages describing the aftermath of the glittering party - the orange rinds, squeezed, used up and thrown away. The wasteland. Carpe Noctem shows signs that it might have been a darker, more complex episode. There were the shades of Dorian Gray. The idea of Angel's body being taken over by evil, which resonates against his inner demon, only this time, Angel, in the old man's body gets to experience the fear of death - "I will show you fear, in a handful of dust".

Perhaps the "everything but love" contrasts with the old man who can do something that Angel can't do -- have sex. And yet, Angel is the possessor of more love, despite this. Angel has his family. The tug of the past, but also a future, echoing the themes of Hearthrob.

[> [> Difficult to resist the Tom Buchanan=Riley thought -- Tchaikovsky, 02:56:55 03/12/03 Wed

[> [> [> ha! it makes sense -- Rahael, 03:43:24 03/12/03 Wed

Thinking more about it, Angel goes away, keeping his fantasy love intact while Buffy finds love with Riley. Though comparing him to the horrid Tom might be a little unkind (even considering the stick he comes in for!). However, like Tom, Riley is eventually 'unfaithful' to Buffy.

It's an interesting comparison, Jay to Angel. I must think about it. Angel does have the glamourous appeal. But at the same time, living in a hotel room with hundreds of bedrooms, his heart doesn't beat, he finds it difficult to connect, and to have true engagements with human beings - the ones he finds are inspiring, but fragile. (But then Gatsby does forge a relationship with the narrator). There's also a similar ironic disjuncture between the 'Great' Gatsy and his reality, and Angel's role as 'Champion' and his real self opinion of himself (dangerous, a sinner). And also, in TGG, the eye of 'God' watches over the wasteland, and I wonder if there is a simultaneous connection between this and the PTB, or even Wolfram and Hart.

Okay. Now I need to go read the transcript for CN.

[> [> [> [> Dr TJ Eckleberg -- Tchaikovsky, 05:06:12 03/12/03 Wed

Or something like that. Yes, that's exactly what I meant about Riley- that there are parallels, but to parallel them to closely is to be extremely critical of Riley, beyond reason, even though he is the all-American, beer-swilling boy. Tom Buchanan used to be a sportsman- Riley spends a lot of time playing basketball in the series. And with Buffy as Daisy, Angel as Jay and Riley as Tom, you have a lot of parallel storylines. The eventual conclusion I come to is that Buffy is stronger than Daisy. While Daisy is entranced by Gatsby's idolatry of her, and momentarily leaves Tom- Buffy, despite the opportunities in 'The Yoko Factor' and 'Forever' doesn't get into a fantasy relationship. If she had in 'TYF', it would have both broken Riley's heart and made her ignore Adam. As for 'Forever'- in that beautifully written night-time scene in the cemetery, Angel knows he can't stay. After his epiphany with Darla, he has learnt full well that purely dreamy obsession with no basis in reality tends to end badly. He has managed to quantify the 'green light's influence on his life without the realisation of its relative importance destroying him. This makes him a stonger character than Gatsby in some ways, while Daisy is clearly weaker than Buffy in almost every way.

TCH

Defining 'retcon' -- Cheryl, 12:05:39 03/10/03 Mon

Can someone please provide a definition of "retcon" for me? My understanding is that it's basically a rewriting of history (canon?) to fit the story ME is telling now. But that may not be a fair or accurate description and I'd like to explain it to a friend. Thanks.

[> Yup, that's basically it. -- Rob, 12:20:31 03/10/03 Mon

Retcon is short for retroactive continuity. Personally, I don't think there are even close to as many examples of true retcon in the Buffyverse as many will tell you, since on the whole, ME, IMO, is very good about fitting new revelations about the past into the established mythology.

Retcon, though, was not a phrase created for Buffy. I believe that it first came into use regarding comic books, and how later issues might change established history from earlier issues.

Rob

[> [> I'm a retconfortidor, also -- Valheru, 13:16:57 03/10/03 Mon

Probably the most obvious retcon on BtVS is Dawn. And ME handled that better than 90% of most comic book retcons.

Comic fans tend to misuse the term "retcon," or they stretch the meaning to encompass other things. In its truest sense, a retcon is adding to or embellishing established continuity to allow a character or event to plausibly exist within that continuity. The "pioneer" of retcons is Roy Thomas, who used them to almost single-handedly repair the wacky DC Universe timeline before Marv Wolfman and George Perez decided to tablua rasa the whole mess in "Crisis of Infinite Earths." Many people equate "Crisis" to Thomas's retcons, which IMO is incorrect--"Crisis" tore down and rebuilt DC continuity, whereas a retcon is simply an addition. Dawn didn't change BtVS history, she was simply added to it post facto, thus creating a kind of alternate "Dawn timeline."

Retcons are very tricky to pull off. Usually, what we think are retcons aren't retcons at all, but rather corrections of opinion. For instance, Angel being Spike's sire in "School Hard" becoming Drusilla in "Fool for Love" can be explained away as a rather broad interpretation on Spike's part of the term "sire." A retcon of this situation would be something like: 1) In "School Hard," we have the flashback to Angelus siring in Spike, but then 2) in "Fool for Love," it is revealed that it was just an illusion of Angelus, that it was really Drusilla. Which would all be really corny, IMO. So most writers prefer to say that what the characters think is wrong, rather than retcon the actual event.

[> [> Where do you draw the line? (Spoilers thru 'The Killer in Me' and 'Awakening') -- Gyrus, 13:23:23 03/10/03 Mon

Would you consider these retcons, mistakes, or neither?

- Anya referring to Olaf as "the troll god" in "The Gift", even though Olaf was never called a god in "Triangle"

- Fred's discovery in "Supersymmetry" that her involuntary journey to Pylea was her professor's doing, even though we had previously been given good reasons to believe that it was an accident

- Spike mentioning (in "The Killer in Me") the drugs he'd been given to control the pain from the chip when he was first imprisoned in the Initiative, even though Spike fled the Initiative almost immediately after waking up there (so that there would have been no time for the drug treatments he described)

- Angel telling Wesley that all he knew of Angelus was what he'd read in books, even though Wesley met Angelus back in AtS S1 ("Eternity")

[> [> [> Re: Where do you draw the line? (Spoilers thru 'The Killer in Me' and 'Awakening') -- Rob, 13:34:21 03/10/03 Mon

- Anya referring to Olaf as "the troll god" in "The Gift", even though Olaf was never called a god in "Triangle"

He was never called a god, but he was never not called a god. That, IMO, was just a matter of phrasing. Also, since both eps were in the same season, I take this as an example of an important detail being left out of "Triangle" rather than "The Gift" retconning. I assume that Joss always planned to use the troll hammer in the final battle. Even earlier, Anya could have known Olaf had become a god, but not mentioned it. Similar to Angel being called Spike's sire in School Hard, when later it was explained that sire referred to the progenitor of the line, not just the specific vamp.

