March 2003 posts


Previous March 2003  

More March 2003

Spike's moment? spoilers through lies my parents told me -- Katie, 15:33:13 03/26/03 Wed

Was the First's planned moment for Spike just Spike's death?
Was Its plan just to give Wood an excuse to act out his revenge, depriving Buffy of her strongest warrior and friend? If Spike had been killed, Buffy would probably not have forgiven Wood and Giles either, causing further damage to the resistance. Even though Wood failed in his attempt to kill Spike, Buffy's pissed at Giles and Wood as it is. Plus, manipulating someone into doing evil in the name of revenge seems pretty First Evil to me.
So is that what his moment was supposed to be?
Katie
[> This is a really interesting idea. Something to think on. -- Ixchel (stuck at work and hoping my VCR's working), 18:31:03 03/26/03 Wed

Forced to be someone you're not: the rape of Angelus (spoilerish Release) -- lunasea, 16:07:21 03/26/03 Wed

(Quotes from Psyche, except for S4, which are buffyworld.com)

From "Release"
I know how it feels. Forced to be someone you're not.
Hurts to the bone. You try to bury the pain but you can't
get the hole deep enough, can you? No matter how much
you dig, it's still there. Broken shards stabbing every time
you breathe, cutting you up inside. You know, there's only
one way to make the pain stop... hurt someone else.

We love vampires for various reasons. (please share yours) Mainly it is they get to express that side of us that we relegate to the shadow. They aren't "forced to be someone you're not." We are. We live vicariously through them. They can revel in their nature. They don't make apologies for who they are. They can speak their minds and often do. They can do whatever they want.

The above comes from a vampire, though. As Angel, he is forced to be someone else, pretty much the same someone we are all forced to be. He cares, so he can't revel in his nature. He is always making apologies for who he is. He can't speak his mind or do anything he wants. Is that what Angelus is referring to?

Possibly, but if he is, what explains his behavior before the curse? From "Billy"

Angel: "Well, that thing that Billy brought out in others? - The hatred and anger...that's something I lost a long time ago."
Cordy: "Even when you were evil?"
Angel: "I never hated my victims, I never killed out of anger, it was always about the - pain and the pleasure."

Angelus caused people pain and this brought him pleasure. It brought him pleasure because it stopped the pain temporarily. That pain comes from being "Forced to be someone you're not."

They show Angelus rise in "The Prodigal." Darla tells him, "Welcome to my world. It hurts, I know, but not for long. Birth is always painful." Birth is painful because you are going from what you were to what you will be. You are no longer what you were. You are now forced to be something you weren't.

Angelus is a bit disoriented wondering if it is a dream. A groundskeeper shows up. Angelus walks towards him. He looks back at Darla and Darla tells him, "You know what to do." When Angelus has drained the Groundskeeper she asks,"It all makes sense now, doesn't it?" Angelus responds, "Perfect sense." In that moment Angelus learns how to deal with the pain of being a vampire, hurt someone else.

Darla tells him, "You can do anything, have anyone in the village. Who will it be?" Angelus responds, "Any one? I thought I'd take the village." Angelus realizes the way to make that pain stop and humans have become potato chips, bet you can't stop with just one.

All of that pain comes from being sired. The bite is a metaphor for rape. Initially my bloodlust post had a section about being sired and bitten and how the show uses it as a metaphor for sex (and then linked sex with love and got rather unwieldy because of all the different types of sex and sirings, so it got scraped). No siring was quite what Drusilla's was and that was even toned down from the shooting script. Liam's wasn't exactly tame either.

From "Becoming Part 1" Liam comes over to hit on the pretty "lady" alone in the alley. His intentions aren't exactly honorable, but they are seduction, not rape. Darla turns the tables on him (in a twisted feminist statement, similar to how the series opens). Liam is the one that is seduced, but it goes too far. She tells him to close his eyes. Then she vamps out and "rapes" him. His eyes pop open. He has lost his innocence (strange to think of Liam, the drunk womanizer as innocent). His eyes are now figuratively and literally open. He is powerless to struggle and he puts his arms around her in surrender. He goes weak and can't stand. He falls to his knees. Darla grabs his head and forces it to the cut above her breasts. He has no choice but to drink. Angelus and all vampires have been raped. That pain is the source of their power.

Dracula tells Buffy that her power is "so near to our own" and "I have searched the world over for you. I have yearned for you. For a creature whose darkness rivals my own." The Vampires power comes from being raped. We learn in "Get it Done," the First Slayer was also raped. We see the Spirit of the First Slayer in "Restless" (not the First Slayer herself, she's dead and not a ghost). Her spirit has "no speech. No name. I live in the action of death, the blood cry, the penetrating wound. I am destruction. Absolute ... alone."

This is the Spirit that was chained to the earth and raped. She is justifiably upset. She channels that pain into strength to fight the demons. In "Intervention" the guide took the form of the First Slayer. "the Slayer forges strength from pain." That is what the First Slayer did. She took the pain of being raped and impregnated with the demon essence and turned it outward as a way to fight the demons. It gave her great strength.

In "Restless" we see the Spirit of the First Slayer. We assume she is external to Buffy. She isn't. Buffy asks her "Why do you follow me?" Tara speaking for her replies "I don't." She doesn't, because she is Buffy, much as Angelus is Angel in "Orpheus." In this dream state, Buffy splits into Buffy and Slayer, just and Angel was split into Angel and Angelus in the hell-trip. "Restless" actually makes sense from this perspective (and now I can stop thinking about it).

This is why slayers and vampires are so closely related. The demon that takes over them is symbolic of the rape that has given rise to all of them. Liam was raped by Darla and that trauma gives rise to Angelus. Until Angel finds a way to deal with that trauma, being raped/turned, Angelus will be a part of him in that particular form.

The energy that creates Angelus will always be there. The form that it takes can be different though. That energy is filtered through the pain of being raped. It results in a tremendous rage that causes Angelus to lash out to deal with that pain. That isn't who Angel/us is. This causes more pain and a vicious cycle (literally in the case of a vampire). The victim becomes the victimizer.

The other way to handle this pain is to reach out. The victim becomes the protector. Angel does this, but just as when Angelus stops hurting someone else the pain returns, the pain returns when Angel stops helping. The only way to stop the pain ultimately...we will have to see what ME comes up with, even if they believe it can be stopped.

(continued)
[> Forced to be someone you're not: acting for Darla -- lunasea, 16:09:12 03/26/03 Wed

Angelus is a bit more than your typical vampire, though. Darla sees to that. Angelus lashes out against his village and specifically his family. He goes after his father thinking it will have his victory over his father. He would have, if Darla didn't open her big mouth. Victories exist not in reality, but in perception. Darla made sure that Angelus' perception would make him into the vampire she wanted.

Darla: "This contest is ended, is it?"
Angel has his feet up on the table playing with his father's pipe. His family lies dead around him.
Angel: "Now I've won."
Darla: "You're sure?"
Angel puts his feet down and picks up a mug of ale: "Of course. I proved who had the power here."
Darla: "You think?"
Angel: "What?"
Darla: "You're victory over him took but moments."
Angel looks over at the body of his father and gets up: "Yes?"
Darla: "But his defeat of you will last life times."
Angel: "What are you talking about? He can't defeat me now."
Darla: "Nor can he ever approve of you - in this world or any other."

Darla sets up more pain for Angelus, besides the rape. Because of this pain, Angelus has to be someone he isn't. Because he still has the pain of his father's disapproval, he has to prove that he isn't a disappointment. Darla is the witness for Liam's fathers defeat of Angelus. Darla is the witness that Angelus plays his act for. Angelus is this deliciously evil vampire who kills with style. Prior to this statement, that wasn't what Angelus or Liam were like.

The way Angelus attacks his family and village lacks the style he later develops. He is just eating potato chips, not creating soufflés. Even the way Angelus talks to his father lacks something. He doesn't push his father's buttons like he does with his victims later. He is more cruel to Drusilla.

Compare what Angelus says to Drusilla, shown in "Becoming"

Drusilla: Bless me, Father, for I have sinned.
In the next booth Angelus is caught by surprise, and drops the dead
priest.
Drusilla: It's been two days since my last confession. (waits for an
answer) Father?
Angelus: (goes along with it) That's not very long.
Drusilla: (with a trembling voice) Oh, Father, I'm so afraid.
Angelus: The Lord is very forgiving. Tell me your sins.
Drusilla: I had... (breathes deeply) I've been seeing again, Father.
Yesterday, the men were going to work in the mine. I had... (shakes) a
terrible fright. (draws a frightened breath) My stomach all (draws
another) tied up, and I saw this horrible... crash. (calms a bit) My
mummy said to keep my peace, it didn't mean nothing. But this morning...
they had a cave-in. Two men died.
Angelus: Go on.
Drusilla: Me mum says... I'm cursed. (exhales) My seeing things is an
affront to the Lord, (inhales sharply) that only he's supposed to see
anything before it happens. (inhales, sobs) But I don't mean to, Father,
I swear! (inhales) I swear! (begins to cry) I try to be pure in his
sight. (sobs) I don't want to be an evil thing.
Angelus: Oh, hush, child. The Lord has a plan for all creatures. Even a
Devil child like you.
Drusilla: (taken aback) A Devil?
Angelus: Yes! You're a spawn of Satan. All the Hail Marys in the world
aren't going to help. The Lord will use you and smite you down. He's
like that.
Drusilla: (frightened) What can I do?
Angelus: Fulfill his plan, child. Be evil. Just give in.
Drusilla: No! (sobs) I want to be good. (sobs) I want to be pure.
Angelus: We all do, at first. The world doesn't work that way.
Drusilla: Father... I beg you... Please... Please, help me.
Angelus: Very well. Ten Our Fathers and an Act of Contrition. Does that
sound good?
Drusilla: (relieved) Yes. (exhales) Yes, Father. Thank you.
Angelus: The pleasure was mine. And my child... (raises his hand to the
lattice between them)
Drusilla: Yes?
Angelus: (stares at her) God is watching you.

with what Angelus says to his father in "The Prodigal."

Angel: "You're no different from the rest of them, - are you, father? (His father spins around and stares at him) Cowering in their houses - boarding up the windows - smearing that foul herb in the doorways. You'd think something evil - and vile - and monstrous - had taken to terrorizing this village -and everyone in it."
Dad: "Be gone, unclean thing! A demon can not enter a home where it's not welcome. He must be invited!"
Angel: "That's true. - But I was invited."
Angel looks to the doorway. His father turns and sees little Kathy slumped against the wall.
Dad: "Och!"
Angel: "She thought I returned to her - an angel."
Dad spins around and charges Angel with the hammer in his hand.
Dad: "Murderer!"
Angel easily pushes the attack aside, making his dad fall to the ground.
Angel: "Strange. - Somehow you seemed taller when I was alive."
Dad flattens himself up against the wall: "Lord, bind this demon now."
Angel: "To think I ever let such a tiny, trembling thing make me feel the way you did."
Dad crosses himself: "I pray ye, give me your protection, Father."
Angel: "You told me I wasn't a man. (Slowly stalks closer to his dad) You told me I was nothing. - and I believed you. You said I'd never amount to anything. (His dad stares at him with wide-open eyes) Well, you were wrong. (Angel morphs into vamp face) You see, father? - I have made something out of myself after all."

In "Dear Boy," we see Angelus' greatest crime, what he does to Drusilla.

Darla: "What is she doing here? I thought you killed her."
Angelus: "No. Just her family."
He pushes Darla down on the floor and rolls on top of her.
Dru scooting back towards the wall: "Eyes like arrows - like-like needles."
Angelus looks over at her: "This one's special. I have big plans for her."
He leans down to kiss Darla.
Dru watching them: "Snake in the woodshed. Snake in the woodshed. Snake in the woodshed! Snake in the woodshed!"
Darla rolls them over so she's now on top.
Darla: "So are we going to kill her during, or after?"
Angelus sits up, startling her: "Neither. We turn her into one of us. - Killing is so merciful at the end, isn't it? The pain has ended."
Darla: "But to make her one of us? She's a lunatic."
Angelus: "Eternal torment. (Grabs a hold of Darla's arms and rolls them so he is back on top with her under him on the floor) Am I learning?"
Angelus starts to kiss Darla while Dru first laughs then cries.

This Angelus is a far cry from the one that we see first rise and take his revenge on his father in "The Prodigal." That Angelus is putting an act on for Darla to show her that his father didn't win. That act "hurts to the bone."

(continued)
[> Forced to be someone you're not: The show continues in Sunnydale -- lunasea, 16:11:17 03/26/03 Wed

Darla dies in "Angel," killed by Angel himself. Angelus comes back in "Innocence." He now has a new audience for his act, Spike, Dru and his reputation. The first thing he says as Angelus is "No. The pain is gone." then he bites into the hooker. He no longer has to pretend to be something he isn't because he has a soul. He can be himself. He no longer has Darla to act for. He is totally free. The Judge says that he "has no humanity in him." That changes by the end of the season and not just with the addition of the soul.

When Angel is resouled, it takes a while for his memories to come back. When he is desouled, it takes a while for him to become an actor again. We see it happen slowly over the season, driven by Spike's taunts and his feelings for Buffy. By "Becoming Part 2" we have Angelus in so much pain that he is going to destroy the world, "so we all will" be free. (not part of the ritual we see in Becoming Part 1).

Angelus makes a pseudo-return in "Enemies." It is all an act, but Angel can do it rather well, too well. Angel was so in character, he hit Xander and reminded Buffy about sending him to hell. He was able to strike Buffy and knock her unconscious. The line between Angelus and Angel is incredibly fine, as Wesley says in "Eternity." He wasn't going to start feeding or physically torture Buffy, but that was about it.
[> Forced to be someone you're not: The limelight of Tinseltown -- lunasea, 16:14:40 03/26/03 Wed

The magnificent Angelus returns season 4 of AtS. This isn't the same Angelus many remember. It has a lot more in common with "Eternity" than it does BtVS season 2. BtVS season 2, Angelus was acting for a very specific audience. His act was tailored to very specific goals. When the drug hits Angel in "Eternity" again he acts. He thinks he is supposed to be Angelus, so he becomes like him. It wasn't real. The soul never left his body. It wasn't a mystical drug. It was all the power of suggestion. Under that suggestion, Angel acted like he thought he should. It was like giving someone a glass of clear fluid and telling them it is alcohol. She thinks she should get intoxicated, so she acts that way. Really all that was in the glass was bitters. It is a placebo-like effect. How dissociative Angel's personality really is was demonstrated. He wants to be addressed as "Angelus." He was Angel to Spike and Drusilla, even without a soul.

That is what Angelus is, a big act. Without the burden of a conscience, how do you behave? That is a vampire's dilemma. Angelus' answer was determined by Darla, really really, really evil. When we see Angelus season 4 AtS, he doesn't have the same audience or specific goals at first. His first audience is Wesley and the AI team.
He has to be the uber-evil vampire in order to live up to his reputation. It looks like fun, but an act can still be fun and still "hurt to the bone." He starts right off the bat "How sweet that virgin gypsy tasted. The special smell of a newborn's neck. My first nun-now that's a great story."

Even as they are trying to resoul him in "Calvary," he is still playing the act. "Let's be realistic. Even if your precious champion makes another guest appearance, you can't stop the apocalypse. Bottom line is you're going to lose. The last thing you smell will be each other's blood." The sound of his voice gives away his real feelings. Angelus in what he thinks will be the last minute still has to be "on."

In between this is all the strings that Angelus has to pull in order to get the chaos that could facilitate his release. Once released he doesn't stick around to torture them some more. Angelus tortured Buffy for his audience, Spike and Dru. Spike and Dru are going to end the world, so he needs to get something in to prove to them that he isn't "the Slayer's lap dog." Spike sets up Angelus' act, just like Darla did earlier.

There is no audience for Angelus in "Calvary," so he is mostly being himself, but he doesn't even know who that is any more. No real torture required. Cordelia tells them that the AI team is the one that Angelus wants to hurt the most, "The people closest to Angel." No audience for it this time, though. When the Beast Master starts pulling his strings, Angelus' new act is set. First Angelus goes to the Demon Bar to become their god, an act he can play with his eyes closed. It is an easy act for him to play. Then he goes after the Beast and finally his master.

In the demon bar, in "Release" Angelus is sitting around, playing Vampire god and drinking with his "buddies" (who he could care less about). A vamp chick hits on him. "As if" he retorts for his buds. Then he regales them with the happenings of "Salvage," relishing the limelight. A stupid demon insults him, calls him on his act. Angelus reacts to this by lashing out. This not only continues the act, but it helps to stop the pain. Angelus knows he screwed up killing the Beast and not being able to finish off Faith. Being called on this is painful.

