March 2003 posts


Previous March 2003  

More March 2003

The problem of splitting between networks (mildly spoilery) -- RichardX1, 18:51:26 03/06/03 Thu

If Buffy and Angel were both still on the WB (or had both moved to UPN), they'd probably still be on back-to-back. In this case, events from one series that were relevant to the other would probably be reflected in the next new episode of the other series.

Now, WB has Angel and UPN has Buffy. Which means that Joss and ME need to really talk the networks into parallel scheduling (on a weekly basis), or we might all be spoiled.

What I'm saying is this: there's a good chance Faith will die this season. Now, I know we've all had a healthy debate (started by yours truly) about whether Buffy's place in the Slayer chain has moved on like Joss said, or has been retconned (easy enough to do, as Joss only mentioned it in an interview and not in the series proper). However, it is generally accepted that Faith's demise would awaken a new Slayer. If this happens, and the two series aren't aligned schedule-wise, one will spoil the other.

Either we'll see one of the girls in Sunnydale spontaneously gain the powers of a Slayer and think, "well, so much for Faith," or we'll see Faith die and think, "well, so much for the First."

Mind, it won't be that suspenseful if the "Faith's death" episode airs before the "new Slayer" episode. And there's an even chance that Faith will survive, which also means I hope they resolve the Faith issue before the Sunnydale issue.

Of course, we went into Ultimate Spider-Man knowing that Uncle Ben was going to die (and feeling pretty certain that Gwen Stacy will be killed off before 2005), so it might not hurt the story that much.

Not to mention the possiblility that Buffy's ressurection, and/or (less likely) her little encounter session with the Shadow Men, might have totally ****ed up the whole "line of succession" for the Slayer.

(p.s. Masq, you really need to think about ditching VoyForums.)
[> A 'but' for this 'if' (a little more spoiler-y re WKCS) -- Tchaikovsky, 02:11:58 03/07/03 Fri

Faith is moving to Sunnydale for the final five episodes of Buffy's seventh series, and thus, if Faith is to die, she will probably do so on the show as the one where the new Slayer is called, (that's assuming she isn't a vampire or The First or something when she rolls up).

TCH
[> Maybe not that big a problem -- Gyrus, 07:33:12 03/07/03 Fri

The one thing we can be reasonably sure about is that the last 4-5 episodes of both series will be run in immediate succession (i.e. with no reruns or preemptions) just before and during May sweeps. Therefore, for those last few eps, I think ME could plan an ANGEL ep that spoils a BTVS ep from the previous night without too much fear that BTVS won't be shown on the planned date.

Of course, I say this after numerous ANGEL preemptions during all of February sweeps. However, I think the eps leading up to the season finale will get better treatment.
[> Assumption regarding next slayer (SPOILERS for Fray and casting) -- Robert, 12:04:10 03/07/03 Fri

>>> However, it is generally accepted that Faith's demise would awaken a new Slayer.

I believe the assumption that a new slayer will be called is incorrect. Even if both Buffy and Faith are killed by end-of-season, a new slayer might still not be called. It depends upon whether the final battle is that which is predicted in the second issue of Fray. According to Fray, a slayer in the 21st century banishes all the vampires and demons from this dimension. Consequently, no new slayers are called, as they aren't needed. Due to the centuries later return of demons and vampires, Melaka Fray is the first new slayer to be called, and her calling was botched.
[> [> Not having read Fray, I was unaware of that. -- RichardX1, 12:17:16 03/07/03 Fri

Wes the Prima Ballerina (spoilers S3 Waiting in the Wings) -- Scroll, 20:58:37 03/06/03 Thu

Hee hee! snerk Oh, my God, that is just... wow. Hehehe--ow, now my tummy hurts. Man, I needed that!

Ahem. So I was just browsing fan sites and dropped by YesWes to check out their updates. Noticed that they'd put up a bunch of screen caps from the Angel S3 DVDs. Screen caps you've got to see to believe. Namely the deleted ballet scene from Angel's Season 3 Joss written/directed episode, "Waiting in the Wings".

Now, personally I prefer my Wes competent with a dallop of dark, more than geeky or goofy. That said, I gotta give props to AD for doing what he did, even if the scene ended up cut from the episode. There's no doubt about it, Alexis is a truly brave man. And yes, Amy Acker is simply gorgeous.

- Scroll
[> Re: Wes the Prima Ballerina (spoilers S3 Waiting in the Wings) -- Dochawk, 23:04:39 03/06/03 Thu

Wish those DVDs would get here. there are two deleted scenes. Can't wait. Now would you consider deleted scenes (that were deleted for time reasons) canon? This may be especially important with Buffy Season 6 DVDs which are going to have a few also.
[> [> Call it unofficial canon -- Scroll, 23:57:12 03/06/03 Thu

I think deleted scenes can still be called canon as long as it doesn't contradict anything that actually is canon. After all, the writers scripted the scene, shot and directed the scene, the actors did their parts...

Call it the unofficial canon. Like Dream!Joyce's comment to Buffy about the sun being gone from L.A. in "Bring On the Night". Sure, it got cut from the episode -- but it makes perfect sense in the grand scheme of the Buffyverse and adds more nuances that personally I'm grateful for.
[> [> Me, too! -- Dead Soul, 00:10:46 03/07/03 Fri

Wish those DVDs would get here.

They shipped Saturday and each day I hold my breath while opening my mailbox.
[> [> Uhm no...not cannon - my opinion for what it's worth -- s'kat, 08:46:40 03/07/03 Fri

Now would you consider deleted scenes (that were deleted for time reasons) canon? This may be especially important with Buffy Season 6 DVDs which are going to have a few also.

Of course this all depends on whether they really were deleted for time reasons. Some scenes I know were, others weren't.

No, I don't think we can consider any of these scenes canon or part of the series for the same reason that you can't consider the alternate endings and deleted scenes on movie DVD's truly part of the movie. (Unless the creator comes out and states they should be.) The only situations you can is when it is titled: Director's Cut and the scenes are re-inserted in the movie or narrative. When they are deliberately removed prior to airing and the person removing the scenes is the Director and when the director/producers do not place them back in the narrative where they consectively appear and do not state within no uncertain terms this is what I really intended - stupid distributor destroyed my movie - this is the intended version - I think we need to look at the scenes as NOT part of the story. (If they do state that it was intended and someone else cut it due to length or other reasons, then yes count them.)

Here's an example: Once Upon A Time in America by Sergio Leone is an example of a movie that had scenes cut and reorganized by the producers and distributors to the extent that version first released to audiences was NOT what the writer/director intended. A few years later the director released his own cut of the film. Another film that fits this scenerio is Blade Runner - which has a director's cut that does not have Harrison Ford's narration and does not end happily and a producer's cut which does. The director's cut is the one the creators of the film intended.

Now the movies where these are just add-ons are Harry Potter, LoTR's and Matrix. Those edited scenes aren't really part of the movie, they are just fun.

Taking this over to Btvs. Whedon has full creative control, if a scene is cut or edited it's most likely because Whedon cut and edited it himself. There are a few exceptions:

1. Once More With Feeling - it ran longer than it's alotted time slot. Only the first viewing got the complete story.
Repeated viewings have had sections cut from it. The DVD version complete with edited scenes is the real one, the canon so to speak. Same with the FX re-runs which edit scenes for commercial breaks.

2. SMASHED - may have edited scenes when they are making love (Whedon's words not mine) in the abandoned building. Apparently they got a little too soft porn for the network and had to cut a little bit of it -- those scenes assuming they put them back in are canon.

Scenes that don't count which may be included according to commentary I've read on more than one source and has been posted on this board:

1. Smashed - Spike's crypt scene which UPN posted and that pissed off the ME writers b/c they deliberately edited the scene. They felt that scene did not work for the story they were presenting and deliberately removed it from the episode. The network included it on the website description - the writers and creators of the show removed it. Can't count it. It was removed for reasons other than time alottment. They may not include it on DVD's - so this might be moot.

2. Waiting in The Wings - dance sequence - Whedon cut this sequence, he may have done for time reasons, Minear wasn't really sure, but he said it was Whedon's decision to cut it.
I'll be interested to know how Whedon talks about it in the DVD - if he states it should have been included - then treat as canon. If he states he cut it b/c while fun it didn't really work towards the series as a whole - then treat as fun and games, an addon- nothing more.

3. Beneath You - the alternate ending that they re-shot.
Whedon chose to re-shoot it. I'll be shocked if they include the original on the DVD but you never know.

It's a bit like writing drafts of a novel. The sections you cut out, while you may love them, are cut to make the novel better. If someone finds those sections years after your death - which has happened to Tolkien and other famous writers - while they may be indicative of the writer's storytelling style and process, they should not be reinserted in the novel or used to change the published story without the writers consent. I think this distinction is very important to make when we analyze any piece of work, whether it be a painting, a tv show, a film, or a novel.

Just my ten cents for what it's worth.

SK
Metaphysics of Mind Alteration (Is angel good?) spoiler -- Project Pyrroh, 21:42:03 03/06/03 Thu

The spell in Angel that (erased) caused everyone to forget about the Beast seems to be alot like the spell in Buffy that made the false memories concerning Dawn. If Angelus was not around when the Dawn spell was cast then he might not have the memories of dawn implanted in his vampy head. This might lend some support to the Angelus is really Angel pretending to be Angelus theory (AIRAPTBA theory).

Discuss amongst yourselves =)

Of course this whole argument breaks down if the AIRSATB theory people are proven right. Lets pray there not.
is anyone else wondering...(spoilers for salvage, long day's journey) -- anom, 22:58:25 03/06/03 Thu

...what happened to the orb the Beast swallowed in Long Day's Journey? Was it destroyed when the Beast was killed, & is that the real reason the sun was restored (the dark energy the Beast breathed into it was released)? Or did it roll away unnoticed somewhere? Does it still have some kind of power? Angelus knows about it; did he notice if it was there when the Beast exploded? Did Wesley tell Faith about it (doubt he went into that kind of detail)? Could either of them have picked it up, & might it play some part in events to come?