- Fred's discovery in "Supersymmetry" that her involuntary journey to Pylea was her professor's doing, even though we had previously been given good reasons to believe that it was an accident

That has been talked about here a great deal. You can chalk this one up to "unlikely" but not complete retcon. It's unlikely but possible that the professor set that book in the library up for her to find. Again, a little farfetched, and perhaps not explained well enough, but not bad.

- Spike mentioning (in "The Killer in Me") the drugs he'd been given to control the pain from the chip when he was first imprisoned in the Initiative, even though Spike fled the Initiative almost immediately after waking up there (so that there would have been no time for the drug treatments he described)

This one, like the one in Supersymmetry is probably closer to true retcon, but again, isn't too bad. The timeline in the Initiative actually could have taken longer than it seemed on screen. Spike being kidnapped could have happened a week or so before the later scenes. Perhaps a bit of a stretch, but possible.

- Angel telling Wesley that all he knew of Angelus was what he'd read in books, even though Wesley met Angelus back in AtS S1 ("Eternity")

That wasn't the "real" Angelus. That was an over-the-top version brought on by the drugs. It was a synthetic Angelus and doesn't really count as truly meeting the brilliant, diabolical genius that is the real Angelus.

Rob

[> [> [> [> Interesting -- Gyrus, 14:33:15 03/10/03 Mon

[Olaf] was never called a god, but he was never not called a god. That, IMO, was just a matter of phrasing. Also, since both eps were in the same season, I take this as an example of an important detail being left out of "Triangle" rather than "The Gift" retconning.

I do recall Xander describing Olaf's hammer as "godly" in the original shooting script, but I figured that was because the comic-reading Xander was comparing it to Thor's hammer. Also, wouldn't you think a Troll God would be more powerful?

That has been talked about here a great deal. You can chalk this one up to "unlikely" but not complete retcon. It's unlikely but possible that the professor set that book in the library up for her to find. Again, a little farfetched, and perhaps not explained well enough, but not bad.

I don't recall for certain, but I don't think they ever mentioned WHY Fred was in that part of the library in the first place, so maybe Seidel sent her there to "look something up" for him. (Assuming, of course, that Seidel was the guilty party. Since he never admitted it, I still like to think that it was really his no-talent assistant.)

The timeline in the Initiative actually could have taken longer than it seemed on screen. Spike being kidnapped could have happened a week or so before the later scenes. Perhaps a bit of a stretch, but possible.

Yeah, could be.

It was a synthetic Angelus and doesn't really count as truly meeting the brilliant, diabolical genius that is the real Angelus.

Synthetic Angelus: Just as much evil as the original, but only half the calories. :)

[> [> [> [> Another point of view -- CW, 15:21:44 03/10/03 Mon

I think it's over-generous to call anything a retcon that has no real importance later on.

It was Anya who called Olaf's hammer the 'weapon of a god.' The unfortunate part was that none of the characters listening to her asked her what god she was refering to, since it's pretty doubtful that Olaf ever was one. I chalk it up to a flub by Joss. I think he intended that the history of the hammer be clear by the time The Gift aired, but didn't see to it that it happened. Since it's not overly important now that it actually was a weapon of a god it doesn't deserve consideration as a retcon. We can ignore it as a little hyperbole by Anya.

Have to say that Supersymmetry is not an example of retcon, since nothing really changed. As Rob points out for all we know the prof sent Fred after the book, although in the original it did look like she was just browsing. Filling in more detail isn't retcon.

The drug business in Killer in Me looks like pure retcon to me, at least as far as the flow of The Initiative episode is concerned. It seemed very much as if the vamp in the next cell told Spike everything Spike ever knew about the place in a matter of hours at most. Since the neighboring vamp started out by warning Spike to watch out for drugged food, it's not terribly believable that Spike would happily accepted medication from them, and would have discovered the effects of the chip long before he encountered Willow.

I agree with Rob completely about Eternity.

[> [> [> What about ... -- xanthe, 16:53:36 03/10/03 Mon

...Normal Again? This is one of the biggest recons of the entire series and though they try to make it fit, I'm not sure it suceeds. So the bouncy Buffy who arrives in Sunnydale at the start of WTTH is fresh from a stint in a mental clinic? It's pretty clear that this wasn't a storyline that had been in place from the beginning of the show. It was probably just an opportunity that the writers saw to insert a bit more poignancy into Buffy's S6 alienation. I supose the storyline of Normal Again might have worked even if Buffy hadn't revealed that her parents' reaction to her early days of slaying was to send her off for psychiatric evaluation, but there might not have been the same uncertainty about which Buffy was real. The recon mostly works because there's no outright contradiction in any of the previous episodes. It's really hard to prove that something didn't happen - maybe harder than proving that it did. But some of Joyce's reactions to Buffy's offhanded 'vampire slaying' remarks (The Witch and Bad Eggs, I think) don't really fit into with the Buffy-in-the-loony-bin scenario. Still, it's never contradicted outright. It's more a case of: does this fit with the Buffy we know? It does add weight to her hospital freak out in Killed by Death. Joyce used the excuse of Buffy's sick cousin perhaps out of embarassment, rather than telling her friends that she was once sent away against her will. Why no reaction to Buffy's ravings about vampires? Denial at work? But I'm not sure that Buffy's general carefree attitude (during S1) doesn't make it hard to believe that she had just been under observation for believing in vampires. Again, nothing specific makes the Normal Again recon impossible, but it just seems to be out of synch with early Buffy.

[> [> [> [> That's a tough call. -- Rob, 17:26:37 03/10/03 Mon

NA's revelation is very controversial. But again, it depends on how you read it. If you consider it a retcon, you can always say that this was just an affect of the poison that she imagined this entire mental hospital scenario. But if you don't consider it one, it does fit. Oh, and "bouncy" Buffy from Season 1 did not just get out of the mental hospital. She said that happened when she first started seeing vampires. Then after she got out, she continued to slay but didn't talk about it. That went on for a while in LA. Then she moved to Sunnydale. S1 Buffy probably is at least 6 months after she got out of the hospital, maybe even as much as a year later.