The act that Angelus likes playing the most is with Faith, but it is still an act. "Welcome Faith" was a nice touch. Faith, Drusilla and Buffy all have the same thing in common when it comes to Angel/us, he identifies with each of them. They are not only the objects he torments, but they become his audience in that torment. He is seeking their validation in that act, even if that is really extreme disapproval. Buffy, especially, replaces Darla, after Angel kills her.

Angelus is "Forced to be someone you're not" by Darla. It is like with Penn in "Somnambulist." "Well, you were right about one thing, Angelus. The last 200 years has been about me sticking it to my father. But I've come to realize something - it's you! You made me! You taught me! You approved of me in ways my mortal father never did! You are my real father, Angelus." Darla raped Angelus, then she became his parent. Angelus isn't trying to win his mortal father's approval. His is being the vampire Darla wanted. He does this for his various audiences--Spike, Dru, the Scoobies in BtVS S2; the AI team, the demon community, the Beast Master, and Faith in AtS S4. That hurts to the bone and the only way to stop it is to hurt someone else.

Or is it? Will ME allow Angel to revisit what Darla did to him? Will he finally give Angelus the attention he needs so that the energy that creates him will take on a different form? Will Angel/us discover what he is when he doesn't act?

We will have to tune in to see.
[> spoiler for Orpheus in original post -- lunasea, 16:16:06 03/26/03 Wed

[> This could easily be done for Spike as well, especially in light of LMPTM -- lunasea, 16:17:21 03/26/03 Wed

[> Very interesting points -- Scroll, 19:19:48 03/26/03 Wed

I never really saw vampirism itself as an almost sexual assault or rape, but now that you point it out, it makes sense. I knew that the siring process is like a rape -- the vamp forces itself on the human victim -- but the idea that the vampire essence itself rapes the human is quite intriguing.

Until Angel finds a way to deal with that trauma, being raped/turned, Angelus will be a part of him in that particular form.

This, however, I'm not sure I agree wtih. I see Angel's Angelus issues to be stemming from Liam's personality moreso than any trauma over being turned into a vampire. Okay, yes, some of it is Angel's Catholic guilt at being an evil soulless thing for so long, but even if Angel were to become human tomorrow, he would still have the same issues and conflicts that plague him today.

Okay, off to read the rest of your thread :)
New To The Posting Board: An Introduction, and a Humble Entreaty -- Angel, 16:45:38 03/26/03 Wed

All right. Here I am, posting: and even though none of you know this, this is REALLY hard for me to do. I've had, over the years, some incredibly bad experiences with message boards, and so I shy away from them, usually, with all my might. I didn't even KNOW this site HAD a posting board until about a week ago -- even though I've been visiting it for over a year. But from what I've seen, everybody who posts here is not only incisive but rather brilliant, as well -- and it's been a long time since I've had people to TALK to, let alone share my thoughts, feelings, and theories with. So I'm going to wander out on this cracking limb again and join your worthy ranks, as an unworthy member, if indeed you'll have me.

Even writing this, as I sit here, is a huge and significant step for me.

So, by way of brief introduction; my name is Angel(Yes, it is: it's on my marriage certificate and my dog's license papers), I live here with my wife, and it's safe to say that we're.... uh.... incredibly familiar with BtVS and AtS.

But there's something, ALSO by way of introduction, that I have to humbly ask of ALL of you -- if you're reading this, and you have the time to spare and are interested in BtVS-related.... horizon-expanding, PLEASE visit this website before you go any further: Something Vital To My Existence On This Message Board. I spent a good hour and a half tremblingly updating it after a year for the SOLE purpose of posting it here. It is NOT spam and it is NOT a pop-up or anything like that.... you think I'd start off like that? Heh.

But I won't ever really BE comfortable here, posting among genius-level commentary on JW's "universe" without getting that out in the open first THING. It colors everything I believe about both series and in point of fact, the world in general. In a perfect world, it'd open up some wonderful interaction with the great people here, I'd make some new friends -- which is really hard for me to do -- and I'd have an entire new realm in which to have intelligent, meaningful discussions about philosophy, metaphysics, and everything else.... which are ALSO incredibly rare around here, let me tell you.

But this isn't a perfect world, and I'm not un-cynical, so I expect flames. I actually expect to be driven OFF this message board before any of you even say "Hello", and to retreat with my tail between my legs while commentary is bantered about how much of a wacked-out nutjob I am. But.... failless optimism reigns supreme. So.

Here's faith, and hoping, and my best and good wishes to all of you, as a first post. Feel free to e-mail me, as well. Maybe I can just fade into understood obscurity among you, and enjoy the forum. Who knows? After all.


--A
[> Welcome, Angel! No worries, we don't flame here -- Scroll, 17:21:18 03/26/03 Wed

Very nice to meet you, Angel. Always glad to see new posters on the board. For some reason, my browser can't open that link you posted, I just get a "Can't display page" message. Don't worry, it's probably my computer. I'll try again some other day, but I wanted to welcome you to the board.

We're all friendly, polite people here. While we may come from different backgrounds, have unique beliefs and conflicting personalities, we still manage to get along for the most part. We're nice guys, really! Hope you'll feel at home here soon enough : ) I'm afraid I don't know what it's like to have had a really horrible online experience. This board is really the first place I ever shared anything online with strangers, and I've never had any bad experiences here. Hopefully you'll find this board as safe and hospitable as I have.

~ Scroll, waving a "Welcome Angel" banner
[> [> Re: Welcome, Angel! No worries, we don't flame here -- Angel, 18:16:08 03/26/03 Wed

Thank you deeply. But hey -- you might feel differently once you SEE the site.

Again, though, thanks. Welcome banners make me feel all warm inside. -g-
[> Re: New To The Posting Board: An Introduction, and a Humble Entreaty -- Rendyl, 17:40:07 03/26/03 Wed

I feel like I am walking into a minefield (especially since I am one of the less brilliant-grin-but here goes-)

From your website:

"TAKE the actual bloodlust that ACTUALLY exists and take the feeling of constantly walking a razor-thin tightrope between myself and my demon. Take WANTING to let him out so badly it makes me tremble."

Dude, regardless of the reality or unreality of your situation you need more help than comments left on your website by strangers can provide. You need some stability. More so than most people I am all for seeing through things and possibly living on a different wavelength but when that begins to disrupt your life and starts to pose a danger to you or others it is time to find a way to control it or to get rid of it. There are drugs and techniques to help or stop this thing you are living. Normally I would not suggest them but by your own words you feel you may become violent and that needs to be stopped.

If this was just a joke I apologize for taking up space, but on the chance that you are being honest and serious Angel, I felt the need to reply.

Good luck, Rendyl
[> [> Re: New To The Posting Board: An Introduction, and a Humble Entreaty -- Angel, 18:13:18 03/26/03 Wed

Wow. Not even two hours and already a "you're crazy" message. THAT is exactly the genre of response I expected.

Yes, I'm generalizing. But if you put the one SINGLE sentence you chose to take out into total and complete context -- as in, try and get to KNOW me -- it might make a lot more sense to you, then. Already, I can tell that the general idea was.... lost? And that makes me, as I usually am, kinda sad.

-sigh- I have more work to go do. I'll check this board again in a few hours, seeing as how I forgot this is PC night and it'll probably be flooded, later. Now I DO feel stupid. And none of this is ill-intended or ill-willed. Just.... disappointed.
[> [> [> You're being unfair to Rendyl. -- HonorH, 19:08:42 03/26/03 Wed

And, for that matter, to the board. This isn't "PC night." We don't have that kind of thing, and would likely sic our board demons on anyone who tried to create one. I understand that you must be sensitive about this kind of thing, but Rendyl wasn't dismissing you as "crazy"--he or she was expressing concern in a very kind manner. I'm concerned, too, and keep in mind this is from someone who's been under treatment for various hormonal and chemical imbalances for around a decade. Neither of us is casting judgment. There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, after all. It's just that many of the things in your journal, and not just that statement, make it sound like you're in pain. Whatever the cause, if you are indeed possessed of Angel's soul or if your brain's simply trying to screw you over the way mine did me, you shouldn't have to deal with it on your own.
[> [> [> [> How About Unfair to the New Guy? -- Angel, 20:09:52 03/26/03 Wed

I didn't want to be analyzed. I thought.... well, it doesn't matter what I thought. I thought that there might be some people on the board that would be willing to understand what I am, and, that being understood, understand where I'm coming from on whatever I may or may not post. "Whatever the cause, if you are indeed possessed of Angel's soul or if your brain's simply trying to screw you over the way mine did me...." You're entitled to whatever your opinion is. But so far, the only responses I've gotten have been from people who think I have "psychological issues" that need addressing.... you think I haven't heard that?

Jeez. I was hoping for some insight into more creative realms. Even someone who could, God forbid, humor me enough to banter and converse. But yet again, I feel like the freak, here.

Doesn't anyone even remotely get what I'm trying to say, here?! STOP offering me "treatment". Christ. Concern, yes. Wonderful. You people are kind. But if you were going, blind, out on a limb like that, wouldn't you even see how that kind of response, immediately, from a board attached to a site that you've lauded for a year as FINALLY comprehensive.... might HURT?

And by the way, when I said "PC Night", my friend, I wasn't referring to something you "don't have on this board". PC stands for "pop culture", which is the phrase I use for the Buffy/Angel TV shows. That's in my journal a hundred thousand times. -sighs-

I can just.... fade back into lurk-dom. Anyone out there have something unique to offer? Yes, I'm in pain. But the people I've been lucky enough to HAVE in my life who not only believe but understand this -- very few of them, hence why I thought this might be a good place for me -- are supportive in the way that they would be for anyone having actual, honest pain for their actual, honest life.

I can understand how someone might hate me on sight, seeing as how it's a "main character" in their favorite show.... or whatever. But remember: I didn't ask for this. I can only do what I can with what I've been given. (And no, I didn't say anyone HERE does. But the only responses I've gotten having been from people urging me to seek counseling? You think after all these years of LIVING my life, I'd've a)gotten it when I need it and b)known how to handle things?

-sigh- Lurk-dom.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: How About Unfair to the New Guy? -- Buffy. Kat., 21:03:53 03/26/03 Wed

Legal name, Katrina. Name I go by the most often. It's a toss-up. Buffy or Kat. Buffy started as kind of a gag thing, with the fact that I'm married to Angel. Yes, this is Angel's wife. I've been following the message board today and I thought that I would write something. Oh, and the Buffy thing. Not so much of a gag anymore...

Angel is... one of the most interesting and intriguing men I've ever known. I'm young. I married quite young comparitively. And in a lot of ways -- besides the obvious -- there is no one I could better choose as a husband. Esspecially with how young I am. Angel has helped me mature in more ways than one.

I sleep nights, usually. Angel sleeps days, obviously. We have our time together at dusk. He goes to bed a few hours before I wake. I usually wake to the sound of him whimpering in his sleep, occasionally I will actually wake to him screaming. Nightmares plague that man more than a child with a chronic fear of what's under their bed. If I don't wake to his nightmare than I wake to silence and will later be drawn from my morning shower, or pulled from my breakfast, by his nightmares.

Artwork is an incredible thing for me. I will spend hours upon hours looking at websites of artwork. Usually calming artwork like Lassen or erotic art. Angel's artwork is a completely different story. Angel is plagued by visions almost as much as nightmares. We actually had a painting of Jenny Calendar up for a long time in our living room. Angel's artwork is incredible, yes. He's an outstanding artist. But his artwork is not what I would call "calming". Angel is not what I would call "calming".

He's constantly worrying, constantly working. Constantly trying to make amends. Make up for what he's done. Everything about Angel is about that.

Before it is jumped on, as I assume it will be, I want you all to be made aware of the fact that I don't mean he worries, like he has anxiety issues. I mean he worries like he has something to worry about. Like he's thinking, training, maturing, and creating himself to be what he needs to be. For himself. For me. For the world.

So, anyway, though it took me three paragraphs to say it all I was trying to say is yes, Angel is in pain. (I'm almost as long-winded as he is.)

HonorH, I think that Angel's response was made to your comment, though not aimed directly at your comment. I can't speak for him, obviously, but I very much felt as though you were -- shall I dare say -- one of the good guys. "Whatever the cause, if you are indeed possessed of Angel's soul or if your brain's simply trying to screw you over the way mine did me, you shouldn't have to deal with it on your own." Good to know you see how much he needs people. Angel isolates himself because he's self-conscious. He used an example for me once, when we were talking late one night. He was telling me about this time when he was walking through a bus terminal and had this moment, that he remembers quite clearly, that he felt as though everyone could see him. Knew what he had done. I use the lyric "I see the blood all over your hands, does it make you feel more like a man?" in my head to describe what Angelus has done on many occasions.

I heard a quote once that was "If you make yourself to be isolated, people will isolate you." Because he is so ashamed, so self-consious of it, he does "make himself to be isolated." He closes himself off. He and I met because he was looking for a sanctuary, like he hoped this would be, in a pagan store that I happened to be working at temporarily.

When he told me earlier today that he had posted on this message board I was really happy. When he says he considers this site his Bible he is not joking. He really does. I remember when he first showed me this site. He quotes it, studies it, refers to it on every occasion needed. He uses it for spells, explanations, anything.

Angel is many things, not all of them good, but a liar he is not. He is who he is. He is Angel. His mind, his memory, his thoughts, are 275 years old, almost 276. (In case his site doesn't include the difference, that's a big thing Mr. Whedon got wrong. What can I say? Joss needs a calculator.) Angel is a great man.

Anyway, I'll stop with my super-long, long-winded postiness. Thank you, Scroll for welcoming him. He needed that.

I'm not one for message boards, so this is probably one of the few I will post here. But I had to say something. Though I'm sure there's something I missed that I'll come back to include later.

(Actually, I think Joss said something on an interview once about needing a calculator, too...)
[> [> [> [> [> [> A futile plea -- oboemaboe, 21:51:09 03/26/03 Wed

99% sure this will fall on deaf ears, but:
If you really care about your husband, you will haul his ass to the nearest neurologist for an MRI, pronto. He may be right that counseling is useless, but has he had a screening for things like temporal lobe epilepsy, which can cause delusions and visions of hell, and is treatable surgically? Or even some other form of delusional disorder that is treatable with medication? These are simple medical conditions like any other disease, not moral defects, and they have nothing to do with metaphysical outlooks on life or infinite parallel universes or anything else.

He may be too far gone to be able to admit that he needs help himself, and frankly, your post doesn't paint you as a paragon of critical thinking skills, but you might be his best hope. His website makes it clear that he is in severe pain, but it may turn out that your husband's condition is treatable. Aside from the doctor's consultation fee, what do you have to lose?






p.s.: To the other posters, though I understand the desire to be "polite," I think enabling this person's delusions with a patronizing pat on the head is extremely unhealthy at best, for both parties involved.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A futile plea -- Rendyl, 21:57:59 03/26/03 Wed

>>>p.s.: To the other posters, though I understand the desire to be "polite," I think enabling this person's delusions with a patronizing pat on the head is extremely unhealthy at best, for both parties involved.<<<

First we are wrong to suggest getting help..now we are wrong for "enabling" the delusions...Sheesh. I must have missed that whole 'patting on the head' thing.

Ren -morphing into 'grouchy Rendyl'
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A futile plea -- Buffy. Period., 22:18:07 03/26/03 Wed

Fuck it. Nevermind. We're out of here.

For your information, he HAS had MRI's. You don't think it was a little hard for either of us to understand at first? It is what it is. People know it. People live with him. Live with it. We all see it.

Too bad I thought maybe we could find something here.

Enabling delusions. Jesus...

I thought people who read stuff like is on this site may at least TRY to understand it. Be a little open-minded.

Angel is really upset. Thanks. We're both done even TRYING this board, though I'm sure there are other people who respond that may be interested in it. And may be a little less judgemental. You few have nicely ruined it.

Those of you who haven't had a chance to talk to us and would like to, you have our email addresses.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I was agreeing with you, Rendyl -- oboemaboe, 06:35:07 03/27/03 Thu

You were right to suggest help. By "enabling," I was referring to HonorH's "Maybe you really are possessed by Angel's Soul. Who can say? No one's casting judgement. There are more things in heaven and earth... [paraphrased]."

Pardon me, but grow up. People don't get possessed by the souls of fictional characters.


