March 2003 Archives

March 2003 posts

Previous March 2003
More March 2003

Request for an Angel recap (pretty please!) -- MayaPapaya9, 15:43:03 03/13/03 Thu

Would it be at all possible for some kind soul to provide a brief summary of what the heck's going on with Angel? I haven't watched since the beginning of the 3rd season. I tried reading the summaries but...they are so very long, and I have homework, and it's just not working out. Basically, if you could tell me who's dating who, who's good and who's evil, and what's going on with Faith, I'd be incredibly grateful. Just enough to be prepared for the last few episodes of Buffy. Thank you!
-Maya

[> Yes please! Us Buffy watching grad students who don't want Angel need help. -- Rochefort, 19:58:31 03/13/03 Thu

[> [> I meant 'watch'. But perhaps a telling slip. -- Rochefort, 20:00:06 03/13/03 Thu

[> [> Re: Yes please! Us Buffy watching grad students who don't want Angel need help. -- s'kat, 21:57:46 03/13/03 Thu

You know, I think ME might do one for you. I've noticed from the re-airings of the S4 cross-overs, that Btvs occassionally recapped what happened on Ats or even referred to it for those who didn't see it. So you don't actually have to see the other show to figure out what is going on. They did this for Yoko Factor.

My guess? They'll probably write some quick explanation in the episode for you, if it's necessary, it may not be.

Personally, I think you're missing out on some great episodes, but I can appreciate why they might not be to everyone's taste, heck Btvs isn't. (As a friend reminded me tonight - apparently I'm an anomaly amongst my friends, none of them get my passion for these shows, sigh.)

At any rate - if they don't give you this info around episode 18. I'll or someone will give a quick recap on episodes 13-15 of Ats. Or you can read wildfeeds and summaries on Masq's site.

SK

[> Another attempt at a summary (Angel S4 spoilers) -- Scroll, 20:24:26 03/13/03 Thu

1) "Deep Down" - Wes pulls Angel out of the ocean, Angel kicks Connor out of the hotel.

2) "Ground State" - Angel, Fred, & Gunn try to steal magical statue that will allow them to figure out where Cordy is. They realise she is "heaven" and leave her there.

3) "House Always Wins" - Fang Gang travels to Las Vegas to rescue Lorne from a nasty casino owner.

4) "Slouching Towards Bethlehem" - Cordelia returns with amnesia, gets rescued by Connor, and decides to live with him instead of the Fang Gang. Lilah sucks the knowledge of Cordy's aura (she sang) out of Lorne's head.

5) "Supersymmetry" - Fred's physics professor was the one who sent her to Pylea. Fred tries to wreak some vengeance, Gunn won't let her. Gunn kills prof, putting blood on both their hands.

6) "Spin the Bottle" - Lorne's magic spell to bring back Cordy's memory end up reverting the Fang Gang (and Wes) into 17-year-olds. Cordy gets her memory back.

7) "Apocalypse, Nowish" aka "Rain of Fire" - Fang Gang see lots of apocalyptic signs signaling end of world, Cordy gets a vision, leads Connor to alley where the vision took place, and a big demon (the Beast) emerges from the earth, massacres some people, and sends fire raining down on L.A. Certain the world is ending, Cordy decides to give Connor something real: she makes love to him. Angel is on the roof across the street, and he sees this.

8) "Habeus Corpses" - Connor goes to Wolfram & Hart to find out what exactly he is, but the Beast is also there, killing all the lawyers. Lilah is hurt, but Wesley saves her. Gavin is killed. Angel, Wes, et al go back into W&H to rescue Connor, get trapped by zombies and need Little Red Girl in the White Room to get out. She manages to do so right before the Beast kills her.

9) "Long Day's Journey" - Fang Gang track down the last living member of the Ra-Tet (one Ra-Tet was the Little Red Girl) to protect him. If the Beast kills all five Ra-Tet totems, he has ingredients for ritual to blot out the sun. The Fang Gang is too late to stop him. Darkness descends on L.A. The Beast tells Angel that they don't have to be enemies, then calls him "Angelus". Angelus knows the Beast.

10) "Awakening" - Angel insists he doesn't remember any Beast, Wes insists the only way to know for sure is to get rid of the soul...

You know what? I don't want to give away the ending. I really don't. This season is so terrific, I'd hate to spoil it for anyone. If you really, really want, I'll finish the summary of the last episodes (or maybe someone else will) but please consider actually watching these episodes unspoiled. I promise, they'll be worth it!

[> Here ya go, for Season 3 (Spoilers through Release) -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:41:06 03/13/03 Thu

Not sure how far you were into Season 3 before you stopped watching, so I'll try to basically sum up that whole season first.

Pregnant Darla shows up in LA, demanding Angel explain how the hell she can be having his baby. Angel doesn't have any better idea than she does. However, her arrival does coincide with a bunch of newly revealed prophecies called the Tro-Clon, which describe the destruction of humankind. At first Angel Investigations and Wolfram & Hart assume that the Tro-Clon refers to Angel and Darla's baby. However, that's not the case. A sonagram reveals the baby has a heartbeat, is human. Further translation of the prophecies reveal the Tro-Clon is actually a convergence of events, rather than an entity.

One of these events is the bringing of vampire hunter Daniel Holtz into modern day LA. His family was killed by Angelus and Darla, and he spent years seeking revenge. A demon named Sahijan appeared to Holtz in his darkest hour and offered to give him the perfect chance to kill Angelus and Darla. Holtz accepts, and Sahijan puts him in a state of suspended animation for 200 years and brings him back in LA.

Before Holtz can get a chance to achieve his revenge with the aid of demon minions Sahijan gave him, Darla dies. She begins to feel the soul of her human child, and it causes her to feel love and compassion for it. But she knows that, as soon as the child is born, she'll stop feeling his soul, and will try to kill him. So she kills herself, leaving only her child and a little dust behind. This is where Holtz finds Angel and doesn't kill him. Holtz has learned Angel has a soul, and that he now has a son. But it isn't out of compassion that Holtz stays his hand. Rather, to quote the eminent D'Hoffryn, "never go for the kill when you can go for the pain". Holtz's revenge plan is to use Angel's emotions to torture him.

Angel kinda settles down as the child's father (now called Connor). Sure, he knows Holtz is out there, plotting revenge, and W&H want to dissect Connor in order to find out how he works, but Angel is confident in his ability to protect his son.

Shortly after Connor's introduction into Angel's life, Cordelia goes unconscious. The vision induced headaches were starting to kill her. So, a demon called Skip (who supposedly works for the Powers That Be) offered to make her half-demon, so that she could withstand the visions. Cordelia accepted, and got a whole bunch of demon powers in the process. These aren't really well defined, and seem to change to fit the situation.

Also, during all this, Gunn and Fred develop a relationship. Wesley never brings up his crush on Fred, but internalizes it. Angel also slowly falls in love with Cordelia, but it takes a while for her to realize it.

After a while of Angel being in a relatively comfortable life, the writers strike back. Wesley delves deeper into prophecies and comes to believe that Angel is destined to kill Connor. This is confirmed by a series of prophetic events, and Holtz saying Angel killing his son is merely common sense. In actuality, Sahijan and Lilah (from Wolfram & Hart) teamed up to fake these prophecies (the actual prophecy said that the son of two vampires would kill Sahijan). But Wes doesn't know this, and conspires with Holtz to kidnap Connor. Holtz and some followers stage an attack on the Hyperion Hotel, and Wesley uses this as a distraction in which to take Connor, supposedly for the baby's own safety. But it doesn't go according to plan. Justine, Holtz's chief vampire hunting follower, cuts Wesley's throat and takes Connor to Holtz. Angel tries to get his son back, but the confrontation between him and Holtz is interrupted by Sahijan, who opens a portal into a hell dimension called Quortoth, and threatens to suck them both into it. Holtz, seeing the opportunity to hurt Angel in ways he couldn't imagine, jumps into Quortoth with Connor in his arms.

Sahijan, through means I don't really need to get into, is contained within a bottle. This leaves only one problem for Angel to deal with: Wesley. Angel knows Wesley stole Connor, and tries to smother him with a pillow (the throat cutting didn't kill Wesley, just put him in the hospital). While Wesley survives, Angel makes it clear that he'll kill him if they ever meet again, which cuts Wesley off from AI.

Near the end of the season, things start to heat up again. Lilah comes to Wesley, trying to convince him to join Wolfram & Hart, trying to use his greyness and self-hatred over kidnapping Connor against him. While Wes doesn't join the demonic law firm, he does end up sleeping with Lilah. Another important event is the return of Connor from the hell dimension, now grown to a teenager with the powers of a vampire. He's intent on killing Angel, whom Holtz raised him to hate in Quortoth. But Angel shows compassion to Connor and doesn't act like the evil Angelus. Just as Connor's beginning to trust Angel, Holtz also returns from Quortoth. With Justine's help, he commits suicide in such a way that it looks like Angel did it. Connor, seeking revenge for the man he thinks of as his father, locks Angel in a big box and sinks him to the bottom of the sea.

Only one more thing of note: Cordelia was on her way to meet Angel to tell him she loved him, right before Connor sent him to the watery depths. However, Skip appeared to her, and said that, due to her wise use of her demony powers, she has a calling to become a "higher being" and do good on other planes of existence. She accepts, and rises up into a heavenly dimension.

Thus ends Season 3. I'll see if I can get around to explaining early Season 4.

[> [> Thanks, this was a big help! It's quite interesting in summary form! -- Rochefort, 22:11:15 03/13/03 Thu

[> [> THANKS!!!! That was really good!! -- MayaPapaya9, 23:06:48 03/13/03 Thu

And to the person who suggested we watch all the episodes....HOW? There are no Angel dvd's for rent at my local Blockbuster and I don't know anyone who tapes it religiously (like I tape Buffy hehehehe). And there are no handy reruns on FX for Angel.
-Maya

Death, birth, rebirth (Angel Odyssey 3.9-3.11) -- Tchaikovsky, 16:21:21 03/13/03 Thu

correctly tagged version

Although I am going to do a little tiny bit of griping about 3.10, the other two episodes in this section were undoubtedly as strong as anything I've seen, for pathos, plot, pacing, directing and even enough comedy. This Season has a consistency matched by no other Season I've seen on either show so far. Maybe I'm not quite as emotionally involved, although Angel and Fred and even Cordelia are starting to really matter to me.

3.9- 'Lullaby'

This is Minear right back on top form, after his last slightly diappointing solo effort with 'That Old Gang Of Mine'. The story focusses carefully around Darla and Angel. They are the parents who will bring a child of such apparent destiny into the world- something that has never been seen before. But, as hinted at in 'Quickening', Angel and Darla are starting to become a simple, archetypal couple waiting for a baby as well. Darla is feeling emotions as a reaction to Connor's as yet unborn soul. Angel is starting to think just what it means to him to be a Father. So we have these two very normal people, surrounded by ridiculous circumstances, just trying to do the best by the child. 'The only good thing we ever did together', Darla argues, and she really is quite right. Because despite the powerful relationship that made them accompany each other round the world killing, and the quiet moments where Angel tries to connect with a human Darla, nothing they have ever done has been constructive. It has always been a relationship bent on destruction, sadism and carelessness. Now, for no good reason, they appear to have been given an opportunity for those centuries of liaisons to finally yield something. And, ever so slowly, speaking like a woman who has seen heaven, Darla starts to realise what it is she must do.

There are iconic moments in history and in art. Usually, they are to do with someone committing an act or betraying a revealing emotion. And very often, there is a compelling visual shorthand to go with it. For me, the visual shorthand of Jesus on the cross adds to the beautiful story- helpless, in pain, but suffering nobly as a man for the sins of man. In a completely different way, Marilyn Monroe's delight at the freedom and tearing down of sexual repression as her skirt billows up in 'Gentlemen Prefer Blondes' is another example of visual stimulus adding to a movement. In 'Lullaby', the very idea of a vampire mother, who has attempted to give her all to nourish the child, despite her initial distaste, and ultimately ends her unlife for a life with more potential, is powerful enough. But the scene where, in an unearthly personal calm, despite the siege and the rain, she stakes herself, and leaves the baby to Angel, helps re-inforce the power of the message. It is a perfectly crafted narrative moment. Darla's vampire body may not be able to bear a child, and so the only logical way is for the body holding the child to disappear. Yet the very corporeality and literalness of the 'Dust to dust' idea with Darla gives it something extra beautiful. And the very absence of her body, and the replacement with a tiny, vulnerable possibility of good, shows exactly what her sacrifice is about. Darla has the strength of character to believe that, despite 400 years of failure, prostitution, despair, sadism and hopelessness, her child, her only gift to the world, can still bring what she couldn't. And can still survive to laugh, and comb his hair, and eat eggs. To experience the simple pleasures which Darla never had the chance to understand in her constantly developing, debilitating lives.

This is clearly the central tableau of the episode, and it sustains it quite happily on its own. However, there were some other moments...

-The three factions I mentioned from 'Quickening' meet. Bureaucracy/work is temporarily defeated. Love conquers all. Religion/faith (but a warped one with no love, only vengeance), stands idly by, expecting a chance to deal with the child and the Father later. For now at least, family and love win the day. Darla's love, and Angel's family.

-The teaser finishes with Darla's angry yet despairing 'I don't breathe', to Wesley's suggestions of how to ventilate. Humour at its darkest, buit also the first hint that Connor is making Darla vulnerable- she is becoming the being Cordelia believed she was in 'Offspring'.

-Talking about black humour, Minear's line 'They don't crucify here. It's too Christian', from Lilah is a deeply twisted perspective frm her. Clearly it is the possibility of the noble suffering of the employees to be killed that W+H disapprove of, not the habit of agonising death.

-I'll mention this several times in the next two episodes, but, finally, hooray for David Boreanaz. For me, his reading of the line 'You don't just get half a miracle', and his subsequent terror as Wesley explains that the baby itself, the thing that seems so impossible and which he has labelled as Hope, could itself be evil and apocalyptic, is as successful a piece of acting as he's ever done. There was the vulnerability, the confusion, the disbelief, and the horror, all mixed nicely and believably. He's certainly come a long way as an actor in the last five years.

-There's the lovely line, almost as an aside, 'Do you have to be so damned honest?', from Cordelia to Gunn. Good old ME subversions- still plenty bubbling through this series.

-Holtz is an intriguing character. He's not the obviously evil (W+H), and not the possibly good (Angel). He is fighting against both, for vengeful justice. This is a marvellously grey area. Holtz is well within his rights to feel aggrieved to see his children and wife killed. Now, 230 years later, he sees Angel, finally, after such a terrible struggle, produce something which just might be good. How logical does it seem to enact the Old Testament mantra 'an eye for an eye'. Now Angel has a beloved child. Holtz knows what it is like to believe that a child has been saved, to sing 'All through the Night' to her and feel protected, only for her to be a vampire, and to have to kill her. Using only vengeful logic, there is no mercy involved- no mercy, no forgiveness and no redemption. Only justice. We can see his pain back in 1765, and we know that for him, after the long sleep, it still feels immediate. But Angel has described the arc of a New Testament figure- one who can be redeemed ultimately, who can be cleansed and loved- one who can provide something good to the world. As is underlined by the final line, Holtz only understands the Old Words: Justice and Mercy. There is no true Christian faith in him, only an age-old personal vendetta. Yet how does the wronged against become the do-er of wrong? How can he let his life's aim dissolve. I await more with interest.

-Holtz marching to the scene at the end is given a shot not at all dissimilar to the Fanged Four in 'Darla'. We must consider exactly which role he is playing. Certainly, he is playing the threatening character, the person in control while chaos surrounds all else. Whether we are supposed to interpret further I don't know. Neither Spike in 'Fool for Love' nor Angel in 'Darla' seems to really fit his motivations here.

-Screw destiny! The prophecy's are ambiguous again, meaning something the interpretor did not pick up. More on that in 'Dad'.

Overall, the most visually rewarding denouement to a character journey I have seen. Possibly the most rewarding per se. Because Darla has fashioned new life out of 400 years of disaster, and is willing to let it supercede any selfish idea of dregs of despair that would continue if she continued to live.