Check out my annotated site for a full explanation of how this could fit into the continuity: Notes 3NN and 24H.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> Speaking of . . on Nightmares last night . . . -- Cheryl, 20:36:38 03/10/03 Mon

NA's revelation is very controversial. But again, it depends on how you read it. If you consider it a retcon, you can always say that this was just an affect of the poison that she imagined this entire mental hospital scenario. But if you don't consider it one, it does fit. Oh, and "bouncy" Buffy from Season 1 did not just get out of the mental hospital. She said that happened when she first started seeing vampires. Then after she got out, she continued to slay but didn't talk about it. That went on for a while in LA. Then she moved to Sunnydale. S1 Buffy probably is at least 6 months after she got out of the hospital, maybe even as much as a year later.

Last night Nightmares was on here locally and this scene caught my attention (courtesy of Psyche's site):

Willow: My parents don't even bicker. Sometimes they glare. Do you know why your folks split up?

Buffy: (opens her locker) I didn't ask. They just stopped getting along. I'm sure I was a really big help, though, with all the slaying and everything. I was in so much trouble. I was a big mess.

Could this have been a tiny seed planted way back in S1 to end up at Normal Again? Because at the time, in S6, it seemed so out of nowhere and out of character to me.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Also note in 'Ted'... -- Rob, 22:45:50 03/10/03 Mon

...how upset Buffy is when he threatens to tell Joyce about Buffy's diary, detailing her slayage. He says, "You'll be spending your best dating years in a mental institution." Perhaps he can say this with authority b/c he already knows that Buffy has had a short stint in one already.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Funny, I never really thought NA was problematic -- dream, 06:53:15 03/11/03 Tue

Maybe because I knew an awful lot of kids who were sent off for brief stays in institutions for getting into fights and so forth. In the early season, we see a pretty together and very moral young girl, but Joyce clearly sees a nice but troubled girl who got into so much trouble they needed to leave their town. What was the name of that tough girl from School Hard? Snyder lumps Buffy in with her. Joyce isn't sure, but sees Buffy's response in a crisis and is reassured. But she still was willing to believe that Buffy might have killed Kendra.

Let's look at the calling through Joyce's eyes: out of nowhere, the Buffy's grades plummet (this is admittedly a guess), she gets into fights, and she has an episode where she started talking about having to fight vampires. So, a little stint in the child-of-overwhelmed-parents ward, Buffy starts to cover up better, and Joyce ignores, in what seems to me a very common type of response to family trauma, casual comments as long as Buffy's behavior doesn't get too out of hand. She's not crying or screaming? Don't touch it. (Maybe she even read some parenting books that told her that she should give in to "baiting.")

In certain areas and social groups, a couple weeks in an institution in one's teens is not that unusual. Hell, in Manhattan, it's practically a rite of passage. And families in general develop coping mechanisms that seem bizarre to outsiders - that's part of what I like about the early seasons, the extent of Joyce's denial. Personally, I grew up with a seriously depressive mother who wept on the couch all day for several years - and not one person ever mentioned it. Except, of course, that we did - the siblings shared some eye-rolling and so on, we all knew that there was something seriously wrong. But we never, ever discussed it, not even when we were alone. Now, a tv show of our family life (what a horrible thought) would no doubt result in lots of posts about how it's hard to believe that the kids wouldn't be complaining to each other about this when alone together ("I mean, they are so vocal about other things, and this is so important"), or that the kind moral father wouldn't have gotten his wife some help. Except, of course, that none of that happened, because the internal logic of families is rather bizarre. Buffy seems to me to be one of the few shows that has gotten it right - Normal Again fit it well with my understanding of the family dynamic before and during the first few seasons.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> only a little... -- xanthe, 10:48:18 03/11/03 Tue

I didn't mean to suggest that Normal Again didn't fit at all. If other teens that knew when I was growing up were spending time in institutions, no one ever told me, so unlike dream I find Buffy's situation to be unusual. I guess I look at the whole thing as something that in hindsight isn't ruled out explicitly, but when earlier episodes are revisited, there's either too much said in regard to Buffy's pre-Sunnydale activities or too little. If Buffy wasn't self-conscious about her visit to a clinic, why didn't she say anything? If the reason that she didn't mention to anyone was that she was ashamed/blocking it out/wasn't relevant then why did she feel comfortable enough to make offhanded remarks about it? Obviously I am never going to make this work out perfectly and the only reason that I'm bringing it up is that this seems like the only place to discuss it. :) Actually, I kind of prefer the theory that others mentioned above that the whole experience, including the memory of her parents' concerns about her pre-Sunnydale mental health, was a product of the encounter with the demon. Far less messy...

[> Thanks! -- Cheryl, 15:16:05 03/10/03 Mon

I agree that in most cases, ME is able to pull it off pretty well - hindsight is 20/20, right? I know over time there have been things that have jumped out at me that seemed "off" based on what they'd already told us, but, of course, for the life of me I can't think of an example right now.

[> Also my response to any cry of retcon pre-fifth season is that... -- Rob, 22:49:54 03/10/03 Mon

...the arrival of Dawn in the fifth season basically retconned all of the first four seasons, calling into question EVERYTHING that happened, if you want to get technical. We don't know in their memories how Dawn was inserted in each situation. Perhaps for example in "The Initiative," Dawn's presence now affected Spike's memory of his stay there. Maybe in the post-Dawn-version of Season 4, things did happen the way they were related in "Killer in Me." Just a thought.

Rob

[> [> Dawn's massive retcon... -- Valheru, 00:15:38 03/11/03 Tue

...is probably the biggest reason I'm disappointed that the animated series hasn't gotten off the ground. Even though the game-plan is/was to be self-contained episodes without tieing into the seasonal arcs of S1-3, I was kinda hoping that ME would eventually do so. How would Dawn have fit into those major stories? Would she have been with Buffy trick-or-treating in "Halloween?" How would she have affected Joyce during the post-"Becoming" Buffyless summer? What would her relationship to Faith have been (though we might see that anyway)? And of course, what sort of impact did Angelus have on her?

Dawn's entire existence adds a completely new dynamic to many of Buffy's adventures during the first four seasons, stories that I would love to see. The remarkable thing about her retcon is how Joss worked it so that Dawn doesn't negate S1-4, but rather how the characters remember it. In fact, in that sense, she's not even a retcon at all, instead a focal point of a divergent reality. Puts me in mind of that scene in "Back to the Future, Part II" where Doc explains to Marty how the Biffworld came into being, except Dawn's divergence worked backwards in time.