And to "Buffy:" I have no idea what medical options you've pursued, but obviously you haven't tried hard enough. And yes, I have personal experience with mental illness, so don't expect your "Boo hoo. No one understands me" trump card to work on me.

Angel's website tells of his indescribable suffering, then says "Who the bloody hell would choose to be me? Please take the nightmares and guilt away [quoting from memory]."
If you and he don't pursue treatment (of whatever kind) more agressively, then *you both* are choosing to be that way. So what if being told you need help "HURTS"? Does it hurt more or less than spending the rest of your life with agonizing visions of hell?

You have a choice whether or not you want to remain a codependent cultist in your fantasy world or to make a difficult grown up decision and get your husband help regardless of his protestations or defense mechanisms.
Though sadly, I can guess which course you'll probably take.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I was agreeing with you, Rendyl -- Rendyl, 06:50:32 03/27/03 Thu

Oh....cough....(embarrassed silence)...Sorry I unleashed 'grouchy Ren' on you. It was getting late? I was suffering from coke (the liquidy kind) deprivation? I exceeded my self determined posting limit of NEVER more than three posts on the same controversial topic?

Or simply I was kind of a jerkette to you and I apologize.

Ren -pondering the possibility of karmic retribution in the form of stale diet coke-
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I was agreeing with you, Rendyl -- dub, 06:56:21 03/27/03 Thu

High-level trollery delights in inducing discord among established members of communities.

This guy is a pro.

;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> too right dub. Truly you are wise -- Helen, 07:01:22 03/27/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> D'oh! -- oboemaboe, 07:28:59 03/27/03 Thu

I honestly hadn't even considered that. I feel very foolish now. And nothing personal against HonorH. I just disagreed strongly with her approach.


No harm done, Rendyl.

"I exceeded my self determined posting limit of NEVER
more than three posts on the same controversial topic?"

I think I will follow your lead there.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: How About Unfair to the New Guy? -- Rendyl, 21:41:16 03/26/03 Wed

>>>Doesn't anyone even remotely get what I'm trying to say, here?! STOP offering me "treatment".<<<

Oookay...I rather thought I was suggesting control, which is a different thing altogether but maybe I was not blunt enough. I never said you were crazy, nor did I indicate any hatred of you. I don't know you. I did read your website and what emerges is a deeply disturbed man in a lot of pain. If you didn't want us to see this you would not have put it up.

Maybe some of us are having diffculty understanding why you would chose to live this way. Maybe it is just me. If you have ruled out physical causes you are still left with options. There are religions and peoples where a shaman experiences other realities without suffering the kind of pain you are in. Some people do walk on the wilder side of the mind without getting lost in it.

As for not wanting to be analyzed, once again I will be blunt. You brought all this up. You could have posted about one of the shows, or characters but instead chose to hilight this aspect of yourself. I think it is unfair to get upset when we address it, since you gave nothing else to address.

As for humoring you...would you rather I or anyone else pretend to believe you than be truthful? I am just curious. I never said I did not. Once again I don't know you well enough to say. Ultimately it shouldn't matter whether I believe you or not. It isn't my life you are living-it is yours.

-Ren
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How About Unfair to the New Guy? -- Angel, 22:22:05 03/26/03 Wed

All I wanted to say in bringing it up was so I could post about the shows and maybe people would be interested in my opinions based on that. I wasn't planning on dwelling on me, I just wanted to put it out there. This wasn't how I intended it to be at all and we're done with the message board anyway because no one took it the way I wanted to. And it's not all darkness and pain. If you'd read more into my journal you would have noticed that. Thanks to the people that were nice.

I feel weird even using the site now.
[> [> [> [> [> Ease down, Horatio. -- HonorH, 22:23:21 03/26/03 Wed

I'm not analyzing, certainly not attacking--just explaining. When someone on this board is hurting, we express concern and even occasionally offer advice. It's how we do things. Now, if I may offer a suggestion, next time someone "looks" at you funny, just give them a subject line: "Thanks for your concern, but I'm dealing with it." Just that, nothing more, as often as you need to. (Works for telemarketers too, incidentally. Wear 'em down with repetition.) People will get the point sooner rather than later, shrug their shoulders, say "Whatever," and get on with the discussion. After all, it's really none of our business, is it?

That said, welcome to ATP.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ease down, Horatio. -- Angel, 22:34:08 03/26/03 Wed

I appreciate that very much... but... see the above message about how I should be "looking for neurological reasons" about what and who I am. And that my wife apparently isn't a paragon "of critical thinking" for explaining that what I say is, in fact, true. I am living with it, I am dealing with it. See my response, too. I don't think I'm going to spend much time on this board. Kinder responses such as yours not withstanding. I never asked for help. I just wanted maybe, someone to maybe converse with about the subjects on this board from a whole new perspective. That's not the way it happened at all.

And, just FYI, that website that everybody says is full of darkness and pain was written a year ago during one of the most horrible times of my life. I only added some things today, I didn't change the gist of it. I wrote about that once in my journal, about how a lot of outside circumstances can affect things that people don't even see. But nobody noticed.

Thanks again, but I feel stupid and patently unwelcome.
[> Don't flatter yourself. Bwahahaha. -- The Second Evil, 17:45:33 03/26/03 Wed

Few people are worth the effort of a true flame, unless you're actually David Fury in disguise. (In which case, prepare to be drawn and quartered by wild pigs.) Anyway, if you've been lurking for awhile I'm sure you've seen that we aren't in the habit of threatening newcomers with kitchen implements of mass destruction. Our track record will demonstrate beyond any doubt that this board is quite peaceful.

Unless you get me started on David Fury. Then, all bets are off.

Bwahahaha.
[> Quick clarification... -- V, 21:01:23 03/26/03 Wed

Is it Liam's soul or the Angelus demon that afflicts? Or both? It seemed like you used the two interchangably in the journal, and I wanted to clarify the situation.

-V
(easy on Rendyl, the journal entry includes reference to hurting people (the bloodlust), and caring people can't help but react to that first)
[> [> Re: Quick clarification... -- Angel, 21:13:14 03/26/03 Wed

First of all.... THANK you for the clarification -- not the soul thing, the explanation about reacting to my journal. I understand that, I did from the first. But I can't help but be a little sensitive. To use a horrible example, pop culture Buffy-slash-Cordelia-slash-Fred-slash-whoever are aware of the demon, of the past.... atrocities, buit still, 6 days out of 7, would consent to have a friendly cup of coffee.

Secondly, I'd be happy to answer the question but I'm not 100% sure I understand it. Both things are present, the one resultant from the other. I don't think I use them interchangeably, I simply speak to different parts of my life, my memory, and my past, at different times. Maybe the paint from the office has seeped into my brain, tonight....?

Anyway. Happy to clarify. Just a little fuzzy.
[> My best shot at answering this -- Tchaikovsky, 01:45:56 03/27/03 Thu

You clearly do not wish to be advised or anything, so I won't do it, as others have, but just say welcome to the board.

May I say, if you do not wish us to dwell on the specifics of your life experiences, a better idea might be to start a thread discussing Angel's experiences, emotions and ambitions. Then we may be able to join in a way which doesn't seem condescending in any way. However, you must understand that as a majority of the people on this board see Angel as a character in a television series, that any discussion about him would be based on what we have seen. Even if we are deeply emotionally involved, it unlikely we have any notion of what being him would be like. So if you'd like intellectual, well-informed, sometimes amusing discussion, please post your thoughts- they are always well-received. I fear that by posting mainly on yourself, you have caused a response you didn't particularly want, because people were discussing what you had posted, rather than what you promised to post.

TCH
[> [> A Thought-Out, Intelligent, Honest Response. Clarification.; The Roots of Human Desire. -- Angel, 02:18:15 03/27/03 Thu

Still lurking, one last post before I gave up to go to bed.

And why is it that the last message is always the most succinct? I agree, completely, with everything you've said here. and my intention was never to create a.... what? Me-centered? Discussion? I merely thought that it might open up some creatively new avenues of discussion for, as you said, intellectual, well-informed, sometimes amusing conversation -- and in the process, help me to better understand what people are seeing, and help me explore new avenues that I hadn't even conceived of.

It's not all darkness and pain, no, but it is lonely. And of all the places on the "illustrious" World Wide Web -- a place that rightfully scares the shit out of me -- I thought that I might, in fact, be accepted as myself here. Creating some kind of uproar was not the idea.

It's kind of like.... eh, the analogy eludes me this close to dawn. I guess it got received quite backward from my intention. My intention -- to be clear -- was to be able to post TO your discussions about a television series, with my own particular point of view made clear at the beginning, so that in fact I might be argued, discussed with, or quite often actually proven wrong about events.... concepts.... whatever. I thought it might be enjoyable both for me and for open-minded folks. I miss the times I spent debating philosophy through the night and had hoped I might have that back.

I did NOT intend for it to wind up as a)an attack on my sanity or a b)Oooh, look at ME fest, which I utterly loathe with all my being, which is why I usually AVOID all BtVS and AtS related sites in the first place, and message boards in general. They scare me. Too vulnerable.

Part of what I dislike about organized religion is that it forces itself on everyone regardless of personal belief; this is the same way. (On the flip side, it's the same for all these people trying to convince me and my wife that we're paraphrasingly, both nuts; I've lived this life for quite a while, thanks, and I live it every day and night; don't assume I don't know how or why, by now.)

I had simply hoped that if there were people who DID appreciate my point of view, that it might only provide a background for my posts on these subjects. And that someone might argue not about what I might be, but about where I stand on conceptual dissertation.

Plus.... who, unorthodox and devoted to "the mission", as previously phrased, wouldn't like to have.... like-minded, nonjudgemental people to interact with? Come on. (If someone understands what I'm getting at now, I'd really appreciate knowing.)

Slamming my wife was "way uncool". And she won't even come near this board now, sadly -- which is all the more sad because of how much I've raved about this site to her. But. I am a glutton for punishment, so I post one last time: if there are people who really ARE interested, who would like me to stay ON this board as nothing more illustrious than a man sitting in front of a computer engaging in intelligent discussion, then please let me know. I'm actually physically frightened by some of the responses I've gotten thus far. And one thing was right: I am sensitive. It hurt me. I was reaching out -- not for "help", but for some decent interaction, and some friends.

So yeah, please. If any of you would like me to stick around, let me know. Or drop me an e-mail. I'd hate to have to lurk or even stay clear altogether from now on, but feeling threatened because of something I can't change is not a safe haven for either of us.

I don't want to dwell on it. But I refuse to be the board's "freak", because of this. If any of them had taken the time to ask around about what I do do, they might have been surprised. But I'm letting my emotions take control of me, which I told myself I wouldn't do. Not again tonight. Thank you for the intelligent and incisive reply, and I'll come back later, to hover, to see what the verdict is.

Alea iacta est.
[> [> [> For Angel-slightly OT -- Rendyl, 06:35:46 03/27/03 Thu

Your email is not working. You might want to check it out.

-Ren
[> Re: New To The Posting Board: An Introduction, and a Humble Entreaty -- Celebaelin, 03:37:13 03/27/03 Thu

First person to check out your site here (wow, counter on zero), just read it AGAIN. I didn't want to jump in at the deep end and make a comment which would be, er counter productive ahahaha. It was first written a year ago in February initially did you say?

Staying OOC, hmmm, always found that easier than getting IC, distractions of the real world etc. Presumably you're familiar with the concept of the Paladin (the RPG one, not one of the original twelve knights of Charlemagne). Had quite a lot of difficulty getting my head round that mentality. It always seemed to me that they would run up against a wall of indifference, spite, mistrust, jealosy and just plain old fashioned evil. After much prompting and a little arm twisting I worked on the role and I now have a grip on a fairly viable ("lifelike") true Paladin, well, a couple of them in fact. One's an old hand and the other's a neophyte but they both have a sense of RL in as much as that is possible bearing in mind the fantastical world they are rooted in. Some of the concepts transfer fairly well.

Anyroadup, it seems to me that if you're gaming, then playing Angel is not getting IC for you. Perhaps you should try playing a different game if you want to test your roleplaying skills? A Sci Fi setting perhaps? Traveller has a fairly simple basic rule set (think Futurama with Lasers and Gauss Rifles and stuff, loads of fun!). Carrying the oxygen tanks isn't even a problem in zero gravity, but watch out for the Mynoks!

C
[> [> Oh...Botheration! -- Celebaelin, 03:42:34 03/27/03 Thu

[> [> [> Re: subtle and smart, but a troll is a troll is a... -- Brian, 05:21:51 03/27/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> my initial thought, but these trolls are starting to go to some serious effort -- Helen, 05:58:30 03/27/03 Thu

Honestly don't know what to make of this. Was not going to reply at all (do not feed) but was torn between thinking 1) you're a troll and 2) you're really ill or 3) both of the above and couldn't see anything constructive coming out of replying to this thread.

I mean, yes, sometimes I think, I'd like to be Buffy. She only weighs about 100 lbs, kicks ass and has a (generally) top notch fashion advisor dressing her (I await explanation for how she can afford so much leather). Honorificus may disagree with that last part. Plus she has a script for her life, a witty one at that - we'd all like one of those.

However, I don't skip any further down that road. I stop. I accept the mundane reality that is life and be glad for it. This is just.... really odd.
[> [> [> [> my initial thought, but these trolls are starting to go to some serious effort -- Helen, 06:00:19 03/27/03 Thu

Honestly don't know what to make of this. Was not going to reply at all (do not feed) but was torn between thinking 1) you're a troll and 2) you're really ill or 3) both of the above and couldn't see anything constructive coming out of replying to this thread.

I mean, yes, sometimes I think, I'd like to be Buffy. She only weighs about 100 lbs, kicks ass and has a (generally) top notch fashion advisor dressing her (I await explanation for how she can afford so much leather). Honorificus may disagree with that last part. Plus she has a script for her life, a witty one at that - we'd all like one of those.

However, I don't skip any further down that road. I stop. I accept the mundane reality that is life and be glad for it. This is just.... really odd.
[> [> Okay. Hmm. This is all making the sort of sense that isn't. -- Solitude1056, 07:25:15 03/27/03 Thu

[> Sanity Fair -- Miya, 08:21:43 03/27/03 Thu

I've read this board for about a year, and I nearly never de-lurk mostly due to time constraints, but I really feel compelled to say this. I have always been very wary of revealing my Buffy fan-dom to others, because I did not wish for people to make assumptions about me that could be attributed to the 'stereotypical classic cult tv nutters' that I have encountered over the years. I do not mean to use this term pejeratively, but I must say that I have sometimes been frightened by either the level of ardour people feel for their show; or more so, by the level of delusion some seem to feel: i.e., belief that the characters are 'real' or being unable to distinguish between the actor and the role. Most of the posters here are a credit to fandom, writing sensible,intelligent,imaginative, and well-thought-out arguments about philosophical and various other topics and how they pertain to a television show I really love. Many of them seem like lovely people with whom it would be loads of fun to have a cuppa. But recently, there have been some posts alluding to beliefs about the show that are in my opinion, unhealthy. I truly hope that this is some sort of piss-take, though such an elaborate one would probably also be a little on the not-very- healthy side, in my opinion anyhow(perhaps I'm biased as I could not imagine having time enough to spend on such a time-consuming task. I am too short of time to ever post here, for example). If this is the case, it certainly got everyone talking, and glad you could have a larf. But it is extremely disturbing to me that there are fewer subscribers to 'Sanity Fair' than I thought. Won't be wearing a 'Sunnydale High' shirt out in public any time soon.
[> [> right there with you Miya - I mean, the dude thinks he's a vampire. -- Helen, 08:24:57 03/27/03 Thu

[> [> [> Stopping the direction this is taking here and now ... -- LittleBit, 09:10:16 03/27/03 Thu

To both Miya and Helen:

It was one thing when the posts expressed concern over the material we were asked to read in order to perhaps better understand the base of reference that would be used by a new poster. The journal was dark and disturbing and I am at least willing to accept Angel's assertion (and his wife's) that the issues are being dealt with, however, in their real lives.