3.10- 'Dad'

OK, this review's heading down before the up again of 'Birthday'. This episode, while perfectly average in Buffy Season Two or Angel Season One, lets down the almost inevitable consistency this Season has had up to now, with really few complaints by me on anything. Although it has several good moments, the pacing is too lumpy, the twist at the end seems a little contrived and unsatisfactory, and the plodding is really only offset, to begin with at least, with the one-note joke that Angel is desperate about being a good Father. Not a great joke when it is also the serious theme of the episode. Some of the jokes seemed to undermine exactly what the narrative structure was supposed to be highlighting.

Here's some good things for poor David Goodman.

-The teaser is about the personal versus the prophetic. Angel is worried only about the baby's welfare, and is cutting himself off from the outside world.

-Angel's possessiveness is fairly obviously going to lead to major problems, but there's a fairly good balance struck between how worried Angel is that he might fail his 'mission', and how he is being inadvertently selfish by ignoring his 'family'

-The speech from Lorne is where Angel realises he has been goign wrong- treating Connor as a mission, not a wonderful gift as well. Hence, any switched-on viewer will see the jarring discontinuity between this scene and his apparent taking off with Connor, only to have their initial thoughts (a tad predictably) justified by it being a bomb.

-Connor appears to be happy when Angel is honest. When he stops trying to 'play' a Father, and goes into vampire face. What he really is. Presumably, this is just baby co-incidence, but the point is set up for later on in the life that Angel attempting to be something he's not is something of which Connor will be uncomfortable.

-Justine is interesting. There's the parallels set up between Buffy and Giles, with Justine and Holtz. Justine uses the pop culture, while Holtz is deadly serious. But the parallel is only there to make the point that Holtz is again doing something wrong. While Buffy, (somewhat like Angel), is called to fight for Good, and Giles is instructed to help her in her struggle, Holtz is the reason behind Justine's mission. His vendetta. He cannot be an adequate guid because he is the employer. And his mission is an intensely personal one filled with anger. Yet, a little like Wesley in 'Billy', he appears to control the volume of his voice well. He shows little of the turmoil inside. Maybe the idea of British restraint is backed up in the Buffyverse. Certainly Giles, Wesley and Holtz all attempt to hide deep feelings in some way. Not Spike though. He represents the rebellion against the Empire ways, in some sense. Although, as Rahael has postulated he fits credibly well into the role of coloniser. Sorry, rambling.

-I loved the files and records woman. One of the funniest little vignettes of the Season. 'It's my job'. Very Kafka-esque, once again highlighting the confusing offices and double-dealings of Wolfram and Hart. Meanwhile, Linwood is nice and evil.

-Holtz sees himself as 'an instrument of vengeance'. Vengeance and justice, the two not quite equivalent ideas. Halfrek wants to be a 'Justice Demon'. But justice is about conforming to a universal idea of Fairness and Rightness. Vengeance is just about even-ing scores from one person to the next. Whether either is healthy remains to be argued- but both are occasionally a source of evil in the Buffyverse.

-At the end, we see that Angel has taken Lorne's advice well. He has started to humanise his son, rather than him just being a mission. And the ultimate expression of that is to, if rather belatedly, give him a name.

-We end on Connor's family. Cordelia has explained to Angel that they will all need to help- all of them can contribute something to Connor's upbringing. We see the forging of this most diverse of families in a hopeful ending to the episode. The events of Darla's arrival, while being extremely strssful, have not yet broken the strength of the unit at its high point, at the end of 'Fredless'.

3.11-'Birthday'

This episode caught me completely off guard for several reasons. Firstly, after seeing Darla pregnant in 'Heartthrob', I assumed they'd round of the arc with Connor's birth in this episode. That's another reason why his un-birth from his un-dead mother in 'Lullaby' was surprising to me. So I didn't know whose birthday it was. We ahven't seen Cordelia's birthday before, so it was an interesting surprise.

Then secondly, when I saw that she had left her body, I expected the episode to be a somewhat light-hearted chance to let Cordelia see what the others really thought of her. But the episode kept building more and more ominously towards the quite stellar multiple conclusions. Not at all what I expected. Here's some notes:

-I don't think I've ever taken the opportunity to mention how funny the name Phanton Dennis is. It still makes me laugh, partly due to the essential debasement of that horrible film George Lucas had the cheek to let loose worldwide. And he's turned into such a charmer. A nice possibly-to-be-developed couple of moments between Gunn and Fred- a relationship which we haven't seen much of yet. Here, Dennis is supposed to be the counter-point to Cordelia's early sense of dislocation. While Dennis is invisible, he can at least do things to help, where Cordelia is entirely powerless.

-Excellent to see Skip again, who I really enjoy as a character. There's that something excellently subversive about the cheery demon who looks like a warrior- much more so than the also-splendid Clem. While Clem is just lovely, Skip is funnier in always giving the impression that he is about to slice someone's head off, and then referring to Gladiator and The Matrix in such a jolly way.

-It's interesting that Cordelia has projected her reality as her ideal self, and is ultimately the key to the episode. While her life is extraordinarily hard, the visions have shaped Cordelia form the shallow, manipulative bitch of early Buffy to the sensitive, brave, articulate sufferer of 'Birthday'. Cordelia, despite still fostering her desire to be an actor, knows ultimately that she has grown out of that opportunity.

-So what leads to her decision to become that acting star anyway. Most obviously, there's the apparent inevitability of death otherwise. Then there's the fact that the title sequence for 'Cordy! just had to be done, (superb stuff, and probably some in-jokes that I didn't catch). But then there's Angel's behaviour. He is desperate to get Cordelia back, but, in a classic 'Shrek'-like way, Cordelia keeps overhearing the moments where he is most critical or dsimissive of aspects of her character. There is the neat irony that Angel believes Cordy is not a Champion, cannot take the visions any more, and yet in the Alternate Reality, Angel has completely mentally folded under the strain. The visions were obviously meant for someone as strong as Cordelia, and her strength is something well exploited here, which has been brushed aside too easily by writers in the past.

-Wesley with his arm missing reminded me vaguely of the White Hats in the Wishverse. A desperate struggle against unface-able odds. Again, a touching irony that Cordelia has come such a long way that her absence is reminiscent of Buffy's absence in the earlier episode.

-When Angel falls down to talk to the forces with multiple voices, the fall appears to be an allusion to 'Being John Malkovich'. Exactly who is Angel, and how does his experiences modify others' thoughts- particularly Cordelia in this episode?

-CC does a good job of playing the other Cordelia- the one who doesn't care about her PA, and is only interested in what part of twn she is in.

-There's references all over the place- which is tricky for the first-time viewer. We see 'Hero', 'City Of..', have the reference to the demon who Cordelia managed to stop from cutting off Wesley's arm, and also had various suggestions back to Buffy Season Three. Although I liked them all, a less faithful watcher might creek under the narrative thrust.

-It certainly didn't stop my enjoyment though, and Cordelia's final choice- to be part-demon, is bound to have consequences throughout the rest of the Season. Largely because it is a choice almost as big as Spike's returned soul- although presumably Cordelia will act more like Doyle- demon but due to upbringing and circumstances, working for good. The end of 'Birthday' though, leaves a lot of unanswered questions for the mid-term break.

-Ought to note that I generally don't think that there is much crossover between simultaneous Angel and Buffy episodes, [a view I realise many disagree with], but here it is impossible to see the girl harnessing dark magics and not consider the almost parallel 'Wrecked' episode on Buffy. This is a small pen-portrait of Willow's more epic tale.

-Great writing by Mere Smith. She always surprises me with her episodes' qualities, so I suppose I should rate her more highly. I liked all of 'Untouched', 'Redefinition', 'Fredless' and 'Birthday', and thought 'Over The Rainbow' was serviceable. Definitely my third favourite Angel writer after Minear and Greenwalt.

Thanks for reading as always. Only half a season left.

TCH- with Ithaca on the horizon

[> DO NOT REMOVE -- Tchaikovsky, 16:22:37 03/13/03 Thu

OK, this one doesn't have half the post in bold type! Sorry for being so stupid.

TCH

[> [> Thanks -- TCH, 16:33:58 03/13/03 Thu

Good to know the PTBs are watching over me :)

[> God, I wish Connor would comb his hair -- Masq, 16:35:27 03/13/03 Thu

Just saving your thread until I can read it through. Off to go re-watch "Dad" and "Birthday".

[> [> I think he uses too much conditioner. -- WickedBuffy ::trying to help keep it up::, 17:44:15 03/13/03 Thu

[> Thoughts on 'Dad'. Well, OK, actually thoughts on S. 3 characters -- Masq, 22:07:14 03/13/03 Thu

Now that you've advanced a bit in the episodes TCH, I can tell you that Season 3 is probably my favorite AtS season, despite the masterfulness of S. 2 episodes like Reprise and Epiphany and despite some of the weaker episodes of S. 3. Two of the primary reasons I'm so fond of S. 3 are Holtz and Connor.

Holtz is one of the most compelling villians either show has produced, probably because he isn't REALLY a villian. I mean he is, but he isn't. He will cause all manner of trouble for Angel, don't worry about that, but it's trouble that cuts to the core of who Angel is, it's trouble that eats Angel alive emotionally. Because Holtz is the symbol of the most atrocious evil he and Darla committed, Holtz is capable of tormenting Angel and driving him to the depths of despair. In some ways, he is to Angel what Angelus was to Buffy in Season 2 of BtVS. Angelus knew exactly what to say and do to torment Buffy, and he was a constant reminder of what she perceieved as her "failures". Holtz will know exactly what to do to torment Angel. The difference is that Holtz is much more three-dimensional than S. 2 Angelus was. And more justified.

Connor I'll hold off talking about much for now, except to say that I got very attached to that baby last season. He was just so cute and yet full of mysterious promise. Not unlike what he is now.

Justine: a lot of people didn't like Justine. Of course, she had a bad attitude about our heroes, but it was almost inevitable that she would. She was already emotionally damaged when Holtz found her. Then he manipulated her masterfully, driven by his own profound hurt.

Wolfram and Hart: It's hard to know what to make of these people. They're scrambling around like rats in a maze trying to control a situation that, when you think about it, they have little control over. They like to talk big "We are Evil and we have lots of money and resources", but I think in the final analyses, we will discover that Wolfram and Hart is just a bunch of people who are willing to stoop to anything to maintain the illusion that they are in control.

[> 'Birthday' is the first day of the rest of Cordy's life (Spoilers through Season 4 TCH) -- Masq, 22:42:42 03/13/03 Thu

Birthday is the culmination of the "Cordelia's painful visions" arc and the start of a new arc for Cordelia's character. Her visions are no longer painful, which is a plus, but now she's part demon. What will that mean for her? At the end of the episode, it just means she floats. But Skip warns that "The effects of the transformation will be numerous and unpredictable".

--This is where this post gets spoilery for the end of S. 3 and S. 4--

Getting into spoiler territory is inevitable when talking about "Birthday" because you can't talk about this episode without making note that this is the real beginning of the "Saint Cordelia" period. You know, that annoying blonde glowy girl that preceeded the Evil Momma we are seeing in Season 4.

We still don't know what is going on with her, and that's ME's big gimmick this season--holding back answers and letting them dribble out slowly. At first, it seemed that the demon thing didn't change Cordelia at all. I remember being annoyed by that. They go to all this trouble to let her make this noble choice for the sake of helping Angel and the team, and then she does have easy visions, but no apparent reprecussions.

Then we get to "The Price", and Cordelia starts with the glowing. It seems to be involuntary. She glows and wipes out the sluk infestation. She glows and gives Connor the soul colonic. Not because she's a person using her powers for good, but just because she started glowing at the right moment through no choice of her own.

And then she does it again. She glows on the freeway, and Skip comes and tells her how wonderful she is and that she's a "Higher Being" and she is whisked away to the land where everybody glows.

Now I used to think I knew what happened to her there. She glowed some, she wished she was back home, she saw the sense-a-round version of Angel(us)' life. We know the first two from (apparently) glimpsing her in this dimension, and the third from Cordelia's report after she (allegedly) returned to Earth. But now we know it may not be wise to take "Cordelia's" word for anything after she returned. Who is she, the "real" Cordelia possessed by something evil and demonic? Or is the real Cordelia still glowing somewhere in a dimension far, far away?

No way to know at the moment, and so we are still stuck on pause in that moment in Birthday when Cordy is hanging in the air, floating. What did this decision mean for her life? The effects of the transformation have certainly been unpredictable, as Skip warned.

[> [> a different kind of pain -- anom, 10:38:50 03/14/03 Fri

"Or is the real Cordelia still glowing somewhere in a dimension far, far away?"

If she is, it's a pretty sure bet she's not bored anymore. Skip said her semi-demon transformation would make the pain of her visions like a stroll through candyland (something like that) in comparison. That set us up to expect physical pain, which we didn't see manifested. But having seen Cordelia's frustration in The House Always Wins--she could see everything but couldn't do anything about it--we can imagine what she's going through now, not only watching Angelus' new swath but seeing the evil version of herself manipulating everyone around her & engineering the latest apocalypse. The emotional pain of knowing but being unable to interfere could indeed make her previous physical pain seem minor, at least to the new, more sensitive Cordelia.

This would also bring up the question of what Skip's role is in the whole scenario--did he send her up there to get her out of the way & let Evil!Cordy take her place? That would cast a whole new light (so to speak) on the events of this season...that is, if the real Cordelia is glowing up there somewhere!

[> [> [> Or it could be even worse (AtS S. 4 spoilers and a new speculative theory of Cordelia) -- Masq, 12:14:14 03/14/03 Fri

What if we have the real Cordelia's body on Earth but she is trapped inside it and unable to control the Evil Thing using her body? In "Release", she taunts Angelus with words to the effect, "I'll put your soul back, and you'll be trapped inside Angel. Fully conscious, fully aware, but unable to move or speak. Unable to act on your urges. Painfully thirsty."

I overlooked this because I don't think it correctly describes the Angel-Angelus relationship. I don't think Angel and Angelus have seperate consciousnesses.

But what if it correctly describes what the real Cordelia is going through, trapped in her own body, watching her alter-ego destroy everything around her, including the lives of those she loves the most?

Brrrrr!

[> [> Re: 'Birthday' is the first day of the rest of Cordy's life (Spoilers through Season 4 TCH) -- Scroll, 12:34:58 03/14/03 Fri

anom wrote: Skip said her semi-demon transformation would make the pain of her visions like a stroll through candyland (something like that) in comparison. That set us up to expect physical pain, which we didn't see manifested.

My understanding was that we did see her go through pain in that split second when Skip demonised her in "Birthday". She was screaming pretty loudly. But anom could very well be right, and Cordy is now experiencing all the pain (not physical) that comes from becoming part demon. After the evil demon thingie possessing/replacing her has been vanquished, I assume there will a lot of pain to work through, trust that needs to be rebuilt.

Personally, I stopped fully enjoying Cordelia after "Billy" but mostly that was because I didn't like what the writers were doing to her (the St. Cordy thing, which I admit is only an individual interpretation). But I agree with Masq that "Birthday" is really the pivotal episode in which a decision was made with ramifications we still no nothing about.

What I can't figured out is whether Cordy had already started exhibiting "demon possession" signs in late Season 3. I basically mean her complete cluelessness regarding Gunn's state of mind in "Double or Nothing", her total devotion to Angel to the extent that she doesn't storm over to Wesley's apartment demanding an explanation and a good grovelling, and her unthinking acceptance that she was worthy to become a Higher Being.

Now, we can all argue that she wasn't acting out of character in these situations. Unfortunately, we can also argue that she wasn't acting out of character when she seduced Connor in "Apoc, Nowish". There's just no way to tell for sure. But knowing now that the Cordelia resting up in her room in the hotel isn't precisely the Cordy we know and love, can't we start questioning when exactly it is that this demonic possession/replace began?

I don't know when Cordelia's character growth (from shallow high school girl to mature woman) became more insidious. To some, it might not have been until "Apocalypse, Nowish". Others might pin it at "Slouching To Bethlehem". I feel it most upon Cordy's return from vacation in "Double or Nothing". I know some people who think something more sinister happened to her in "Birthday" and that this is where the out-of-character-ness begins.

We probably won't find out until the end of the season, unfortunately. I do find knowing that Cordy is evil, or possibly a victim of evil, makes her more palatable as a character. Until the revelation of her evil-ness in "Calvary", I've simply been uncomfortable with her every action and attitude -- which I suppose was the point : ) Still, I'll be glad when they explain it all. They are going to explain all if it, right? Right?