Or did the Beast, erm, excrete it weeks ago? Does it even have a digestive system? I mean, we haven't seen it eat anything else, & its nether regions are so featureless there's no evidence it's equipped to excrete any more than to reproduce (sexually, anyway). So whaddya think? Is the orb still around?
[> Re: is anyone else wondering...(spoilers for salvage, long day's journey) -- Gyrus, 07:50:05 03/07/03 Fri

Unless the orb is incredibly strong, I can't imagine it survived the Beast's death. If it did, it's probably in the pile of the Beast's remains.

I imagine that the orb has served its purpose. Unless the writers give it some completely new power, I don't think we'll see it again.
[> [> Re: is anyone else wondering...(spoilers for salvage, long day's journey) -- anom, 09:39:36 03/07/03 Fri

Well, it's a mystical object, so it might not be easily destructible, & it was on the inside of the Beast, who exploded out, so it might not have been subjected to as much stress as actual parts of the Beast's body. And we don't know what purpose it served inside of Manjet--would the Ra-tet have had these things in them if they served no other purpose than to be put together to make the sun go dark? It could have all sorts of properties.
Symbiosis: Love is your Gift. -- Darby, 06:04:14 03/07/03 Fri

Not just the Slayer. The Vampire Slayer. One girl in all the world...

Why always girls? Is it just the balancing metaphor for the surface masculinity of vampirism (that's assuming that arrested adolescence and rape / procreation analogies are masculine, which is debatable), or is it something deeper?

And why teenage girls? Is it merely to pluck someone with the least to tie them to the world and toss them into the fray? Is it a control issue, since many past cultures might rate teenage girls right behind children in those most likely to follow orders?

Whose demon heart was used to create the Slayers? Watcher mythology states that the first vampire was created by the last departing demon, but what if that demon didn't depart, but was instead captured, dismembered, and its heart enslaved by shaman (maybe this is why a vampire heart, pierced by the stake / staff, is the most vulnerable part of the vampire).

I'm beginning to believe that Slayer and Vampire are more yin and yang than we've ever realized, and are forces that must be kept seperate for the dichotomy to persist.

Keep a vampire around the Slayer long enough and their demon influences start to wane. Did Angel really tap into his humanity before Buffy? How long did Spike have to hang around the Slayer before his hatred began to change to love? Was Spike made more human by his draught of Slayer blood in China, shared with Dru? Even vamps like Harmony seem less dangerous (I'm ignoring her role as comic relief here - hey, it's my hypothesis!).

How does a Slayer survive? In the past, it has either been by being lucky enough to not run into many vamps (yay for limited transportation choices!) or has been vicious enough to kill lots and lots of them. It would make sense that Buffy might be the first to associate with any for a significant length of time.

Tied into a closer symbiosis, the Slayer has connected more with the Dark Side of her nature, which fortunately is not close to being a powerful part of her personality, while connecting vamps to their lost humanity. It is the ultimate weakness of the vampire, as the oldest and most insightful (such as Darla) realize: "all that we were informs who we are," the human continues to be the integral foundation for the demon's influence. But Buffy can negate that - no wonder the First needs to get rid of her and remove the possibility of her methods (maybe the Watchers weren't as oblivious as we think) producing another such Slayer! Souled vamps can now create the balance.

Did Spike's soul return spontaneously? Did Angel's physiology change from being around Buffy, to the point that he can now sire superpeople? Don't we want to see Angel pay a visit to a fertility counselor? Is the curse a way to hide this until the proper time to reveal it?

Just wondering...
[> There might be vague S7 (to date) spoilers here, but nothing, um, spoilery -- Darby, 07:06:32 03/07/03 Fri

[> Re: Symbiosis: Love is your Gift. -- Arethusa, 07:42:03 03/07/03 Fri

Why are slayers teenaged girls?

Mythologically speaking, it's possible the Shadowmen picked a teenage girl because she had just started to menstruate, and they saw her association to blood as a tie to blood-sucking demons. (Girls tended to enter puberty later in the past than they did today.)

Back then [in antiquity] menstruating women were feared by men with holy dread as they inexplicably bled without wound or pain synchronized with the moon-tide cycles.


Her newly-developed fertility would make her able to "mate" with the demon essense, giving birth to a new creation: the Slayer.

Thus a new weapon could be forged, and the frightening power of women to create life and bleed without dying would be under the control of men. Researching my evil twin, Medusa, I found the following information:

Soon the holy image of the Gorgon Medusa as an ancient symbol of female power and wisdom became totally unacceptable. By the 6th c. BC her rites were disrupted, her sanctuaries invaded, the sacred groves were cut down, her priestesses were violated and her image defiled. Her images, (as well as women), are mastered and domesticated. Her mask was used on elaborate Etruscan lantern fixtures and stoves, probably for her relation to alchemical fire. Although the mask was widely used by country-folk, her female wisdom, natural forces, powers of creativity, destruction and regeneration were demonized and made evil. She was made into a horrid, ugly monster, (most monsters were female or born of the Earth).

Her power was usurped by men, put under their control, and she was demonized in the process. Patriarchy was maintained, by demonizing the other. A premptive strike eliminated the possible threat to masculine control.

quotes from:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/classes/finALp.html

It's a very interesting article that also discusses Medusa as the sick mother archtype.
[> [> Wow! (Spoilers, for Get It Done) -- Rahael, 08:13:06 03/07/03 Fri

Arethusa, your post just made me think of something! I'm sure everyone else knew this, but I hadn't thought about it.

The process by which the girl-to-be-a-slayer is chained up and 'demonised' in a brutal way can also be seen as an enaction of an idea - a process by which the power of women is *depicted* as dark and demonic and something to be feared, as something to be controlled and watched over. So it's like a play. One that Buffy steps into for a moment, before stepping out again. The ritual doesn't add anything, it just shows what your quote illustrated:

"Although the mask was widely used by country-folk, her female wisdom, natural forces, powers of creativity, destruction and regeneration were demonized and made evil. She was made into a horrid, ugly monster, (most monsters were female or born of the Earth)."

So what Buffy sees, experiences when she leaps is not only an actual incident, but perhaps a metaphorical depiction, that works for the viewer, and for her simultaneously.

What is Buffy rejecting exactly, in that case? Makes me go hmmmmmm. *Definitely* making me less troubled about some things. Gosh, I think my fanwanking powers are stirring to life.

In an earlier ep, doesn't Andrew refer to Eve, and womanhood? Eve, the first woman to be 'demonised'.

A girl is 'demonised' but the entire series of BtVS has *shown* us who Buffy really is.
[> [> [> Creating a mythology to gain power -- Arethusa, 08:42:37 03/07/03 Fri

Disempowerment through mythology: it happened with Eve, with the First Slayer, even Tara's family does the same thing. Reject the myth to recliam the power, which was never really lost-it was there all the time, like Buffy discovered in Checkpoint. (Like The Wizard of Oz) It would be the ulitmate message of female empowerment-women don't need anything else, supernatural or otherwise, to be powerful. They just need to use the power they already have, but were brainwashed into thinking didn't exist, or was evil.

I have a feeling I'll be thinking about this a lot more!
[> [> [> [> Me too! (Spoilers, Potential) -- Rahael, 08:47:37 03/07/03 Fri

And perhaps this starts fitting in with "Potential". Dawn finds out that she isn't "chosen". But she's still powerful, still extraordinary.

Also, thinking back to S5, Dawn thinks she's evil, but Spike points out to her that perhaps she's neither. Neither good nor evil, but containing the potential to be either. To be anything. Neither from heaven, or from hell, but from earth, even though she has been 'constructed' by men. And this 'Eve' was made with something taken from a woman, not a man.
[> [> [> [> Excellent stuff -- Caroline, 09:31:50 03/07/03 Fri

and the being chosen as a slayer metaphor fits in incredibly well with so may stories of young nymphs being chosen by the gods, and discovering their womanhood. How fitting that it should happen at puberty, since puberty is experienced as a deeply transformative process that seems to invade the innocent body, which is precisely the psychological meaning of so many of these myths (e.g. Kore/Perephone). Puberty can be experienced as an invasion to the childish body and it is the process whereby, certainly for a woman, the female powers come to fruition. And yet again, we come back to self-knowledge.
[> [> [> Snakes and ladders -- fresne, 16:51:37 03/07/03 Fri

Or perhaps, not Eve but Lilith. Woman taken from first human's side (a contemplation which always makes me think of the Platonic tale of early hermaphroditic humans divided into genders by angry gods) versus Eve, the woman made from Adam's rib.

Lilith who was cast off because she wanted to be in charge. Be on top. Although, conversely never ate the fruit of knowledge. Never clothed herself in fig leaves.

Lilith who lay with demons and was a mother to monsters. Beautiful. Powerful. Dangerous.

Succubus. Lamia. Medusa.

I suppose I should wait until I go home to post. There is a fascinating book on my shelf set in ancient Rome whose name I can't quite recall. No wait, Amazon is a wonderful thing... Euryale by Kara Dalkey. Medusa is looking for a cure for an ancient lover turned to stone. Looking for someone who can look upon her face. Living in a world that's changed from goddess worship to Roman politics. Short, but worth the read.
[> Cool thread! Ramble on Metaphors throughout the series (Spoilers to Storyteller & some Ats) -- s'kat, 10:10:31 03/07/03 Fri

First off I think Darby, Aerustha and Rah are on to something here.

My trick for figuring out if a metaphorical analysis works is to look back through the episodes, and I see the one Aerustha/Rah and Darb mention.

Throughout Season 1 Btvs - we have Buffy struggling with identity. Girl or Killer. Giles the Watcher is at first resistant to including Xander and Willow in on it. Buffy changes his mind. In fact it is because of Willow that Buffy risks her life in Prophecy Girl and she becomes greater than she was before due to two factors: one she's bitten by the Master and drowned and two brought back to life. The Vampire/Slayer mix happens here first.

Prior to Prophecy Girl - we have Buffy in Angel and again in Prophecy Girl - discover a vampire who is NOT evil, NOT a monster. A vampire who has found his path by being close to her. It is because of Buffy, Angel finally stands up to the Master and begins to work against the demons.

She wears the virginal garb - and her first blood is the wound at her neck - symbolic of first menstruation,(Prophecy Girl) just as the first kiss with Angel - causes his face to become demonic and she realizes he's a vampire in Angel-1.