It is quite another thing to start making fun of or joking about, or even categorizing a poster as a TV nutter. So let's stop this line right now.
[> [> [> [> I don't want to hurt anyone. I'm totally prepared to believe that he thinks it's real -- Helen, 09:24:27 03/27/03 Thu

But it patently isn't. He is not a vampire. Much less a vampire about whom Joss Whedon has written a TV series. The poor guy obviously has huge issues and he would probably be better off without having them reinforced by being encourged to see his experience as valid or contributing something to what is just chat about a TV show. That's all I have to say.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I don't want to hurt anyone. I'm totally prepared to believe that he thinks it's real -- Miya, 10:24:52 03/27/03 Thu

I did not directly refer to this person as a 'nutter' nor did I 'make fun' of his beliefs. Belief that one is actually a fictional character is a delusion. I expressed my discomfort and fears that there may be people who do believe such things. These kinds of beliefs are a form of illness, not simply an alternative viewpoint that some are not open-minded enough to accept. Frankly I don't care what posters get up to in their personal lives so long as what they've got to say is relevant and insightful. I agree with Helen that to validate this person's beliefs may be a huge disservice to his ever getting well. And if it is indeed some elaborate joke on someone's part, they must really enjoy the winding-up taking place here. I stand by the assertions in my original post which ,again, was not meant to be offensive.
[> [> [> [> Yes, Bit. Quite right! -- Random, 10:36:35 03/27/03 Thu

This is not how this board treats newbies, in my experience. Could we just please calm down and take into consideration that we are talking about a human being here with his own problems and choices in life? It makes me cringe. Nothing personal, but a little sensitivity would be more appropriate.

Sorry. (Ya'll still love me?)

~Random
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, Bit. Quite right! -- Miya, 11:19:24 03/27/03 Thu

As an extremely infrequent poster, I respect your position. However, I believe that the strong reaction that this thread has elicited is mainly in response to Angel's website comments involving a wish to harm others. This goes beyond lifestyle choice, and is frightening to me, and apparently many others,as well. I enjoy the discussion here and I enjoy the television series 'Buffy' and 'Angel', and to think that it may have any part in inspiring someone to harm another saddens me greatly.
[> [> [> [> Re: Stopping the direction this is taking here and now ... -- Iggy, 12:56:56 03/27/03 Thu

With all due respect,
Who are you to say where this must stop?
It's all well and good to hop on the internet and share our thoughts with the world, but what the heck do the contents of this man's twisted mind have to do with the 'Philosophy' behind Buffy and Angel? If this were the 'Share your Psychotic Delusions' forum, There might be cause to censor people's responses to this clearly disturbed individual.
Do you want to encourage someone like this? In his little 'Journal of Darkness' thing he actually expresses a desire to hurt people. Do you consider this 'normal'? I mean, sure we all have a desire once in a while to hurt people, but we supress this urge, because we are rational human beings. Someone who believes that he IS a FICTIONAL CHARACTER is possessed of powers of reason that are not firing on all cylinders. Period. They can write all the manifestos and poetry they want, but it certainly does not make them RATIONAL. What is to stop him from actually ACTING upon this desire? His CAPACITY FOR REASON!? Oh dear; then we are all in trouble, to say the least. Need I remind you he thinks he's a FICTIONAL CHARACTER? He can be whomever he wants, for all I care, but when he starts telling us all about it, it becomes all of our business. Especially when he talks about things like killing. If we ignore it, we will be like the neighbours of mass murderers on the 11 o' clock news who say "He was such a quiet person; nobody ever would have expected anything like this". If he ever DOES hurt somebody, how will YOU sleep at night?
He needs help, clearly. One might actually argue that he WANTS help, because he's sharing this with the rest of us. Miya, or anyone else who says that this guy needs help for that matter, is in this case CORRECT. I don't really know who is more insane..."Angel" or those who think he's perfectly okay, behaving in such a manner.
Either way, his remarks have no place in these forums. No, I've never posted before, but it's never been this odd before, and I'm quite shocked by the nonchalant reactions there have been to the recent remarkable posts.
Maybe this is just a big joke, which I sincerely hope against hope. If this is the case, you did it a bit TOO well, pal.
[> [> [> [> [> Who am I? Just another poster ... -- LittleBit, 13:19:10 03/27/03 Thu

on a board that in the past has shown little tolerance for poster-bashing. If that has changed, then I didn't get the memo.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Who am I? Just another poster ... -- Iggy, 13:29:47 03/27/03 Thu

I'm willing to bet you have had few potentially dangerous psychopaths posting here in the past, either. I haven't seen any until recently, that's for sure.
Call it 'bashing' if you like, 'Bit. I call it a matter of fact. Sorry. It still has nothing to do with the forum, by the way.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Who am I? Just another poster ... -- Miya, 13:57:16 03/27/03 Thu

And if you want respect shown you, you must give it. I didn't particularly enjoy being addressed as as if I were a naughty child in your post mentioning me specifically, either, by the way. I felt a little bashed myself. And I am beginning to feel rather glad I never posted her much before.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Also another poster -- LadyStarlight, 13:57:55 03/27/03 Thu

I read Angel's initial post and his journal entry. I do not find him to be a 'dangerous psychopath', nor am I willing to label someone in this way. In the few exchanges that have been posted on this board, I have not seen a reason to start slapping labels and pointing fingers.

If you find Angel's posts offensive, then by all means, don't read them. This is a board where differences are embraced, not singled out for derisive name calling. Please, let's stop this now.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Personal comments -- Sophist, 14:33:16 03/27/03 Thu

The distinction I see drawn on this Board is that criticism of a poster's ideas is fair, but comments directed at the attributes of the poster are not. Calling personal comments "a matter of fact" doesn't help much. I may consider it a "matter of fact" that X is a "potentially dangerous psychopath", but if I post that belief all I've done is start an insult contest. That defeats the fundamental purpose of the Board, which is to generate discussion about ideas rather than individuals.

Masq, rightly, takes a very laissez-faire attitude towards the Board. Lots of posters have intervened with suggestions to cool things down when the posts veer towards the personal. LB acted as a good citizen in trying to keep the focus where it belongs.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Utterly uncalled-for -- Random, 14:53:50 03/27/03 Thu

Until and unless you have a legitimate reason, attacking a poster and labelling him in such a shameful manner is completely outside of the bounds of simple decency. Angel has not attacked you...he merely presented his story and asked not to be attacked or judged on the board. Bit was quite right to step in. Judge for yourself, have your own opinions...but the board itself isn't a forum for personal attacks.
[> Wow. (positive post) -- pellenaka (speechless), 13:30:14 03/27/03 Thu

Wow. That was my first reaction to reading about you.
I don't really know what to say. Good thing that I'm going to write it, then.

I can't possibly imagine what your life is and what you're going through. I can only say that it must be hard, but I know that that doesn't cover it at all and it never will.

I hope that you haven't been scared away.

It's not my point to act all righteous but people do often get scared by the things that they don't understand. I mean, I get scared by what you're are writing about. Both because it sounds so out there and because it's such incredible pains.

Peace, man.
Busted! (Spoilers for ANGEL 4.16) -- cjl, 20:11:57 03/26/03 Wed

Charles, m'man, you couldn't have summarized my feelings about tonight's ep any better if you'd hired Lorne to peek into my brain: after weeks of "turgid supernatural soap opera," we finally get a break.

The title of the episode is "Players," and--like the last solo Gunn ep, "Double or Nothing"--our man Gunn is linked with games of chance, or (more accurately) with beating the odds. The Bond-ian caper with Gwen Raiden is one of those prototypical spy plots where the hero (or heroine) has to get out of a locked house stocked with armed guards, a complex security apparatus, and a double-cross or two, just to make things interesting.

The fact that Gunn maneuvers out of this tricky and deadly situation without even wrinkling his brand new suit shows how many times he's negotiated these waters before. He's been beating impossible odds his entire life, from dusting vamps on the streets of L.A. with his underequipped squadron of warriors to staving off the apocalypse with the Fang Gang. And for the first time since "War Zone," we finally get to see why he was such an inspiring leader for his troops.

Gwen rightly points out that Angel Investigations has taken a one-dimensional view of Gunn: Raw Muscle. But as this and other episodes have shown, he's so much more than that. The Gunn/Ninja smackdown demonstrates advanced fighting techniques and copious amounts of style; Gunn thinks on his feet as well, if not better than, almost anyone else in A.I.; he's attuned to the rhythms of art, culture and diplomatic tact; and, as shown in his last scene of the evening, he can put it all together for the benefit of the ladies.

Yes, he's a Player in every sense of the word.

Meanwhile, back at Turgid Supernatural Soap Opera HQ, our stalwart A.I. team snaps out of their collective shock and puts on a little play of their own. After weeks of dangling on Evil!Cordelia's puppet strings, Angel and crew turn the tables and yank our Momma-to-be around for awhile. Angel, Wes, Fred, and especially Lorne (Andy Hallett earns his "regular" stripes!) were masterful, especially during the "botched translation" scene, which may have been played entirely for Cordelia's benefit. (For all we know, Angel gave Fred and Wes the accurate cuneiform text earlier in the episode, leading them to Cordy as the Beastmaster.) Also, you had to love Angel mocking Cordelia's Big Evil Voice of Doom--something posters on this and many other boards have been doing for weeks.

Interestingly enough, Gwen Raiden--our resident Player Supreme--displayed an emotional vulnerability that's pure poison for a thief and manipulator. Out of our usually straight arrow cast, she was the one who reminded us that, when it comes to living a decent life, the best possible option for a Player is to leave the game.

Brief bites:

-- Evil!Cordy was much more subtle this week, and Charisma gave her most relaxed and NATURAL performance since Cordy was revealed as the mastermind. (I'm still up in the air about her "Elvira, Mistress of the Dark" maternity wear.) Ironically, she wasn't fooling anybody this episode. Go figure.

-- Alexa Davalos is back! Yes! As I said above, Gwen is showing more emotional range with each successive appearance, and the romantic chemistry with Gunn is already a welcome change from the dying melodrama of F/G. I thought it might have been interesting to pair her up with Angel, but I'm not complaining. Can't wait to see what Joss and the crew do with her next.

-- Loved the apology from Angel to Wes. Ostensibly for Angelus' "midnight snacking" on Lilah, but could be taken to mean so much more. Wes is almost fully re-integrated with the gang now, but I like that there's still plenty of rough spots to smooth out. His conversation with Fred about the W/L relationship ended with a great deal of discomfort between the two--and I think it should stay that way for awhile.

-- If Lorne ever needs a job, he could be the guest cantor at my synagogue any time.

-- Next week: was that who I thought it was? If so, Connor is going to get a new perspective on what it means to be a parent--and a son...
[> Definitely have to go back and watch this over again (4.16 spoilers) -- Masq, 22:08:40 03/26/03 Wed

When do you think the gang decided something was not right? Immediately after Cordelia showed them she was so pregnant?

Lorne wasn't getting vibes off Cordelia and Connor in "Release". Did he start getting vibes that made him suspicious?

What I find sort of odd, even though it makes some sense, is how everyone, including Angel, is talking about Angelus like he's someone else who is now gone, but then after the initial conversation, Angel almost immediately slips back into saying "I" and "me" when talking about Angelus' little visit.
[> Re: Busted! (Spoilers for ANGEL 4.16) -- Rufus, 23:57:20 03/26/03 Wed

Gwen rightly points out that Angel Investigations has taken a one-dimensional view of Gunn: Raw Muscle.

Still going with an Othello parallel...Gunn thinks that Angel Investigations just thinks of him as raw muscle. This premise is part of why things fell apart for Gunn, just as the other characters can be accused of seeing Gunn in a one dimensional way, he is just as guilty of the same. His feelings of insecurity plus Angels as Iago, helped Gunn into the position he has ended up in. The fact that he assumed that the only thing he had to offer the gang was muscle was his own fears talking, he ignored his own contributions that though not problem solving using the great power of the library book but the ability to see to the root of a problem instead of making a problem bigger by overthinking it. The only person that can bring Gunn out of his trap of insecurity is himself....looking honestly at his strengths and his weaknesses instead of jumping to conclusions based upon half truths like those that came out of the mouth of Angelus. Once he values himself he won't have to do much to get the others to take him more seriously than just a street fighter....he was a "general" for a reason.
[> [> Just adding that this was a great Gunn episode! -- neaux, 04:43:39 03/27/03 Thu

[> [> That's it, exactly -- Masq, 06:07:30 03/27/03 Thu

Gunn has a special gift in the problem-solving part of AI that I could never quite put my finger on, but I think you have, Ruf:

the ability to see to the root of a problem instead of making a problem bigger by overthinking it.

I think they did the "Gunn has brains" thing in the episode with a bit of an anvil, but I hope we see some new assertiveness and interesting things from Gunn without losing him as a character.
[> [> [> Remember how he noticed -- aliera, 09:41:29 03/27/03 Thu

Remember RoF/AN? How he "saw" the pattern? What was said then I'm drawing a blank but I know at the time it sounded odd? Being to close to see a pattern maybe? This could come from being a very skilled warrior?

re: your question in the other subthread, the AA ep review said hotel basement (it did eventually feed just late so I was able to get the long preview off just not ahead of time. The set for the Bust reminded me of other older shows scenes for some reason and when I saw it I did NOT think hotel basement. That is one big basement.

And I really want to know what's up w/ Lorne but mainly we are big time members of the I loveLorne fan club!!!

Did you catch the demon languange in the CC? Fenorian? And do you remember Cordy's resoulling spell that misfired? Well the funny thing is I thought the latin translation on that was pretty close to what they (AI) ended up doing. I think thats the first time I've seem a humming spell? We saw the sheet music didn't we? Wonder if it's an actual song. I just get way too excited and curious don't I? I'm hushing now. Except...

Still wondering what the morning after is going to look like... ;-)
[> [> [> [> You have the Latin translation of the 'Calvary' spell? -- Masq, 10:01:32 03/27/03 Thu

I'd love to have it! My Latin is non-existent.
[> Yay!! -- Rahael, 03:33:08 03/27/03 Thu

Thanks for this review CJL, I think I'm going to love seeing this ep. Can't wait!!!!
[> Re: flush! (Spoilers for ANGEL 4.16) -- aliera, 04:17:50 03/27/03 Thu

Just a quickie. Thanks cjl...it's was wonderful to wake up this am and find this waiting. Gunn is a house fave and what good timing on his ep! Was anyone else reminded of Wesley of season2 who was at his most clutzy around the group? I'm thinking too of the O'Neill ref of LDJ and the effects of family(and thx again masq for the tapes). Not ignoring the question marks exactly...I guess I missed what exactly gave Cordy away and I was wondering about that. We did guess when we saw her watching Lorne that it was going to be a setup which was a little disappointing. Gunn seemed awfully strong in his fight scenes (although I'm a sucker for these, afraid I'm a Bond fan too.) I'm still not real excited about Cordy's performance; guess that's just me. I liked the beading actually but on someone else. And could someone get Connor some real clothes and hair. Lorne looked good though and so did Gunn. Sorry I'm digressing...

It does lead to some questions about consequences. Gunn had a pretty strong reaction to Fred's attraction to Wes and those were primarily thought based so what about his actions? What will the gang do with Cordy? Where was Connor? What is going on with Lornes powers (does anyone else miss the Lorne of season2?) Will Gwen lose her powers or have control over them? Will Angel be able to access more of Angelus strengths? I thought it was interesting that although he fought his twin the end shot was of them combining. Some great pysch stuff again this year. Last ep we had Angel/anima/shadow dream. Now Gunn and anima? Looks like Connor woke up a little bit? And the preview for next weeks? Oh boy! Thanks again for starting the discussion, cjl.

Oh and as a comic book fan (just got some vintage ones for me bday yippee!) we had a superman ref and a daredevil one, any others?
[> [> I was surprised... and a question for anyone (AtS 4.16 spoilers) -- Masq, 06:11:51 03/27/03 Thu

Cordy getting busted came as a total surprise to me. I thought the "cliff-hanger" that would end this episode would be Lorne getting hurt and the gang finding him later.

Speaking of which, *where was* Lorne doing that spell?

And was it a fake spell? I seem to remember a couple episodes back, Lorne complaining he couldn't get any vibes off Connor and Cordelia, and I thought perhaps he really was trying to shake loose the cobwebs in his noggin' a bit.
[> Completely agree! (Spoilers for ANGEL 4.16) -- Rob, 07:38:04 03/27/03 Thu

This was, IMHO, CC's best performance on the show in ages. She seemed more self-assured, more relaxed, and more convincing. Also, I submit that that ending was probably the best moment on the show this year, which has been chock full of greatness. I never would've guessed in a million years that my favorite ep in a long time would end up being the one after Faith left! Not that Eliza wasn't great, because she was, but I was left on the whole, liking the trilogy but vaguely disappointed with it. This one was written much more strongly, and finally reminded me why I like Gunn. I've been annoyed by him since "Spin the Bottle" but if they keep up writing him like this, I'll love his character again like I used to.