[> [> [> Double or Nothing (late S 3 spoilers) -- Masq, 13:06:04 03/14/03 Fri

You're right, that's when she really started acting non-Cordelia-like. "Cordelia-like" being the person she had become in Seasons 2 and the first half of 3, post "To Shanshu in LA" when she experienced the pain of so many other people in that debilitating vision.

I think the biggest puzzle was the way she didn't try to figure out what was going on with Wesley. In "The Price" it was obvious that no one was telling her exactly what had happened, but that wasn't really an excuse. It seems to me the old Cordelia would have gone to Wesley and found out. But Fred tells her to do that more or less and Cordelia explicitly says "No she won't" and that "Angel is my priority."

Meanwhile, that bleach in her hair is soaking deeper into her brain....

You gotta wonder what happened in Mexico with Groo!

[> Quick initial thoughts -- Rahael, 02:58:04 03/14/03 Fri

Again, a very nice review.

I'm still thinking about Fitzgerald. Surey, surely, it's not Buffy who is Daisy but Darla!! This dark romance between Angelus/Angel and Darla, devoid of love. A dark fantasy which has a hold on his heart, the woman he lost but tried to get back in China by pretending to be other than he was. The way that Daisy is described as having a 'deathless song', the way that her voice is described as being like a symphony that has never been played before (Paraphrasing from memory from reading it 3 years ago, so excuse any mistake!) - Darla's voice has modulations that Buffy's really doesn't have. Plus, it's a way of showing how many guises Darla has for Angel - the mutating, mercurial nature of their centuries long love affair.

And just a brief comment about Coloniser and colonised - there need be no sharp dividing line between the two. Identities far from home become incredibly blurred. Wes and Giles stick to one mode of British Identity. They come from the 'core'. Spike and Angel are in the peripheries of the Empire. Their double nature splendidly illustrates how hybrid they are. Let me tell you, as someone moving from periphery to core, as a visitor (and sometimes perceived threat) to a culture, that it is impossible not to merge, to become something new. Most especially if you are a visitor.

[> [> 'Deathless song' vs 'Full of money' -- Tchaikovsky, 03:06:26 03/14/03 Fri

Dashing off to a lecture, and feeling the need to re-read the great American novel, but Gatsby's disappointment with Daisy centres around her voice, which he describes as 'full of money'. I don't remember the reference to 'deathless song' clearly- is it a literal allusion to her voice, or a metaphor for her life? Don't know. I personally think that the Fitzgerald reference has to be intended to be about Buffy, because Cordelia interrupts with the news that Buffy is alive at the end of 'Carpe Noctem', just after Fred has had her speech. However, as I've learnt from the wondeful literary criticism thread, there are factions who believe that the writer's intentions are only one aspect in the viewer's interpretation. And Darla certainly fits better into the narrative pattern of 'Gatsby', because Darla's rejection of Angel led to a period of estrangement, just as Daisy standing up Gatsby led to their break-up.

And you're quite right on colonisation. My mind just started wondering onto the restrained nature of Wesely, Giles and Holtz and then I was trying to compare Spike and getting woefully off-topic. That's half the fun, though!

TCH

[> [> [> Re: 'Deathless song' vs 'Full of money' -- Rahael, 03:30:53 03/14/03 Fri

Done a little bit of looking up in between doing my post and reading your reply. It's Gatsby who says her voice is full of money, and it's the narrator who has the more romantic descriptions. And then there's a point where Nick realises that it is both, and the modulations are the jingles of money (the golden girl) that runs society. The beautiful, the gaudy melt away when too closely inspected to reveal the wasteland......

I think there are definite parallels, very strong ones between Darla and Buffy. Buffy gets resurrected. So does Darla. Someone (Cordy?) points out that Angel gets obsessed with small blonde women. The conversation with the Tish Magev show that Angel's relationship with the two blonde women are closely intertwined in his mind. They are both immensely significant. Perhaps they are the two halves of the whore/madonna in his dichotomized mind. Darla, the companion to Angelus. Buffy the companion for Angel.

And in the Darla storyline in S3, Angel starts reconciling this split. Darla assumes her own worth. She is more than the demonized Vamp. And Buffy instantly becomes something more real than the idealized madonna. It is Darla, the former prostitute who gives birth to a miracle child.

Gatsby had illusions about Daisy. The glamarous part of his life is an illusion. Perhaps Daisy points us to both Darla and Buffy. It's both the deathless song, the series of notes that will never be played again, and the voice full of money.

But for me definitely, Darla and Buffy share a fascinating relationship that I've only started to think about.

[> [> [> [> The artifice of eternity -- Rahael, 04:03:27 03/14/03 Fri

Oh, a thought struck me when I reread the subject line. If your voice is full of the music of money (gold coins) then it literally is deathless isn't it? Gold is prized for its longevity.

[> [> [> [> [> Good Buffy/Darla parallels -- Tchaikovsky, 05:10:12 03/14/03 Fri

As for the aspect of money in the voice- this is one of those things that gets more complex the more you look at it. The song is deathless in as much as it is full of eternal hope and vivacity. Yet Daisy will one day die, leaving the song behind her as merely a legacy. Similarly, as is made so important in the Pauline Epistles, garnering money is all very well for personal luxury on earth, but you can not take it with you when your life finishes. We bring nothing into the world, and we leave with nothing. The money in Daisy's voice is a suggestion of the timelessness of the idea of wealth, but also highlights how short her own life of wealth will be. Of course, Gatsby sees the money as making her impure, of adding a tinge of worldly reality to his transcendant religious love for his idea of her. For him, the very fact that the money is transitory compared with his supposedly eternal love, is what debases her and subsequently his idea- that always unreachable green light.

Can't remember what I was getting at now- suffice it to say that the money in the voice seems to have many implications.

TCH

[> [> [> [> [> [> And then there's 'Tender is the Night'... -- Random, 11:30:35 03/14/03 Fri

nah, I'll leave it be. "All life is a process of breaking down." Fitzgerald, "The Crackup" The parallels are fascinating -- I hadn't thought of them before, not really, but I'll note, re transience and wealth, that Fizgerald (who almost worshipped the ideals of wealth) spoke of regret as much as disillusionment. The Golden Couple -- and Angelus and Darla provided a perfect, and perfectly twisted, version of this -- who exist in the now are caught between ephemerality and immortality. Wealth makes them lords and ladies of their own immediate reality, and in a sense, they will always be young, always golden.

Money is part of their being, and as long as they have it, they will be part of that rarified sphere they inhabit. But, of course, nothing lasts. Car accidents can kill even the richest, most beautiful people in the world. All life is a process of breaking down, and though one can inhabit the present indefinitely from a hermetic perspective, from an external narrator's perspective, time must pass, all things must end. That is the source of regret -- not so much that money and wealth are illusory, but that they are ultimately ineffectual.

Even when one is immortal -- like Angelus and Darla -- and it seems that the whole world is a McDonalds with free buffets until the end of time, eventually everything will come crashing down. Whether it be because of a gypsy curse or because "nothing gold can stay" (an American poetry citation for ya, Rah), it inevitably engenders a sense that when it is over, something precious -- if viciously murderous in the case of Angelus -- has been lost.

~Random

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Lovely - and from gold, to dust..... -- Rahael, 11:38:28 03/14/03 Fri

Fear no more the heat o' the sun,
Nor the furious winter's rages;
Thou thy worldly task hast done,
Home art gone, and ta'en thy wages:
Golden lads and girls all must,
As chimney-sweepers, come to dust.

Fear no more the frown o' the great,
Thou art past the tyrant's stroke;
Care no more to clothe and eat;
To thee the reed is as the oak:
The sceptre, learning, physic, must
All follow this, and come to dust.

Fear no more the lightning-flash,
Nor the all-dreaded thunder-stone;
Fear not slander, censure rash;
Thou hast finish'd joy and moan:
All lovers young, all lovers must
Consign to thee, and come to dust.

No exorciser harm thee!
Nor no witchcraft charm thee!
Ghost unlaid forbear thee!
Nothing ill come near thee!
Quiet consummation have;
And renown�d be thy grave!

Shakespeare

The whole thing about the sun, the dust and being brought back from the grave seem especially fitting for Angel and Darla!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Quite fitting... -- Random, 11:55:49 03/14/03 Fri

I must say, it's been a while since I read "Cymbeline." I also liked -- not poetry, but still nice --

"Be not afeared; the isle is full of noises,
Sounds and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not.
Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments
Will hum about mine ears; and sometimes voices,
That, if I then had waked after a long sleep,
Will make me sleep again: and then, in dreaming,
The clouds methought would open and show riches
Ready to drop upon me; that, when I waked,
I cried to dream again."

Shakespeare

Perfect for Gatsby.

The poem, for those out there who don't know, is a Robert Frost one:

Nothing Gold Can Stay

Nature's first green is gold,
Her hardest hue to hold.
Her early leaf's a flower;
But only so an hour.
Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.

Frost is highly underrated -- tis a pity that most people only know him from his most popularized poems. Much of his stuff is major canon, future English Lit grad school stuff.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Whixh links right back into... -- Tchaikovsky, 13:17:05 03/14/03 Fri

That Keat's 'Ode to a Grecian Urn' which I thought they were referencing in 'Happy Anniversary'. In a sense, Angel and Darla are the lovers trapped in time. It has its bonuses, (apparently eternal youth), and its drawbacks, (the need to keep re-inventing oneself, [pre 1898 at least]). Keats, Fitzgerald, Whedon, Minear. Seems a good game of social bridge to me. Keats can sit out and I'll play East.

TCH- who'd beat them because I bet they all suck at math(s) ;-)

[> Great as always.. -- Random, 03:04:50 03/14/03 Fri

Marvelous points about Old Testament-style arcs for Holtz and Angel. The question of moral ambiguity somehows strengthens Angel's hand, paradoxically enough. Connor appears to be far more clear-cut -- justice sans mercy toward evil -- yet this ultimately offers less hope than Angel's greyer path to redemption. It's one of those instances where ambiguity trumps outright certainty. In a Buffyverse where evil will not hesitate to deal a killing blow, Holtz's attitude somehow makes more sense. But it is Angel's that ultimately offers hope that good can be defined by more than it's opposition to evil.

[> My big problems with Holtz -- KdS, 05:33:15 03/14/03 Fri

Not in any way maeaning to condone Angelus and Darla's massacre of his family, but I find myself more and more holding Holtz partially responsible for the demise of his wife and children. So far as we're aware, he's a professional vampire hunter and demon slayer, with his own crew of heavies, well-known to good and bad guys.

So why are his family left totally unguarded? Why is his ten-year-old daughter answering the door? Why the **** hasn't his daughter even been trained not to invite complete strangers over the threshold? Why isn't there a huge cross design on the doormat?

As far as I can see, there are two explanations, and neither of them are flattering to Holtz. Firstly, that he's so self-centred that he didn't even consider that his enemies might target his family, sort of like Victor not bothering to consider that the Creature's "wedding night" threat might refer to Elizabeth in Frankenstein. Secondly, maybe he's so obssessed with keeping his family life "pure" that he's left his wife and children utterly unaware of what Daddy actually does for a living. In which case he may have protected their and his sensibilities, but he condemned them to a horrible death.

[> [> So... -- agent156, 10:03:40 03/14/03 Fri

So by your reasoning, had Darla killed Joyce in season 1 it would have been Buffy's fault? Buffy condemned her mother to death by not telling her?

And remember, it was just a little child who invited Angelus and Darla in. Children often don't do as they have been taught because they forget or just don't understand the reasoning behind it. It reminds me of something I saw on 20/20 once about kids with guns. A lot of little kids who had been taught not to play with guns were left in a room where there was a gun. Most of the kids played with the gun despite what they were taught. And the kids were all about the age that Holtz's daughter was.

Plus, there was really no way Holtz could have protected his family for certain. If the child had not let Angelus and Darla in the door, they could have simply set the house on fire and waited for the family to come outside. As Buffy said about Dawn in season 5, there is no way that she can always be there to protect her. Even guards can be killed.

[> [> [> No -- KdS, 10:28:36 03/14/03 Fri

Not saying it was primarily Holtz's fault (but I am unhappy with the risk to Joyce through Buffy and Giles trying to keep the truth from her in BtVS S1-2).

And as you, say 100% protection is impossible, but Holtz's daughter seemed utterly ignorant in Lullaby (Elizabeth less so).

[> [> [> [> Re: No -- anom, 14:27:29 03/14/03 Fri

"And as you, say 100% protection is impossible, but Holtz's daughter seemed utterly ignorant in Lullaby (Elizabeth less so)."

It's been said numerous times that Angelus & Darla were unusual in their...creativity. Holtz & Elizabeth may have thought in terms of run-of-the-mill vamps that were mostly opportunistic killers & didn't go out of their way to find specific victims. Also, Holtz may not have had to deal w/vamps' reaction to being hunted before simply because up till A & D, they didn't get away & (un)live to seek revenge. All this is total speculation, of course.

[> [> Re: My big problems with Holtz -- WickedBuffy, 18:25:32 03/14/03 Fri

I agree.

Plus, it helps serve the storyline regarding Hotlz's revenge on Angelus. It wasn't just justice/revenge, it was also guilt that fueled him.

'Eyes are the window to the soul' ::speculating:: -- WickedBuffy (tiny spoilerish thru Release), 18:53:59 03/13/03 Thu

I keep thinking of that line when Willow's eyes go solid black when shes Ms Dark Magic Woman.

And Cordy's going all white now when she is doing some particular evils. (I'm not talking about the Good Cordy premonitions - but did her eyes always go white back then?)

Specifically with Cordy, I wonder if at those times if she is souless. There are no windows to her soul - it's a blank white wall. For that matter, Cordy is acting like her soul was taken - similar to how Liam changed when he was vamped and had no soul.

Was her soul stolen? Could that explain her actions? She's acting like a demon-infected, souless being on a mission. Someone has her soul and Angels, then.

Cordy seems cut off from humanity now, somewhat like Willow when she's overcome by magic in a negative way. Disconnected from humans and connected to demons.

ps I may not have gotten that quote exactly right - but it's close, eh?

[> Re: 'Eyes are the window to the soul' ::speculating:: -- Scroll, 20:51:57 03/13/03 Thu

And Cordy's going all white now when she is doing some particular evils. (I'm not talking about the Good Cordy premonitions - but did her eyes always go white back then?)

You're right, Cordy's eyes never used to go white. They didn't start going white until this season. And remember Principle Wood when he got temporarily possessed by the Seal of Dazalthar in "Storyteller"? His eyes went white. Same with Andrew's when he imagines himself being possessed by the Seal (though arguably this isn't a realistic example, LOL!)

So there seems to be a very possible connection between demonic, evil power and eyes going white a la Cordy and Wood.

[> [> Re: 'Eyes are the window to the soul' ::speculating:: -- Slayrunt, 21:38:18 03/13/03 Thu

I wonder if there is a significance that the first time her eyes went white was in Angel's dream during the desouling process.

Does Angel know?

[> [> [> He might know (spoilers, speculation) -- Scroll, 23:56:45 03/13/03 Thu

Considering Angelus keeps proving he knows so much more than anyone would expect. Everybody thinks Angel is so oblivious (i.e. Gunn and Fred murdering Seidel) but in reality he just pretends obliviousness so his friends don't feel uncomfortable.

Wouldn't surprise me if Angel didn't start having niggling feelings that something wasn't quite right with Cordy just before the spell to desoul him. Which would explain the white eyes in his "retarded fantasy" (hee, love that line!)

Of course, the writers could've thrown Cordy's white eyes into the episode that proved to be a fantasy simply to throw us off track that white-eyed Cordy in real life was actually evil.

Also, welcome back, Slayrunt!

[> [> [> Re: 'Eyes are the window to the soul' ::speculating:: -- yabyumpan, 01:56:00 03/14/03 Fri

Actually, I think the first time we see Cordelia's eyes go white is during RoF when she has the vision, Angel is with her then so her eyes going white in 'Awakening' was probably just Angel remembering that.

Thinking about it some more, the very first time we see Cordelia's eyes go white is in 'Room with a View' in S1 when she smashes the wall that Dennis is bricked up in. Interesting that she was probably possesed, by either Dennis or his mother (probably Dennis) at that time. It's a bit of a stretch but maybe her eyes going white is a sign that she's possesed.