In S2 - we are inundated with menstruation metaphors. From Xander discovering a tampoon in Buffy's purse in School HArd, to the When she Was Bad - rag excuse. So Buffy's first blood is brought to surface by the penetration of the Master - she literally loses her symbolic "virginity" in this scene and comes back stronger, no longer just a girl.

In S2 - she struggles with this new awarness, is it demonic?
We have Inca Mummy Girl - the virginal girl sacrificed by men to save her world, who becomes as a result a monsterous creature that can only have a normal life if she sucks the life from others with a kiss. (Nice parallel to Angel who also can only subsist by sucking life, blood, from others.)
Meanwhile we have the incestuous children of Angel: Spike and Dru, who are forever caught in adolescence, the love and passion of it - where everything is about them and nothing exists outside of their affection and jealousy they share. Showing the evil of such passion. These two also exist from draining life from others - and making more in the process. Procreating. And like the Bad Eggs later in the season - S/D the children of Angel, go after Angel and use him to re-store themselves. The children feed off the parent. Menstruation - lose blood/lining, unless it's being used to nourish a child - the child lives off of the mother.
(or the blood). In Btvs S2 - the parasite metaphor is used a lot - first in Inca Mummy Girl - sucking the life out of.
Then in Some assembly Acquires - we take parts of others, harvesting of body parts to create the perfect spouse. Then in What's My Line PArt II - using Angel's blood to restore
Dru and then Bad Eggs.

This remphasizes the concept of the bad mother/or the misconstrued Medusa/Kali image - like the bezoar monster in bad eggs, or the virgin girl sacrificed who can not give life, only take it. Menstruation - means you can give life.
Here it's shown as taking - the old fear, the fear of no control - as shown by vampires vs. slayer?

We end S2 with more blood imagery - Becoming. Where it is Angel's blood that opens the gates to hell and Angel's blood that closes them. But Buffy and Willow who in combo,
cause the closing of the gates. The magic of restoring the soul and the action of penetration. In Becoming she does it through a piercing of Angel's womb or stomach. It's not his heart. Then devastated she leaves and goes to hell herself.

She loses her virginity physically in Season 2 Innocence to a vampire - just as she lost her girlhood to a Vampire. And by the way each Vampire is connected to the last one in descending order. We have first the Master (Angel's grandsire, Angel kills his sire that season: Darla), then Angel (who takes her physical virginity causing her to pass symbolically through the sexual act to womanhood and realize her idealized love is just that idealized, not safe. Losing his soul in the process.
He kills her role-model and lover of Buffy's surrogate Dad, Giles, as result of this.) and of course it's Spike (Angel's grandson, who helps Buffy save the world to get his mother/lover back Dru...the fact Spike later falls for Buffy and makes love to her, causing him to hunt a soul as a result...is almost inevitable and works perfectly within the metaphorical formula.) Very interesting that ME chose to make each vampire that affects Buffy's journey the most, from the one that terrified her - to that one's progeny, all of the same line.

Season 3 - also has at it's core the idea of the slayer/vampire relationship. Concluding with Buffy literally fighting Faith to save Angel. Faith is interesting. Prior to the mayor, Faith is dark female energy unleashed. No one is her boss. She is a lone hunter making up her own rules and full of brass. It's not really until she falls under the authority of the snake-like Mayor that she becomes evil. The Mayor tempts her with riches not unlike the serpent tempted Eve. Prior to that and prior to the Watcher's interference - it was Angel who sought to help her. And Buffy gets Angel's help not Giles to do it.
And it is Angel, a vampire, who does eventually end up helping Faith see the light. Interesting they chose Angel over Faith's Watcher Wesley who screws up.

Also Buffy tries to take Faith - her dark sister's blood to save Angel, failing she almost dies giving her own. This results in the second vampire bite - which concludes with graduation. She is no longer bound by authority or by her dependence on Angel - which in a way also represents that, the other side of Giles. She doesn't need to be protected any more. So Angel leaves without a clear goodbye.

S4 - we deal with the struggle of hunting your own way without authority bending it to theirs and the wildness involved. And once again we get all sorts of interesting penetration metaphors. HEre Buffy's boyfriend is man who is being turned into a machine - his initiative is being removed from him. She becomes like a mother. Instead of playing daughter or virgin, Buffy starts to fall into the more maternal role in S4-6, hence the slow disappearence of Joyce. Also the principal villain was supposed to be evil masculain mother Prof Walsh. Riley and Spike are closely paralleled throughout the season - heightening the new role.
Both relate to Buffy in more of Oedipal fashion. This is very different from Buffy and Angel or the Master and Giles - which was more of an Electra or Daddy Issue story and in those seasons we saw Hank, the real Dad...until the issue was resolved in S3 and Hank completely disappeared from the scene.

So Buffy graduates from Maiden in Season 3 to Becoming the Mother in S4-6.

In 4 - she is constantly helping, healing, saving Riley. She also oddly enough is shown either discipling, protecting, or teaching Spike.

In Season5 - Buffy literally/figuratively gets a child.
Her mother dies. She takes over the maternal role in the group. And Spike switches from loving dark mother Dru to loving light mother Buffy. He becomes in a sense an odd surrogate father to Dawn. She sends Dawn to him for protection. And asks him to protect Dawn no matter what in the Gift. And it is Spike who attempts to help Dawn bring back Joyce - the mother who died. Buffy assumes the mother role at the end of Season 5. And it is bathed in blood.
It's again blood that opens the gates and blood that closes them.

In Prophecy Girl - taking of Buffy's blood - made her stronger. In Becoming - killing Angel (lover/father figure)
saved the world. In Graduation Day - giveing her blood to Angel - changed the roles. She was no longer Angel's daughter, she'd become the mother - like Darla - she saves his life. Gives her blood almost killing herself. Angel leaves, seeing this new twist as being destructive to them both and resolves it with Darla in his own series, while Buffy moves on to take the mother role with Riley.

Then S5 all the blood metaphors - except this time it's Buffy doing an exchange of blood. Dracula takes hers, she takes Drac's. Dawn mutilates herself - Buffy cuts her hand and blends their blood. Riley lets the vamp trulls suck him, because Buffy won't. We've moved to the next stage - blood as life. And it is in this season we learn Spike was sired by Dru and has mother issues. Spike, the vampire grandon of Angel, becomes Dawn's surrogate father in some ways, also the metaphorical son drenched in blood. And it is Spike who manages to get it across to Buffy that the way to save Dawn is through blood. Dawn's Blood opens the Gates.
Buffy's closes them. Mother sacrifices her life for her child - a repeat in a sense of Buffy sacrificing her life for Angel - the mother for the child and both times through blood.

Kali - savor and devourer. Medusa - the same. In S5: Glory/Buffy. In Season 4: Prof Walsh/Buffy.
(Prior years? Buffy/Master, Buffy/Angelus, Buffy/The Mayor)

So that brings us to S6, Where Willow takes on the devourer mask and Buffy the savor mask. Both are seen as mothers in Tough Love - Willow caretaking for Tara, Buffy caretaking for Dawn. Willow becomes Vengence Mama. While Buffy feels her darkness is taking over. Both willow and Buffy fall into darkness in this season. Buffy punishes Spike, the surrogate father/son. She takes out on him, her hatred of herself or what she believes she is. HEr demonic side overwhelms. And we end up with Willow/Buffy taking on almost more masculain traits while Tara/Spike seem almost feminine in contrast. Both W/B are dealing with the demonic side of their natures - part of everyone. W - can't quite control her's and believes it to be an addiction, B- is disgusted by her's. Both are proven wrong in their views.
And Spike - the son/lover/father - goes after a soul as a result of B's relationship with him. So vampire flips.
And oh DaddyGiles, the authority figure? Disappears from the scene. In a way, S6 shows what happens when the female is chained or demonized by the male, or male dominates.
The Goddess of the Earth becomes Medusa turning men to stone. Just as Willow who raises Buffy from the Earth becomes darkWillow and sends Buffy back to it. Warren - the symbol for misogyny turns Willow into Medusa.

S7....In this season, we seem to be pulling together all these themes. Showing how female/male can both be positive.
How one is not just one thing. Storyteller - brings that out with all the metanarration - showing how Andrew's view of the world isn't true. The whole unreliable narrator - that history depends on the narrator telling it. Get it Done - flips what Giles and the watcher's have told Buffy on its ear. The First Slayer was like Ampata - a virginal sacrifice to demons so men could live. The heart of the demon married to the heart of a girl - which is no different than the idea of vampire makeing more of it's own kind. (Wouldn't it be interesting if the first vampire was a female? Although I think if it were male - works better on yin/yang view.) So in Get it Done - we really go back to Prophecy Girl...where Buffy goes underground to meet her fate and is violated by a demon, dies and is reborn stronger. But in Prophecy Girl - she chose it. Get it Done - they attempt to force her.

Throughout the series we have different struggles:
1. Vampire/Slayer dichotomy
2. Watchers/Slayer conflict - which gets worse as the series progresses until Buffy literally begins to ignore them and fires them.
3. Mother-Father/Child struggles seen with Angel and his offspring, both vampire and biological, Joyce and Buffy, Buffy and Hank/Giles, Faith and The Mayor, Angel/Giles,
Willow/Shelia, Xander/Harrises, Anya/D'Hoffryn..etc.

Okay I think I lost my point somewhere in there, hence the problem with rambles. At any rate - I think for what it's worth, that we moving along the path of Maid, Mother, Wisewoman...the female empowerment - which is not about "power" in the fighting/masculain sense of the word - the way the Beast believes it to be, but is about power in the sense the guide in Intervention states or Xander tells Dawn in potential or Faith/Wes discuss in Salvage - the power to love and trust in that love, to sacrifice for others, to give mercy when it is not deserved (see how Buffy killed Angel in Becoming, with a kiss and told him to close his eyes). Wisewomen know this. They know to use power destructively - destroys the earth and breaks everything down into chaos. It's what Tara tried to tell Willow and Buffy last year. It's what Joyce tells Buffy in her dreams.

Hope made sense and adds to a cool discussion thread.

SK
[> [> Duality of Human Potential -- Briar (cold med induced rambles), 15:34:36 03/07/03 Fri

Arethusa - I am bowing to your post!*S*

This is exactly what I've see and tried to convince people of about BtVS and the mythos in the story arc from day one:

The power of woman is not in only giving life. It is in honoring life and protecting life.