Rob
[> When did the Fang Gang first suspect? (further comment and spoilers for 'Players') -- cjl, 08:02:38 03/27/03 Thu

I get the feeling that when Angel first split up the Gang into "study buddies," he immediately went to work reproducing the cuneiform text from the "bonus" section of Lilah's extradimensional book. When he relayed the findings to Wes and Fred, I'm betting they discovered a Yeats-ian reference to something Slouching Toward Bethlehem waiting to be born, yada yada yada. At that point, the light bulb went off above all three heads, and they knew what the what was.

The question, of course, was what do they do about it?

First, they had to test the theory. When Cordelia went in for a one-on-one confab with Angel, there was some very subtle testing of the waters on both sides, as Angel deliberately tried to provoke Evil!Cordy by insulting her intelligence (as revenge for her shot at his intelligence in "Awakening"?) and Cordy tried to deflect suspicion by proposing the "preposterous" theory that she's the evil mastermind. Cordy goofed, however, because she put forward the theory without Angel ever accusing her of anything! That must have set off the Level Two alarm bells, and they went to the next stage.

Thinking about it further, I now firmly believe that the "botched translation" scene was done entirely for Cordelia's benefit--to ease her suspicions and convince her that Angel and the gang weren't anywhere close to cracking the case. Once they were convinced she felt "safe," they went to phase three--setting up Lorne as bait, and closing the trap.

Note to Rufus: you're right--Gunn's own insecurities contributed to his "one-dimensional" role at A.I. as much as the rest of the gang did. He was feeling threatened by Wes' intellect and his attraction to Fred, and he started losing Faith in his own considerable talents...
[> [> Connor's Role -- Veronica, 08:53:24 03/27/03 Thu

I was impressed by the thoughtfulness Connor displayed in challenging his interactions with Cordelia. He dropped the subject to end the discussion, but I don't think he was actually placated. It's telling that we don't see Connor again in this episode... Where was he? What did he do with his doubts? Did he confide in someone else?

ME has sometimes had important events take place off-screen and referred to later (e.g. chip removal, revealing the soul). As much as I am dying to see Angel and Connor have a heart to heart, it's possible they had it and we didn't get to see it. Besides, it would be all blahdiddy blah blah... ;-) This way, we would get to see the action and results of the talk instead of all the yammering.

Connor's role in Cordelia's unmasking will be vitally important for how he reacts to the (presumably upcoming) birth and the reactions of the others. I hope that this is an experience that will draw him closer to the group, rather than driving him further away. And the only way I see that being possible is if he had some role in busting Cordelia.

-Veronica
[> [> [> Re: Connor's Role -- Masq, 09:28:05 03/27/03 Thu

Besides, it would be all blahdiddy blah blah... ;-)

The words they would say to each other in such a conversation might be predictable, but the emotional importance of the moment would not be. If there was such a heart-to-heart with Connor, it would be important for us to see it. Connor finally re-connecting with his father after almost an entire season of being estranged, specifically over the issue of Cordelia?

My suspicion is that for the rest of the episode, Connor stayed in his fortress of solitude brooding over who to trust and what to do. He is having real doubts about Cordelia, and yet there is a part of him that still wants to trust her even after everything that's happened. So he's quietly sitting alone somewhere feeling like he's being torn in two. He needs to talk to someone else he feels he can trust, and I don't think he trusts anyone in the A.I. gang right now, which is partly Cordelia's propaganda ("they were afraid of you when Darla was pregnant", "they think you're connected to the Beast"), and partly the A.I. gang's fault for not wanting to notice how Connor was drifting away from them towards Cordelia.

Now that Cordelia's been "outed", though, someone should realize it's time to sit down with Connor and find out how much damage Cordelia has done with him.
[> [> Was that a deliberate capital 'F'? -- Masq, 09:19:51 03/27/03 Thu

When Faith came on the scene, she was the new Muscle. She was the one to come in and get the job done with her fists and fighting skills. She and Gunn had instant respect for each other, but she kind of usurpsed his role and left him to play prison-guard.

Plus, she became a semi-general, leading the AI gang the way he once lead his own street troops.
[> [> [> No, that was an accident. (Calling Dr. Freud...) But I think she was good for Gunn -- cjl, 09:28:23 03/27/03 Thu

Faith liked him, she had confidence in his abilities, she gave him support, and even though she (sort of) usurped his role as muscle, she never made Gunn feel he was anything less than an essential part of the team.
It's a boy! (Charisma baby news) -- Cheryl, 20:23:36 03/26/03 Wed

http://www.charisma-carpenter.com/index2.shtml
The Lie (spoilers for Lies) -- Veronica, 23:45:03 03/26/03 Wed

Just want to get the party started, but don't have time to back it up with research (gah)...

The lie the mother-figure tells - once Nikki, once Buffy - is that the mission is what's important.


Opinions? Let's put it to a vote...

-Veronica
so sleepy that I notice two names follow the form: Cvccv.
[> From whose point of view? -- HonorH, 00:27:08 03/27/03 Thu

The Mission *is* important, at least if you want a planet to stand on. However, it's not a *complete* truth. The complete truth is, "The Mission is what's important, but the little things can be even more important, in the final analysis." It's also, "The Mission is made up of the little things, and if you lose track of them, you lose track of the Mission."
[> [> Re: From whose point of view? -- Angel, 00:29:34 03/27/03 Thu

-sighs- THAT, if I were sticking around on this board longer than tonight, I'd actually have a lot to say, about. That's a subject that I'd really like to get into.

But....

Good subject, anyway.
[> [> [> Please do -- tomfool, 06:37:04 03/27/03 Thu

I would genuinely like to hear what you have to say about this subject. I'm intrigued about how your experience would inform a discussion about the show.
[> Re: The Lie (spoilers for Lies) -- Flo, 10:28:01 03/27/03 Thu

For a moment I wondered why this ep wasn't entitled Lies my MOTHER Told Me. Then I realized that Giles, as the father figure, is part of the Lie here. He betrayed Buffy when he chose to arrange Spike's murder rather than to respect her decision to keep Spike around. Giles didn't choose her, just as Joyce warned Dawn that Buffy wouldn't choose Dawn. And just as Nikki and Buffy choose the Mission over Robin.

So, it seems that the universal parental lie here is either that a parent will always choose their child above all else, or that they will not. What do ya'll think?
[> [> Re: The Lie (spoilers for Lies) -- Robert, 11:29:54 03/27/03 Thu

>>> So, it seems that the universal parental lie here is either that a parent will always choose their child above all else, or that they will not.

Your statement assumes that Buffy or Nikki ever told their respective charges that they would be chosen above all else. If so, then yes this would be a lie. It is not clear that Buffy or Nikki ever told such a lie. My wife and I never did. We let our daughter know the position of the line she must never cross, and she never did.

>>> And just as Nikki and Buffy choose the Mission over Robin.

Robin never deserved consideration from Buffy regarding the Mission. Robin was never one of her friends. In fact, he attempted to betray her the first chance he had in Storyteller.

I can't believe that Nikki's actions deserve such controversy. Spike was telling hurtful lies to Robin when he said that Nikki didn't love him as much, because Nikki chose the mission over her own son. Nikki did not choose the mission. The mission chose her. Nikki's mission was being a slayer. The only way not to be a slayer was to be dead, or to leave the world with no protection. In spite of this, she still found a way to love her son.

Nikki did not lie to Robin. She told the truth, that she could not abandon her mission. Spike lied when he said that Nikki chose not to abandon her mission.

>>> Then I realized that Giles, as the father figure, is part of the Lie here.

Giles' betrayal was far worse than what Robin did. Robin wasn't really a part of the group, whereas Giles was the father figure. He spent years training Buffy to be independent and a leader. Now that he finds himself disagreeing with Buffy's decision, he betrays her rather than convincing her of his position. This is the mark of a micromanager. I know! I worked for one for three brutal years.
[> [> [> Re: The Lie (spoilers for Lies) -- Flo, 14:20:04 03/27/03 Thu

Maybe the Lie, then, is the feeling that very young children have that the world, including their parents, exists solely for them. Given that BtVS is a portrayal of the process of adolescence, perhaps we're just seeing Buffy and others come to the truth, the full realization that their parents' lives do not revolve around them.

It seems, though, that Buffy has already been through this. But what might be the universal Lie, common to all the parents (not just mothers) that this ep's title refers to?
Heart vs. Head: The Giles-Xander split this season. -- HonorH, 00:13:30 03/27/03 Thu

Has anyone seen Giles and Xander interact this season in any meaningful way?

Me, neither. Hasn't happened. They've barely exchanged two words. Giles has had long, important scenes with the other two of the Core Scoobies, but not with Xander. Granted, Giles and Xander were never exactly on each other's wavelength, but this season, they're hardly even *there* to each other.

I think this is significant. The Heart and the Head are missing each other completely, and this is a problem.

In S5, when Giles had been wounded by the Knights of Plot Device Byzantium, he told Buffy that he was proud of her for how she always listened to her heart and followed it. This season, however, he's telling her to listen only to her head and to eliminate the threat her heart doesn't want to let go of. He wants her to become General Buffy in the truest sense: to be able to give orders with detachment and send out her "troops" to die, if needs be.

Why is he doing this? Frankly, I think he's scared witless. The Watchers have been destroyed. The Slayer line is endangered. The Grandparent of All Evil is rising and apparently preparing an appropriately nasty coming-out party. This isn't like any other battle they've fought. Giles no longer trusts himself because he's frightened, and I think he's sublimating it by not trusting Buffy, the offspring of his mind and heart if not his body.

Xander is on the opposite side. In GiD, he was the one who kept trying to pull Buffy out of her frustrated, angry headspace and back into connection with the others. Xander connected with Willow right away when she came back, providing her with advice and emotional support as she went to visit Tara's grave. He was the one who comforted and reassured Dawn when she learned she wasn't a Potential. He reconnected with Anya, baring his heart to her as she bared hers to him in turn. Heck, he even shows signs of softening toward Andrew and Spike. Yet he has not connected with Giles yet. There's a gulf between them.

Giles was right to say that Spike is a threat. He's even right to call Buffy on her muddled thinking regarding said vampire. Ultimately, though, it came down to a choice of whether he would trust Buffy's heart or his own head. He chose his head, and now he's lost Buffy's heart--temporarily, I hope, as I love that relationship.

So what's Buffy to do? She has to marshal her forces, because this is the biggest battle of her life. She's been running around putting out the First's little fires, but she knows all of this is just the Fat Lady clearing her throat, to mangle a cliche. In her headspace, she knows how much of a threat Spike was with the trigger. In her heart, though, she not only knows Spike can be a good man, she *needs* him to be. If he can become a good man and a true warrior for good, that means that all the damage of their torrid relationship will also be redeemed. It won't have been in vain. In Buffy's head, she knows she should be detached, clinical, and put everything and everyone in second place to saving the world. Her heart is calling her to Dawn's bedside at night, though.

There are two major reasons why I believe Giles is ultimately wrong, though I have no doubt he honestly believes he's doing what's best. First, Willow. Should the First be able to make use of her, she would be exponentially more dangerous than Spike. So should Buffy take out a hit on Willow as well? Come on, Giles, answer.

Second, "The Gift". Anya loved Xander, and that love kept her in the battle with her good ideas--the Dagon's Sphere and Olaf's hammer. Willow loved Tara, and that love led to her weakening Glory by taking back from her what Glory took from Tara. Buffy loved Dawn, and she was able to save the world by sacrificing herself rather than an innocent. It was love, not mere pragmatism, that saved the day then. It was the connections. That's how evil is defeated.
[> 7:17 spoilers up top! -- HonorH (with a 'whoopsie'), 00:14:40 03/27/03 Thu

[> I respectfully disagree about Giles being wrong -- Earl Allison, 04:24:48 03/27/03 Thu

"There are two major reasons why I believe Giles is ultimately wrong, though I have no doubt he honestly believes he's doing what's best. First, Willow. Should the First be able to make use of her, she would be exponentially more dangerous than Spike. So should Buffy take out a hit on Willow as well? Come on, Giles, answer.

Second, "The Gift". Anya loved Xander, and that love kept her in the battle with her good ideas--the Dagon's Sphere and Olaf's hammer. Willow loved Tara, and that love led to her weakening Glory by taking back from her what Glory took from Tara. Buffy loved Dawn, and she was able to save the world by sacrificing herself rather than an innocent. It was love, not mere pragmatism, that saved the day then. It was the connections. That's how evil is defeated."

The problems with the arguments (IMHO) are as follows;

To the first point, the First HASN'T been able to get Willow to kill anyone, not even herself. If she had racked up a First-driven body count a la "Sleeper" I would agree that she was a serious tactical risk and should be restrained until she could be "disarmed," or if that were impossible, either rendered magically powerless, or killed. Buffy didn't even seem willing to entertain the notion of RESTRAINING Spike, even after he grabbed her by the throat and hurt Dawn. That speaks of rampant stupidity, or at least terribly unclear motivations, to me.

Second, I know many people enjoyed the plot twist of "The Gift," but it has always struck me as a Script Ex Machina ending of the worst kind. Buffy, faced with the impossible choice of letting the world end, or killing/allowing Dawn to die, selects a third choice that comes from so far out of left field that it snaps Suspension of Belief (to me, understand, to me) into thousands of pieces. It was sloppy scripting that was like introducing a new character on the last page of a murder mystery novel to be your killer. Clever? Not really.

I know "death is your gift," and probably people far cleverer than I saw it coming and felt it was logical -- I don't. I rate it down there with Spike seeking a soul (and hearing later that TWO endings were shot, one with the chip being removed instead, vindicates me on that, IMHO).

So on the second point, I feel that the same thing will happen this season, that the writers will MAKE Buffy right somehow, despite there being no groundwork, no reason, and no justification (to me) for that being the case.

All IMHO.

Take it and run.
[> [> HonorH, as usual, very insightful -- dream, 06:48:13 03/27/03 Thu

Though I have to agree with Earl Allison that Buffy is not enitrely in the right about Spike. The trigger was still active (and if they weren't sure of this, it could easily have been tested simply by singing the song with Spike chained up.) Spike should have been restrained - restrained, not killed. He was in a position much like Oz's, except that his trigger wasn't conveniently spaced at monthly intervals. Spike was frustrated, but would have respected Buffy's decision if she told him to remain in restraints. She chose not to make the decision in part because she doesn't want to face certain aspects of Spike. As HonorH said, the Heart and the Head aren't talking. I think the Heart does, in general, win out in the Buffyverse. But the Head also has its place. (As well as the Hands and the Spirit). More importantly, the two need to work together. Buffy has never been one for analyzing her feelings. She has strong, intense emotions, and a capable mind, but rarely do the two come together deliberately (her intuitive leaps represent the times when both offer their services at once.) This year, the split is extreme. In order for Buffy to make the decisions she will likely need to make, she is going to have to integrate her Heart and Head. I have a feeling the WKCS will be essential to this, because WKCS will reflect Buffy to herself.

By the way, I expected the Gift to end the way it did. Was it a bit of a fudge? Probably. I liked it anyway, because I hate either/or scenarios - in real life, they rarely exist. There is almost always another option, a third or even a fourth and fifth possibility. Either/or tends to reflect the frozen thinking that comes from the death of imagination or the triumph of fear. So I appreciated the rejection of the either/or mindset, while admitting that, yes, the scripting was a wee bit shaky.
[> [> [> Re: HonorH, as usual, very insightful -- pilgrim, 08:56:11 03/27/03 Thu

I too wondered why Buffy unchained Spike when she did, rather than giving the psychoanalysis therapy session some more time to work. That act seemed awfully dangerous. I wonder if she wasn't acting out her own reluctance to speak her deepest feelings--Buffy rarely speaks her innermost fears and desires. She's more about action, and she faces those deep feelings in her actions, fighting demons, etc. Maybe some things are too hard to speak, and maybe Buffy was empthasizing with Spike's resistance to having his head shrunk, and in public no less.
[> [> [> restraining spike -- Flo, 09:12:05 03/27/03 Thu

I am surprised to hear all this support for restraining Spike. My interpretation of Buffy's decision to trust him is that it is a clear message about the trust and discomfort involved in living in a world where each person has free will. Here's the metaphor I'm seeing:

I have a friend who is drunk more often than she is not. In the last year she has been checked into a psychiatric unit once and into the emergency room for alcohol poisoning at least a half-dozen times. I have seen her alienate many of her friends, place herself into countless dangerous situations, and endanger those around her. At the beginning of our friendship six years ago, I spent a lot of time trying to mitigate her destructive behavior. Then one day I found myself lecturing her about drinking too much. She was furious and we almost ended our friendship. I had to make a decision -- either hold up my judgements about her behavior and lose her as a friend, or remain in her life and acknowledge that I have no control over her behavior and, more importantly, I have no right to try to control her behavior. She has free will and she has to battle her demons in her own time. Because I choose to remain in her life as a friend, I get to support her when she does choose to fight her demons. Similarly, Buffy chooses to keep Spike in her life, restraint-free, and tries to empower him to fight his own fight better.