[> [> [> [> The Witch -- oboemaboe, 03:44:54 03/14/03 Fri

has her eyes turning white when under Catherine's blindness spell. I wouldn't mention that except that FX seems to interrupt the flow of reruns sometimes to tie in to what's happening in the new episodes. E.g., going from S5 to F,H,&T the morning that Faith showed up in Salvage, then picking right back up in S5 again. They showed The Witch the morning before Release, then went back to S5 again.

[> [> [> Hope you are feeling better, Slayrunt! -- Rahael, 03:37:58 03/14/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> Yes, thanks. The hair has body again! -- Slayrunt, 12:30:18 03/14/03 Fri

[> [> [> 'Womb with a view' ::speculating:: (spoilerish Salvage) -- WickedBuffy, 13:16:46 03/14/03 Fri

I wonder if a "total" Cordy possession happened during Angels desouling process.

Or, staying with the desouling theme, Cordy was "soulnapped" at the same time Angels was being removed.

Something or someone might have a couple souls hidden away in a shoebox.

How would a possession look any different than a soul gone... are there Buffyverse examples to compare? If Cordy is now carrying The Boss (in that safe, warm place), is it usually EvilCordy with no soul we see working for The Boss and EvilCordy Being Totally Possessed by the Boss when her eyes go blank.

[> [> another example (very vague 'afterlife' spoilers) -- anom, 09:32:19 03/14/03 Fri

Members of the Scooby Gang had their eyes turned white when they were possessed by the "gift w/purchase" in Afterlife--but apparently only when it chose to manifest itself in them. When it was lurking inside them (like when it was using Xander to listen in & find out how to keep the gang from getting rid of it), there was no indication it was there. Only when it was controlling their bodies did their eyes turn white.

[> Don't forget (spoiler Storyteller and Awakening) -- lunasea, 10:01:35 03/14/03 Fri

Wood's eyes were white when he was on the Seal and acting possessed (though it probably wasn't actual possession, just his inner demon being allowed to express itself)

In "Awakening" the white eyes reminded me of the blind seer kids from "Blind Date." I still think it was forshadowing. I don't think Angel's fantasy was completely generated by him. Nor were his hallucinations in "Deep Down." The dreams of "Restless" are also a mixture of Scoobies and other things (PTB and First Slayer). The hard part of decoding these is what is generated by what.

Quick casting spoilers for 'Orpheus' (no other spoilers). Heads up, Rob! -- HonorH, 22:12:41 03/13/03 Thu

No, this isn't the Well-Known AtS Casting Spoiler. The two I'm talking about are definitely lesser-known. One is Nate Dushku. Who here thinks that last name is a coincidence? It'll be interesting to see how much he looks like Eliza.

The other is Adrienne Wilkinson, familiar to "Xena" viewers as Xena's daughter, Eve. Funny thing is, she rather favors ED, IMHO. Pure spec: we might get a look at Faith's family. Wouldn't it be funny if, after all these years, she finally gets a last name?

[> Re: Quick casting spoilers for 'Orpheus' (no other spoilers). Heads up, Rob! -- Rob, 22:18:58 03/13/03 Thu

"The other is Adrienne Wilkinson, familiar to "Xena" viewers as Xena's daughter, Eve."

Cool! She was never my favorite character on the show, but I enjoyed the actress. It'll be interesting to see her in something else.

Rob

[> NOT the (Lesser) Well-Known Casting Spoiler, but somebody else -- Scroll, 22:44:32 03/13/03 Thu

Unfortunately, I think I've clicked on too many links and have inadvertently spoiled myself. *sigh* Not you, HH. I was surfing livejournals and hit one too many cut-away spoiler tags that I should NOT have clicked.

I still don't know for positive since I shut my eyes immediately, but still... I read pretty fast. So I think I know, but don't want my suspicions confirmed. (Just like I hit your link thinking it was a WKCS I already knew, but noticed the first letter of the name wasn't the same and shut my eyes.)

Dunno, I've been extremely paranoid about spoilers as of late. Not sure why. But possibly because I know this is the very last season of Buffy and I'll never, ever again be able to watch Buffy "for the very first time". So I want to savour the experience. Same with Angel if indeed the show isn't renewed.

[> [> I can relate. -- HonorH, 23:15:14 03/13/03 Thu

Buffy-wise, at least. I'm so paranoid lately that I'm even avoiding FanFiction.net in the days before a new BtVS ep because some people there have an unfortunate way of including future spoilers in their subject lines.

Casting spoilers, though, as well as ep names, I do allow myself. Therefore, I do know that *spoiler* will be on BtVS as a character named *spoiler* starting with an episode titled *spoiler* at the same time as WKCS, but I don't know anything about the character. I'll also allow myself TV Guide-type blurbs--but nothing else. Watching the season unfold unspoiled really is completely different than being the utter Spoiler Lady of the Evening that I've been in past seasons, and I'm glad I'm doing it for this season, at least.

Sorry if I spoiled you further, but I'm seriously doubting that either of the names I mentioned will have great bearing on future events. Don't worry.

[> [> [> Thanks, that's reassuring at least -- Scroll, 23:52:15 03/13/03 Thu

but I'm seriously doubting that either of the names I mentioned will have great bearing on future events. Don't worry.

Glad to hear that. Still, I'm going to stay away from your post just in case it holds more than I expect. I think I've got who the actor is, and a vague notion of what his character's role/job is, but I don't want anything confirmed.

Sigh. I was just at another livejournal (whose owner is unspoiled), clicked on the link to go to another livejournal and saw spoilers RIGHT THERE in the open. I closed my eyes quick as a wink, but I still think I got even more this time 'round. I left a note to that LJ user to perhaps consider using spoiler tags. Hopefully he'll heed my advice, considering he has friended unspoiled people.

[> [> [> [> Well, if you know -- HonorH, 08:26:13 03/14/03 Fri

what *spoiler's* character is all about, you know more than I do. I found out *spoiler* will be on the show accidentally, and what his name is, but other than that, I know absolutely nothing about him. If my post contains more than what I mentioned, I'm psychic.

[> [> [> [> [> I don't really know -- Scroll, 11:48:26 03/14/03 Fri

I have no idea if you're psychic or not (though wouldn't it be cool if you were?) because I haven't actually read your post. : ) I only got semi-spoiled by some do-do head who didn't bother with tags. I'm glad you're staying relatively spoiler-free, we need more of us on our side!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Hate non-spoiler-tagging do-do heads! -- HonorH, 15:53:28 03/14/03 Fri

I got spoiled by one of the same for the revelation about Wood's parentage. Can't tell you how mad that made me. Nearly sicced Honorificus on him. You've gotta watch those LiveJournals, y'know?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hate non-spoiler-tagging do-do heads! -- Veronica, 17:00:18 03/14/03 Fri

Ditto regarding the doo-doo heads!

Worst is when you get spoiled on something you really didn't want to know and the person responsible thinks it's no big deal. I like Scroll's point best:
I'll never, ever again be able to watch Buffy "for the very first time".

I feel like someone's taken something from me when I'm spoiled against my will. I can never un-know a thing. *sigh*

-V
(thinking I night be frighteningly emotional about this issue)

[> [> [> I'm the exact same way -- lunasea, 09:38:23 03/14/03 Fri

I allow myself actor and writer interviews, since I seriously doubt either would want to ruin my enjoyment, but that is about it beyond titles and who writes what.

I really wanted to be surprised about a certain crossover I hoped for for the finale, but that was asking waaaaayyyy too much. Only way to avoid that would have been to avoid the net completely. I would have had to avoid all interviews (even print) and I just can't do that (well maybe I could, but I don't wanna, she says stamping her feet)

I like this board because spoilers are mainly about the current or past episodes. There is very little chance of stumbling on a future spoiler, beyond speculation. I don't know how those across the pond do it.

[> [> [> [> Most of 'em don't. -- HonorH, 09:59:18 03/14/03 Fri

Especially in mainland Europe, where eps air a full year after they air in the US. My longtime friend and correspondent Tanja Kinkel lives in Germany. She gets her eps via tapes sent to her by her English friend Kathy and downloaded clips. She's also a total Spoiler Trollop. One, spoilers are awfully hard to avoid for a European addicted to fanfic. Two, she likes reading the immediate reactions to eps. So she reads spoilers and even wildfeed, which means she's actually more ahead of the game than I am. She keeps teasing me about eps 17, 18, and 19 and how much I'll love them.

As for me, I don't get AtS up here in Alaska, and so I go ahead and read spoilers for it. I don't read wildfeed or reviews, but I don't avoid spoilers, either. That would take too much work, and I'm a lazybuns. Like you said: I could, but I don't wanna.

[> [> Why I'm a Casting (only) Spoiler Trollop, and yet another CS for Buffy -- Darby, 05:20:44 03/14/03 Fri

The thing about guest stars is, if it's a big deal they often are "popped" at the end of an episode but don't really do anything (either through promos, as Faith, or a walk-in - now I don't remember which Willow was).

In most other cases they show up during the show, but they've already been mentioned in the credits, so you know they're coming anyway. It's almost impossible to be unspoiled up to the moment they appear, unlike plot twists.

Anyway, I was on the Internet Movie database last week, looking to see what the Firefly crew was doing (I was checking to see if Gina Torres was still slated for Angel), and when I checked Nathan Fillion (Mal), he was down for six episodes of Buffy as "Caleb." But when I went to post this the next day, the Buffy creds were no longer on the list. Heck, I figured, it's the IMDB, their facts are often wrong. But since then, it has been announced elsewhere, and the creds are back up at the IMDB, so I guess it's going to happen, and soon, and I don't think it's been mentioned here (I don't frequent the spoiler board). This looked like a safe place to put it.

If you happen to look this up at
http://us.imdb.com/Name?Fillion,%20Nathan
be advised that there would also be episode title spoilers.

And there's this semi-announcement, also, accessed through Slayage:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=597&ncid=763&e=10&u=/nm/20030310/tv_nm/buffy_dc

[> [> [> Re: Why I'm a Casting (only) Spoiler Trollop...and more CS spoilers for BtVS and AtS -- Rob, 07:03:41 03/14/03 Fri

That's very cool. It's also really shows how much Joss appreciated his "Firefly" actors that he gives two of them roles the same year on his other shows. You get the sense of the camraderie between all of them, and how disappointed all of them were about the cancellation.

On a side note, I read somewhere that Joss also had wanted to bring in the girl who played Kaylee but couldn't get her due to timing issues. Don't know how official or true that story is, though. I can't even remember where I found it, and haven't since.

And I've become a casting spoiler/episode title trollop, too, now. It gives me enough of a buzz to feel like I'm walking on the wild side, but doesn't completely ruin all the twists and turns.

Just wondering, have you heard anything pro or con the cast of Angel showing up on the last ep of Buffy? I keep getting conflicting stories. (And that's another one that, if it happens, would definitely be given away in a promo.)

Rob

[> [> [> [> On Jewel Staite (NO casting spoiler) -- Darby, 07:11:24 03/14/03 Fri

- Wouldn't she have made a better Kennedy? I'm not all that much against the current actress, but I think Jewel just has more presence and has a vague Tara-like feel.

Or Summer Glau, for that matter.

But I think Kennedy was introduced when Firefly's final fate was still up in the air.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: On Jewel Staite (NO casting spoiler) -- s'kat, 09:16:13 03/14/03 Fri

Kennedy was introduced in Bring On The Night and probably cast at least a month before that. I suspect BoTN was
filmed around Oct, when they were still breaking and filming Firefly. The cancellation notice on Firefly happened around the end of December. So yep, too late
to change casting.

Still miss Firefly. Was the best new show IMHO. And just when it was beginning to take off and get interesting.

Dangit.

SK

[> [> [> [> [> Great call, Darby! -- Rob, 09:19:47 03/14/03 Fri

I could totally see Jewel Staite playing Kennedy, because she has the right mix of brashness and sweetness that I think the actress who plays Kennedy tries to get, but just, IMO, doesn't pull off. To me, she comes off as abrasive and phony, where I really could see Jewel playing that role perfectly.

I could see Summer Glau doing it, too, but I think I'd prefer Jewel in that role.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> Absolutely! -- luna, 11:41:43 03/14/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> Re: On Jewel Staite (NO casting spoiler) -- CW, 13:27:13 03/14/03 Fri

Just so the actress currently playing Kennedy doesn't get paranoid, I like her fine, and think she doing a good job. I think the failure of the chemistry with her and AH that some people a unhappy about is as much AH's problem as it is hers. Remember that AH lobbied hard for Amber to get the part of Tara (unnecessarily, if what Joss says, is true). It's a lot easier to build up a working relationship (pun intended here) with someone if you already admire their work.

Actually, I think Jewel Staite would have been a bad choice. She was okay when she was giving Simon the business on Firefly, but I pretty sure the exact same attitude would have come off as unpleasantly catty, if she were addressing a bunch of girls. Summer Glau is certainly athletic enough to play a tough potential, but I don't know if she could play the part otherwise. She might, I just don't know.

[> [> [> [> [> [> See, I don't see the problem as being AH's at all in the chemistry department... (KiM spoilers) -- Rob, 13:40:59 03/14/03 Fri

When I was watching, for example, the date in KiM, I completely believed AH's performance the whole time. She looked at first shocked, but as she was sipping her drink and talking to her, seemed amused and then interested. From her body language, facial expressions, I completely believed her performance. Cut back to Kennedy, and I was just not buying her at all. I don't think she sounded natural. I thought she sounded very stilted, and her line delivery like about the "lickable" freckles, IMO, was really just bad. I know this is mean, but IMO she is the worst actress in a recurring or regular role ever hired for either show. Or maybe she's a good actress and this role is just wrong for her. But I just do not believe her performance one bit.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: See, I don't see the problem as being AH's at all in the chemistry department... (KiM spoilers) -- CW, 13:56:51 03/14/03 Fri

I have to go the other way. If I insert myself in place of one or the other girls in the scene, with the woman remaining acting exactly as she does in the current scene, I'd rather be kissing Kennedy at that moment. And I'd certainly not object to kissing AH! I don't think either woman is very comfortable in the scene.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Worst Actor ever on an ME series? -- Dochawk, 17:33:35 03/14/03 Fri

Have you been watching Angel lately? We were LAUGHING at how horrible DB was last week (in Retreat) and CC wasn't much better. DB was wonderful playing angelus in Buffy season 2, but he isn't acting right now, he is reading lines and mugging for the camera. There is nothing believable in his performance for me (and I watched it with 3 people who are angel lovers and are professionals in the Entertainment Industry, if that means anything).

I think IL is a pretty good actress, but that doesn't mean the chemistry is there between she and AH. Sometimes its just the writing, sometimes the fit isn't right and sometimes its because the audience isn't accepting (I think IL is having the same problem Marc Blucas had with Riley and seeing him in other work, MB is a pretty good actor).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> DB had greatly improved -- Scroll, 18:04:11 03/14/03 Fri

I'm not sure how much of what you're laughing at is DB's acting, and how much are the lines the writers saddle him with and the directing choices being made. While I do agree that CC isn't exactly hitting it out of the park lately, I think DB did a really good job in "Release". Not as amazing as "Soulless" or "Calvary", but that might be partly because he's no longer restrained in a cage, where words are his only weapons, and I often think DB does a better acting job when the director doesn't let him to get too goofy or rambunctious. DB is certainly Most Improved Actor on any of the ME shows.

DB never shakes me out of believing he is Angel(us), but lately CC has been shaking me out of my suspension of disbelief. And IL does the same for me too, though I don't think Kennedy is so horrible as some apparently do. Perhaps you're right about her being like MB when it comes to chemistry.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree. I think he's terrific as Angelus. I am slightly disappointed with CC lately, though. -- Rob, 18:49:40 03/14/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: DB had greatly improved -- anom, 22:59:13 03/17/03 Mon

To me, DB's work in the last few eps has been uneven. Some of it may be the writing (waah! angelus said something mean! or the way-too-long "getting warmer" sequence in Salvage), but some is definitely the acting. Then there are (un)dead-on moments like his expression of nasty delight when his hunch about the Beast's knife turns out to be right (trying to phrase this so it won't be spoilery).