The Slayer is the Chosen because she has all the aspects of the WHOLE EMPOWERED FEMALE (What is called in some metaphysical practices Reclaiming the Strong Feminine - see Laurie Cabot) ; Heart, Mind, Hand and Spirit. The combination being the ultimate anima/animus balance.

What has happened to this honoring of balance within the human psyche/spirit (and in MALE as well as FEMALE) over the last few centuries is what we see now as mysoginistic and feminatzic WAR. Neither side is capable of seeing the "Whole" as being a balance ebtween the two in the human spirit. It is seen more as a necessity of denying the side that is portrayed as "bad" with that that is seen as "good." (and of course it depends on the AGENDA of the side speaking which is "bad" and which is "good".)

It is explicitly stated in the third episode of BtVS that the signal the Slayer recieves when evil is afoot is the cramping of her womb. The womb equals life giving. The cramping relates to evil being whatever destroys the balance of life.

It isn't about who kills who. It's about why something kills.

This is also played with in the entire relationship between the Slayer and the Vampire. IF the reason Vampires kill is to feed and breed. Then is it truly in the Slayer's job description to kill them just because they are trying to live?

This is where Buffy becomes the first (reported anyway)Slayer to question her Watchers about her role in the world. Because Buffy is one of the first Chosen Ones to have been allowed to contrast her duty with her inner spirit. Partly because she has lasted longer than any other Slayer and partly because she was practically the first Slayer to have the out side balance of friends who are both Male and Female. Not to mention the influence of her true parents, because she wasn't seperated from them as many others have been for training.

Anyway... The mythos of woman as Devourer/Nurterer is strongly related to the BtVS mythos. It's a duality that is brought into focus more and more as the character of Buffy grows in the physical sense. As she ages, she finds the balance between the two side of her human spirit. She goes through the "Hero's Journey" as any other Epic Hero must. But it is the story of a Scathach or Diana, not only a Cuchuilain or Arthur or Homer. Because it is stripped of the "patriarcial" overtones that have been added to the Mythical Hero's Journey as the native religions were overtaken by Christianity and it's emphasis on Patriarcial Control.

I also see this as why the introduction of Tara/Witchcraft was imperative to the story line. It was the final return of the unfolding theology: Woman (nor man) is not relegated to being half of their entire potential. The basis of the Whole is the balance between the Anima and Animus inside the same person.

This has played out with each major character in the series:

Willow/NurseWillow/Dark Willow
SouledAngel/Angelus/DAddyAngel
BBSpike/DaddySpike/SouledSpike
OldXAnder/NewXAnder
Anyanka/Anya
DaddyGiles/RipperGiles
WellJoyce/CancerJoyce
AnneBuffy/Buffy/MamaBuffy

even
SisterFaith/EvilFaith and NurturerDawn/BratDawn (as can be with a character so new and young) has played with the duality of each human's potential to embrace and honor their duality or to push away their duality and not honor their entire Spiritual Being: HEART. MIND. HAND. SPIRIT. Yin and Yang.

The only reason why we don't see as many sides of some characters is because they either haven't been as young as some of the others as we meet them OR they haven't been tested as quickly as the others for story reasons.

Excuse me if any of this is fragmented. I'm having Dristan loopiness.*L
Sleeper agents and ravished maidens (7:8 and 4:7 with spoilers for subsequent eps) -- KdS, 07:34:38 03/07/03 Fri

Once again, apologies for the fact that now the arc on both series has started motoring it's impossible for me to discuss these eps in an unspoiled manner.

Not a great deal to say on the arc of Sleeper - it's all been pretty much covered in the debate when the ep first aired. However, SMG's performance is superb, and if you believe that her portrayal in later eps suggests a failure of compassion, this ep must be before it begins. She's determined to give Spike the benefit of the doubt throughout, even when she would be utterly justified in killing him. She may claim that her reasons for keeping him alive are purely pragmatic, but I find it very hard to believe. The facial expressions during her discussion with the club doorman were heartbreaking - much better than BY. Also note that of Buffy, Willow and Dawn, Buffy is the only one to be totally upfront about the scariest thing the FE said to her (although admittedly the fact that Spike might be killing again is less personal and more urgently relevant than Dawn or Willow's warnings). She certainly doesn't seem to be shutting people out yet. And those few seconds in the alley scene were truly terrifying. I really hope that the FE's manifestation in the last few eps is mostly SMG, which I suspect will occur for thematic reasons.

One interesting little in-reference - if you notice the scene where Buffy questions Spike in his room (boy, that's a big closet) he's initially bare-chested in leather trousers and then adds a sweater, mirroring Angelus dressing while savagely insulting Buffy in Innocence. Although Spike's well-known for his leather coats, he usually wears jeans rather than leather trousers, so I'm sure the resonance is deliberate. We also have a return to the established hairdressing pattern of gelled!Spike = evil or morally ambiguous, while messy!Spike = good.

I enjoyed the Anya-Spike scene, with Anya less overcome by lust for Spike than utterly bemused and challenged by his lack of interest in her. It was also a nice subtle joke to see her very ostentatiously sitting in direct sunlight in the scene before. We also have another excuse to show JM almost naked for those whose tastes run in that direction.

Did anyone else think there was a Crush reference in the unnamed female vampire trying to pick up Spike on the gallery at the Bronze and suggesting that they eat the young couple?

At the end of the season, we'll have to make a list of exactly who the FE manifests as in each ep and see if we can see any patterns.

So far:
Lessons: the Master, Dru, Wilkins, Adam, Glory, Warren and Buffy
Conversations With Dead People: Joyce (?), Cassie, Warren
Sleeper: Spike, Buffy

And now let's move on to Apocalypse Nowish. There seems to be some confusion about the official title for this episode - my personal opinion is that Apocalypse Nowish is one of the all-time classic ME titles, while Rain of Fire is just obvious and melodramatic.

First of all, poor Connor, the real cruelly used and abused virgin this week (unless you're of the faction that believes he did it with Sunny before she died [well, of course it would be before, he's Angel's son, not Angelus's]). I think we were all under the impression that this is Cordy's evil sleeper coming out. Rah noticed, which I'm not sure anyone else did, that Connor is actually moved to tears by Cordy's "something real" speech. Poor little bastard. My personal impression, though, is that Cordy is being influenced by something rather than an all-out fake - there are too many scenes where an all-evil Cordelia would have to be acting and have no reason to act. The "sleeper" idea ties in with the way she suddenly seems she has a purpose when leading Connor to witness the Beast's birth, and then equally suddenly seems to lose that feeling. And I may be betraying my gender here, but bloody hell, that was a lot of cleavage ;-).

The Beast - no words yet, but I'm liking him already. Just like Spike, Wilkins and Angelus, but unlike the Master, Adam, or Glory, he seems to be actually capable of laughing at himself while still being evil - those wonderful facial expressions and poses during the fight at the club must have been self-consciously ironic. With his mix of taciturnity and irony, he almost seems like an evil answer to Oz. Unfortunately, the AI and ex-AI team made the classic kung-fu movie cliche error of "one person attack him at a time while the rest stand around looking menacing". Admittedly, any entity that can react to point-blank shotgun blasts with a snigger probably couldn't have been taken out by a more concerted attack either. And giving your poncy nightclub a pseudo-occult name in a city full of real demons and black magicians is as dumb as opening a fish-and-chip shop on the site of the old Temple of Dagon (Terry Pratchett ref).

Given next week's events, my last chance to defend Gavin. Many will see his interaction with Angel this week as mere cowardice. Personally, I see it as another example of Gavin's ability to see the most advantageous thing to do without letting any pretentious concept of evil personal honour get in the way. He didn't know anything, Angel might be able to guess something and stop the Beast - just what Lilah needed an explicit argument to realise. Still related to Lilah, I was amused by this week's W/L sex scene. I heard about that line already, but I didn't expect it to be so commanding and brusque. They'd be so cute together if they could just stop trying to mindf**k each other...

We do have a specific statement that Gunn thought his killing Sidel would keep the moral stain from Fred, which is unfortunate as I wanted to believe Charles had a few brain cells. Note that Fred says "We killed Sidel" and Gunn immediately corrects her with "I killed him". Quite properly, Fred doesn't seem remotely convinced.

A moment of silence for Gunn's favourite axe. Are we thinking castration symbolism? Add the final scene of Gunn in Wes's manly arms and I can see why the slashers were so amused by this ep.

So have your Apocalypse now/ And then we can all go home...

- Peter Cook
[> Re: Sleeper agents and ravished maidens (7:8 and 4:7 with spoilers for subsequent eps) -- Rahael, 07:54:12 03/07/03 Fri

I had such a blast watching these two eps last night.

Really good point on the Angelus/Spike in bedroom mirroring! I didn't notice that.

Agreeing about the emotions playing on Buffy's face as she talked to the bouncer.

There was a brief moment in last night's ep when I became a Spuffy shipper but it disappeared (and no, it wasn't at the end, but at the beginning when Spike finds Xander and Buffy together in the flat!)

I thought the basement scene was very striking. And the scene where Buffy follows Spike through the crowds was genuinely creepy and menacing, and actually reminded me of the Hitchcockian Angel spotting Darla in the fairground scene in S2.

And LOL on the hair style of evil. Well it is. I really don't like the slicked back look, much prefer the ruffled.

Now, on to Apocalypse Nowish which I really really loved.

Can I say? Wes and Lilah are the hottest couple ever. Wes is just cool in this ep. He annoyed me in the last one, but I swooned a little in this one. Now I feel prescient that I was a Wes Lilah shipper even before Tomorrow aired!

If Wes and Lilah ooze sex appeal, the most adorable couple in the series has to be Angel and Connor for me. A big "awwwwwwwwww" to Connor. I know why the last scene is so squicky. It's because Connor exudes 'little boy' even though he's all of 18.

The beast is hilarious. He had me laughing with deligth with every self conscious sneer to camera. And the fight scene, though unfortunate for the AI team was a hoot. And I have to give a mention to Wesley pulling out those guns. I think I'm shallow. Very very shallow.

Gunn in Wes' arms? Oh yeah!!