If Buffy had agreed to restrain Spike, she would lose a great potential warrior, sure. But she would also be choosing to operate by rules similar to those of a demon dimension or a dictatorship, which deny free will. This would be a lot more comfortable for her at this point, but not stable in this world. If Spike were to escape his restraints, he would be more likely to become a great threat. It was only through exerting his free will in the garage with Robin that he became unrestrained from his psychological controls, and therefore a more trustworthy ally for Buffy.

This whole thing reminds me of Faith in S3 (this may have been mentioned, I haven't read all the posts for this ep), in which Wesley and the WC wanted to restrain Faith when she was out of control. The approach of the Scoobies and Angel was to acknowledge her right to free will and to find a way to work with her more deeply from there.

In the end, I'll agree with HonorH -- I think Giles is just scared s#*less and has forgotten the wisdom of trust and empowerment in a free will world.
[> [> [> [> a couple issues with this -- dream, 09:50:57 03/27/03 Thu

1) It's one thing if your friend is a danger to herself. It's another if she's a danger to others. I also have a very good friend wih a drinking problem and, like you, I've need to learn to accept that she makes her own choices. But I will wrestle the keys out of her hands if she is going to drive drunk, because her free will does not extend to the right to endanger others.

2) Spike doesn't have free will in this case anyway. The trigger is making the choice for him. He says as much at the end of the fight with Wood ("I've got my free will back" or something like that.)

If you remember, Angel and Buffy had physically restrained Faith also. The difference between their approach and the Watcher's Council was that they wanted to help her, and the restraints were just a necessary part of that. The Watcher's Council wanted to punish and control. If Buffy were under less pressure and were less confused about her feelings about Spike, I think she could have kept him under restraint while working through the process with him. She could have demanded that the others, especially Wood and Dawn, who had no business being there, were removed from the room to give him some privacy. She could have insisted Giles treat Spike with more respect. She and Willow could have tried to help him. Instead, he could well have been killed - or killed Wood, and have something else on his conscience. It didn't seem to me to be a wise decision.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: a couple issues with this -- Flo, 10:13:33 03/27/03 Thu

Good point -- I agree that Buffy could have worked much better with Spike under restrain and I'll add that her position as Slayer gives her a little more leeway to exert force like that.

So, I wonder, why isn't she thinking more clearly? It seems that in the case of having Dawn in harm's way in the basement, and in the way she let Giles do the head-bug thing without much of a fight, that she isn't acting very empowered. But, then, in all her general speeches and especially when she yelled at everyone in GiD, she is trying to be very empowered. Is it a facade? She wants so much to have enough power to defeat the FE, but she seems to want even more to give it away for awhile and rest. Hence, her decision to let Giles "take over" with Spike in the basement. Once she saw that things weren't going well, she snapped out of her powerlessness and swung too far into claiming her personal power by making a rash decision.
[> [> [> Re: HonorH, as usual, very insightful -- Chris, 13:58:32 03/27/03 Thu

Delurking for a moment... Enjoying the discussion.

Although I understand your argument, I disagree. I actually think Buffy is very clear concerning Spike and has thought out the situation from all angles. Notice that she didn't leave Spike alone in the house when she was patrolling with Giles, she left him in the company of a person she trusted (oops, that was a mistake, but not her fault) and who was a verified, experienced 'demon fighter'. So she had the danger angle covered. On the other side, she also is allowing Spike his freedom to 'become a better man', the man she 'believes in'. She is giving him the time and space he needed to allow the crystal thingy to do its work. She gives him her trust.

I don't recall any situation, other than the evening walk to the bar with Anya, where Buffy has left Spike alone, knowing the trigger danger. And although Anya, may not have her full demon powers, it is obvious she has some residual power (as evidenced by the power Willow took from her, along with Kennedy, during Buffy's portal trip). Otherwise he is always with the group in Willow's presence or with herself. And although the handcuffs were down in the last episode, I imagine Spike was using them for a time period before this.

I clearly don't know this Giles that has come back from England this season. Where is his trust in Buffy? As has been stated repeated by other posters, she has proven her abilities and he should have faith in the training he has given her.
[> [> [> [> Bing! You just hit the jackpot. -- HonorH, 16:06:34 03/27/03 Thu

I clearly don't know this Giles that has come back from England this season. Where is his trust in Buffy? As has been stated repeated by other posters, she has proven her abilities and he should have faith in the training he has given her.

And therein lies the explanation: He no longer has faith in himself; therefore, how can he trust the training he gave Buffy? I feel like Giles is lost now, with the Watchers gone and the First rising. He's falling back on what he learned at the Watcher Academy far too much, because he honestly doesn't know what else to do. He doesn't trust Buffy. He doesn't trust anybody. But the person he trusts least is himself.
[> [> [> [> [> So far this season has been rife with flashbacks. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:39:54 03/27/03 Thu

The attempted rape flashback in "Beneath You", Anya's "this is your life" flashbacks in "Selfless", Xander's flashback to BBB in "Him", Giles's Bringer killing flashback in "First Date", Andrew's quasi-flashbacks in "Storyteller", and now Spike's flashbacks to his mother in "Lies My Parents Told Me". Maybe ME will continue with this and show us a flashback or two to Giles before returning to Sunnydale once again, allowing us to see the change that happened in him. After all, developing Giles to this point would be difficult since he's supposed to already be changed when he comes to Sunnydale, and it would seem odd to keep showing him half-way across the world when he has no contact with the Scooby Gang. After all, it's pretty clear, at least when Giles first appeared, that we were supposed to be suspicious of him, but they gave retroactive resolution to that. Maybe Giles's behavioural wrongness will be handled in a similar manner.
[> [> [> [> [> I really like your take on Giles, HonorH. Makes perfect sense. -- Ixchel, 22:50:02 03/27/03 Thu

[> [> [> Disclaimer: Never said Buffy was entirely right about Spike. -- HonorH, 16:30:44 03/27/03 Thu

Just making sure everyone knows that. She's got a Spike-shaped blind spot formed from the baggage of their relationship. However, in this case, he proved himself. Spike was the only male who didn't let Buffy down this week (well, excepting the barely-present Xander and Andrew). Having said that, though, it would've been a whole lot easier on everyone if she'd left him in restraints. But back on the bright side, at least now Wood and Spike have had it out. The tension was about to make my TV explode, and Wood's obsession was affecting his judgment.
[> [> Re: I respectfully disagree about Giles being wrong -- DEN, 07:43:19 03/27/03 Thu

Good points, Earl--especially about the plot contrivance ending "The Gift." I continue to challenge other posters to show any previous evidence anywhere in s5 supporting "the monks made her out of me, so therefore I am her." The comparison to a bad mystery novel is, IMO, particularly apt. Viewers don't need to have major plot twists anvilly forecast, but they do ned something other than acts of faith to go on.
[> [> Re: I respectfully disagree about Giles being wrong -- DEN, 07:44:12 03/27/03 Thu

Good points, Earl--especially about the plot contrivance ending "The Gift." I continue to challenge other posters to show any previous evidence anywhere in s5 supporting "the monks made her out of me, so therefore I am her." The comparison to a bad mystery novel is, IMO, particularly apt. Viewers don't need to have major plot twists anvilly forecast, but they do ned something other than acts of faith to go on.
[> [> Pre-emptive strikes -- Sophist, 09:15:45 03/27/03 Thu

To the first point, the First HASN'T been able to get Willow to kill anyone, not even herself. If she had racked up a First-driven body count a la "Sleeper" I would agree that she was a serious tactical risk and should be restrained until she could be "disarmed," or if that were impossible, either rendered magically powerless, or killed.

I'm not convinced by this. I think the logic of Giles's position cuts deeper. The ultimate issues are these: is Willow potentially dangerous? can the FE take advantage of some weakness in Willow to make her dangerous to Buffy? The answers to both are, JMHO, clearly yes.

We know two facts about Willow. One is that the First can affect her (it took her over during a simple locater spell). The other is that she, like Spike, has a trigger. In Willow's case, it was the death of Tara. Maybe that was her only trigger, and maybe it's no longer active. Maybe not. But the logic of Giles's position should require him to disarm Willow until he's certain.

I see Spike's trigger as metaphorical. We all have something inside us that can release our basest instincts --the death of a loved one, a child, whatever. No one can ever guarantee that this trigger won't be pulled.

Seen in this light, Giles's argument cuts too far. Everyone is a risk. The risk is proportional to the individual's power/ability. The only way to eliminate the risk is to eliminate also the opportunity for that person to use that power/ability for good. Buffy rightly accepts the risk because she trusts others. That trust, in turn, inspires others to trust her, to reach beyond themselves when the need arises.

Whether you agree with this or not, I'd say Giles was also wrong on other grounds as well. For one thing, he went much too quickly to the extreme of killing Spike rather than restraining him. For another, he was deceitful in his approach and insufficiently suspicious of Wood's vendetta.

It may be that, with the benefit of hindsight, Giles will come to Buffy and say "I told you so." That does not make him right. I don't know how Spike will act in the crunch, but I do know that pre-emptively terminating him would have been wrong.
[> [> [> The problem is ... -- Earl Allison, 09:36:02 03/27/03 Thu

Giles may have wanted to go too far, but Buffy couldn't be bothered to do ANYTHING.

Seconds after a triggered Spike attacks her and Dawn, Buffy wants to let him out of the chains! Is she stupid? Did her brains leak out her ears? I apologize for the nastiness, but there was no reason on God's green earth I can come up with to support Buffy's idea.

He JUST attacked someone -- why would you release him?

As much as I can understand that Giles might have wanted to go too far (and I feel it was his turn to be sacrificed on the altar of OOC again with LMPTM, unless this is VERY clumsy "Giles is evil" foreshadowing), I counter that with the fact that Buffy can't or won't do anything.

The group spent a while at the beginning of the season being leery of Willow (Gnarl's victim is found skinned, Willow might have done it!), but Buffy has never seemed particularly leery of Spike, even after he snacked on Andrew -- it took SPIKE insisting on being restrained to get it done.

I just can't credit Buffy with trust, here -- this borders on obsession, stupidity on a scale I cannot fathom, or really, really bad writing and characterization.

I agree that moving right to killing was extreme, and trusting Wood even worse, but again, Spike AND Buffy weren't particularly willing to bother with restraint -- so again, I can't blame Giles too much. Buffy can't be bothered, and I sure wouldn't assume that she wouldn't simply unchain him despite Giles' requests had he gone that route.

If there was a betrayal here, Buffy laid all the groundwork herself. It doesn't exacerbate Giles any, but neither am I willing to give Buffy any credit, not for trust, and not for instinct (although I am sure ME will make sure we all "get" that Buffy was Right).

Man, I hate arguing against the title character. I wish ME would give me something to work with here, something to understand her motivations. I HATE assuming she's obsessed or a moron. I hate writing it more.

Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> The solution is.... -- Sophist, 10:08:52 03/27/03 Thu

Well, maybe this is the kind of solution that fixes the problem and maybe it's the kind that's just muddy water....

Seconds after a triggered Spike attacks her and Dawn, Buffy wants to let him out of the chains!

Giles's magic neurology exam was designed to discover Spike's trigger. They found it. It really did little but confirm what Buffy knew all along.

The key point to Buffy's decision-making is this: how likely was it that Spike would be triggered? Not very likely at that moment, it seems to me. In this sense, her treatment of Spike is similar to the treatment of Willow at the end of S6. It would have been easy to justify a "magic lobotomy" (as Mal once suggested), but they chose a different option based on, frankly, little more than faith in Willow's innate goodness. The same holds true of Anya -- who knows when she'll get huffy at Xander (her own "trigger") and go back to D'Hoffryn? Nevertheless, no one suggests chaining her up, much less killing her. Buffy is following the same path with Spike that she has followed with Willow and Anya.

In your post now at the bottom of the screen, you suggested that Buffy didn't do enough investigation before accepting that Spike was being triggered. I thought I would comment on that here, since it's a related issue (and obviously contributes to your frustration at ME).

I see this as very different from Anya's case (which you contrasted with Spike's). Anya admitted reverting to vengeance demon. She admitted killing the frat boys (plus, we had Willow's testimony of the girlfriend's statements). In Spike's case, Buffy showed plenty of suspicion. She relied on her personal observations and Xander's "expert" advice about the use of triggers. The evidence was more circumstantial, but that was the nature of the case. It doesn't mean Buffy was more accepting of Spike, it means that she had to rely on different types of evidence in the two cases.

I feel it was his turn to be sacrificed on the altar of OOC again with LMPTM, unless this is VERY clumsy "Giles is evil" foreshadowing

I find Giles's character to be "off" as well. Giles has always had a bit of the "everything for the cause" attitude, but never has it dominated his character so. Either the writers left out a transition somewhere, or your suspicions are justified.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Spike had a system -- Just George, 12:52:59 03/27/03 Thu

Earlier in the season Buffy and Spike worked out a system. When either felt there was a high chance of Spike being triggered, he would be restrained or with Buffy (who could restrain him). Once they both decided (rightly or wrongly) that the chance of Spike being tiggered was low, they decided he didn't need to be restrained or chaperoned anymore.

As Sophist pointed out, when Giles decided to use magic to find Spike's trigger, Spike was restrained. Buffy was fine with this. Once the test was over, Buffy released him. This was consistent with her earlier decision.

-JG
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Spike had a system -- Plin, 13:22:02 03/27/03 Thu

De-lurking here after months of reading, just to briefly point out that this same system was followed in Lies. Spike and Buffy leave together, because they both know she can keep him from hurting anyone. When Giles takes her away for the so-called "training" session, Wood is assigned as his temporary babysitter. Buffy even expresses her reservations to Giles, saying that she's not really sure how she feels about leaving Spike with Wood. I took that to mean that she was concerned that Spike might be triggered--accidentally, she would assume--and Wood wouldn't be able to handle him in that state.

That was actually the line that convinced me that she wasn't as blinded about the threat Spike represented as Giles accused her of being.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> good point, Plin! -- Flo, 13:52:25 03/27/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> If someone were like Plin, would he be Pliny? -- Arethusa, 21:24:40 03/27/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> *Thwap!* -- HonorH, 22:00:17 03/27/03 Thu

[> [> Disagreement is good. Respect is better. -- HonorH, 10:57:36 03/27/03 Thu

Fully on board with your points. Giles wasn't completely wrong, but he also wasn't completely right. My gut feeling is that the philosophy he's espousing is the wrong way to be going about this fight. I'll freely admit I can't back it up with any real hard evidence.

As for why Buffy's acting the way she is, see my post. She *needs* Spike to be good in a way that goes beyond being rational. She's not listening to her head when it comes to him because she's too busy feeling that if Spike becomes a good man after everything they went through together, it will somehow redeem it. That need is definitely a weakness. It's a blind spot.

However, Giles was definitely wrong to go behind her back and essentially arrange Spike's murder. It lost him Buffy's trust, and it betrayed the fact that he doesn't trust her. He keeps telling her to make the hard decisions, but the subtext is that the hard decision she's already made--to take out Spike's chip and to trust him as a fellow fighter--is wrong. Buffy has a blind spot with Spike, yes. So does Giles. Giles keeps looking at Spike as the man who's not worthy of his "daughter" and is distracting her. Not entirely wrong, again, but if he's going to push Buffy to be the general, he needs to be willing to trust the decisions she's making.

As for "The Gift", you missed my point. Sloppy scripting, deus ex machina ending, yada yada yada, doesn't matter. I'm not discussing the merits or demerits of that episode. My point is, what mattered in that fight was that the people who were mostly trying to protect the ones they loved ended up saving the world as well. They defeated evil because they loved and had connections, not because they were a well-oiled fighting machine. Again, my gut tells me that's how this fight has to be won, not by General Buffy being cold and detached and sending out the people she loves to die.
[> [> 'The Gift' and the Feminization of Knowledge (hijack warning) -- tim, 07:08:05 03/28/03 Fri

"Second, I know many people enjoyed the plot twist of "The Gift," but it has always struck me as a Script Ex Machina ending of the worst kind. Buffy, faced with the impossible choice of letting the world end, or killing/allowing Dawn to die, selects a third choice that comes from so far out of left field that it snaps Suspension of Belief (to me, understand, to me) into thousands of pieces. It was sloppy scripting that was like introducing a new character on the last page of a murder mystery novel to be your killer. Clever? Not really.