Two questions I don't think even Doc Brown could have answered: 1) Did the monks' spell extend to the Wishverse? Also brings up the question of whether or not Halfrek and D'Hoffryn knew about Dawn's un-reality (since Anyanka was aware of the reality divergence of the Wishverse). 2) Would Adam have seen through the spell?

[> [> [> They remember Dawn, but she still wasn't there... -- skyMatrix, 01:21:34 03/11/03 Tue

On the one hand, Dawn is a living rebuke to the boy who cried "retcon." I'm thinking of the fans who got upset while watching "Buffy vs. Dracula" through "Out of My Mind," making posts in which they seemed to haved beleived that the appearance of a sister was just some absurd, large-scale retcon that would never be explained or anything, which of course now seems like an amazing lack of faith in Joss.

(You could say the only ridiculous thing is the immense scale on which "the monks" altered reality, not to mention creating a real human from energy! Maybe it should have been a god that made Dawn, because it certaintly seems like godlike power doesn't it?)

On the other hand, there's something that has bothered me about the idea of an animated series featuring Dawn. I of course would have really liked to see it. Nonetheless, I have a problem with this whole idea of the fake memories.

You see, Buffy & Co. remember Dawn being there through Seasons 1-4. Yet this doesn't change the reality of how things actually happened in those years, that is, without Dawn. So when they remember important events, such as any of the season-ender apocalypses, it would seem that the memories would have to be crafted so as to make Dawn's part in these events very neglible.

So do Buffy & Co have memories of events such as Angelus, Faith, or whomever trying to attack Dawn, entire events that didn't exist? Are these events substituted for less important events that actually happened? (I think they did a comic book on false memories about Dawn, but it wasn't by the writers so I didn't bother).

I get the feeling I'm making this more complicated that it needs to be, but I also get the feeling that the writers avoided getting into it too deeply or it would just unravel. I guess what would weird me out, watching the Buffy cartoon, is that it wouldn't be "Buffyverse reality," if there is such a thing! Everything we saw with Dawn would be fake. In fact, maybe that would be the point of the cartoon. These trivial, lighthearted occurences that don't effect anything substantial that Buffy & Co. remember that make them who they are today. The whole show would be a fiction inside a fiction!! And the kids watching it wouldn't even begin to comprehend.

Actually now I've convinced myself that it would be cool in a trippy sort of way. ;)

[> [> [> [> Re: They remember Dawn, but she still wasn't there... -- Celebaelin, 03:38:10 03/11/03 Tue

You see, Buffy & Co. remember Dawn being there through Seasons 1-4. Yet this doesn't change the reality of how things actually happened in those years, that is, without Dawn. So when they remember important events, such as any of the season-ender apocalypses, it would seem that the memories would have to be crafted so as to make Dawn's part in these events very negligible.

Which might explain Buffy's difficulty in relating to Dawn, being either over-protective or too distant, as implanted memories struggle to mesh with the reality of Dawn's human presence. Compare that with Rachel in Blade Runner and how she doesn't really function convincingly anywhere outside the Tyrell Corporation building. Maybe the other characters really WERE ignoring Dawn, largely because her perceived lack of interaction with other significant events, demon related or otherwise.

As you say, if the false memories of Dawn's contribution were limited to being similar to her actual contribution to reality within the Buffyverse at that point in time by the monks then the other character's image of her would probably be that of a total ing�nue. Indeed that is how she was portrayed initially I seem to remember. I can't recall Buffy's identity as the slayer ever having to be revealed to Dawn though so there is a presumption on my part that she was brought into existence knowing at least that much.

[> [> [> [> [> Yuk -- Celebaelin, 04:57:11 03/11/03 Tue

The words "by the monks" should follow limited in para#3

Also in the Lazarus Heart post

That's Sting's mother of course

intended

every (not very)

Celebaelin

Thinking that 'post haste' is a cautionary report on recent writings rather than an exaltation to act quickly on an imperative.

[> [> [> [> [> [> I should probably learn the difference between 'exaltation' and 'exhortation' as well -- Celebaelin, 05:04:29 03/11/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> Re: They remember Dawn, but she still wasn't there... -- Rob, 08:14:09 03/11/03 Tue

"You see, Buffy & Co. remember Dawn being there through Seasons 1-4. Yet this doesn't change the reality of how things actually happened in those years, that is, without Dawn.

I don't agree with this at all. We're getting into philosophical territory here. If everybody remembers something happening a certain way, IMO, it happened. In the current Buffyverse, everyone remembers Dawn for the first four years. The way everyone lives their lives now is the way they would have had she been there forever.

"So when they remember important events, such as any of the season-ender apocalypses, it would seem that the memories would have to be crafted so as to make Dawn's part in these events very neglible."

And why wouldn't they be? Dawn would have been a very young girl in the early seasons. She wouldn't have been involved in the apocalypses anyway. Even in the fifth, Buffy was trying to steer here clear of the supernatural. All the memories that would have had to be crafted for the timespan of the first fours seasons would be "in between" moments, meaning moments that didn't affect the flow of most of what happened.

"I get the feeling I'm making this more complicated that it needs to be, but I also get the feeling that the writers avoided getting into it too deeply or it would just unravel. I guess what would weird me out, watching the Buffy cartoon, is that it wouldn't be "Buffyverse reality," if there is such a thing! Everything we saw with Dawn would be fake."

Again, it did really happen. If everyone remembers it that way, it happened. How do we know for example that all of our memories and perceptions weren't concocted? We have the memory of a lifetime, vivid memories. But how do we know that we weren't actually created a moment ago with all these thoughts, memories, etc implanted in us? The moment Dawn was inserted into the Buffyverse, she was inserted into all past and future history of the Buffyverse. The Buffyverse with Dawn in it is now the real Buffyverse. And, from a lot of things said by a lot of characters at different moments, for the most part, everything worked out the same.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> gotta disagree -- tim, 10:17:59 03/11/03 Tue

My getting into a philosophical debate is sort of like the Jamiacans getting a bobsled team, but I have to disagree with you here.

If everybody remembers something happening a certain way, IMO, it happened. In the current Buffyverse, everyone remembers Dawn for the first four years. The way everyone lives their lives now is the way they would have had she been there forever.