Can I just mention that Wesley was looking really really good? LOL
[> [> Yeah for the Angel/Connor shippers! -- Masq, 09:47:49 03/07/03 Fri

Get your mind out of that repulsive gutter, people. I think Connor was one of the best ideas the AtS crew had. Angel as a father? Well, we all knew Angelus could be an evil father/mentor/tormentor to the likes of Spike and Dru, but bumbly ol' Angel with a snarky hostile human teen-aged son? What mad fiend thought this idea into the world? Hmmm... I think it was Joss, actually. Or, at least it was his idea to make Darla pregnant.

But Connor provides something important to Angel, and that's a concrete biological link to humanity. In "To Shanshu in LA", Wesley comments to Cordelia that part of Angel's problem--his detachment from life--comes from fact that he's not connected to life. He doesn't breath, grow, change. He is no longer part of the cycle of birth and death. The only thing he has to live for is his super-champion status, and that comes to him via his vampire side.

Angel needed a connection to the world, and he did find that in his friends, but he needed something more as well. Something unmistakably real. And Connor is that thing.

OK, fine, so now he has a link to life. But the baby he hoped to raise in his own image is stolen from him and comes back a patricidal teen-ager. Angel and Connor manage to bond over their obvious similarities--both are supernaturally strong warriors with a desire to fight evil. That doesn't last long. Connor was raised to hate his father, and even after he meets the good Angel, he stands on the fence between being tempted to love him and wanting to kill him.

Angel needs this hostile, contrary Connor to come to terms with himself. He wanted a son to be his reflection--to grow up with him, to be like him, to look up to him, to make him feel better about himself. But the Connor he got is the Connor who has a tendency to respond only to the less good parts of Angel.

Connor needs Angel because Angel reflects Connor's own internal struggle--as a miraculously created child of two vampires, is he something good? Is he something evil? In Angel(us), Connor sees both possibilities, and right now (episode 4.13), all he can see is the evil.
[> [> [> Completely agree (Spoilers up to Awakenings) -- Rahael, 10:02:31 03/07/03 Fri

Every single part of the Connor storyline, including the moment of conception has been an unmitigated success, in my eyes.

I never realised that even at this late stage of my Buffyverse viewing I could be so entranced!

And there are so many layers, as you point out. That vital connection, but with all the attendant tensions and contradictions that Angel has faced every single time he's tried to connect to humanity.

Connor also is trying to connect to humanity (in Apocalypse Nowish he's still working on complete sentences!) - he is like Angel only less conflicted about and hungrier for it. Which is so moving!
[> [> [> [> Jumping on the Angel/Connor ship -- yabyumpan, 11:38:21 03/07/03 Fri

I love the character of Connor, one of the most compelling in Whendonverse IMO and love all the implications for Angel. Re-watching 'Offspring' again last night (in preperation to sending S3 to TCH), I was struck again by Wesley's comment when they take Darla to Caritas

Wes: "You know the first prophecy that said that the vampire with a soul would be pivotal in the battle between good and evil?"

Gunn: "That Shanshu one?"

Wes: "Maybe it's not you. Maybe your child is a pivotal figure. Maybe your destiny is simply to help bring to the world."

I do think that connor in part represents Angel's 'Shanshu', his utimate connection to humanity and also his ambivalence about what that means. The Angel/Connor story is the one I'm most interested in on AtS
[> [> [> [> Getting aboard the Angel/Connor Train -- Scroll, 21:59:00 03/07/03 Fri

At first, I was unsure about Connor returning as a teenager, partly because I just really liked the idea of immortal Angel struggling to raise a mortal child. Looking back, I realise that would've been an impossible storyline for ME's purposes. Teen Connor is spectacular, both as a mirror for Angel and as a character in his own right. I think VK is doing an excellent job portraying him with the right mix of determination, brattiness, ferality (is that a word?), and vulnerability.

And it makes perfect, perfect sense that Connor the son is no more ready to get along with his dad than Liam the son was, way back in the 1700s. ME's Circle of Life is very funny and screwy, not at all Simba the Lion King-like.
[> Con-delia, Cordelius, and pod-people (spoilery spec past 4.7) -- Masq, 09:33:35 03/07/03 Fri

KdS, I envy your spoiled-ness when it comes to Cordelia. We here in North America had to see this inexplicable scene in which for no good reason whatsoever, Cordelia hops in bed with the boy whose diapers she used to change. Take a great episode like Apocalypse Nowish and give it an over-the-top soap-opera ending like that, and then show no new AtS epidodes for two months. Not the best plan ME and the WB ever had. Well, perhaps there was no point in showing new episodes, because most of us fans had gone hysterically blind during the last few minutes of the show.

Also, I'm with you on the theory that this is the real Cordelia who is somehow being possessed/manipulated by something else. Of course, there's that "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" reference in Apoc, Nowish, but I don't remember much about that movie. Were the people merely possessed by the pods, and could they be brought back to their normal selves?
[> [> Body Snatchers - little hope there -- KdS, 14:27:52 03/07/03 Fri

In the original film Invasion of the Body Snatchers the humans are literally murdered and replaced by the pods - no chance of redemption.
[> [> [> In a hokey version I saw, they did come back. -- WickedB-MovieBuff, 20:38:30 03/07/03 Fri

[> Re: Sleeper agents and ravished maidens (7:8 and 4:7 with spoilers for subsequent eps) -- yabyumpan, 11:22:44 03/07/03 Fri

First of all I've got to say that I'm enjoying this season of BtVS more than any since season 3. Not to much to say about Sleeper except that it was a good episode. Interesting parallel to S3 regarding Angel/Spike; in S3, Buffy hid Angel, ommiting to tell the SG about his return or that she was seeing him. With Spike, although she doesn't tell them straight away that he's back, I think it has more to do with confusion about her own feelings rather than fearing the SG's response. I though it was interesting that after finding out what was going on with Spike, she brought him into the SG circle, to decide amongst them all what they should do. Maybe it's because Giles isn't there and she's now 'in charge' but for me it showed a growth and maturity in her character.

On to Apocalypse Nowish (agree with KdS, it's the better title). A strange thing happened when I was watching this, even though I am spoiled up to Ep 19 (I have no self control, bad, bad yaby), I found I was able to view this through almost unspoiled eyes as well with the knowledge of what's to come.
My main reaction is poor,poor Connor, possibly one of the most complleing characters for me in whendonverse right now (maybe it's because he's so much like his daddy). That reaction comes from both knowing about 'evilCordy' but also just from viewing the ep in the context of where it is in the season (if that makes sense). I read so much about c/c when the ep first aired, from the balenced discussion here to disgust and down right hysteria on other boards that I was ready to be 'icked' and want to gouge my eyes out, but instead I found I was actually quite moved. Where other people just saw 'horny teen', I saw genuine respect and fondness/love for Cordelia. In the light of what we know now, it's easy to see 'manipulative/evil' Cordy, but looking at it in context with what had happened at the time, I can understand and sympathise with Cordy's despair and her actions towards both Angel and Connor. While it's true that it wasn't to long ago that Cordy was changing Connor's nappy's, it's also a life time away for both of them. Connor, obviously, because he spent 18 years in Quartoth but also for Cordy. She spent 3 months in our time, on a higher plane (do we know that that's how long it was for her? Time does seem to work differently in alternate dimensions) She then comes back with amnesia and when she does regain her memories she's getting she's getting techni-colour, sensoround memories on Angel/Angelus also, as well as frightening vision/dreams of the Beast and the apocalypse. She's a very different person from the quasi-mother figure of S3 and for some reason she feels drawn to Connor. I'm not convinced that we are this point seeing 'evil Cordy', at least not consciously. I don't have a problem with the C/C sex partly because although Connor/VK looks young, he doesn't look that young and also because I don't really have a problem with 'comfort sex' or with 'if you can't be with the one you love then love the one you're with'. I saw her as being in an absolute state of despair and hopelessness. For Cordelia that's a huge deal. She's a cheerleader, the one that bucks other people out of their depression, the one that can always put a positive spin on things. To be faced with a situation so frightening, even after all she's seen and been through, that it made her loose hope, must have been devestating for her. I can see her giving her self to Connor as her final act of 'cheerleadering', if she couldn't stop the end of the world at least it would end with her knowing that she'd been able to give Connor some happiness. In that context, I don't see it as out of character or 'wrong'. She wasn't being overtly sexual or seductive just giving. Maybe I've just got a warped sense of 'right' and 'wrong' but I don't think any of us know how we'd react to truely believing that the end of the world had arrived, I just find it difficult to be judgemental of her.
Connor, I've got a whole essay in my head about Connor, his need for love, his confusion about his place in the world, his complex emotions about all 'three' of his parents. I'm going to try to work on that tonight so I'm not going to get into that now.

As for the rest of the epeisode; W/L does nothing for me but I did like Wes working with the rest of AI. I'm not really into the action/fight scenes so the fight with the Beast didn't really do anything for me although I did wince at Angel's neck wound. Not impressed as most people seem to be with Wesley's 'Matrix' gun routine but that's more to do with my intense hatred of guns than any bashyness towards Wes. There's probably an essay in there though about Wes's relationship with guns. He's the only one in AI to use guns even before things fell apart (Epiphany and maybe other times as well).
Loved the Angel/Lilah conversation in her office. Interesting that Angel got slammed when he tortured Linwood in 'Forgiving' (that's always on people's list of the 'bad' that Angel has done) but I haven't heard any condemnation of his torturing of Gavin, why is that?