As for CC, I think she's done some good work w/the smaller stuff, like lines that mean something totally different when you know which side she's on--letting us see Evil!Cordy's reaction w/out showing it to the other characters. I can't cite specific instances, but some of her eye work (hope that's clear) has been very nicely done.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Have to agree on several points. -- CW, 19:33:28 03/14/03 Fri

A big part of the reason I couldn't believe it was Angelus in Salvage was that DB wasn't acting anything like Angelus. I'm not sure whether to blame that on DB or the writing. CC has just been awful. She's proven she can play someone sweet or seriously annoying over the years. But, she isn't cut out to play real villains. For most of the season CC has been acting like a very tired pregnant woman, and I can't really fault her for that.

I suppect you're right about folks not wanting to accept IL. Amber was pretty damn good to be sure, probably a better match as a girlfriend for Willow even. But, I don't think it's fair to judge IL for not being the second coming of Tara.

My choice for the worst actor in ME history? Bailey Chase as Graham. Heck, I can act that well! He brought a whole new meaning the the phrase 'wooden soldier.'

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The character is what we see -- lunasea, 17:42:02 03/16/03 Sun

DB plays Angelus like he is told to. If he wasn't doing what the director wanted, he would be instructed to do something different. He has grown a lot and he is capable of a lot. I am tired of the complaints about his "limitations." The problem is that people think that Angelus should be a certain way. When he isn't, DB tends to get blamed.

How he is playing Angelus is just as important as the plot itself. Rather than say "DB wasn't acting anything like Angelus" why not ask, why is Angelus acting this way.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Completely agree Doc -- Sophist, 17:36:26 03/17/03 Mon

Though I'd rate CC as the worst and DB as a close second.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Worst Actor ever on an ME series? -- s'kat, 21:17:42 03/17/03 Mon

Been thinking about this since I read it on Sunday night, then voy went down and I thought if it's not still up, I'll forget about it. But it's still up and I haven't forgotten.

About acting, having actually done a little of it in my time, on stage not on film and in childhood and adolscence not adulthood, I learned that the craft is not as easy as it looks. Actually extraordinarily difficult and frightening, getting up in front of lots of people and risking their criticism. I remember my first ever review, I played the Great Goblin in The Theater for Young America's presentation of The Hobbit. I'd worked all summer on the part. The reviewer stated how incredibly clownish I was in the role and horrible. It stung. An actor named Clancy, who was playing Gandalf, turned to me and gave the best advice, I've ever been given regarding critics and reviewers:

"Don't pay any attention to what reviewers say. Just do the best you can do. I never read reviews myself particularly not during a show - if they are great? I get too cocky and it hurts my performance. If they are horrible? It shreds my ego and makes me self-conscious. Ignore the nits. It's all subjective anyways rarely constructive and usually doesn't help much in the long-run." That and the fact that most critics have never created a piece of work and put it out there for others to throw rotten apples at.

Now over twenty years later, as I critique others performances in my head and see critiques on my own art (writing now - I was a horrid actress and wise enough to drop any ideas of pursueing it), I remember those words and whole-heartedly agree.

I've been watching Children of Dune and if you want to see wooden acting? Well take a peek. Although Alice Krige and the guy who plays Leto are quite gripping. Susan Sarandon?
I've seen better. But see - this is of course based on what I consider to be good acting.

What do I consider good acting? What is it in my subjective opinion? Assuming anyone cares ;-)

When the actor pulls me into the story and for a moment I forget my own life enough to see what is being performed.
When the actor/actress make me empathasize with them, hate them or love them. When I feel the pain of their character through their facial expression, eyes, delivery. If for a moment, I find myself looking through their character's eyes and experience that magical moment of being, I don't know transformed.

IMHO there are only a couple of actors on Btvs and Ats who accomplish this feat most of the time, almost all the time for me. The others have hit it occassionally. What and how they do it is - well I could analyze and explain it endlessly - but to me it is magic and something I respect more because I can not achieve it myself. Watching someone do this is a bit like watching a woman or man dance on a tightrope or the cirque de solelil perform. It's magic and all the more so, for the numerous actors who never come close.

James Marsters performance as Spike in Btvs continues to amaze me. It is so raw and naked. I feel his character's pain on the screen and it makes me wince in sympathy. He made me fall in love with his character and I watch enraptured to see what he will do next.

Alexis Denisof performance as Wes holds me spellbound, terrifying me at times and riveting me at others. He has moved from clown to complicated ruthless leader and potential sadist, adding layers as he goes. I can't tear my eyes away from the screen when he is on it.

Anthony Steward Head continues to amaze me with his ability to shine for only two seconds on a screen. Even if he doesn't have a word of dialogue you can see how the character feels. In Dead Man's Party - with almost no lines - fixing tea in the kitchen as the other's talk to Buffy - you see the emotions, complex, work across his face.
He shows the dark underbelly to Giles and occassionally gives us a peek at the same time making Giles seem almost teddy-bearish.

I've always considered SMG to be a highly overrated actress.
I've seen most of her films and almost all her performances, her best performance is Buffy. She continues to rehash the same roles and ticks over and over again, and outside of Buffy - I'm never really pulled into her character. That said, she has done some marvelous things on Btvs. In Helpless, Innocence, The Gift, Surprise, Becoming, Who Are You, she had me the whole time - my attention never swayed. I emphasized with her. I felt her pain. In Dead Things - I was riveted to it. And in OMWF - she managed to make the singing believable along with the depression.
When she's on - she's brillant - pulling us in, making us reel with her pain like in Normal Again, when she's not? She is truly horrid, looking almost bored and tired or just detached from the role - such as well BoTN, Potential, and few other episodes I've seen and also Harvard Man, Simply Irresitable.

David Boreanze is similar to SMG in acting style. When he's on like in Soulless or Passion - he's brillant. His brief facial change in expression when Connor state Angelus was the real one. The ticks in his face, so contained. Or the performance of gleeful hope in Awakenings? Or his performance showing how he shifts to Angelus in Innocence?
Or the pretending to be Angelus in Enemies? Or that poetic narration in Passion - halfwriting, halfdelivery, and of course the scenes with Jenny that scared me. For an untrained thespian, he's actually very good. And his role as Angelus has been fun to watch. Not really that much over the top until the last episode - and I probably only really noticed b/c Alexis Denisof' performance was so much more gripping.

To their credit - SMG and DB have the hardest roles to play.
The heroic lead is a bitch and a half to play. Villains and shady complex characters are far easier. SMG and DB have to hold the show, they are in almost every scene week after week, they have to contain most of their emotions and seldom get to really show much. Compare this to ASH, AD,
JM = who really only have ten-20 minutes if that in most episodes, and play far more complex roles. Hint? You want to be an actor? Become a character actor - far easier, more fun. Leads are bitches to play, in short supply, and very very hard to maintain a lengthy career doing. Not to mention exhausting. I bet you money DB and SMG put in 180 work weeks to the other actors 60 hour ones. Amount is off, but you get the point. They also make much more money...so there is that too. Hard to feel sorry for someone who makes 75,000 - 150,000 per episode and 22 episodes a year.

At any rate, this is all subjective, I think. Depending on what moves you and what doesn't. Obviously DB has fans - otherwise Angel wouldn't still have viewers and those fans wouldn't exist if he couldn't do a good job pulling them in week after week. Just as Charisma Carpenter obviously has fans. I don't particularly like her - the actress annoys me, always has, always will. But - I know people who adore her, and that truly identify with her - so obviously she convinces others. Just as there are weeks that I honestly think SMG, EC, and NB phoned it in - but others seem happy with their performances. Subjective. Very subjective.

I sometimes wonder if the act of creating and sharing art would be easier if the criticism on it was more objective?
Subjective criticism seems to me at least to be the most raw and painful. Objective criticism - tends to be more constructive generally. Of course whether such a thing as objective criticism is even possible is another debate. Just as why we care so much what others think? And actors do care as do writers or there wouldn't be any award shows.

At any rate...I like most of the performances on Btvs and ATs. I tend to be less into Gunn, Cordelia and Angel's for some reason, although lately I've really been enjoying Angel and Gunn. On Btvs? I could do without Andrew's high pitched voice, Kennedy, most of SIT's, Wood, and SMG's stony/completely devoid of emotion looks. But hey...that's just me.

Do continue to applaud them all for having the guts to get up there and rip this episodes out, even if they get paid a bundle for doing it.

[> [> [> That's confirmed -- lunasea, 09:47:00 03/14/03 Fri

Joss mentioned it in an interview. I was very excited when I heard it. Both aren't guest appearances. They are crucial to 5 episode arcs.

[> Nate is Eliza's older brother. -- Rufus, 22:46:40 03/13/03 Thu

[> Re: Quick casting spoilers for 'Orpheus' (no other spoilers). Heads up, Rob! -- Sofdog, 10:30:19 03/14/03 Fri

There are photos of Eliza and Nate somewhere on the net. They look a lot alike. Like Jessica and Josh Alba alike.

I had to sit back and scream about Adrienne Wilkinson. I so enjoyed her on Xena. Don't think she looks a thing like ED, but she is gorgeous.

How is it that Angel always casts dark-haired women?

Mother's milk is red today - Buffy and the eternal feminine. -- Caroline, 06:51:30 03/14/03 Fri

This post is a continuation of my post on Buffy's development in S6. The last section was very short, with a discussion on the integration of the different aspects of the feminine principle that Buffy had achieved on her return to the material plane. This is a fuller analysis of those ideas, as well as some further thoughts on the mythological and symbolic interpretation of FE. Since the season in not over yet, some of the thoughts and ideas here are provisional and I would appreciate any clarifications, contradictions or tangents that you can think of.

I am very largely indebted to Rahael. She is currently working with Little Bit and Random on a forthcoming post about Buffy and Kali in S7 and in our exchange of ideas, it appears that we are coming up with the same sorts of ideas and conclusions simoultaneously - we must both be very connected to the collective unconscious right now. I am really looking forward to Rah, Bit and Random's post because from what I've seen of Rah's post, especially all the stuff about Kali and her dance, which I have only touched on very lightly here, will be incredibly fitting It's going to add several layers of depth and complexity to what I have to say here. Needless to say, all errors and spelling mistakes in this post are mine alone!

Buffy's continuing discomfort with the feminine principles

In my Buffy is S6 post, I left Buffy's status hanging. I stated that she had found ways of coping with her return and living again in the world. She came to a reasonably good accomodation of the maternal feminine at the end of S6 and we see quite a good relationship with Dawn so far this season. (Typically, the maternal principle goes into some sort of crisis of identity when the child leaves but Dawn is still too young to separate, so I don't think that will be an issue). But there are two other feminine principles that she has not accomodated so well - the warrior feminine and the erotic feminine.

The warrior feminine is her slayer powers. She has accepted her role as slayer again quite well, and she appears to handle it with relish again, no longer going through the motions. But there is something at the depth of her slayer power that she has not come to terms with -its source and darkness. Buffy's ego is still defending against the unconsious darkness, as she has since she discovered that her power was rooted in darkness. She rejects the advances of the shadowmen and does not accept further demon power to fight the FE. The question is, is Buffy's ego wrong to reject it? It sounds all very nice to say - hey, you can't beat evil by doing evil but Giles killing Ben was effective, wasn't it?

We know that in the earliest myths, the gods were feminine gods, ruling creation and destruction. They ruled fertility and battle. The cylic nature of life was emphasized, the eternal round, no beginning, no end. With the development of our earliest societies, the masculine principle over time gradually asserted its supremacy, and there is gradually more emphasis on linearity and dichotomies rather that cycles. For example, the Erinyes - the goddesses of vengeance (usually three) according to Aeschylos are the daughters of Nyx the goddess of night, who gives birth to them parthenogenically - the phallic goddess. But according to later versions - Hesiod - they are the daughters of Ouranos the sky god - created from his blood when he is castrated by his son Kronos and his blood falls into the sea. We see in early Sumerian myth that the underworld and water goddesses are female (e.g. Ereshkigal ruling the great world below) but in later Greek myth, the underworld is rules by Hades (even though I think that Hades and Pluto, as well as Poseidon/Neptune contain many of the characteristics of the feminine principle). The point I'm struggling to get to is that the shadowmen are manifestations of the masculine principle that is trying to shape the feminine principle of the warrior. In rejecting their offer of more power, Buffy is rejecting their ability to define and shape her power. She is expressing independence from external definition and struggling with internal self-definition. She is seeking wisdom, not power. In previous battles with the big bads, it hasn't been Buffy's physical strength that has led her to victory - it has been her emotional strength and no-one has ever defined that for her, she has taken it. Angelus took everything away in S2 but even after all that, Buffy says what is left is me. She defeated the mayor with the help of the entire senior class, she defeated Adam through joining her essence with that of her friends. She is making a point about the notion of agency, of self-will, of making free choices in a fated situation (this is why I think Help is such as important episode). I think that she is choosing to do that which she must do.

So, Buffy is making an accomodation with the warrior feminine (she defeated the ubervamp and impressed the potentials and rejected the shadowmen but the boring speeches worry me still), how's she doing with the erotic feminine? I stated before that she became a mother before she became a wife, so something is out of balance there. Her current situation with Spike is one of emotional reliance and trust yet without physical expression. I would even posit that Buffy is in rather deep denial of her erotic feminine. It's not surprising given her early sexual/emotional experiences and the seeming abandonment of her father. As a result, Buffy is still closed off emotionally. She allows Spike emotional access, he's got her back but she can't allow herself to be with him and explore the feelings that she admits that she has for him (in a rather Chaka Khan manner) even when he is soulled. A better way of dealing with all the issues that Buffy has projected onto Spike would be to hold and contain these feelings within, to acknowledge their power and gradually work to reincorporate those projected principles and feelings within herself. This is a extremely difficult and painful thing to do, as is any time we give birth/create and realize the hidden potentials in ourselves. (Some of you may be familiar with the alchemical concepts of the sublimatio which wonderfully describes the changes Buffy needs to make - I'll go into it if there is any interest) But I don't see Buffy doing this, I see her locking herself away, even hiding within the warrior feminine, which does the warrior no service at all. The feminine principle hates to be denied and will erupt in a rather violent way when denied.

The fact that the expression of the erotic and warrior feminine principles is blocked may be a reason why the violent fury of the feminine is being manifested through the FE. Or the FE is the external manifestation of the internal demon that Buffy is trying to suppress. When a part of oneself is denied and thrust out of sight, it can pop up on rather terrible ways. Buffy's ego still will not accept the violent erotic energies that were loosened in season 6, will not accept that they are a part of her. No part of the feminine principle likes to be ignored. She must be propitiated and accomodated.

If Buffy can somehow do this by the end of S7, she will fulfill the promise of the mythological return - she will provide a great gift to the world. And this part of the cycle of the hero's journey will be over. It will be 'back to the beginning' of the cycle again, she will be at the threshold of another journey. This is the Great Round, Kali's ceasless dance of creation and destruction that is timeless and ageless.

The denied feminine manifested as the First Evil

We in the west have this romanticized notion of the feminine - creation good, destruction bad. We split creation from destruction into opposites when really they are an endless circle. Kali gives life and destroys it in a very unsentimental way (does this remind you of a certain slayer?). Just the same way that mother nature does. It's no coincidence that the earliest gods were feminine and linked to the earth and moon, to physical elements that have cycles and seasons, that change and grow. Kali gives birth and ends life in an endless circle. She enforces natural law at all times. The same is true with goddesses such as Inanna and Ereshkigal, and with the Greek goddesses - the Moira or Fates (Clotho, Lachesis, Atropos), Ananke (Necessity), Hekate etc. The maternal feminine gives birth and spills blood, nurtures life with her milk, saves the world from demons by swallowing blood (Kali) and ends life by spilling blood. To say that Mother's milk is red today implies (to me) that mother will not nurture - she will create and destroy. Milk is implied in the nurture stage, blood in creation and destruction. My hypothesis is that the FE is the denied feminine energy - whatever you wish to call her -Kali, the Gorgons, Goddess Night, Hekate, Black Demeter etc, energy that has exploded into a destructive dance through being denied. Or, perhaps the FE is better described as the Erinyes or Furies - the goddesses of vengeance (usually three, whose punishment is madness). The eternal feminine principles that Buffy has blocked are erupting in a fury of destruction, aimed at Buffy and the SG.