It may be they live their lives as if it happened, but that doesn't mean it actually happened. If I wreck my car running a red light, but honestly remember the light as green, that doesn't make it so. Even if everyone who saw it happen, including the other driver, are convinced that my light was green, that still doesn't change the reality of the situation. I'll grant that it does change how we live our lives after the event, but leaping from the alteration of perception and consequences to the alteration of reality itself is too much of a stretch for me.

Moreover, the canon, I think, supports my view. Gyrus points out the "pull the curtain back" spell below, and there are plenty of other instances of conversations about how surprised everyone is to learn that their memories are false. To deny that they really are false, then, is to miss the whole point of Dawn's existence--she's the ultimate retcon, the one that turns the whole concept on its head by making it an integral plot point, rather than a quick fix to satisfy the more rabid in the fan base. (And I include myself among the rabid, by the way.)

If everyone remembers it that way, it happened. How do we know for example that all of our memories and perceptions weren't concocted? We have the memory of a lifetime, vivid memories. But how do we know that we weren't actually created a moment ago with all these thoughts, memories, etc implanted in us?

Strictly speaking, I suppose, we can't. But Occam's razor suggests that it's not very likely. And if they are, that still doesn't mean that some true reality, unalterable by our perceptions, doesn't exist. The truth, as they say, is out there; that doesn't change because our perceptions of it are flawed.

--th

[> [> [> [> [> [> and this is exactly what Willow's class was discussing in Life Serial -- Helen, 01:12:47 03/12/03 Wed

Is there an objective reality that is the case regardless of how it is viewed and interpreted, or even regardless of whether it is viewed and interpreted by anyone, or do we define truth?

I totally agree with your take on this by the way. And in the context of BtVS, we would have to chuck the baby out with the bathwater if we have to tell ourselves that Dawn was in Season 1-4 - there would be no point in watching or discussing the first 78 episodes of the series because they would become false. I'm not prepared to accept that. Dawn wasn't there, she knows she wasn't but it feels like she was.

I can't even remember the name of the ep in which dying monk guy revealed the truth to Buffy but it still makes a lump in my throat:

Buffy (incredulous): "She's not my sister?"
Monk: "She doesn't know that."

[> [> [> [> I agree -- xanthe, 12:06:50 03/11/03 Tue

This was pretty much what I was going to say. skyMatrix writes: "You see, Buffy & Co. remember Dawn being there through Seasons 1-4. Yet this doesn't change the reality of how things actually happened in those years, that is, without Dawn. So when they remember important events, such as any of the season-ender apocalypses, it would seem that the memories would have to be crafted so as to make Dawn's part in these events very neglible." Well said.

Dawn was there. Ask any scoobie gang member! But whatever memories they have of her in the previous 14 (?) years of her life before she appeared couldn't have altered the reality of the present beyond her simple presence. For example, Dawn's presence or non-presence couldn't mean the difference between a person's life or death before she was created by the monks. If a member of the scoobie gang risked their life to save her in their monk-constructed memories, he or she must have survived because they would not have been in danger in the world without Dawn. But the instant she was created, she caused real changes: her room, her enrollment in school, Buffy's sudden responsiblity for her, etc.

Actually, this explanation is why 'The Real Me' completely worked for me. Buffy is resentful of Dawn and constantly annoyed by her actions. Typical older sister behavior? Perhaps. But I saw it as Buffy's memory and heart contradicting themselves. Her memories said: here is your sister who you have loved and cared for. Her heart said: who is this stranger? The monks didn't create the ties of emotion that would later bind them together; they couldn't because that kind of thing cannot be manufactured. But it's Buffy we're talking about, with her enormous heart (I'm quoting Xander here) and she almost immediately begins to love this stranger who is now her sister. However, there is still the initial disconnect between what Buffy knows to be true and what she feels to be true.

Why is Buffy only one to not immediately take Dawn into her heart? It could be a side-affect of her slayerness. Her instincts are telling her that something is wrong. I view Buffy's reaction at the end of 'No Place Like Home' as a bit of relief mingled with the sadness. Now she has figured out what has been bothering her about Dawn. That niggling sense of wrongness has been ferreted out and now Buffy doesn't have to be uneasy.

Dawn's appearance didn't create an alternate reality. The pre-Dawn era is only one that happened, but now it is only remembered as including her. Her presence or non-presence can't affect reality up until she actually appears. (Okay, I hope that's clear. I've got the feeling that I'm talking in circles again.)

[> [> [> [> [> The only child with a younger sister -- skyMatrix, 18:48:31 03/11/03 Tue

I'm glad to see I inspired some debate here! I've actually been sitting on this idea of mine for quite a while and just now decided to express it despite my fear of posting boards induced by... ahem, another Buffy board.

I also wanted to second xanthe's appreciation of "Real Me," especially because I am an only child, and so is Buffy, really. In fact, she had a very small amount of time when she was an actual older sister, between "Real Me" and "The Body," when she became a foster mom basically! But as for "Real Me," I know that us only children don't always know how to play with others, especially on the level that sibling get accustomed to (hopefully), and so if I was suddenly given a sister or brother, I probably wouldn't act too brotherly right off the bat. The monks really did err in not letting Buffy know about Dawn right away (in fact, I don't think they intended to). She couldn't deal with her feelings about Dawn until she knew why they were so ambiguous! Sorry if I repeated or stated the obvious here.

[> [> [> [> [> [> interesting -- xanthe, 10:52:57 03/12/03 Wed

It's interesting to me that you say that you loved 'The Real Me' in part because you are an only child because I have a younger sister. We are roughly the same number of years apart that Buffy and Dawn are, so when Buffy got a sister, it really spoke to me. I have a sister, Buffy has a sister - cool! But my first viewing of 'The Real Me' threw me a bit because I enjoy a really close relationship with my sister and I had identified enough with the Buffy-Dawn relationship to expect it to be similar. I was a bit disappointed about it until I figured out that Buffy was reacting as an only child, though her memories and all the evidence in her life right then was telling her she had a younger sister.

And don't be afraid of posting! This is actually about my fifth post *ever*. I've just worked up my courage to actually participate, so I completely understand. People seem nice here, but discussion seems to move at the rate of a express subway train with very few stops. :)

[> [> [> [> [> Dawn and alternate realities - The Dawnverse -- Darby, 05:54:16 03/12/03 Wed

First off, this is only a semi-serious rebuttal, one of those pathways that one should really avoid - this way lies madness, after all.