All in all, a great episode, wonderfully written, directed and acted. It does feel like the season has really started now, I can feel that I'm going to have to put my seat belt on for the ride. Roll on next Thursday.
[> [> Re: Sleeper agents and ravished maidens (7:8 and 4:7 with spoilers for subsequent eps) -- Miss Edith, 12:23:41 03/07/03 Fri

You mention that none of us know how we would react to the end of the world. I think the difference is that Cordy has had to face that possibility several times. In Graduation Day her life was threatened and she still pitched in and helped. That was why it seemed inexplicable to me that she would just give up and offer Conner sex. It seemd out of character for Cordy to abandon all hope and didn't make sense to me at the time.
[> [> [> Re: Sleeper agents and ravished maidens (7:8 and 4:7 with spoilers for subsequent eps) -- yabyumpan, 13:06:46 03/07/03 Fri

I do think there's a big difference this time for a few reasons:
Facing Apocalypse stuff on BtVS, she always had Buffy and the Scoobies. She had faith that it could be defeated and it always was.
For the past few years she has also had Angel, now because of the memories of him that she's experienced, she's feeling very unsure of him.
This is also the first time she's actually had an apocalypse in her head, she's experiencing it, tasting the blood of the victims. She's also met the Beast face to face, Connor, who was known as the 'Destroyer' in Quartoth, can defeat him and has been 'broken' for the first time in his life.
I also see her despair and hopelessness as a culmination of all she's been through in the past 7 years, from finding out about demons etc, to to loosing everything and having to start over in L.A. loosing Doyle and getting the visions, nearly dying and knowing she was going to die, becoming part demon and now all that's happened in the past 6 months. There's only so much that someone can take and it's often those that appear the strongest that fall the hardest.
Her self image is built upon doing good, being able to help. I think having the apocaplypse playing in techni-colour in her head and meeting the Beast head on just the final straw which took away her last shred of hope.
I think you can liken it to Angel sleeping with Darla, absolute despair and hopelessness. I think just like Angel did in 'Reprise', Cordelia just gave up.
[> [> [> [> Also.... -- yabyumpan, 13:12:41 03/07/03 Fri

Just a quick added thought before I head off to work...
Maybe the 'evil' that's inside her now needed her despair and hopelessness to be able to take over. Why else would she be shown all that Angelus did and felt? To seperate her from the one person who has been her hope, to cut her off from her 'champion'. I think it's possible that she'd been played up to this point so that her 'spirit' was as weak as possible and would not be able to resist being taken over.

off to work now :-(
[> [> [> [> [> Your idea works as well as mine -- KdS, 14:30:31 03/07/03 Fri

Yes, I do sort of see that having sex with Connor could have been in character. I'd still go for demonic manipulation though on balance.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I agree with umm some of you (spoiler Salvage) -- WickedBuffy, 21:05:15 03/07/03 Fri

My question is... why sex? I can understand from Connor, a teenage virile virgin with a crush - but Cordy? As much as she is compassionate and loving now, she also has her integrity and basic personality. Cordys sexcapades were virtually nill up til now, I think. (Maybe I'm disremembering.) ::not counting her husband, Grue::

Just from all I've seen of Cordy on Buffy and up thru AtVS, it's out of character. She might hold him and talk to him and comfort him - like she did when he was a baby, in a more motherly type fashion. But the sex? It didn't ring true to me, either. Especially with the turmoil of her conversations with Angel still going on about their relationship. It seemed more like something from a soap opera Cordy might watch than from something she'd actaully do.
[> [> [> [> I would still say the end of the world isn't such a big deal... -- Miss Edith, 13:17:40 03/07/03 Fri

that it would cause Cordelia to act so out of character. I guess I was just thinking of Helpless when Cordelia offered herself to Conner, "Oh man is the world ending again. I have to do a paper on Bosnia but if the worlds ending I'm not gonna bother". And "If the world doesn't end I'm gonna need a note". I loved early Cordelia.
[> [> Linwood and Gavin -- KdS, 14:33:49 03/07/03 Fri

I think it's because we actually saw Angel preparing to torture Linwood whereas we didn't know about Gavin until it was all over. Also it's fairly strongly stated that Gavin spilled the beans with threats alone. Of course, most of us probably think that Angel would have tortured him anyway, but those who idealise Angel can still think he was just threatening.

Also nice comment about Wes's lack of the inhibitions most Buffyverse characters have about firearms - I think it's meant to be another sign of his more ruthless attitude thanks to CoW training.
Good roundtable discussion -- dream, 09:56:47 03/07/03 Fri

with all the usual suspects in Buffy criticism on www.poppolitics.com.
[> In agreement. Y'all should go there. -- deeva, 10:15:28 03/07/03 Fri

[> Ditto. Very good -- Sophist, 13:15:23 03/07/03 Fri

[> Would agree. Great discussion on narratives -- s'kat, 09:54:23 03/08/03 Sat

Eagerly awaiting Round II to be posted along with conclusion.

What is fascinating about the discussion between these four academics and writers is they are discussing not the characters per se, like we do, or necessarily the plot, but rather the structure of the narrative and how it flows together.

They express how Btvs is no longer episodic in any way, in fact it's clear this season that Whedon has abandoned the episodic/stand alone narrative completely and made it a self-referential serial. You won't understand the story - if you haven't seen everything that came before.

Lines like "What's a word for glowing? has to rhyme" said in STSP and referring to Fool for Love are examples of this.

They also state that it is almost impossible to judge or figure out the episodes by themselves - you almost need to see the season as a completed whole to get them. They clearly link together. A structure they state is similar in some ways to Twin Peakes.

And JAmes B. South mentions how there are a ton of allusions to Hamlet's soliquey and how "during the sleep of death, what dreams may come." He wonders/worries if maybe the past two years are nothing but a dream Buffy is having after she died. Have to say, the same thing has occurred to me. Certainly explains the time wonkiness, and non-sequitor moments.

It's an interesting series of articles, 11 pages total and well worth a read.
[> Re: Good roundtable discussion -- Silky, 04:57:16 03/09/03 Sun

So, Rounds 2 and 3 haven't been posted there yet? Couldn't find them.
A Question of Faith -- F.F., 12:31:28 03/07/03 Fri

Do we know anything about Faith's family? I can't remember her ever mentioning her mother or father. She doesn't seem like someone who was raised by her Watcher like Kendra was. Also do we know how she found out she was a Slayer? Did she know she as a potential before she was chosen or did she find out after like Buffy did? I'm just trying to figure out what her influences are or were. It seems to me that Faiths initial turn to the dark side was motivated by fear of abandonment which explains both her loyalty to first the Mayor and now to Angel.
[> Re: A Question of Faith -- Miss Edith, 12:51:15 03/07/03 Fri

In FHAT Faith beats up a vampire pretty badly and snarls "my dead mother hits harder than that". In Enemies when planning to torture Buffy she mentions asking her mother for toys and also a puppy so she could have something to love. "But mom was real busy with the drinking and passing out parts of life so I never really got what I wanted". In Graduation Day part one she talks to the mayor about her childhood in Boston. Apparently she was braver than the other kids, and her mother called her a "little firecracker" because Faith was always running around. Faith suddenly stops talking looking sad at that point.

We also get references to her distrust of men with several episodes seeing her state you can't trust guys. That has led to some speculation that her past may include sexual abuse. She certainly bonds with the mayor and seems very flattered when he puts her in the pink dress and tells her "no father could be prouder". Her dream in TYG sees her and ther mayor enjoying a picnic.

As for her watcher she mentions to Buffy in FHAT that she and her female watcher were close, and Faith saw her tortured to death, "They don't have a word for what he did to her...I saw what he did to her, what he was going to do to me, and I ran". She seems haunted by shame and regret because of this, and clings to Ms Hope in Revelations appreciating the disipline offered. She is furious when Ms Hope's life is under threat by Angel, "I can't believe how much I'm gonna kill you" so she does latch on to people and seems very needy. At the end of that episode of course she tells Buffy "You just can't trust anyone, and I should have learned that by now".
[> [> Re: A Question of Faith -- Miss Edith, 13:10:38 03/07/03 Fri

Also in Enemies Faith shouts at Buffy "You get the boyfriend, the watcher, the mom, the little scooby gang. What do I get, jack squat. This was supposed to be my town". She was running from her past and ready to start a new life. In FHAT she seems keen to impress Buffy and her friends, as well as wanting to bond with Joyce. She flatters Buffy in their first meeting into sharing her own tales, says she would have been sad to drop out of school with people like Xander and Willow around, flirts with Giles "If I'd have known they came that young and cute I would have requested a transfer".

Unfortunately Faith didn't get the family she was looking for as big sister Buffy was irreplaceable in the other characters eyes. This led to Faith's frustration and decision to team up with the mayor and his henchman. He offered her the support that she was clearly craving from Giles but all he offered when Buffy was complaing about Faith was "It's natural she's focused on the slaying. She doesn't have a whole other life here like you do". Faith was left in the grotty apartment, with Giles seeming impressed by her zest not realising she wasn't just a slayer. but a young girl with needs. He treated Kendra much the same way, Buffy being the only exception.

The Mayor was actually interested in flattering Faith's skill as a warrior offering her unconditional love. He also arranged for her to move into a nicer apartment, brought her new dresses and cookies, turned down her sexual advances firmly saying he was a family man. All that was clearly what Faith was looking for as opposed to her flirtation with Giles resulting in his discomfort and not knowing how to handle it, and the others being disgusted by Faith's blatency, "Raise you ahnd if ewww". Wesley again only saw Faith as a slayer, not a teenage girl needing love and security. The mayor recognised Faith's needs and zoomed in on them.

And in Consequences Xander tries to talk to her, but Faith refuses to believe he is after anything other than sex. She mentions the fact that he is probably going to use her, and only wants to defend her in court to improve his rep "You'd dig that wouldn't you? Getting up in front of all your geek pals and letting them know how I made you my boy toy for a night". In that episode she links sex and violence getting turned on by choking Xander, at the same time kissing him possibly planning a rape? She seems experienced with S&M. When Angel has her chained up in Consequences he says he's trying to help her and she scornfully says "That's what they all say. Then it's just let me stay the night. I won't try anything". I would say her past may well involve sexual abuse from her mother's boyfriends. Just speculation though.
Is Buffy actually dead ? -- Elabou, 15:15:10 03/07/03 Fri

In Sleeper,the First Evil appeared as Buffy to Spike. What does this mean? Is Buffy actually dead? or just living on borrowed time?

Any comments?

Thanks
[> Re: Is Buffy actually dead ? -- grifter, 15:20:39 03/07/03 Fri

Buffy died twice and was later resurrected (Prophecy Girl and The Gift).

Apparently The First can appear as any dead person or person who once was dead.

Or there´s some greater meaning behind this which will be revealed in the end, you just never know with ME series! ;)
[> [> Technically... (Spoilers for 'Villains') -- Gyrus, 15:31:46 03/07/03 Fri

Buffy died twice and was later resurrected (Prophecy Girl and The Gift).