I'm less certain about this idea but I think that I will put it out there anyway. I think that there is yet another reason why the dark feminine is so angry and has sent the furies to mete out retribution. She is angry because a mortal has committed the greatest of sins - hubris. A mortal has overstepped the limits of mortality. The myth systems of the east and west did not see sins of man against man to be sins (as Christian doctrine tells us) but rather sins were acts committed by man against the natural order, the natural law of how things should be - the Greeks called this hubris (even the gods must follow the laws of an orderly universe). What is the hubristic act in Buffy - apparently it's Buffy's resurrection and return. That is somehow against the natural order and the gods punish those who transgress the natural order - which encompasses the rights of the Gods.

Following from this - Buffy will have to pay the price. It doesn't seem fair considering that she did not return voluntarily but the gods don't believe in fairness. Oedipus didn't know he had killed his father and married his mother but he had to pay. Orpheus had to pay for looking back. Perhaps Willow, as the instrument, must also suffer. (Could that be a reason why Tara died?) It also makes sense that the FE tried to unambiguously get Willow to kill herself - in return for the instrumental part she played in the resurrection. The potentials are a target because they are potentials slayers (the FE, in its irrational, global undifferentiated anger is going for the whole slayer line, not just the slayer who transgressed). Dawn had no part of the spell but it seemed that she got a warning from the maternal feminine - literally in the form of her mother. Whether the intent was to protect or harm Dawn I'm not sure - but it is consistent with the impartial unsentimental implementation of natural law that the maternal feminine represents, whereas Willow and the potentials appear to have seen the destructive face. Even if Buffy does accomodate the disparate and dark parts of the feminine within herself (I have been thinking lately that it will be pre-apocalyptic sex for her -isn't about time that Buffy got pre-apocalypse nookie?), she has transgressed the order of things and must pay.

I really hope I've interpreted this badly, that the return was not a transgression against the natural order, that the FE is not the manifestation of the denied feminine and that Buffy does earn the hero's rest and reward. In fact, I'm hoping that someone will find a clever and ingenious argument about why Buffy's return does not transgress natural law. I'm a lot more confident about the rest of the post - I do think that Buffy will rise to the challenge and consciously accommodate the warrior and erotic feminine principles by season's end.

[> Really interesting post, Caroline -- ponygirl, 07:22:08 03/14/03 Fri

Lots to ponder! I'm in the midst of packing (moving day tomorrow) so I hope I will have time to respond later, but you've certainly given me something to think about while I'm buried in cardboard.

[> I've been looking forward to this!! (Spoilers, aired BtVS eps in S7) -- Rahael, 07:24:35 03/14/03 Fri

What a great idea, even if I do say so myself, Hehehehe!

I don't want to start saying too much as I'll probably reproduce my entire forthcoming post before it's ready. And you know, being giving things the right amount of time to grow is pretty important. But I'm impatient, and if I don't talk about stuff, I don't develop it or retain enthusiasm. So I will do a compromise. I've written a general little introduction that sets out the broad parameters I'm going into without revealing anything in detail. I think it's very supportive of your post so here it is.

*********************************************

Who is the First Slayer? Who is Buffy? Who is the First Evil?

Tara : You're asking the wrong questions

Buffy Make her speak

(Restless)

These questions have become more insistent as the Buffy finale draws to a close. I am not attempting to offer firm conclusions, nor present my thoughts as fact. Instead I am trying to show a fleeting reflection.

Season 5 starts off with Buffy drinking blood from Dracula's wrist. That taste of blood sends flashing images through her mind. The First Slayer. Blood. Marti Noxon says that when Buffy drinks from Dracula, she is in fact drinking her own. Dracula emerges from within her, and Dracula articulates a fear that becomes more pressing for her as events hurtle toward the Gift. A creature whose darkness rivals her prey. Buffy fears that she is more monstrous than anything she slays.

Is she correct? At the season end, her fears, and our fears are dismissed. Buffy burns with love, she is open, not closed. But what if both of these descriptions are true? What exactly is meant by 'death is her gift'?

TARA: (offscreen) I have no speech. No name. I live in the action of death, the blood cry, the penetrating wound. (The woman straightens up and looks Buffy in the eye.)
TARA: I am destruction. Absolute ... alone. (Restless)

I want to argue that there is an intimate link between the landscape of the Buffyverse, and Buffy's body. That the hellmouth is contained within her, that the demons express something about her internal struggles.

So I want to argue that the darkness that the Hellmouth holds back, the darkness at the heart of a Slayer, the darkness inside a Vampire, and the darkness represented by the First Evil, are connected. And I think the nature of this darkness can be linked to the dark heart of the feminine. This is Buffy's unique concern, because this is the journey she has been since Season 1. Turning from young girl to young woman, becoming a mother, and taking on adult responsibility. It is a journey that goes into the heart of her darkness. It is from this darkness that she forges her strength. It is this darkness that lies at the heart of her love, both sexual and non sexual. The maternal love she has for Dawn. The sisterly relationships she has with her friends. The love she bore for her mother. It is from this darkness that she gains her great gifts. It is the darkness that gave Spike his soul in a cave in Africa.

What lies beneath? I think there are psychological and sexual implications for this. We see the unconscious as existing below us, in the dark basements of our mind. But there are also sexual implications (this is brought out by Andrew's bad translation - "it eats us starting with our bottom".) The Hellmouth combines both senses of 'beneath'. It is the vagina dentata. It is the unconscious. The Hellmouth is the place where imagination is born, the place of births and deaths.

*********************************************

What I hope to achieve with the main body of the post is to talk about the general cosmos of the Buffyverse, and how the linking themes of sex, time, death and birth are connected to the Hellmouth, and the First Evil. And I also want to take the dichotomy I've thought about before, Blake's Tyger/Lamb, and transpose it into a new mould, in the shape of Kali. But rest assured, I'm not giving too much away - Random and LB have stuff to say too!! (LB, I like your suggstion about Angel as symbol of Time as well - I don't want to make my post too long and I think you should pick that up!, and then we could start a discussion with an AtS slant as well, since the dark feminine, birth and time certainly has a part to play in a show with Darla, Cordy, Lilah and Fred!!

[> [> Great work, Caroline. Rahael, More soon, please!! -- luna, 10:47:14 03/14/03 Fri

[> [> Champing at the 'bit' to respond, but will wait until your thread! -- Caroline, 18:15:32 03/14/03 Fri

[> [> [> But feedback gives encouragement and new ideas! Respond away -- Rahael, 02:39:36 03/15/03 Sat

I am one of those people who only decide what they really think after I finish writing! LOL.

[> One quick note: Hesiod pre-dates Aeschylus -- Sophist, 08:46:32 03/14/03 Fri

[> [> I meant to say ...... -- Caroline, 09:12:59 03/14/03 Fri

later versions of myths, not that Aeschylos predates Hesiod. Sorry for the confusion. The point is that in earliest myths, creation and destruction deities were feminine forces, even parthenogenic ones but that as societies developed, masculine forces in myth became more predominant, reflecting the psychological changes in society. This also reflects the movement away from instinctual roots to individuation - seen in all of us as we grow and mature from children who eat, shit and sleep to individuals who not only do those instinctual things but become concerned with larger issues.

[> Re: Mother's milk is red today - Buffy and the eternal feminine. (spec only) -- Caroline, 09:04:38 03/14/03 Fri

I really didn't make this clear in my initial post, so please forgive the extra post. I don't think that Buffy can defeat the FE in any sense, precisely because it is a part of her. But she will have to find a way to placate it, to get the forces of destruction back into balance. The FE is sick and tired of the mortal coil and wants to end it, but (as VampRiley so intelligently pointed out in chat), all planes are energy that is connected - if you destroy one plane (the mortal one) there will be reactions on other planes and there is also no guarantee that the destruction of the mortal plane will be permanent. But the desire to destroy is not a rational one. Shiva placates Kali when the emotional power of Kali's dance to destroy the demons goes too far and threatens to take over the world. He does so by making himself a baby in a cremation ground that Kali sees, picks up and suckles. The dance that Shiva then dances for her is one of creation. This can be interpreted on many levels - Buffy accepting the dark feminine within with the assistance of a significant masculine figure and a masculine figure being instrumental in placating the FE (think of Xander and Willow at the end of S6 and Spike stopping Buffy from dancing to death in OMWF).

(Please note that this doesn't necessarily have to be played out as feminine power=woman or masculine power=man, since psychologically we each contain all these energies. But in a dramatic sense, this is most likely how it will be played out.)

[> [> Re: Mother's milk is red today - Buffy and the eternal feminine. (spec only) -- Rufus, 03:39:40 03/15/03 Sat

(Please note that this doesn't necessarily have to be played out as feminine power=woman or masculine power=man, since psychologically we each contain all these energies. But in a dramatic sense, this is most likely how it will be played out.)

All I will say is that you will find ep 18 interesting.

[> Great stuff, Caroline...but about Buffy's return... -- Random, 09:10:22 03/14/03 Fri

I haven't time to offer the complete reply your post richly deserves right now, but I'll note that the Osiris -- though apparently, re shooting script was a demon for the purposes of the show -- is best known to most of us as the Egyptain God of the Underworld and the preserver of the natural order (against chaos, as personified in Set.) Since it was his urn that brought Buffy back, it seems as though one should expect her return to be natural. Indeed, Osiris himself was brought back (from a dismembered state, no less...think Buffybot)by his wife Isis after Set murdered him and chopped him to pieces. This was, in fact, the origin of his role as ruler of the Underworld. Indeed, the story is associated with the spring harvest, the renewal of life conjoined with the reaping and cutting.

I would posit that you are probably right...but if ME didn't use the Osiris myth cavalierly (one hopes they didn't) then the conclusion that Buffy's return was in accord with not only the natural order but the mythological one as well is inescapable. Whether this return allows for the FE to find a loophole is not yet determined...but this is true, then I would suppose that we can merely say that the act itself wasn't tainted even if the repercussions were.

Eh, who knows? Great essay.

~Random

[> [> About Osiris -- Shiraz, 09:31:36 03/14/03 Fri

I always thought Osiris's sphere of influence was as God of the Harvest and the flooding of the Nile.

Furthermore, while Osiris is involved in resurection, he's the one being resurrected, after being killed by Set, god of War and the Desert (and oddly, the defender of the sun barge from the great serpent).

If I wanted someone resurected, I'd go to Osiris' wife Isis (who gathered his parts) or Toth (who figured out how to put them back together. They seem to have more experience in the matter.

Just a niggling observation I've had for some time.

-Shiraz

[> [> Re: Great stuff, Caroline...but about Buffy's return... -- Caroline, 09:32:32 03/14/03 Fri

Thanks for picking up on the urn of Osiris used in the resurrection spell. I would love to agree with you but for one point that niggles me - when Osiris was reassembled and life breathed into him by Isis, he was not allowed to stay in the land of the living. He was sent to the underworld. So even though his resurrection was not his own fault, he could not return to the land of the living, he paid a price for the transgression of the natural order. If that is the case, does this mean that Buffy will be trapped in the hellmouth - literally its last gurdian? Frightening thought. I think we'll have to wait and see what ME does with this.

[> [> [> Good point... -- Random, 09:57:59 03/14/03 Fri

I hadn't considered it that way. I grudgingly agree, but see my reply to Shiraz below. He's not exactly a prisoner. He is the lord of the dead, but not dead himself. After all, Isis did resurrect him. But your logic is almost impeccable, especially the parallel. Hmm...let me think.

[> [> [> Re: Great stuff, Caroline...but about Buffy's return... -- Sophist, 10:43:48 03/14/03 Fri

You said:

does this mean that Buffy will be trapped in the hellmouth - literally its last gurdian? Frightening thought. I think we'll have to wait and see what ME does with this

Remember this line from BotN:

BUFFY
I'm beyond tired. I'm beyond scared. I'm standing on the mouth of Hell and it's going to swallow me whole. (beat)
And it'll choke on me.

[> [> [> [> Thanks Sophist - very reassuring. -- Caroline, 12:33:09 03/14/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> Spoilers to BotN in my above post -- Sophist, 13:07:51 03/14/03 Fri

[> [> About Osiris -- Shiraz, 09:33:54 03/14/03 Fri

I always thought Osiris's sphere of influence was as God of the Harvest and the flooding of the Nile.

Furthermore, while Osiris is involved in resurection, he's the one being resurrected, after being killed by Set, god of War and the Desert (and oddly, the defender of the sun barge from the great serpent).

If I wanted someone resurected, I'd go to Osiris' wife Isis (who gathered his parts) or Toth (who figured out how to put them back together. They seem to have more experience in the matter.

Just a niggling observation I've had for some time.

-Shiraz

[Twoflower] also believed that anyone could understand anything he said provided he spoke loudly and slowly, that people were basically trustworthy, and that anything could be sorted out among men of goodwill if they just acted sensibly.

On the face of it this gave him a survival value marginally less than, say, a soap herring, but to Rincewind's amazement it all seemed to work and the little man's total obliviousness to all sorts of danger somehow made danger so discouraged that it gave up and went away.

-Terry Pratchett - The Light Fantastic

[> [> [> Re: About Osiris -- Random, 09:53:15 03/14/03 Fri

These are among his spheres of influence. Indeed, the two aspects are connected. Osiris becomes ruler of the underworld after his death and resurrection...and the cyclic regeneration of the natural world -- the flooding of the Nile and the growth of new crops (I misspoke -- Egyptian "spring" isn't exactly analogous to temperate climes' spring) -- are symbolic of Osiris' death and resurrection. As the myth goes, the rise of the crops following the flooding actually coincides with a ritual revivication of Osiris. He leaves the Land of the Dead, re-enacting the original resurrection as performed by Isis.

[> [> Agree on all points...I think (Spoilers Bargaining and Villains Btvs6) -- s'kat, 10:03:19 03/14/03 Fri

I agree, I don't think the act itself is tainted, just the repercussions. From what is shown on screen from Villains to Grave - I don't think natural order was disrupted by bringing Buffy back. I think we can find support in the fact that the act itself wasn't tainted in the script for Villains, where Willow attempts to bring Tara back but can't.

DEMON: Witch! How dare you invoke Osiris in this task!
WILLOW: (crying) Please. Please, bring her back.
DEMON: You may not violate the laws of natural passing.
WILLOW: How? How is this natural?
DEMON: It is a human death, by human means.
WILLOW: But I-
DEMON: You raised one killed by mystical forces. This is not the same. She is taken by natural order. It is done.
WILLOW: (crying) No. There has to be a way.
DEMON: It is done.
WILLOW: (screams) NOOOO!

And also remember in Bargaining Part I, Tara and Willow tell the skeptical Xander and Anya, that while raising someone from the dead is "wrong", the loophole in Buffy's case is she wasn't killed by natural forces but by mystical ones - ones that were not supposed to be. So it's not the same as Dawn attempting to resurrect Joyce.

XANDER: It's just ... (fidgets nervously) It feels wrong.
TARA: It is wrong. (Willow looks surprised) It's against all the laws of nature, and practically impossible to do, but it's what we agreed to. If-if you guys are changing your minds-

But this is qualified by:

WILLOW: This isn't like Dawn trying to bring Mrs. Summers back, or anything we've dealt with before. Buffy didn't die a natural death. She was killed by mystical energy.
TARA: Which means we do have a shot.
WILLOW: It means more than that. (to Xander) It means we don't know ... where she really is.
XANDER: We saw her body, Will. We buried it.
WILLOW: Her body, yeah. But her soul ... her essence ... I mean, that could be somewhere else. She could be trapped, in-in some sort of hell dimension like Angel was. (tearfully) Suffering eternal torment, just because she saved us, and I'm not gonna let ... I'm not gonna leave her there. (intensely) It's Buffy.

It's possible that the fact it was Willow, a novice who did it and the type of magic she used and the events surrounding the spell - may have caused a disruption. It's also possible that the fact they waited as long as they could have been a problem - except Tara also mentions that it is the perfect time:

ANYA: (quietly) Are you sure?
WILLOW: I am.
TARA: Mercury's in retrograde, and we have... (to Willow) Do we have everything?
WILLOW: (nods) Just about.

So I think that Buffy's resurrection was never meant to be a negative thing in of itself. I think perhaps Willow's doing it might have been and how it was done. Not sure that makes sense. Or if it's where the writers are going exactly.

quotes from Psyche.

PS: Loved these posts!! Been missing the myth stuff for a while now. Looking forward to reading more.

SK

[> [> [> O/T....when are you adding more essays to your collection? I'm needy...please?... <puppydog eyes> -- Random, 12:25:47 03/14/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> Well.... -- s'kat, 14:28:40 03/14/03 Fri

Thanks for the request. I've only really written two that aren't on the site yet....and you guys have already seen them.