I know "death is your gift," and probably people far cleverer than I saw it coming and felt it was logical -- I don't. I rate it down there with Spike seeking a soul (and hearing later that TWO endings were shot, one with the chip being removed instead, vindicates me on that, IMHO)."

I've long agreed wholeheartedly with this point of view; I, too, was unwilling to make the logical leap Joss asked us to make there. But I had a thought about this the other day that made me think twice.

I'm not an expert (actually, I'm barely an amateur) at feminist theory, but I know that one strain of thought insists that even the scientific method is sexist because it relies on modes of obtaining knowledge that are masculine rather than feminine. While "masculine" learning consists of gathering facts, looking for systematic evidence, and participating in a dialogue with other scientists that can be (at times) quite confrontational, "feminine" learning consists of coming to intuitive understandings and building a communal space. (If I'm mischaracterizing this, someone please call me on it.)

As a scientist, I've always dismissed this argument. From what little I know of it, it's always sounded like a barrier to true equality, rather than a path. Specifically, I see it as a way to reify gender roles and render intellectually acceptable the idea that "girls aren't good at science." Rather than dealing with the systemic inequalities that lead men to be disproportionately represented in research circles, it provides an excuse to think of the roles society bestows on us as natural.

But then, I'm a man.

And as all of this played in my head, I wondered if maybe this was part of my problem with "The Gift." I expected the knowledge leading up to that revelation to make "masculine" sense, while Joss took it in a very "feminine" direction. In the moments before the Leap from the Tower, Buffy's understanding of her role in ending the apocalypse comes to her very intuitively. It's not the "masculine" piecing together of a complex puzzle step by step; it's the "feminine" flash of intuition where it all comes together, where she recognizes moments of deeper understanding that previously existed within her but she hadn't seen before. So when she originally said, "It's Summers blood. It's just like mine," she was only trying to reassure Dawn they were family. But in that final moment, she realizes there was a depth to her words even she hadn't recognized earlier.

By the same token, then, judging the resolution on "masculine" criteria would be unjust; more appropriate would judging it based on (I'm out of my depth here, so this is an educated guess) how well her intuition served her and how well they served the community. By these criteria, the revelation works. It turns out to be true, thus saving her friends, not to mention the world (serving the community), and she finds a sense of inner peace when she needs it, even before going to Heaven. In deciding to make the Leap (a literal leap of faith if there ever was one), she finds her place in the world. She is the Slayer, and part of her place is to sacrifice herself for the greater good. She's long known this, but long fought it. In "The Gift," we see her accept it and find a quiet inner strength she's never had before.

(Before I get slammed on that point, let me clarify: of course Buffy has always had inner strength. But before, and since, it's always been the strength of a fighter, hardly quiet by any standard. The Slayer, almost by definition must be both fighter and martyr. And in those few moments, she knows that there is also strength in the role of martyr. That's the side of her calling she's always fought, and the one she finds peace with on the Tower.)

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with any of this--the quotation marks around "masculine" and "feminine" should tell you that much. I'm curious, though, as to what others think. We know that Joss designed this to be a feminist show, and that he's well-versed in feminist theory. Could he be making a statement here about gendered learning techniques? If so, is it a valid one?

--th
[> [> [> Re: 'The Gift' and the Feminization of Knowledge (hijack warning) -- Rahael, 07:50:21 03/28/03 Fri

This is something that has been percolating in my mind too, Tim.

The views you outline are as uncomfortable to me, as they are for you. But, if you listen to some of Joss' comments in Restless, it appears as if he is indeed giving voice to some essentialist view of femininity (I'm thinking of his comments over the Willow/Tara scene - I'm snowed under at the moment but I'll see if I can dig them up).

The way I've always chosen to think of the Gift is that Buffy finally reads the metaphors of the season correctly. The 'it's always about blood', the 'death is your gift' and 'Summers Blood' themes. It's a kind of language game that Buffy finally clues into.

But you set out very clearly and cogently what Joss may have been aiming for. And it's not something that I like to think of too much, so I push it away, much like the whole 'primordial misogyny' thing that Joss came up with for Billy. Hmmmmm. put those two things together and I'm even more uncomfortable!

Just proves to me my longstanding opinion that one should not expect sophisticated, coherent political/social messages from artists. Because even your favourite ones will disappoint you. Yes, Robert Graves, I'm thinking of your white goddess. Even writers whose views I do not agree with produce great art from them. The sum is greater than the parts.
[> [> [> I never had a problem with the leap of faith in *The Gift* for exactly the reasons you outline. -- OnM, 07:53:33 03/28/03 Fri

*** The Slayer, almost by definition, must be both fighter and martyr. And in those few moments, she knows that there is also strength in the role of martyr. That's the side of her calling she's always fought, and the one she finds peace with on the Tower. ***

Sounds very Joan-like, doesn't it?


*** We know that Joss designed this to be a feminist show, and that he's well-versed in feminist theory. Could he be making a statement here about gendered learning techniques? If so, is it a valid one? ***

You will only know for sure by asking the man himself (assuming he'll give you a straight answer, hardly a given!), but regardless of the nature of the Realverse as to the scientific method vs. 'intuitive learning', in the Buffyverse intuition is obviously a reality. I mean, prophetic dreams, etc? If the universe is presumed to be even moderately predictable as to future events, then there is no reason that 'intuition' is not a valid modus operandi.

And for that matter, in the Realverse we still have a very poor understanding of how the brain intuits things. So far, there are only attempts at understanding the role of 'fuzzy logic', and conceptualizations of memory and processing skills which act in a holographic rather than linear or parallel structure.

And finally, intuition is hardly the exclusive domain of the feminine-- I utilize intuition on a daily basis, even when performing highly technical tasks. The scientific method and intuitive understandings are no more incompatible opposites than scientists who believe in some form of divine creator.
[> [> [> Re: 'The Gift' and the Feminization of Knowledge (hijack warning) -- Arethusa, 08:11:41 03/28/03 Fri

I doubt he'd be making a sexist statement about gendered learning technique. This "feminine learning" theory bugs the heck out of me. Is the scientific method not valid for females? (I'm ignoring the other debates about the validity of the scientific method for simplicity's sake.) Men base theories on facts, women base theories on "intuition"??? This is the definition of intuition, according to Mirriam Webster:

1 : quick and ready insight
2 a : immediate apprehension or cognition b : knowledge or conviction gained by intuition c : the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference

Hey, women don't need to think rationally or make inferences because they have intuition! (Sarcasm not aimed at you, tim, just at whoever came up with this. You acknowledge that the theory is questionable and could be said to perpetuate stereotypes.) Now, the use of the word "evident" could mean that women do use rational thought, but just seem not to. Either way, I think women scientists would prefer to be considered logical and methodical, rather than intuitive, which in my opinion has negative connotations. (Scientists make intuitive leaps, no doubt, but that doesn't mean they can't think logically.)

Buffy's an intelligent woman. She doesn't intellectualize problems, but she's perfectly capable of gathering data and processing it to reach a conclusion. We're even shown the process her thoughts went through to reach her conclusion.

DAWN: Buffy, you have to let me go. Blood starts it, and until the blood stops flowing, it'll never stop.

Buffy stares at Dawn in anguish.

DAWN: (tearfully) You know you have to let me. It has to have the blood.

Buffy gets a realization look on her face.

Flash to Spike earlier in the episode.
SPIKE: Cause it's always got to be blood.

Flash to Buffy and Dawn in the hospital at the end of "Blood Ties." Buffy putting her hand to her wound, then pressing it against Dawn's bloody hand.
BUFFY VOICEOVER: It's Summers blood. It's just like mine.

Flash to Buffy earlier in this episode.
BUFFY: She's me. The monks made her out of me.

Flash to Buffy beside the fire in "Intervention."
FIRST SLAYER: Death is your gift.
BUFFY: Death...

Flash back to the present. Close shot on Buffy's face.
FIRST SLAYER VOICEOVER: ...is your gift.
Quote by psyche.

Keeping in mind that ME wanted to wait until the last minute to reveal what Buffy would do, I don't find her realization that she could sacrifice herself in Dawn's place improbable at all.
[> [> [> [> Hey, Jungians! -- dream of the consortium, 08:30:57 03/28/03 Fri

I'm not well-versed enough to try it myself, but I feel like there's something to be said here about intution from a Jungian perspective - perhaps with some thoughts on the knowledge we can attain through the unconscious mind and Buffy's active and meaningful dream life. Would somebody take a stab at it, please? Because I've only delved into Jung recently, and fear I would make too many errors to be helpful.

(ooh, and not to jinx things, but isn't voy working much better these days!)
[> [> [> [> [> Iffy, sticky stuff -- Deb, 14:33:04 03/28/03 Fri

I thank Tim for his wonderful essay on genderized knowledge. One thing that needs to be attended to before any discussion of what knowledge is is how it is obtained. I'm groggy so please bear with me.

Gender has nothing to do with what one's biological sex is nor sexual orientation. Men and women both have mixtures of what are labeled to be "masculine" and "feminine" attributes. The scientific theory is based upon laws that can be empiracally used to represent knowledge, or more correctly perhaps, information. Intuition is akin to associations that are not bound by rules, nor can one person's associations always be communicated in a manner that other people can understand. In the end, both methods render conclusions.

Jung would say that associations, or intuitive leaps, can be drawn from the collective unconscious, which can be accessed when one allows the conscious to make associations without the "editor" that lives in each of our psyches. "From Beaneath You It Devours" is a methaphor for the "breaking through" of associations from the individual subconscious. We repress the stuff of our subconscious because it frightens and frightens us so much that we fear the lose of self. If the symbols of the individual subconscious can be assoicated with the archetypes of the collective unconscious, then we realize the patterns of our lives and tolerate if not embrass that which we fear.

When Spike "remembers" his mother's last words as being those of a demon or the shadow, he can then look without fear at the true nature of the relationship. But since it relies upon accessing archetypes also, Spike can further made "intuitions" about what Wood fears through association. Both, basically, shared the same fear: that they have never been loved. It is very hard to believe that anyone can love you if you believe that your mother really did detest your very existance or cared more about anything else than you. When Spike states that nothing has influence over him anymore, he is talking about much more than the chip or the First. He's also talking about his co-dependent relationships with Dru and Buffy. It's infantile fear, and it might appear to be self-centered emotionally, but if this dilemma is not successfully integrated, then one can be stuck in an infantile, or demon, state. Many people carry this fear with them to their graves. If one believes that one is a leach then love is defined by the love the other gives. If one has a strong sense of self and independence, then love that is given to another, in whatever symbolic manner acceptable to that person, defines love.

What happened in Lies is what I said at the beginning of the season that needed to happen. Spike had to appreciate ownership of his soul for himself and not see it as something he went and got for Buffy. It has no value to him in the later situation other than as a "method" of making Buffy love him. Otherwise, it is just something that brings pain and torment that he would be as happy ditching as much as Spike wanted to be rid of his chip.

I could go into a great deal of detail about some of the messages of Lies and the role of women which undermine the "right" or "center" positions of femininism, and support the "leftist" feminist beliefs, but I don't have the desire to do that right now.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks -- tim, 16:38:22 03/28/03 Fri

"Gender has nothing to do with what one's biological sex is nor sexual orientation. Men and women both have mixtures of what are labeled to be "masculine" and "feminine" attributes. The scientific theory is based upon laws that can be empiracally used to represent knowledge, or more correctly perhaps, information. Intuition is akin to associations that are not bound by rules, nor can one person's associations always be communicated in a manner that other people can understand. In the end, both methods render conclusions."

I was trying to think of a way to make this point. You said it better than I could have.

--th
[> [> [> [> Only my opinion and my logical direction.... (spoilers March25 Buffy inclosed) -- Briar Rose, 15:45:11 03/28/03 Fri

I didn't see the leap in "The Gift" as either logical or necessarily intuitive.

If we follow the logical outline of the parts ME layed out in the story line for those two seasons:

1. Dawn began as a formless ball of energy.

2. The essence was given form as a human and "as someone Buffy would automatically protect."

3. Buffy was told that her destiny as the Slayer was to die. That "death is your gift..."

4. We were told that Dawn was needed to open the void and let Glory go home.

Now following that logically...

Dawn is not "made of Buffy." That was never spoken or implied by the Monk at all. Simply that Dawn was placed into a body that would allow memories to be created and form an emotional attachment between Buffy and the Key in the form of a sister.

Buffy and Dawn do not share exactly the same DNA just as no brother and sister (or except as is now thought possible, identical twins do) share exactly the same DNA. Even the most general proof is highly visible: Michelle Trachenberger look extremely little like SMG or any of the other Sommers playing actors. Joyce and Hank don't look like her either, so what's the connection of the DNA?

Buffy didn't know that "death is your gift" applied to the WORLD, she only knew that it applied to her specifically. I had posted somewhere long ago that 'Of course death is a Slayers' gift! Her gift of final peace. Because there ain't no way out of the gig until she finally dies. TPTB gives the Slayer death as a gift for her service. Finally being at peace and safe in death.'

As for intuition or logic in this instance; no logic in the world would say "Kill yourself. Be a Martyr!" because by sacrificing herself, and knowing that Faith was in jail and therefore useless in the battle against evil, that giving her own life would surely leave the world more unprotected than her living would. Her intuition should have followed the same lines, IMO. "I die over Glory just wanting to go home and the World dies with me in the end?!?"

Joss pulled this particular "intuition" thing -- for this outcome, at that time -- out of his butt, IMHO.*L

Now I'm all for intuition as a viable resource & reason for acting! I tend to trust intuition over science (at this point in human history anyway) most of the time when the chips are down....

So even coming at it from the mind set of "Buffy's intuition told her that she was supposed to make the leap of faith" didn't ring true within me. It felt more like the writers made a last minute substitution to make for a dramatic end to the series. And even that didn't need to happen, because Joss knew that UPN was already on-board.

My stance on this was further supported in LMPTM episode where Buffy admits to Giles that she would have made a different choice between her death and Dawn's death with what she knows now.

Sometimes I have a sneaking suspicion that the posters here on this board (myself included) give JW and ME in general way too much credit for the philosophical aspects of BtVS and Angel.*L

As for "feminine" and "masculine" learning.... I too am for the removal of ALL stereotypical assigments of gender and gender relations. If anything, I figured out a while back that part of my path here on earth is in creating understanding between the sexes and stopping the "Us versus Them" mentality of a section of this world and creating a "We are not different, We are differently abled" type of revolution. (And that is not about stereotypes either - because I do not believe "all" women are soft and maternal nor "all" men are strong and militant!)


Now -- hopefully -- the Voynak Deamon doesn't eat this post as it has done my last 7!!!*ROTF
[> [> [> Here's that quote from the Restless commentary -- Rahael, 08:40:43 03/28/03 Fri

Okay, I went back and found the quote that I was remembering. To give props to Joss, it's not his comments, he's repeating something someone else found in his work. He doesn't seem to endorse or deny it.....

Willow's Dream

"Here they talk about the kitty and finding out it's real name. This scene is largely about their intimacy and trust and the safe place in her life that is her relationship with Tara. Someone actually pointed out to me something I hadn't noticed, which was they talk about letting something tell you its name, and then Riley talks about naming things, specifically. The idea of the masculine and feminine version of how to experience the world. The feminine version of letting it come to you and the masculine version of sort of conquering it and codifing it yourself. That is actually someone on the internet, who mentioned that."
[> [> [> [> This is exactly what I'm talking about. -- tim, 17:26:21 03/28/03 Fri

Thanks for digging this up, Rahael.

I mentioned before my discomfort with dividing the world up this way, that in my view it only reifies gender roles, rather than transcending them, which I see as the better road to equality. This is a perfect example of the kind of thing I find distasteful--women allow it to find its own voice, while men want to dominate. I understand the difference between sex and gender (sex is biological while gender is social, though Deb's post explains it better than that), but even the theorists seem to have a tendency to get the two muddled. From my perspective, I don't see how, if we accept the premise here, we can avoid at least one of the two following conclusions:

1) The feminine is morally superior to the masculine. This gets bastardized into the idea that women are morally superior to men. Some would then extend this to say:

2) The feminine is too passive for the dog-eat-dog world.