When Buffy "sees" the Dawn spell, what is she seeing? Her house the way it should be, without Dawn. She is seeing physical changes caused by the spell - not just photographs, but Dawn's room. Is Dawn's room really a storeroom, filled with boxes, or has its physicality changed from Dawn's insertion into the world? Does it continue to be a change in perception - do the people who enter just think that they're sitting on a bed? We've been told that only memories have been changed, but we've been shown that much more than that has occurred.

And, as is becoming obvious in this thread, Dawn only holds up over the long term if her creation actually changed the world's past. Hey, it's not like the monks were super-competent, and all we really know about the spell came from a dying guy responding incompletely to Buffy's assumptions.

My retcon is that Dawn is a mirror to Ben and Glory. Ben was born human but housed a powerful entity. Dawn, in the new monk-generated Buffyverse, has lived a full life while also being the Key.

Yeah, this in itself produces a bunch of paradoxes, but it holds together better overall. I think I've talked myself into it, at any rate.

[> [> [> What if... -- Gyrus, 08:22:33 03/11/03 Tue

1) Did the monks' spell extend to the Wishverse?

Probably not, since the Wishverse (as far as we know) no longer existed at the time the monks cast their spell.

Also brings up the question of whether or not Halfrek and D'Hoffryn knew about Dawn's un-reality (since Anyanka was aware of the reality divergence of the Wishverse).

I'm not clear if the monks' spell actually altered reality or just created a massive set of illusions. Since Buffy's spell in "No Place Like Home" was called "Pulling the curtain back", it is implied that what Buffy saw during her trance was reality -- Dawn's room empty, her image missing from photographs, etc. If it is an illusion, the ability of Vengeance Demons to see alternate realities may not apply.

2) Would Adam have seen through the spell?

Impossible to say. The monks' spell is a lot more powerful and stable than Jonathan's.

Here's my question: What would happen if the monks' spell was reversed now? Certainly, the Scoobs would lose their memories of Dawn from before S5, but what would they remember after that? What would happen to Dawn's school records and other information that was presumably created by the monks but which have been added to since then? And what would be the psychological impact -- would everyone's (especially Buffy's) feelings about Dawn change because they no longer remembered her from their teen years? (IMO, knowing on an intellectual level that these memories are false is quite different from not having them at all.)

[> My question about retcon. (no spoilers) -- Robert, 07:46:59 03/11/03 Tue

Now that Cheryl's question has been answered, I have one of my own. Is the term retcon a pejorative term, or does it carry neutral, or even, positive connotations?

In the past, whenever I saw the term retcon used on a bulletin board, I assumed it was being used as a complaint against the writing of the show. Am I reading more into the word than is really there?

[> [> Since I've used the term, I guess I can respond -- Sophist, 09:48:24 03/11/03 Tue

with a definitive "it depends".

Most "retcons" (several are mentioned above) are pretty minor. I don't worry about them at all. Occasionally, I consider that a significant plot point or character has been changed in a substantial way, and that's when I'm inclined to use the term. I'd consider it criticism in those instances.

[> [> [> Elaboration on my question (again with no spoilers) -- Robert, 10:17:04 03/11/03 Tue

My confusion arises out of the discussion in this thread.

Rob and Valheru seem to be saying that a "retcon" is a deliberate and intentional act of changing the past in the continuity of the story, or at least changing the reader's or viewer's perception of the past. By this definition, I would certainly agree (for instance) that the introduction of Dawn and her back-story represent a case study in retconning. As such, I would think that this retconning should bear a positive connotation (unless you really hate Dawn), because it was deliberate and planned well in advance.

On the other hand, the normal usage I see of the term "retcon" is practically identical to what I would call a mistake. As such, the term would bear a decidedly negative connotation. Mistakes are inevitable in any continuing story. Even stories written by a single author will inevitably contain some mistakes. Are all these "retcons", or are they mistakes?

If "retcon" is nearly synonymous with mistakes, then what does this say about a deliberate manipulation of the stories past (such as Dawn's introduction)? Does this mean that writers of extended story arcs should never attempt to change the underlying past or change the reader's perception of it?

Please don't misunderstand what I am asking. I don't have an agenda in asking these questions. I have seen the word "retcon" in use on the internet for the past 10 or 12 years, and I have never been able to get a handle on what the users of the term feel about the writing, about which they are critiquing.

[> [> [> [> Fair questions -- Sophist, 10:48:44 03/11/03 Tue

Here's a definition from The Jargon Dictionary (online):

retcon /ret'kon/ [short for `retroactive continuity', from the Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.comics] 1. n. The common situation in pulp fiction (esp. comics or soap operas) where a new story `reveals' things about events in previous stories, usually leaving the `facts' the same (thus preserving continuity) while completely changing their interpretation. For example, revealing that a whole season of "Dallas" was a dream was a retcon. 2. vt. To write such a story about a character or fictitious object. "Byrne has retconned Superman's cape so that it is no longer unbreakable." "Marvelman's old adventures were retconned into synthetic dreams." "Swamp Thing was retconned from a transformed person into a sentient vegetable." "Darth Vader was retconned into Luke Skywalker's father in "The Empire Strikes Back".

Most of these examples do refer to intentional plot points (though not necessarily intentional retcons, if my distinction is clear). In this sense, Dawn's appearance is intentionally a retcon (and in my view brilliant for the reasons Rob gives above).

Lots of retcons seem more devious to me. For example, I used the term "retcon" to refer to Spike's statements about what he used to do to little girls. Without trying to debate the merits of my description, my points were that (a) it seemed like a change in the understanding of the character we'd previously been given, and (b) if it was, it was a deliberate attempt to fix a plot point that had received viewer criticism after SR. Again, I'm not trying to re-start this debate, I'm merely giving an example of one instance based on my own, subjective, interpretation.

Then there are those that may well be unintentional. The writer may never even have seen the issue. To pick a related example, Giles's history in The Dark Age seems quite different than our image of him before then. I never considered it a retcon (pejorative use) because the show was still new and there was nothing inconsistent, just different. For all I know, JW saw Giles like this all along, even if I didn't.

This is a long-winded way of saying that the term does have different connotations. Those uses cause just the uncertainty you identified.

[> [> [> [> [> Hmm, so using Sophist's definition... -- Scroll, 11:07:55 03/11/03 Tue

Spike's age contradicts continuity, so I don't know if we can call it simply retcon or something more. Maybe revisionist history?