Technically, it was three times -- in "Villains", Buffy flatlined for several seconds in the ER before Willow revived her.
[> [> [> wait.... -- seven, 15:38:00 03/07/03 Fri

i never thought that she flatlined. I got the impression that she was hurt, but would be ok. When Warren was bragging to the demons at the bar about how he shot the slayer, they inform him that the news just mentioned a girl was shot earlier in the day but she was going to recover.

Only after that scene did we see Willow take out the bullet. I was under the impression that Willow just speeded up the process. But then again, this could just be an editing glitch and the Warren scence was supposed to be after it. Perhaps they wanted it to appear that Warren had a bigger head start.
[> [> [> [> In any case, there is an arguement to be made for three. -- Briar Rose, 15:48:46 03/07/03 Fri

1. The Master.

2. Swan Dive.

3. Flat lined in Grave. OR Buffy was technically dead when she was talking to Faith about Little Miss Muffet, after feeding Angel to save him. Faith was in a deep coma and Buffy was either dead or in a deep coma. Both were seen as not being "alive" in the normal sense of the word as used clinically.

By my count - Buffy has died at least four times.*L I will be happy to give up one of those beliefs because she's turning into Jason, IMO. So PLEEZE give me the definitive arguement so I can erase one and go back to "I've died thrice..." Because I don't buy "I've died twice..." at all. Excpet that thrice is not a word that Buffy would blurt out, even in song.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: In any case, there is an arguement to be made for three. -- Gyrus, 15:54:59 03/07/03 Fri

OR Buffy was technically dead when she was talking to Faith about Little Miss Muffet, after feeding Angel to save him. Faith was in a deep coma and Buffy was either dead or in a deep coma. Both were seen as not being "alive" in the normal sense of the word as used clinically.

Buffy certainly wasn't dead in any sense during that scene in GD. She woke up on her own (rather than having to be resuscitated), and if she had been "brain dead", she wouldn't have been able to dream.
[> [> [> [> [> [> I agree with your argument! Thanks because I had counted four. -- Briar Rose, 15:47:27 03/08/03 Sat

I was going with the fact that Buffy was also "tracking death" in that pair of episodes in the hospital. The KinderGhoul was visiting children who were going to die. Buffy was the only one over 12 that appeared to be able to see him. And that was what I read as the writer's way of saying that Buffy was actually close to detah and then with the Faith/Buffy mutual dream it appeared to be the writers saying: Yep - Buffy died.

I would argue that "brain dead" doesn't necessarily negate "dreams" however...*L Because brain dead people dream of "seeing the light" many times if they are subsequently resuscitated out of that state. When a friend of mine was almost pronounced dead, but then they tried for one final time to shock her back, she came back from an "afterlife" experience, even though they had been ready to pronounce her completely dead; Brain waves, heart, sinus... everything was flat line.

But she came back fully and still remembers her "dream" vividly.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hamlet again I'm afraid -- Celebaelin, 03:33:19 03/09/03 Sun

"Ay, there's the rub. For in that sleep of death what dreams may come."

Hamlet III.1 65-66
[> [> [> [> [> OK - Buffy did not die in Villains -- Dochawk, 16:54:34 03/08/03 Sat

I looked at that scene several times and she didn't flat line. And even if she did for as long as several seconds it wouldn't mean anything about death. Death is the end of brain activity, not heart activity and it takes longer than several seconds with no heartbeat to cause braindeath. And finally there are many people out there whose heart's stop for several seconds and never feel it. soemtimes they just show up in the ER saying I feel dizzy.

Based on the above, Buffy didn't die either in GD (she was dreaming therefore she had brain activity) nor Villians.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OK - Buffy did not die in Villains -- Gyrus, 17:05:26 03/08/03 Sat

Death is the end of brain activity, not heart activity and it takes longer than several seconds with no heartbeat to cause braindeath.

By that definition, Buffy probably didn't die in Prophecy Girl, either. If she had been brain dead, Xander could not have resuscitated her.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OK - Buffy did not die in Villains -- Dochawk, 17:07:25 03/08/03 Sat

Yup I agree, see my post below.
[> [> [> [> Re: wait.... -- Gyrus, 15:50:06 03/07/03 Fri

All the demons knew (from watching the news) was that Buffy was still alive some time after Warren shot her. They were only speculating that she would recover, since they knew that Slayers are fast healers.

In the ER, Buffy's heart monitor stops beeping (after Willow makes the doctors leave) and just makes a steady whine, which I assume indicates a lack of heartbeat. Also, after Willow takes out the bullet and Buffy wakes up, Xander says, "You've got to stop doing this. This dying thing's funny once, maybe twice...," implying that Buffy had just died for a third time.
[> [> [> [> seven is correct -- Sophist, 16:29:59 03/07/03 Fri

The way I understood it, Willow's magical energy shorted out the electrical equipment.

From the shooting script:

Suddenly, the lights in the room start to flicker.


NURSE #2
BP - it's... I don't know what it's doing...

We can hear the heart monitor start to go crazy - slowing and speeding up... Now we see that all the electrical monitors in the room are malfunctioning.


NURSE #1
What's happening? It's-

A firm voice stops them.


WILLOW (O.C.)
Leave.

REVEAL WILLOW

She's ever so slightly more pale now and still big with the black eyes and hair (which both stay until further notice). She stands near the doors. Xander moves in behind her, stunned, as the medical personnel put down their instruments.


XANDER
Willow-

Willow ignores him. Just continues her command.


WILLOW
Now.

NOW THE DOCTOR AND TWO NURSES silently file out of the room.


XANDER
Will! What are you doing?! She's going to die-


WILLOW
No she isn't.

Willow moves to Buffy - focuses... The lights dim and a GLOW OF MYSTICAL ENERGY gathers around them.


XANDER
The magic. It's not right. You said...

But Willow isn't listening. She's in a trance-like state - concentrating intently on Buffy's chest. A beat - and the BULLET that nearly killed Buffy slowly RISES OUT of her, Buffy's chest wound magically closing after it lifts out. Xander is stunned silent.

And from the transcript:

Suddenly all the lights flicker and the machines blink off and on again. The steady beeping begins to speed up. The doctor and nurses look up in confusion.

NURSE #1: What's happening?

Angle on the other side of the room as Willow comes into view. We see Xander through the window in background.

WILLOW: Leave.

Xander sees her, hurries toward the side and out of view.

The doctor and nurses turn to look at Willow. She is now wearing all black, her hair and eyes still black too.

The lights in the room continue flashing erratically and the beeping continues to speed up.

Xander rushes in, looks with surprise at Willow with her newly black hair and eyes.

XANDER: Willow.

WILLOW: (ignoring him, speaking to the medical staff) Now.

The doctor and three nurses move toward the door. The beeping gets even faster and becomes a steady whine.

XANDER: Will, what are you doing?! She's going to die.
WILLOW: No she isn't.

Willow moves over to Buffy, stands beside her and stares down at her. The beep/whine continues. Xander stares.

Close on Buffy. Suddenly the bullet lifts up out of her chest and floats up into the air, hovering at Willow's eye-level. Willow looks at it. The beeping stops.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: seven is correct -- Gyrus, 10:03:37 03/08/03 Sat

Pure Sophistry!

Just kidding -- your explanation makes perfect sense. Though Xander's line about Buffy dying again makes me think that at least HE thought she was dead.
[> [> [> [> [> [> And Xander (and the ME writers) gained their medical degrees where? -- Dochawk, 16:57:20 03/08/03 Sat

Didn't mean to sound snarky, but death has a dx!itive medical defintion and the heartbeat has nothing to do with it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Doctors have one definition; supernatural metaphysicists have another -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:51:36 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> another reason to agree -- anom, 23:49:28 03/08/03 Sat

"XANDER: Will! What are you doing?! She's going to die--
WILLOW: No she isn't."

This implies Willow acts in time to keep Buffy from dying (again). In addition, if Buffy had died from the bullet wound, the same condition would have applied to her that kept Willow from being able to revive Tara: it would have been "a human death, by human means." Willow wouldn't have been able to bring her back to life.
[> Re: Is Buffy actually dead ? -- pilgrim, 12:07:08 03/08/03 Sat

Is Buffy the only apparently still-alive person whom the First has appeared as? I think so. We have the parade of villains in Lessons, then Warren, Jonathan, Spike, Nikki, Cassie, Joyce (maybe). I'm with you--the conclusion that the First can appear as Buffy because she was dead and revived seems too convenient. More fundamentally, why can the First appear only as the dead and not the living? Does it have some control over the realm of the dead, so that it can appropriate forms, images, memories, traits (But not souls, or essences?--the First's impersonations always seem a bit off, as though the "real" person isn't being presented--and perhaps in the buffyverse, the souls of the dead are off living somewhere in the ether, or heeaaven? And, interestingly, the First also can't impersonate the material bodies. Hmmm.) How can the First have access to Buffy's image, memories, traits so as to impersonate her, if she's not now in the realm of the dead? When she died temporarily, did she leave behind an imprint in the First's consciousness of her image and memories?

I'm also still thinking Giles is actually dead. His story of how he escaped the bringer just doesn't make any sense. He's not the First, but perhaps he was magically restored by the coven or something, for the purpose of defending the slayer line. Plus, if Giles ends up dead at the end of the series, that would fit the theme of children growing up, new generation replacing older generation, women growing beyond the influence of the paternal figure.
[> [> the FE also appeared as Spike & Drusilla -- Scroll, 12:41:43 03/08/03 Sat

Is Buffy the only apparently still-alive person whom the First has appeared as?

Of course, Spike and Drusilla are vampires. They've died once already, when they died as humans and rose as vampires. Buffy has died twice, and been revived through CPR and resurrected through magic.

Basically, the First Evil can manifest itself as anyone who has died, but of course these people don't necessarily have to still be dead.