First the good news: every essay I write goes here first anyways and so ends up in the Atpo board archives. Actually this place probably has the best record of all my posts and essays to date, since I no longer post them on any other boards. Reasons: Masq keeps an archive of pretty much all posts, other boards don't and two, I get such amazingly cool and varied responses. I've lurked on numerous boards, posted on three, and to date? Atpo is the only board I've really really enjoyed. Love it here. Going to miss Atpo more than the shows. LOL!

Bad news: I sent my Fred essay and my Willow essay to my website designer some time ago, and she said she'd add them, but I think something happened to her, since haven't heard back and they aren't added. Being patient. Also I've forgotten how to add them myself. Dumb I know. There you go.
But all is not lost...I have them saved and they are in the Atpo archives if you missed them. I think one was in January and one in February.

Future essays?? Well, I'm contemplating doing one on the function of the fatal in both Btvs and Ats, but have been warned not to attempt it until after March 25. So am waiting.

Thanks again for the praise, Random, nice to know still have a few fans. ;-)

PS: Right now I'm eagerly awaiting more essays from you, Little Bit, Rah and Caroline. I love the myth view. Juxtaposes nicely with my own view of the show. Posts like Carolines, yours, Rahs' etc just enriches the viewing experience for us all.

SK

[> [> [> [> [> One of many fans, s'kat, one of many. I'll do my homework. Thanks. -- Random, 14:44:13 03/14/03 Fri

I check with your site about once a week, just in case. Only site I visit that regularly besides this one. And since I've read all the essays at least once, sometimes more, I'm just hoping.

And we're getting there, re essays. Thanks for the support

~Random

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Well.... -- Rahael, 02:43:55 03/15/03 Sat

You know, I'm coming to new appreciations of your bravery in putting yourself out there with your essays. It's not like college at all! My tutors were forced to read my essays and talk to me about indepth for an hour!

This will be the only essay I've written on Buffy, and probably the last though. I'm a coward!

[> [> [> The wrongness of Buffy's return? -- Caroline, 12:49:28 03/14/03 Fri

I've just had a look at the Bargaining I shooting script. Tara does say that it is wrong, that bringing her back is against the laws of nature but that it is possible because she died a mystical death. It makes is possible, but it's still against natural law. So I don't think that the wrongness of the act is qualified by the loophole that makes it technically possible to perform the act.

I really like the mention of Mercury being in retrograde. Mercury (the Greek Hermes) is the god of communication. One of his duties is to guide the souls of the dead (known as the psychopomp). In astrological retrograde, Mercury would then guide the souls of the dead back to the world. I'm thinking that someone at ME knows a fair bit about myth and astrology.

[> [> [> [> Hmmm Agree, good points. -- s'kat, 14:41:17 03/14/03 Fri

So I don't think that the wrongness of the act is qualified by the loophole that makes it technically possible to perform the act.

Agreed. I got that too. I think ME is keeping their options open on it. Or was keeping their options open and has already decided.

I'm thinking that someone at ME knows a fair bit about myth and astrology.

I picked up Promethea II by Alan Moore which Joss Whedon had read and told David Fury to pick up for Primeval.
This comic book has several incredibly interesting things in it myth and philosophy wise.

1. It explains the whole pentacles, wands, cups, swords arcana as being compassion, knowledge, earthly materials (heart), will (soul) and compares them to elements of fire, air, water and earth and goes in depth on each.

2. It explains the Kundalini Yoga - seven chakras through the Tantric sex principal with some uhm interesting art work. (Not a kid's comic book). But explains what each one means and how the cups/wands/pentacles/swords work sexually together. By weaking up the sleeping serpent, you awaken your soul and your will.

3.It explains the tarot cards and goes into mythos behind them.

I only have the one volume, so if this happens in the others? Very interesting. Whedon is a huge fan of graphic novels, B sci-fi, westerns, noir films, and all these really tap into mythology and astrology. Fantasy basically lives in it.

So my guess? ME definitely has used this stuff and is continuing to use it. They continuous reference to graphic novels that reference it from Neil Gaiman's Sandman series, to Moore's Swamp Thing, Prometha, League of Extraordiary Gentleman to Marvel's X-Men and Spiderman, strongly suggest it.

It's interesting how myth continues to get retold in our popular culture whether intentional or not. Not sure why this is -- maybe there are no new ideas? Or maybe there's something we haven't worked out yet unconsciously that inspires us all to keep telling the same stories until we do?

SK

[> [> [> [> [> If you read Promethea 1 and 3 as well as 2. -- KdS, 15:03:07 03/14/03 Fri

There are so many similarities of concept to BtVS that it has to be deliberate. Spoiler space follows:

For example, the whole "Chosen One" business with Sophie at the beginning in Volume 1, the way the possession of the women in the hospital by the past Prometheas in Volume 2 recalls the Restless spell, the possible parallels between the Temple and the WC, the hints of Faith in "Gracia" in volume 3.

[> [> [> [> [> Also, Alan Moore is a well-known member of the occult community. -- Solitude1056, 20:21:08 03/14/03 Fri

Hence the references to stuff that will probably go right past you if you're not familiar with Enochian, Ceremonial Magick, Thelema, Golden Dawn, or a few other esoteric areas. Hey, Dr. Dee makes a cameo, and made my day. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmmm Agree, good points. -- Rufus, 03:40:54 03/15/03 Sat

What does issue two of Promethea say about the Hermit card?

[> [> [> [> [> [> The Hermit Card -- s'kat, 12:52:25 03/16/03 Sun

What does issue two of Promethea say about the Hermit card?

It has a picture of a child in the womb, umbilical cord tied to it with three lambs a circle in center of sun in a ruby like diamond with five streaks of light shooting out from it and then a spinx like lion and a dove.

It says: " Yes human culture now must wait, needs time to properly gestate, to grow, there in the dark and warm from simple to more complex form. See him, alone there in the dark who keeps alithgt hope's faltering spark. Card Nine, the HERMIT, floats complete in that first cave, that first retreat. Culture evolves, grows hands, new parts in fetile dark, 'fore history starts. Society drifts, sucks its thumb, and dreams of what it might become. While in the gloom there, all around the rhymic, reassuring sound of history's heartbeat, hear it ring. Destiny's pulse blood, quickening."

"The hermit" says Promethea, " as embryo. Hmmm. Well I suppose that makes a certain sense. And after this social gestation period, I suppose we get the birth of classical civilization, where history as we know it commences.."

The cards following Hermit are Fortune, Lust..

SK

[> Re: - Buffy and the rejection of 'dark' power of the shadowmen -- wiscoboy, 09:19:15 03/14/03 Fri

Interesting treatise on the symbolism of Buffy. To change the subject somewhat, I question whether Buffy had a choice in rejecting the shadowmen's "dark" power. Thru my lurking, I have not seen anyone make the suggestion that she had no other choice than to reject this power. I say this from the point of view that if Buffy was ripped away from Heaven, it waa only by the will of the Authority of Heaven. Given this hypothesis, S6 thru S7 has been nothing more than Buffy reconciling herself to her once-again mortal reality(S6), and becoming aware of her "true" power source(that which demons fear - S7). She had no choice but to reject the dark power because there is no room for it within her, that space has already been filled(power of the "Light"). When she comes to understand why she rejected the shadowmen and uses her true power, it will not only signal the exit of the FE(Light over Darkness; Good over Evil;etc.), but Buffy will finally know "what you are, what is to come". Questions which no other slayer has had answered. A fitting end to the series(for one who doesn't savor a "Faith the Vampire Slayer spinoff).

[> [> Light and Dark -- Rahael, 02:52:06 03/15/03 Sat

But during twilight, is it light or dark? Or can light and dark co-exist, and is that co-existence essential? What if the forces in the Buffyverse are not our usual understanding of 'the evil' and 'the good', but the ones that we all have to deal with - the force of decay, destruction, birth, life, mortality, day and night. Time.

No matter what our religious beliefs are, or the moral framework we use to deal with the world, we still have to deal with this concern - we age, we die. THe paradox that while we are alive, time is passing and taking us close to the moment of not existing.

Since brass, nor stone, nor earth, nor boundless sea,
But sad mortality o'ersways their power,
How with this rage shall beauty hold a plea,
Whose action is no stronger than a flower?
O! how shall summer's honey breath hold out,
Against the wrackful siege of battering days,
When rocks impregnable are not so stout,
Nor gates of steel so strong but Time decays?

Buffy contains both the beauty of the flower, and the rage of time. She brings death to the immortal vampires, who have tried to avoid the inevitable. But she also stands for life. Not for nothing is her second name "Summers". Not for nothing is her sister, made from her, called Dawn. Darkness and dawn are connected. Summer is part of a cycle, autumn and winter must come, but Spring is never far behind.

[> Destruction: Kali and Shiva? -- luna, 10:00:30 03/14/03 Fri

As usual, don't know much about this but:

I really like your point about Kali and destruction, but it made me think about what I had heard or read somewhere about Shiva (Is Kali an avatar or aspect of Shiva?): that destruction is necessary for creation and rebirth--without destruction, there can only be stagnation (so death and sex, hand in hand, make evolution possible).

So Buffy's immediate destruction of vampires completes the natural work of death, impossible for the undead. But also her destructive approach to relationships--both love and friendship--has made an evolution of those relationships possible. But she is not JUST the destroyer--we see her helping to heal and give birth to a new Willow (Same Time, Same Place), a new Xander (Replacement), a new Spike (Beneath You and others in S7), a new Dawn (Lessons).

Well, obviously I should wait for Rahael and Little Bit's work on Kali, which I do, enthusiastically!

[> [> Was wondering when someone would mention Siva - see my response below. -- Solitude1056, 19:27:30 03/14/03 Fri

[> About Buffy's return - wondering if this is really how Buffy 'disrupts' the forces? -- Dyna, 12:42:52 03/14/03 Fri

Fascinating post, Caroline! Your original post and the subsequent discussion of how/if Buffy's return disrupts the natural order have pinged a pet theory of mine that I haven't seen discussed here yet--though of course I may have missed it during one of my periods of work busy-ness, in which case I will be embarassed but pleased to be pointed in the direction of the archive!

Anyway, disclaimers aside, I like your idea that the FE may represent some kind of dark feminine force that has arisen now in response to some transgression of the natural order. The question that's nagging at me, though, is whether it's really Buffy's resurrection that is the transgression. Not for any logical, thought-out reason, though it's definitely possible to argue that the scripts take pains to distinguish between Buffy's death and "human" or "natural" death. Really it's something that's just been bothering me ever since Anya and Giles were so quick to assume that this is what the Beljoxa's Eye was referring to when it said there had been an "irrevocable disruption in the mystical forces surrounding the slayer line." They may turn out to be right, but it would be so like ME to make this a misdirect (because really, when does a snap judgement about what a cryptic statement means ever turn out well?) that I can't help but be suspicious!

But if so, what is the real disruption? Two things stand out for me: One, the Beljoxa's Eye says the disruption is in the forces surrounding the slayer *line*--invoking the idea of descendance, the "line" of mystical heredity that transmits the slayer's power from each generation to the next; two, the central role this season of the living embodiment of this next generation, the potential slayers. How many times this season has Buffy said to someone that when she dies, one of the potentials will be called? Each time, we feel a tiny tingle of "hey, that's not right!" Yet no character seems to have made the connection between this and what their experience has already shown them: Buffy died, was dead for 147 days, and no new slayer was called. Is this not evidence of a disruption in the "mystical forces" governing the slayer line? Is it possible that it is this, and not Buffy's resurrection, that is the real transgression of the mystical/natural order that is giving the FE an opening?

I'm wondering if this idea can be related to Caroline's idea of Buffy and her troubled relationship with certain aspects of the feminine--and I don't want to mangle anything here, because Caroline's post is so clear and my brain is all muddled with work today! My question is, is Buffy's apparent (and apparently unbeknownst to her) inability to fulfill her destined role in the creation of a new slayer another part of the equation? As Caroline points out, we've seen Buffy reach a "reasonably good accomodation of the maternal feminine at the end of S6" and in her improved relationship with Dawn. And yet, as a slayer Buffy is not intended to be the "mother" only of her mystical/biological daughter Dawn. She must also be "mother" to the next slayer, to join the unbroken matrilineal chain stretching back to the first slayer and forward into the future. As it stands now, if Buffy dies, all indications are she will produce no such slayer "daughter." Is this another missing piece in the process of accomodation Buffy must make with the feminine principles? To find a way to restore her "maternal" power within the slayer line, either by restoring her ability to pass on the power when she dies, or by (my pet theory/hopeful speculation) finding a way to pass it on while she still lives?

I have no idea if this makes sense--I'm not a very good extemporaneous writer! (More of a "ten hours to perfect the argument" type than a "quick post during lunch" person.) I'll only add a couple of random thoughts that might add to the further discussion: One, all this talk of creation/destruction and women dealing in blood for birth and death really resonates for me with the slayer mythology--that the slayer is a woman whose moment of death is also a birth; a mother who can never suckle or nurture her "daughter," who can share no milk, only blood, with her child. "Mother's milk is red today," indeed! Perhaps the upcoming posts on Buffy and Kali, etc. will include some discussion of this? I can't wait to read them!

Thanks for all the brilliant discussion, everyone!
Dyna

[> [> I think you are really onto something here... -- Caroline, 14:33:59 03/14/03 Fri

and I think that I completely agree. The resurrection of the slayer is not the transgressive act, the fact that a slayer died and no new slayer was called (despite the fact that a slayer exists) is the transgressive act. When Buffy died the first time, a slayer was called - everything was fine in the natural order. When she died again, no-one was called - a violation of the natural order. Something was destroyed but nothing created. So Buffy must find a way to restore the natural matrilineal order of the slayers or she will have a severe penalty to pay. And if the shadowmen can create a new slayer, why can't Buffy, with Willow's help?

Great insight, Dyna!

[> [> [> Re: I think you are really onto something here... -- Vickie, 14:56:00 03/14/03 Fri

Pardon me if this is really obvious in light of the discussion, but what if that's what the shamans were trying to do? Embue Buffy with the power to call another slayer on her death?

[> [> [> Nope, I've reconsidered - problems of necessary and sufficient cause -- Caroline, 18:10:41 03/14/03 Fri

I think that it's true to say that Buffy is 'sterile' when it comes to the creation of a the next slayer. But I'm not sure that is the original, causal transgression. Let's go through the steps since Buffy's first death. The first death created Kendra, etc. Buffy was brought back to life and lived another 4 years without any seeming violations of the natural order. She died in the Gift, and was resurrected. As a consequence of this, she is sterile, but the cause of the sterility is the resurrection, which, from Tara, we know is wrong. We also have Giles' warning about Willow messing with powerful magical forces that she knows nothing about. The necessary and sufficient cause is the resurrection, the result of that cause is her sterility in terms of being unable to create a new slayer. The resurrection is the sufficient transgression.

[> [> [> [> Uhm...I think you're missing something -- s'kat, 13:27:07 03/16/03 Sun

I think that it's true to say that Buffy is 'sterile' when it comes to the creation of a the next slayer. But I'm not sure that is the original, causal transgression. Let's go through the steps since Buffy's first death. The first death created Kendra, etc. Buffy was brought back to life and lived another 4 years without any seeming violations of the natural order. She died in the Gift, and was resurrected. As a consequence of this, she is sterile, but the cause of the sterility is the resurrection, which, from Tara, we know is wrong. We also have Giles' warning about Willow messing with powerful magical forces that she knows nothing about. The necessary and sufficient cause is the resurrection, the result of that cause is her sterility in terms of being unable to create a new slayer. The resurrection is the sufficient transgression.

While it is true there was another slayer born/called after Prophecy Girl, Kendra, and when that slayer died, yet another got born - Faith. When Buffy died in The Gift - no new slayer got called. 0 that we know of. Remember Giles was busy hiding it from the Council and they were using the Buffybot?

Which means...the slayer line stopped going through Buffy as of Kendra's calling. If Buffy dies? No new slayer.
Buffy was sterile after Prophecy Girl.

What did the shadowmen call her in Get it Done?
The last slayer? Nooo. The last guardian of the hellmouth.

Slayers wander about. Notice Kendra came from either Africa or the Caribbean, think Africa to help in S2. Faith came from Chicago and even went to LA. Neither stayed in one place. Buffy? Since moving to Sunnydale, she's only left it three times - but continuously comes back and has even told people she can never really leave it.