And if we go by Sophist's example of Giles' backstory, then "Fool For Love" really is a straight-out retcon because our perception of Spike's human life (that he was a London street-rat) was overturned by Spike the Bloody Awful Poet.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Well, that wasn't my perception, so not for me. -- Sophist, 12:43:29 03/11/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> Yeah, what's with Giles? -- skyMatrix, 01:15:16 03/12/03 Wed

I know I'm replying this thread to death, but this is something I'd been wondering about. Many would say that Spike's the most inconsistent character (and he's in the running, along with Willow) but to me Giles is all about retcon, and although he's an engaging character, I haven't been able to mentally fanwank all his permutations. ("to fanwank" being, if I understand correctly, the fan's attempt to resolve retcons and other continuity issues, presumably by putting more thought to certain issues than the writers themselves ever did).

Basically, he's incapable of asking a woman out in "Some Assembly Required" due to his dorkiness, then we learn he was really a mischevious teen in "The Dark Age," then we see he was in fact a player as a teen in "Band Candy," then suddenly he's got Olivia over in "The Freshman" and "Hush." Can someone change like this, not to mention yo-yo between ineffectual and dangerously cool? I'm only 22 so maybe I don't know how people can develop in middle age, but it baffles me quite honestly.

Here's an evil thought as a parting gift. Isn't Willow's sexuality the biggest retcon in the series? Not that I don't think the writers are justified in declaring Willow gay, and I applaud the decision. Nevertheless, no writer knew she was gay in Seasons 1-3, they were basically writing her as heterosexual! Joss has said that foreshadowing was unintentional. So what to think... ;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yeah, what's with Giles? -- Sophist, 09:09:03 03/12/03 Wed

I've noticed exactly those points about Giles. I'm not sure they're consistent, but I never think of them as "retcons" because they just don't seem important enough to the storyline to justify that criticism.

I wouldn't describe Willow's sexuality as a "retcon", but as a development of the character. I'm not gay, and others can correct me, but from what I've read, her experience of having a boyfriend at one time and later recognizing "she liked having sex with women" (to quote Kennedy) is fairly common. Sexuality is a continuum not a light switch; all it means is that Willow realized she was closer to one side than she thought.

[> [> [> [> Spike's age as an example -- Scroll, 11:01:47 03/11/03 Tue

On the other hand, the normal usage I see of the term "retcon" is practically identical to what I would call a mistake. As such, the term would bear a decidedly negative connotation. Mistakes are inevitable in any continuing story. Even stories written by a single author will inevitably contain some mistakes. Are all these "retcons", or are they mistakes?

I can only think of one example of a mistake which people tend to label as retcon, and that is Spike's age. In Season 2 "School Hard", Giles says Spike is 200 years old. In Season 4 "The Initiative", Spike says he is 126. In Season 5 "Fool For Love", Spike says he was sired in 1880.

Which is correct? I'd say most would agree "Fool For Love" is most correct, but it's a pretty glaring contradiction to previous information. Even if we fanwank the "School Hard" age away by saying the Council's records were wrong, how can we reconcile Spike himself having gotten his age wrong in "The Initiative"?

Personally, I would call "The Initiative" a mistake, and not a retcon, because it seems very likely that ME simply forgot that Giles quoted Spike's age two years ago.

But I think "Fool For Love" is a retcon of "The Initiative" because it's clear that the year 1880 was chosen for very specific reasons (to establish Spike as Victorian?). And it stands to reason that a Spike origins episode required the writers to do a bit of research into previous seasons/episodes. So they probably noticed the "School Hard"/"Initiative" discrepency and purposely ignored it, instead giving us a brand-new date.

If "retcon" is nearly synonymous with mistakes, then what does this say about a deliberate manipulation of the stories past (such as Dawn's introduction)? Does this mean that writers of extended story arcs should never attempt to change the underlying past or change the reader's perception of it?

Spike's age is the only example of a out-and-out "mistake", I can think of, but if you can remember any others, please list them. Let's see if we can determine if they are mistakes or retcons.

I think we fanwank "mistakes" into retcons because we like to believe the Buffyverse is whole and unbroken, and that the writers don't make mistakes (which is a lot to ask of them, I know!). So by calling mistakes a kind of retcon, we can reconcile discrepencies and feel the writers have control over all aspects of the Buffyverse.

Personally, I enjoy having the Buffyverse tossed on its head. Spike's origin as a Bloody Awful Poet wasn't what most of us were expecting, and seemed like an out-right retcon -- but really, no past history was actually contradicted. Just our perceptions. I think a retcon can be done well, like Dawn's introduction. Dawn has added a lot to the Buffyverse, and I don't see why we should be afraid of retcon that's done well.

[> [> [> [> I've had the same question -- dream, 11:22:36 03/11/03 Tue

So far, this is what I've worked out
1) Usually, retcon is used perjoratively to describe a particular type of "error". That is to say NOT a simple mistake like Buffy's shirt being blue in one scene and then red in the next, when it is clear she did not change in between. That's a continuity error. A retcon is when the writers ignore an earlier, established point in order to make their writing task easier. If I've written there's no exit from the back of a building, and then I write my heroine into a situation that I can't get her out of without running out the back of the building, so voila! an exit appears - that's a retcon. It's a bad thing - cheaply inconsistent writing.

2) However, whether a particular item counts as retcon is, as you can see, always up for debate. Things which have been left ambiguous, cases of unreliable sources, and so forth can cause some fans to declare something is a brilliant manipulation of the canon, while others cry retcon (and clearly intend this to be negative).

3) What really makes things confusing is that some people use the term retcon to describe any attempt to reconfigure the viewer's understanding of the long-term past, in a way which is value-neutral. (I say long-term to differentiate from, say, a scene in which something appears to be happening, which is followed by a scene in which it is made clear that something else is happening.) For example, my brother calls Joss the genius of the retcon, because he is so skilled at re-interpreting his own work in ways that make perfect sense. In this usage, you have to differentiate between "good" and "bad" retcon.

4) Dawn almost deserves her own bullet-point, because that storyline is playing with the idea of retcon in a brilliant way. She's beyond good retcon.

Complete continuity in a story as complex and longlasting as Buffy must be terribly difficult, particularly as it is an ongoing process, and changes can't be made to the parts that have already aired. That's part of what is brilliant about ME's work. They've learned quite a few tricks to keep the continuity going. The unreliable Watcher's books are an example - that allows the writers to use the information in the books to motivate the character's actions at one point, and then to repudiate that same information later.

One more thing about the term - people seem to become most emotional about retconning when they feel that they are being asked to make a change in their understanding of a character. I find that sort of thing interesting, as so much tends to depend on your reading of the character to begin with.