Both of these conclusions end up only reinforcing our old ideas of gender roles, even if we keep sex and gender separate. Simply by labeling one "masculine" and one "feminine," we are implying that men will tend to be relatively more like the former and women will tend to be relatively more like the latter. So we put women on a moral pedestal, excuse men when they behave immorally (after all, "boys will be boys"), and (possibly) keep women out of the public sphere because their inherent moral sensibility prevents them from making the tough choices leaders have to make.

To me, this would be a world that looked more like 1903 than 2003. I'd like to hear from people who disagree with me, who think this labelling describes something beyond superficial appearances, who think the conclusions I'm drawing are the wrong ones.

Only a fool would would deny the power in either reason or intuition. But is labelling one "masculine" and one "feminine" a way to claim feminine power? Or does it just reinforce our worst tendencies as a culture?

--th
[> [> [> [> [> I think it refers only to *difference* and not morals. -- HonorH, 11:11:39 03/29/03 Sat

The "conclusions" you draw take things too far, I think. The masculine wants to name things, yes, but naming has power, and not all of it bad. For instance, some time back, I got this itchy, sandpapery rash all over my upper body. It was, needless to say, bugging the heck out of me, and when it stuck around even when I took away various things that might have been allergens, I finally decided to go to a Doc-in-the-Box (read: health clinic). They told me what I had was pityriasis rosea. It was caused by a virus and would stick around for four to eight weeks, and there was, furthermore, nothing I could do about it. But it wasn't dangerous. They gave me an antihistamine to treat the symptoms and make the rash a little less unbearable and recommended I stock up on really good lotion.

Now, I felt better having it named, even though I couldn't do anything to make it go away. Having it named let me know that it wasn't dangerous, I didn't have to take anything out of my diet or change my laundry detergent or whatever, and it would eventually go away on its own. That's the power of naming. It can be used for good.

Unfortunately, naming, as anything, can also be used to control in a bad way. Label a child, and he'll grow into that label. This is why it's so important that the masculine trait of naming needs the balance of the feminine.

The feminine allows something to name itself. This can be too passive, but it can also be empowering. You don't make me anything, it says, and I don't make you anything. In some exorcism rituals, for instance, it is demanded that the possessing entity name itself, because that gives the priest/shaman/witch power over the entity. Allowing something to name itself also gives power, in certain instances. A child who's allowed to find his or her own identity rather than having a label stuck on him or her will be far stronger than the "named" child, in the end.

What we're talking here is balance, in the masculine/feminine yin/yang way. When it swings too far in one direction, you have problems. When the balance is maintained, however, there's harmony. What Buffy brings to the world of male action heroes is a touch of balance: the tiny blond saving instead of being saved.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Good points, I agree -- Scroll, 13:46:21 03/29/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> HonorH, as usual... -- tim, 15:03:33 03/29/03 Sat

...I bow to your superior intellect. You are one of this board's great assets (and it has so many!) BTW, I never meant to imply that balance was bad, and I certainly hope no one interpreted what I said as bashing feminism or the feminine. (Not that I think you did, but when a paranoid white boy starts writing in a public forum about feminist theory, and he's not even sure he knows what he's talking about, he gets a little jumpy. :-) )

That said, I'm not sure I got my point across. It's not really balance I was objecting to, or even the idea that the gentler way (letting something find its name rather than taking the power for yourself) is morally superior. Indeed, I think that's probably true, although, as you point out, balance is necessary here as it is everywhere else. It's connecting the gentler path to the feminine and the rougher path to the masculine. I understand the urge to make those connections, but while they are descriptive of the roles gender has in our society, they also seem simultaneously to reinforce those roles by saying that the feminine (and hence, women) are naturally gentler while the masculine (and hence, men) are naturally domineering. And if we believe this, we either lock all men up (dangerous psychopaths that we are) and let the more gentle women run things, or we realize how dangerous it would be for a woman to run things in a shark-infested world, and we deny all women the opportunity. (Of course, I'm exaggerating here to make a point, but you know what I'm driving at.)

I know there's some biological research to back the idea up that men are dominators while women are communers, but at best, these studies only show our general tendencies, with a large amount of individual variation and a significant chance for societal factors to overcome what's naturally implanted. The "nature vs. nurture" debate is far too complex for us to fool ourselves into thinking we've solved the puzzle.

So I guess my question is not, "Is balance good or bad?" or even, "Is a gentle path more moral than a dominated one?" Rather, it's "How does linking these traits to masculinity and feminity affect how we think about gender and sex? Does it serve a constructive purpose? Does it have the potential to reinforce our worst prejudices?"

While I'm obviously skeptical of its ability to be constructive, I'm far from certain I'm right. That's part of why I posted it here--don't know where else I could go to get input from so many people willing to think about it seriously.

--th
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreeing, Tim -- Rahael, 16:07:26 03/29/03 Sat

One interesting thing I think, in S4 is Adam and the Initiative. The Initiative were interested in naming and identifying, dissecting and classifying. But they were headed up by Walsh, a woman.

The Genesis Adam named all the animals and plants too. I think Season 4's gender politics is more sophisticated than that, and I'm clinging to the fact that these are not Joss' own observations.

Just a couple of thoughts to add to the discussion.

Rahael, who isn't particularly gentle or passive, and rather into the whole 'naming' rather than letting it be 'known' stuff.
[> [> [> [> [> [> HonorH, as usual... -- tim, 15:04:16 03/29/03 Sat

...I bow to your superior intellect. You are one of this board's great assets (and it has so many!) BTW, I never meant to imply that balance was bad, and I certainly hope no one interpreted what I said as bashing feminism or the feminine. (Not that I think you did, but when a paranoid white boy starts writing in a public forum about feminist theory, and he's not even sure he knows what he's talking about, he gets a little jumpy. :-) )

That said, I'm not sure I got my point across. It's not really balance I was objecting to, or even the idea that the gentler way (letting something find its name rather than taking the power for yourself) is morally superior. Indeed, I think that's probably true, although, as you point out, balance is necessary here as it is everywhere else. It's connecting the gentler path to the feminine and the rougher path to the masculine. I understand the urge to make those connections, but while they are descriptive of the roles gender has in our society, they also seem simultaneously to reinforce those roles by saying that the feminine (and hence, women) are naturally gentler while the masculine (and hence, men) are naturally domineering. And if we believe this, we either lock all men up (dangerous psychopaths that we are) and let the more gentle women run things, or we realize how dangerous it would be for a woman to run things in a shark-infested world, and we deny all women the opportunity. (Of course, I'm exaggerating here to make a point, but you know what I'm driving at.)

I know there's some biological research to back the idea up that men are dominators while women are communers, but at best, these studies only show our general tendencies, with a large amount of individual variation and a significant chance for societal factors to overcome what's naturally implanted. The "nature vs. nurture" debate is far too complex for us to fool ourselves into thinking we've solved the puzzle.

So I guess my question is not, "Is balance good or bad?" or even, "Is a gentle path more moral than a dominated one?" Rather, it's "How does linking these traits to masculinity and feminity affect how we think about gender and sex? Does it serve a constructive purpose? Does it have the potential to reinforce our worst prejudices?"

While I'm obviously skeptical of its ability to be constructive, I'm far from certain I'm right. That's part of why I posted it here--don't know where else I could go to get input from so many people willing to think about it seriously.

--th
[> [> [> [> [> You're one of the most enlightened individuals I've met. -- Deb, 15:01:45 03/29/03 Sat

And I'm SO ashamed to add, "and you're a man."

What you say is absolutely true. Our society is not moving towards biological equality, but further and further away from it. Have you been around this board long?
[> [> [> [> [> [> on and off for a year. and thanks for the compliment. :-) -- tim, 15:06:19 03/29/03 Sat

[> [> [> Does anyone truly believe -- Sophist, 09:08:52 03/28/03 Fri

that science works without "intuition"? That women don't "gather facts"? That "building a communal space" is inherently non-confrontational? Ah well.

Maybe I should get my chromosomes checked, but I never had a problem with Buffy's revelation/intuition in The Gift.
[> [> [> [> I can make you an Honorary Chick, if you'd like. -- HonorH, 11:35:53 03/28/03 Fri

Seriously, I didn't have a problem with it, either. Buffy recognized Dawn as a part of her in the same way a mother recognizes her newborn baby. She understood on an instinctual level that Dawn came from her (which is how I personally interpret their relationship--that Dawn was made out of Buffy's DNA), and then extrapolated from that that her blood would work as well as Dawn's to close the portal.

The only caveat is that I wished they'd explained the mechanics of the portal a little better. If Dawn's neck had simply been snapped, would it have closed, or did she have to be killed by the portal? If it's the second, the whole thing makes a lot more sense.
[> [> [> [> [> Honor-ary is fine. Just keep Honorificus's mitts off my genes. -- Sophist, 16:50:25 03/28/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> Damn! -- Honorificus (Who's Still The Prettiest), 17:04:58 03/28/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> I am more with Anya. I really don't get the logic of the same blood theory -- lakrids, 15:50:11 03/29/03 Sat

[> All excellent points -- KateB., 21:23:19 03/27/03 Thu

First time poster and so excited to have found this board. Great discussion, btw. Good arguments and support all around. Just looking to add my $0.02.

HonorH - I agree that this season has been hinting that the way they are going to win against the First is with elements such as humanity, compassion, love and redemption. All of those emotions have been reiterated in various ways with numerous characters all season. In addition, there have been a good number of references back to "Primevel" and "Restless" - where we had the Hand, Spirit, Mind and Heart. For example, in "Storyteller," Andrew called Xander the 'heart' of the group. And so that said, in some ways, yes, Buffy is probably on the wrong path with her constant speeches and cold attitude.

However, for the first time all season, I finally felt in LMPTM that Buffy has a handle on what she is doing and what she is up against. I think she really does/is beginning to see the big picture and as she and Nikki said, "The mission is what matters." Not her friends, not Dawn, not the Potentials b/c she has to be focused on the battle. That is to me what the episode inferred without spelling it out for us (which I appreciate, personally, as a viewer).

So where does Spike fit into this? Yes, there is definitely residual feelings there and even the possibility for reconnection, but I don't think Buffy's feeling or potential feelings for Spike are blinding her to the danger he poses (or now, posed) as a weapon of The First. She certainly wasn't kind to him at the start of the season (with good reason), but over time he began to prove himself to her and she came to the realization of just how amazing the act of earning his soul back is and how he has grown and changed through it all. And because of these changes, she now knows she not only has a powerful warrior on her side (whom is needed very badly b/c they obviously need all the help they can get), but one who she can trust because of his desire to change and "be a better man." When she confronted Wood at the end of LMPTM, I didn't feel like I saw Buffy, Spike's ex, but Buffy, the Slayer. She wasn't blinded by emotions, but fully conscious of what is coming and who is going to be strong enough to fight.

As for the trigger issue specifically, several posters have already pointed out that Spike was never left alone if unchained and when he was, he was chained up. As for the scene after the rock-thingy popped out of Spike's head and Giles was interrogating Spike about what memories it triggered, I do think there was a slip-up, to some degree, on Buffy's behalf in letting Spike go so soon without delving further into the cause of the trigger. But I think that was more of a plot issue than character b/c the writers didn't want Spike to solve his problem until later during the confrontation with Wood. What I think should have happened is Buffy should've kicked Giles and Wood out b/c Spike obviously didn't want to reveal his inner emotions and past to either men. (I mean he lied about how his mom only sang that song to him as a baby.) Spike being all sharing with his feelings with the group is definitely not Spike and he certainly wasn't about to go there with two men who hate him. But he might have with Buffy, one-on-one. That's just what I thought of that situation.

Finally Giles - yeah, I too was weirded out by Giles' behavior and attitude this episode, but I think also that it comes down to him being scared and at his wits end. I mean big enemy, few resources, lots of untrained girls for fighters, and so on. Plus, he was obviously frustated by the Spike situation and being unable to convince Buffy to see his way. However, I do think Giles was wrong about Spike (see my reason's why Buffy is right) and to go behind Buffy's back in such a way. He completely undermined not only her authority but her trust in him. *He* is the one who left last year and told her to figure things out on her own and take responsibility. In fact, he said something to the effect of, "I've taught you all I can about slaying...." So Buffy does this (eventually, anyway); she takes responsibility for her life and her actions, but the moment she does something Giles doesn't like he's back to being, "I'm your Watcher listen to me." Because that is certainly the vibe I got from him last night. And I know a great deal of that comes from his fear and stress, but he was still wrong to a) doubt her so after all these years and b) conspire against her. And while I'm sad for Buffy and Giles' relationship that this happened, characterwise and plotwise I thought it was great and made for a dynamic episode.
[> [> Re: All excellent points -- Ignorant, 01:25:35 03/28/03 Fri

(Hi there. First time poster, longtime reader. I'm throwing a few pennies in).

It could be argued that Buffy leaving Wood to look after Spike is proof of her responding responsibly to the dangers of Spike's trigger. However, the point in undermined by the fact that she later admits that Spike is the strongest warrior fighting for the side of good (barring herself, I assume). If Spike is stronger than Wood, Wood certainly won't be able to stop him should the trigger go off, and would more likely be killed. Similarly, if there's a risk of Willow turning evil again by calling on magic, the strength of magic necessary to defend herself against Spike would most probably do it. I can only view Buffy's actions as not well thought out, even willfully blind as mentioned before, with regards to Spike.
Also, this could be the wrong topic for it, but I found Buffy and Giles' discussion about being a general rather telling. Giles tells her she must make difficult decisions and she responds that she does, constituting generally being a bitca to her friends and family as "making tough decision". Obviously, present times calls for Buffy to have arrogance in abundance, but her comments struck me as pretentious and anything but general-like. She even mocks herself about her inspirational speeches, which leads to the conclusion that she doesn't necessarily always feel she is taking the most natural course of action, but the one she percieves to be the correct for a general to choose. She isn't a general, she's simply trying to play the part of the general.

I suppose ME does get a cookie for it's accuracy in portraying Buffy's road to maturity. After the self-doubt of adolescence, the early 20s do seem to be characterized by the mantra, "I know everything about everything; I am the shiznit". But now I'm just getting tangential.
[> [> [> Just want to say I agree with both of you (how does that work?) -- dream, 08:42:19 03/28/03 Fri

[> [> One personal piece of intuition -- KdS, 12:13:53 03/28/03 Fri

One idea that nobody seems to have come up with, that Buffy hasn't openly stated, but that may be waiting to come to the surface of her brain:

The FE seems to have gone to remarkable lengths at the start of the season to ensure that Spike ends up a) dead, or b) evil. Isn't it possible that this isn't just Evil pique at his souling, but that a morally upright souled vampire is in some way a key mystical threat to whatever the FE's final plan is?
[> [> [> A parrelel with Angel in 'Amends' -- Doug, 13:02:32 03/28/03 Fri

In "Amends" the First tries to convince Angel that he couldn't be good, that his only chance to be anything was to be evil. When that didn't work it wanted him to die; there was a preference for him being evil, but the First would rather have him dead than good.

Spike has essentially gone through a more prolonged case of the same treatment. The First has tried to drive him insane, made him kill people, tried to have him kill Buffy (which would have left Spike to either die at the hands of the scoobies or at least lose all chance and desire to be good), tried to break him with torture, and finally told Wood who he was to try and have Spike killed. It looks like the First is doing the same things with Spike it did with Angel, with the duration and amount of effort expended increased.

If there's anyone reading this who knows more about the references to the importance of the Vampire with a soul in the prophecies on AtS could they please enlighten me? I recall some references to the souled vamp being a pivotal figure in some coming apocalypse, but I can't remember if there was anything definite on the significance of specifics.
[> [> [> [> Oh be careful Doug... -- KdS, 13:07:57 03/28/03 Fri

There are some people on this board who react very violently to the idea of Spike taking over Angel's Grand Destiny ;->
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the warning -- Doug, 17:20:48 03/28/03 Fri

I'm just thinking that the First Evil has no more idea of which one is the prophecied one, or if they both are included in the prophecies, or if some prophecies deal with one and some with the other, than any of the fans has. So I figure the First is probably going as nuts as I am trying to figure things out. (always nice to be able to empathize with the first evil thing in the universe)

I was interested to note, however, that the First Evil does seem interested in Spike as well as Angel. I interpret the increased intesity of it's efforts against Spike are due to this great battle to come being closer now, and the First Really wants to a) have at least one souled vamp on it's side, and b) to get any souled vamps on the side of good out of the way (by killing them, desouling them, or turning them to evil). So possibly it's stepping up efforts with Angel's desouling, and when it looked like Angel was going to be resouled Evil!Cordy tried to get Connor to kill Angelus.

But I'm loving the mystery.

Current board | More March 2003