I think where your theory falls apart is you still think Buffy is the slayer and that she became sterile after Bargaining. Nope. I think she was sterile after Prophecy Girl and has been guardian of hellmouth, not slayer per se ever since. The transgression may have been Willow's spell OR it may be Prophecy Girl or it may be what Buffy did in the Gift or it may be the act the monks did. But regardless of whether or not Buffy came back in Bargaining, no new slayer would be called. Buffy's death doesn't appear to call a slayer any more. Unless one was called and we weren't told about it?

Oh another thing that came to mind while discussing this with a friend the other night - what about the masculain element? I'm not so sure Buffy has come to terms with it either. She sees it as negative. Either in the form of the shadowmen, or in the form of Dracula. Monster? Not sure.
Just a feeling.

[> [> [> [> [> See my respone to Sol, below -- Caroline, 21:24:28 03/16/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> Saw it. Agree. Good pts. Thanks for clarifying! -- sk, 21:25:15 03/17/03 Mon

[> [> Re: About Buffy's return - wondering if this is really how Buffy 'disrupts' the forces? -- yabyumpan, 16:06:14 03/14/03 Fri

She must also be "mother" to the next slayer, to join the unbroken matrilineal chain stretching back to the first slayer and forward into the future. As it stands now, if Buffy dies, all indications are she will produce no such slayer "daughter."

But hasn't Buffy already produced a "daughter" - Kendra, who on her death, was the "mother" to Faith? Maybe the disruption is caused because she CAN'T produce another "daughter". To carry on the 'mother''daughter''reproduction' analogy, maybe she has become "menapausal" or even "sterile". Maybe it's this loss of being able to reproduce that is in part causing the disruption. She is a woman with all the Slayering abilities except her ability to reproduce. Maybe it's that 'sterility' that is an affront to the FE. To go back to Kali, Kali is about destruction AND creation, as has been stated, they are both part of the same cycle. Destruction without creation breaks that cycle, which is in fact the cycle of all life.

or maybe I just need to go to bed ;-)

[> [> [> Very interesting, Yaby -- Rahael, 06:17:53 03/18/03 Tue

Something I've been thinking about too.

But in the real sense of the word, isn't Buffy creative and life giving? She gave birth to Dawn. She's saved the world from apocalypse. She has always sought the creative, positive solution to any problem that has met her. And her second name is 'Summers', which suggests fecundity, fertility and growth. Life.

It is the First Evil who seems entirely barren and unproductive. Can only take the faces of the dead. Can't touch. Can't be touched. Can goad and prod, but only for negative purposes. Wants to destroy balance and go for a big ending.

That's the way my thoughts are tending - I'm not sure what this implies, whether the Slayer is the creative half, and the FE is destruction and barreness unleavened by life or creativity. The Wasteland.

But how this relates to the weakness of the Slayer line, I don't have a clue. The entire weakness/disruption in the Slayer line puzzles me.

[> [> What would the theories be if it *wasn't* Buffy who disrupted the mystical forces? -- WickedPOV, 16:51:51 03/14/03 Fri

[> Siva, Kali, Sehkmet, and What Beljoxa's Eye Was Saying The Other Day -- Solitude1056, 20:18:41 03/14/03 Fri

In a religion that's been around for three thousand plus years, there will be variants in myth, but I've often been told that Kali and Siva are intertwined in some way like Siva and Shakti. Some say that Siva's destruction is performed by wielding Kali's power. It can be hard for a western culture brain to think this type of interaction while independent at the same time; for us it'd be like dancing with the left leg and leaving the other at home. Kali is more often seen as an aspect of Durga, and not the other way around. But then, there's also Kali Ma, or Maha Kali. I'm not up on my Kalis, sad to say.

Kali's moment comes when she destroys the demon, but it's Siva's interception that saves the day. He lays down as a corpse before the battle-crazed goddess and when she places a foot on his chest she releases that she's just committed the great transgression of placing her foot on her divine husband's chest. It's in the light of this realization that she calms down and order is restored.

If we head left at Albuquerque and show up in ancient Egypt, we find Sehkmet doing the same kind of routine. When the gods discover the humans are plotting a revolution, they release Sehkmet. She levels most of Egypt, slaughtering everything that moves on two legs, until Ra concocts a lovely potion and pours it on the ground. When Sehkmet finds it, she drinks it all and gets a major happy from Ra's investigation into better living through chemistry. Of course, it ends there and Sehkmet later is celebrated as a goddess of ecstacy (obviously still wearing off the effects, these millenia later).

Either way, neither seem to me to fit Buffy. Once you take a good look at Kali's overall myth-movement, and that crazed demon-killing as the highlight of her active force in stories, it seems that there's far more of a match between Kali/Willow and Shiva/Xander. What I'd be curious about is where Tara fits into all that, especially after Joss made such a point of dressing Amber Benson in indian prints and sari-influenced fashion - hey, ATLtR.

In a series of responses in this thread, Caroline also commented that:

I think that it's true to say that Buffy is 'sterile' when it comes to the creation of a the next slayer. But I'm not sure that is the original, causal transgression. Let's go through the steps since Buffy's first death. The first death created Kendra, etc. Buffy was brought back to life and lived another 4 years without any seeming violations of the natural order. She died in the Gift, and was resurrected. As a consequence of this, she is sterile, but the cause of the sterility is the resurrection, which, from Tara, we know is wrong.

Actually, we don't. What Tara was saying was that their assumption that Buffy was suffering (and therefore should be brought back) was wrong. By extension this made the resurrection a dubious action of some small arrogance but it didn't necessarily make the resurrection itself wrong.

We also have Giles' warning about Willow messing with powerful magical forces that she knows nothing about. The necessary and sufficient cause is the resurrection, the result of that cause is her sterility in terms of being unable to create a new slayer. The resurrection is the sufficient transgression.

I disagree. Remember, we got a plain and in-our-faces reminder about resurrection when Tara was shot. Joss was very clear about the fact that Willow attempted to bring Tara back as well, but she was slapped down with the firm reminder that Tara's death happened as a result of natural causes and could not be undone. Joss is too good at these things for me not to conclude that he wanted us to be thinking something about Buffy's resurrection in comparison.

Again, Willow's assumption that Buffy must be suffering is a huge part of her hubris, since Willow herself was suffering in the stages of deep grief. Be all this as it may, I don't see the resurrection as having anything to do with it, as a matter of fact. See, reread the shooting script and see if you catch what I just realized myself:

BELJOXA'S EYE
The opportunity has only recently
presented itself.

GILES
Opportunity?!

BELJOXA'S EYE
The mystical forces surrounding the
Chosen line have been irrevocably
altered. Become... unstable.
Vulnerable.

ANYA
Why? Something The First did?!

BELJOXA'S EYE
The First Evil did not cause the
disruption. Only seized upon it.
To extinguish the lives of the Chosen
forever.

GILES
Then what caused the disruption?!
What is responsible for letting this
happen?!

BELJOXA'S EYE
The Slayer.

Now, this is Showtime, set sometime in November of 2002. Buffy was brought back, let's say August or September, of 2001. Anyone care to explain to me how a year and two or three months could qualify as "recent"? If you're not seeing where I'm going...

SHADOW MAN ONE
We have been here since the
beginning.

SHADOW MAN TWO
Now, we are almost at the end.

BUFFY
[...] End of what?

SHADOW MAN THREE
You are the Hellmouth's last Guardian.

BUFFY
Latest. You mean "latest" guardian.

SHADOW MAN ONE
No.

My point?

Buffy is not The Slayer.

To wit:

1. Buffy was resurrected a year before the First Evil started messing with things.
2. Beljoxa's Eye described the incident as "recent," so the First Evil likely moved into action immediately following the triggering incident.
3. Buffy's title has shifted to Guardian of the Hellmouth.
4. Any reference to The Slayer, technically, would therefore mean Faith.
5. We have no idea what Faith was doing around June or July of this year.

Why else, I ask myself, Self, I say, why else would Joss go through the trouble of getting Dushku to show up for the season-closer on BtVS? Faith wouldn't just show up, because the story still has some import (I'd like to think), and it's not enough to get old characters to show up just this is the last year of this series. Go out with a bang isn't enough for the consumate storyteller if the bang don't fit the story, I'd suspect. So Faith, showing up, has a reason, something to contribute other than baggage.

Hmmm... I wonder what it could be.

[> [> Kali, Siva, Shakti -- Rahael, 02:37:45 03/15/03 Sat

Much, much more on this to come, but just to say that Parvati, and her many aspects, are Shakti. Siva dancing with Kali, or Siva dancing with Parvati are all one and the same, just different expressions of shakti. Or so my uncle informs me.

As you point out, Hinduism is very varied, especially from region to region, and we lived in a bit of an outpost.

I am going to be touching on the parallels between Xander stopping Willow's murderous rampage, and Shiva/Kali, with regard to how perhaps, the feminine and the masculine principle are exhibited by many different people in the Buffverse. For example, Spike and Buffy's destructive dance in Smashed. Spike stopping Buffy's dance in OMWF.

Tara is explicity connected with the FS, despite the fact that in many ways she is the polar opposite (articulate, versus inarticulate. white/black etc etc) I saw it as a demonstration of how the eternal feminine encompasses both the darkness of the Slayer line, and the compassion of Tara. Both are found in the figure of Kali/Parvati.

[> [> [> Yes, but... -- Solitude1056, 13:52:10 03/16/03 Sun

I am going to be touching on the parallels between Xander stopping Willow's murderous rampage, and Shiva/Kali, with regard to how perhaps, the feminine and the masculine principle are exhibited by many different people in the Buffverse. For example, Spike and Buffy's destructive dance in Smashed. Spike stopping Buffy's dance in OMWF.

This still doesn't answer whether Kali, as an archetype, really fits what Caroline's arguing here. I got her basic arguments, but the Kali-part just seemed a bit eisegetical to me, especially since there's the underlying assumption that Kali has a masculine mirror to her energies, whereas Buffy doesn't.

[> [> [> [> What about Spike/Xander/Giles/Angel? -- Rahael, 14:16:32 03/16/03 Sun

I can't answer for Caroline, but.......

Spike - stopped Buffy's dance to the death in OMWF. He earlier asked her to dance with in FFL. THere are depictions of Kali and Siva dancing.

Giles and Xander halted Darth Willow.

And of the top of my head, Angel stopped Faith's dark descent over on AtS.

[> [> Re: Siva, Kali, Sehkmet, and What Beljoxa's Eye Was Saying The Other Day -- Caroline, 21:21:52 03/16/03 Sun

Thanks for the response Sol. I really appreciate the interest that people are showing in these ideas, particularly when so many of my ideas are still half-formed.

On the point about Kali and Shiva:

I didn't want to go into this too much because Rahael had already indicated to me that she was working on an essay about this and I didn't want to step into that territory. Be that as it may, I'd like to respond briefly to some of your points. In the tantras, there are several dozen mentions of Kali in her different forms - the divine mother (Kali-ma), the Black Goddess etc. Maha Kali is the is the formless one, the Mother, the Great Power, the Absolute, the one who was when there was no creation. She is a form of god really, but in a cosmology that does not consider god good nor bad, nor either of these opposites, because God is beyond that polarities that comprise relative existence.

In the Devi-Mahatmya, Kali is said to have emanated from Durga, the demon slayer. This parallels the continuous birth and death of the slayer. In Kali's arms she carries a sword and the head of a demon she has slain. Given what we know about the nature of the buffyverse and how internal demons are externalized and 'slain' I see Kali as a good fit for Buffy. She certainly was for Willow at the end of S6. But she fit Buffy long before that, with Spike originally as the demon and later as Shiva. This first occurred to me way back in FFL, where Spike used the metaphor of dance for the interplay between himself and Buffy - they do the dance of destruction but never quite finish it off. (When I watch School Hard in S2, I can also see some of this theme being played out even then - I think that this has something to do with Spike's psychology, which I'm going to explore after the next ep). The motif of the dance is further highlighted in OMWF, when Buffy, at a very low point, becomes lost in the destructive energies of the dance, like Kali.

Kali stand with one foot on her husband, Shiva. She is his shakti, the universal feminine creative force that energizes all male divinities, including Shiva. (Buffy as the inspiration for Spike's reformation?) Kali creates the world with her dancing and she has the power top destroy it also when she gets caught up in all that energy. In one telling of the story, Shiva manages to stop Kali's destructive dance by turning himself into a baby lying among corpses that Kali sees and then begins to suckle, thus placating the destructive warrior. This echoes Spike's ending of Buffy's destructive dance in OMWF - telling her despite the pain life brings, there is no other choice but to go on living (which by the way, is one of the rewards for the worshippers of Kali - they are told to embrace life's pain and suffering as essential, not to deny it or shy away from it - then they earn the true rewards of the goddess - to be able to live life fully - joy and pain and the acceptance of mortality - once again, echoes of the themes in Help). I don't think that it's a coincidence that the child that Buffy died to protect is the one who reminds her that 'the hardest thing in this world is to live in it' - Spike as Shiva and Dawn as the baby in the field of corpses?. One could also posit that Spike and Buffy's subsequent relationship was a destructive dance. The psychological principle that I think is important here is the power of the instinctual unconscious, when ungoverned, can destroy even oneself - it must be balanced with compassion and reason.

My response to Dyna, which you quoted, was very rushed and I didn't express myself fully or well. My interpretation of Tara's words in Bargaining is that even though it is possible to bring Buffy back (the mystical death) it is still wrong to do it because they were messing with the natural order (and Willow certainly paid a price for this later in S6). You may disagree with this but that's what I get from the script and we may have to agree to disagree on that. I realize that Buffy is not the THE slayer but she is A slayer. Her coming back from death in S1 did not disturb the natural order - the heart stopped beating to activate the next slayer but it started beating again. True, she was no longer able to give birth to the next slayer when she died again but the transgression occurs when she is raised again as a sterile slayer. Neither death robbed her of her slayer powers, but the first death was fruitful - slayer creation, the second death/rebirth was not fruitful. That may have been okay if she stayed dead, but she did not. That is why the resurrection imo is the transgression. This is my current position but one stroke of Joss' pen would mean that this is completely nullified.

The point about Beljoxa's eye, however, is a very good one. I would say that I don't know which slayer it is referring to (and I don't know how ME defines the word 'recent' - it may be different for mystical types). Beljoxa's eye could conceivably refer to Faith - if so, I have absolutely no clue how she is the cause of the disturbance - except for the fact that she was in jail and was not using her slayer powers? Hmmmm..... .

[> [> [> My suspicion is actually... -- Solitude1056, 05:51:26 03/18/03 Tue

That although it's hardly "recent," perhaps it may have something to do with the events of Who Are You and This Year's Girl. Sheesh, not even close to recent, but I guess a few years might be recent in the opinion of something that's been around for millenia. Anyway, the whole Faith/Buffy switch might be one catalyst - moving the Slayer energy around, that is, as if it were so much luggage.

[> [> [> [> What if this is all about Faith? Wacky theory of the week! -- ponygirl, 11:51:53 03/18/03 Tue

I've finally had a chance to read this thread, I've been off the board for days -DAYS! Calming down now, but this has been a great thread. I was thinking though if maybe we're looking in the wrong direction for the disruption of the Slayer line-- perhaps Buffy's death and resurrection is one of the factors, but not the true cause. What if it's her conflict with Faith? After all the FE made its first appearance a few episodes after Revelations, the first occasion -ever- when two Slayers had fought and shed each others blood. What if this is a Greek tragedy, in the sense that the murder (or attempted murder) of a close relative has dire consequences, triggering Furies, and vengenance and plagues upon cities? It's an idea Sandman used as well, to bring in our comic book references, the shedding of a relative's blood would bring an end to that particular member of the Endless.

If there is a Slayer essence or spirit the rift between Buffy and Faith would in a sense be turning this spirit against itself. Madness, and weakness, would certainly be the result. Since Faith also represents Buffy's shadow self, specifically her fears about her own Slayer nature and sexuality, this ties in with a lot of what Caroline has been discussing. I'm just suggesting that the conflict is far more internal.

[> Refreshing this, 'cause I want to read it mannana and the server is acting up now.... -- Briar Rose, 02:12:54 03/17/03 Mon

Current board | More March 2003