[> Question about the retcon of Dawn (season 5 spoilers only) -- Robert, 10:28:37 03/11/03 Tue

Since the introduction of Dawn into the continuity of BtVS appears to be the favorite example of "retcon" on at least this board, I have a question of opinion.

Do you (the members of this discussion board) believe that Dawn's introduction represents a change in memories of the priniciple characters (and possibly of all the characters in the buffyverse), or does it represent a change in the reality of the buffyverse? In other words, did the monks merely make everyone think that Dawn always existed (with the false memories integrating Dawn into events that already happened), or did the monks force a retroactive change in the timeline such as was demonstrated in the episode The Wish? I have my own ideas and opinions, but I would be curious to read what y'all think.

Sidebar question: Could we describe The Wish as a case of temporary retconning?

[> [> Re: Question about the retcon of Dawn (season 5 spoilers only) -- WickedBuffy, 20:57:21 03/11/03 Tue

For some reason I thought they came out and said it was the memories the monks had created concerning Dawn, which in turn would alter timelines.

But I thought The Wish was another dimension, not the same one. But in the parallel reality Buffy hadn't come to Sunnydale. That's how they could send VampWillow back to it while still existing themselves (simultaneously).

[> [> [> Dawn's life up to 2001 - alternate reality or false memories? -- skyMatrix, 23:20:21 03/11/03 Tue

The contention over whether the monks altered reality or merely memories is the one I brought up earlier. Rob thinks that they altered reality, or at least that altering reality and memory is the same, while xanthe and tim agree with me that only memory was altered.

I thought I would turn to "the text" as a good student of literary analysis, so here's this excerpt from the "No Place Like Home" script:

MONK
The abomination... found us. We
had to hide The Key... Gave it
form. Molded it flesh, made it
human. And sent it to you.

Buffy puts pieces together...

BUFFY
Dawn.

MONK
(nods)
She is The Key.

Long beat as Buffy absorbs this.

BUFFY
You put that thing in my home.

MONK
We knew the Slayer would... protect...

BUFFY
My memories... my mom's...

MONK
We built them.

I would like to say that this backs my standpoint, but it's not as strong as I would like. The monk does say "We built them" in response to Buffy's unfinished query about "my memories," so that seems to suggest memories were changed not reality. Yet the monk is barely able to give whole answers to Buffy so it could be more complicated than that. And of course, I can't answer Rob's philosophical contention with the text, although I can respectively disagree with it, borrowing tim's reasoning. ;)

If someone wants, they could look at episodes like "Checkpoint" and "Blood Ties" in which Dawn's exsistence is addressed, but I'm lazy and this post is long enough already!

Also I would just throw out that it already strikes me that the monks have too much power if they can change the memories of so many people, not to mention fashion an entire teenager's lifespan. If they changed reality, wouldn't that be even more ridiculous? I guess Anyanka did it in "The Wish," but in a way, changing one event (Buffy goes to Sunnydale) without knowing the results seems a lot less intricate. But I'm quibbling. :)

[> [> [> [> Re: Dawn's life up to 2001 - alternate reality or false memories? -- Valheru, 01:56:30 03/12/03 Wed

IMO, the monks' spell was two-part. One part created Dawn in the present, the other grafted her into the past. I have no idea what kind of planning Joss put into Dawn's metaphysics--he could have written pages of notes, clearly detailing every minutae of the mechanics, or he could have just made it up as he went along and it all just happened to work out. Either way, it's a fascinating construction.

The first part of the spell created Dawn in the present. Not only did this give the Key physical human form, but it also created "props" to flesh-out her existence. This includes things like Dawn's room, her diaries, her clothes, her identification records (Social Security, insurance, school records, medical records, etc.), Joyce's tax deductions, Summers family living expenses, Hank's child suppport payments, and all the other little stuff that we usually don't think about. These things had to be created physically to support Dawn's existence. Therefore, we can safely assume that the monks bent reality in at least some small measure. To quote from "Blood Ties:"

SPIKE (reading Giles's notes): The monks possessed the ability to transform energy, bend reality.

The second part of the spell created the memories of Dawn's history. I've heard some people speculate that the monks only inserted the memories into the minds of characters crucial to Dawn's life like the Scoobies, the Fang Gang, classmates, etc. However, being that the monks were trying to hide the Key, I would find it rather short-sighted of them to leave open the possibility that someone not included in the spell would stumble across the discrepancy. IMO, the memory spell was a moment-by-moment construction of Dawn's "previous" 14 years, that was then altered based upon the perception of every conscious thing in existence and his/her's/it's encounters with Dawn. Sometimes, as is the case with Buffy, Joyce, Hank, and the Scoobies, this alters their memories significantly, but with the guy who sold Dawn a pack of gum on a trip to Albuquerque seven years ago, the alteration is minor.

Does the memory spell alter reality? Perhaps the better description is that it alters perception of reality. S1-4 (and to a minor degree, AtS S1) still happened the way we saw them, sans Dawn. The difference is that the characters remember S1-4 with Dawn. It's as though Dawn is like animation cel that the monks placed over the pre-existing scene.

We know that this isn't like the Wishverse. For one thing, the revealing spell Buffy did in "No Place Like Home" would not have revealed Dawn had a new reality been created. We can also speculate that Dawn really is a part of the normal reality because the Faith/Buffy prophecy dreams and "Restless" would have needed to pierce through reality borders to foretell the future of an alternate reality.

It's a really ingenious spell on Joss's part. He figured out a way to create Dawn without negating the first four seasons. We, the audience, are able to watch S1-7 as they actually happened, but the characters experienced something different than what we saw. It's as though Joss has created another form of television perception: 1) what the characters and the audience know, 2) what the audience knows but the characters don't, 3) what the characters know but the audience doesn't, and now 4) what no one knows but everyone understands.

It'd take someone a great deal of time to figure out this whole thing. Strange how you can just know something is right, but then if you have to explain it, it gets confusing. Power of the subconscious, I guess.

[> [> [> [> [> Very nice analysis! -- Robert, 07:18:14 03/12/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> Agree - great analysis - some additional pts. -- s'kat, 09:05:02 03/12/03 Wed

I agree with Rob, this is an excellent analysis of Dawn.

I've found the Dawn construct fascinating as well. And from what I've read in commentary and interviews - Joss Whedon plotted out Dawn as early as Season 3 Btvs. Lots of fans viewed Dawn as Whedon and ME's attempt to keep the teen audience, but the mere fact he'd planned on her arrival at least two years before she did in fact show up - prove�

Current board | More March 2003