Hope that helps :)
[> [> [> Re: the FE also appeared as Spike & Drusilla -- pilgrim, 13:12:25 03/08/03 Sat

Right, but Buffy is, I think, the only person it has appeared as who currently is actually alive. Vampires have dead bodies, magically re-animated, and no souls (well, except for Spike). Buffy's body currently is alive, not dead--she has a heartbeat, she breathes, etc. She has a soul, I presume. So, there's a difference between Spike/Dru and Buffy. Buffy _was_ dead. I mean, the interesting question to me is, what does it tell us about that elusive thing, the FE, that it can only appropriate the images of dead people and, apparently, people who once were dead?
[> [> [> [> I think the First Evil is a ghost. -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:38:12 03/08/03 Sat

The First Evil, as we see it now, isn't the actual First Evil itself, but rather its spirit. The true First Evil died sometime around the creation of the universe (or possibly multiverse). It passed into the realm of dead spirits after that, the world's evil being merely the after effects of its life. However, Giles referred to the Bringers in "Amends" as being able to "conjure spirit manifestations", thus bringing the ghost of the First Evil into a state of semi-being. Under this theory, the First can appear only as the dead, because it only has true control over those, like itself, who are of the world beyond death.
[> [> [> [> [> 'spirit manifestations' ... pop quiz!!! -- WickedBuffy ::threadjump -the Voy eats from beneath me::, 14:33:48 03/08/03 Sat

spir·it
n.
1.
a. The vital principle or animating force within living beings.
b. Incorporeal consciousness.
2. The soul, considered as departing from the body of a person at death.
3. Spirit The Holy Spirit.
4. A supernatural being, as:
a. An angel or a demon.
b. A being inhabiting or embodying a particular place, object, or natural phenomenon.
c. A fairy or sprite.
5.
a. The part of a human associated with the mind, will, and feelings: Though unable to join us today, they are with us in spirit.
b. The essential nature of a person or group.

Isn't it strange how the meaning of the word "spirit" jumps back and forth between human and demon definitions? It seems to encompass certain ideas some of us have been keeping separate. Is FE coming from within all the characters? Is it the soul of an Evil Thing? Is it an actual demon? Is it the mind, will and feelings of the Scoobies etc summoned by the Bringers into an Incorporeal consciousness? Or is it the essential nature of them - brought to light - that the Bringers pulled from their collective selves?
[> [> [> Imagine the confusion if this was happening in VampWillows world. -- WickedBuffy, 14:39:21 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> Interestingly... It's never appeared as Angel.*S* -- Briar Rose, 15:52:27 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> [> Hmmmm, now that I think about it -- Dochawk, 17:06:18 03/08/03 Sat

Did Buffy actually die in Prophecy Girl? I will have to go back to the episode and look, but I am not sure. (see my definition of death above) or here:

"More recently, a commission created by former United States president Ronald Reagan in 1981, for the purpose of, among other things, establishing a definition of death, concluded that the diagnosis of death would require that physicians establish the presence or absence of brain activity, given that no bodily functions can occur spontaneously without the help of the brain (Burnell 68-69)"

CPR frequently rescutates people who stop breathing or whose heart momentarily stops beating in an organized fashion, but I have never heard of it reviving someone who is truly dead, since it does nothing to restart electrical activity in the brain. My guess is from a medical viewpoint, Buffy has only died once (The Gift).
[> [> [> [> I can't agree Dochawk.... -- Briar Rose, 02:59:25 03/09/03 Sun

Read over the "Stages of Death" that is available with a Google search and you'll find that clinical death and brain death are not only different, but also have different degrees. There are something like SEVEN stages of death, and any and all are considered "clinical death" in practice at this time in all medical facilities, except for EMT services.

The reason why they sometimes will not resuscitate a person is because "Brain death" can happen without phsysical death and vise' versa. Lack of oxygen to the brain for over 7 minutes CAN cause "brain death" but the body can still function with/without machines. They sometimes resuscitate anyway IF the family refuses to give permission for "No heroic measures" status for the patient OR if they are in fact in an EMT vehicle, where "right to die" and "No heroic measures" directives do not apply.

I know of one person who was both physically dead AND brain dead. She was showing no sinus rythym, no heart beat, no brain activity... but they still tried ONE more time to revive her and she came back. She was very bad for a while with a sort of comatous thing. When she got past that, she remembered Nothing about the death incident, or why it happened (it was a reaction to a chemical the doctor gave her for an infection) but she remembered the "White Light" and got back all her faculties, except for severe migrains and some other health problems she's doing fine 10 years later.

In the alternative, my Grandfather was considered Brain Dead and we shut off the machines. He still had a heart beat and sinus activity for 18 hours after the machines were turned off. "Brain Dead" usually means that all logical function is gone, not that electrical impulses are also non-existant.

So I can believe that Buffy was dead as the medicos would call it at least twice, and I still say there could be an arguement for three times. But I definitely think the writers are correct with twice.
a question on Crush -- manwitch, 19:27:26 03/07/03 Fri

I don't get Angel until Saturday, thanks to the UCONN Huskies men's basketball team. But tonight I did watch Crush on FX. And also a little bit of some countdown of the hundred greatest albums on VH1, in which the Prince album 1999 ranked higher than Dark Side of the Moon. So, its like, not Purple Rain that at least a few people know a couple of horrible songs off of it, but 1999, a record that nobody remembers anything off of, not even the incredibly annoying title song, is considered a better "album," like album in its entirety, then Dark Side of the Moon, which spent something like all of history on the top 100 albums chart and was actually conceived as an album. Whatever. I'm sure the white album and Abbey Road will rank behind whatever the most recent Justin Timberlake album is. I don't really see the point in rankings like that if Brooke Burke isn't giving it. And if she is, the point still isn't the countdown.

But so Crush.

I think Crush is one of the truly great Buffy episodes. But please, express your own opinion on the matter:

( ) Agree ( ) Agree Strongly


But it made me want to ask, why is Spike's love for Buffy every bit as threatening to her as his desire to kill her? She is willing to let him release Drusilla to kill her rather than say, "Gee, Spike, that's really flattering." The fact that Spike is an evil killer is not a reflection on Buffy. The fact that through love, she has a hold over him is. Even just as a tactical maneuver, it seems like it would be worth it to say, "Gee, Spike, I don't know what to say."

Which goes to the point in general of why is it, in our culture, that a confession of love or desire unsolicited is one of the most egregious offences one can commit? I mean, if you stop and intellectualize about it, it's kinda nice. But it cuts people to the quick.

Is Buffy's response fair? Not that life is about fair.

Also, it seemed to me that Buffy had, in fact, nipped it in the bud. "No. 'We' don't have to do anything. There is no 'we.'" I don't think she could've been much more clear. Willow's response that Buffy couldn't avoid Spike until she was sure she had nipped it in the bud struck me as an inaccurate assessment of the situation. Speaking as a guy who also has something of a thing for Buffy (and for her sister a little bit), I think if she came back for any reason, I would interpret the action-wanting to come and be with me and talk to me again-to be more significant than anything she might say while there. So in returning to Spike's lair, he might interpret her to be saying "maybe."

Willow says to Buffy, "If he thinks there is a chance, there's no telling what he might do." And then the scene cuts to the awesome scene of Spike and Dru at the Bronze. So, feeling that there is no chance, Spike is off doing something horrific. But when he returns to his crypt and finds, lo and behold, Buffy has come back to look for him, he suddenly finds himself capable of overcoming Drusilla.

Does "never" ever produce better behavior than "maybe?"

I understand why people other than me might think that Spuffy is not a good thing (this is not a comment on lunasea's series of posts), but I don't entirely understand how he wouldn't be a compelling character to everybody. I think there are a lot of people like him in the world, experiencing very real very deep feelings, but with no idea of how to behave. He evokes a certain amount of compassion, because one feels like we're letting him down, you know, not showing him the right way.

I know not everyone agrees with me. My wife, for example, thinks Dark Side of the Moon is appreciated only by sweaty high school boys who smell like bong water. If that's true, God knows what kind of person likes 1999.

PS. As I write this, the white album has come in at number 11, and the top ten has included Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road, and Rubber Soul, interspersed with Dylan, Hendricks, and Stevie Wonder. Marvin Gaye, The Beach Boys, and Nirvana fill in the top spots before Revolver is selected as number one. I guess I won't complain. At least they didn't get ridiculous.
[> LOL. Agree strongly -- Sophist, 19:40:25 03/07/03 Fri

Crush is one of my all time favorite episodes. I'm with you on the guy thing too. I'm curious if the female Board members think that Willow and Joyce gave Buffy good advice.

Not only is Dark Side of the Moon vastly superior to 1999, I'm even willing to bet Pink Floyd knows when the 20th Century actually ended.
[> [> 'Dinosaur in a Haystack,' p. 22 -- d'Herblay, 20:07:05 03/07/03 Fri

And how many times does Stephen Jay Gould cite Pink Floyd? Exactly as many as they deserve.
[> [> [> Time's Arrow -- Sophist, 10:18:27 03/08/03 Sat

Gould also wrote an entire book explaining why we should treat the millenium as beginning with the year 2000. Lost me on that one he did.
[> [> [> [> Re-title the above as 'The Mismeasure of Time' -- Sophist, 12:02:00 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> Re: LOL. Agree strongly -- sk, 20:19:34 03/07/03 Fri

I'm curious if the female Board members think that Willow and Joyce gave Buffy good advice.

My vote as a female - no they gave Buffy really bad advice.
She should have stayed away. Her return confused him. But then Buffy was not completely up-front with them - she did a lot more than just lead Spike on by beating him up. She left Joyce and Dawn with him when she was most afraid.
Why didn't Joyce call her on that??

Agree on everything else.

Crush is in my top 25 favorites.

SK
[> [> [> I can't agree here, s'kat -- Scroll, 21:10:13 03/07/03 Fri

But then Buffy was not completely up-front with them - she did a lot more than just lead Spike on by beating him up. She left Joyce and Dawn with him when she was most afraid.

I don't think it's fair of us to say that Buffy was leading Spike on because she was beating him up. Buffy truly didn't understand that, to Spike, a beating or two constituted "flirting". To Buffy, she was treating him like she would the average demon at Willy's Bar, or even Willy himself. Buffy beats information out of informants; to her, it's business, nothing more. When I think of a girl "leading on a guy", I have to believe that the intent is there. I don't see intent in Buffy's actions.

Also, leaving Joyce and Dawn with Spike just made common sense. Spike had shown a fondness for both Joyce and Dawn, and he could occasionally be persuaded to help out Buffy when things got bad -- for a price. In fact Spike's first response is, "I need your cash." I can't expect Buffy to not take his words at face value. What, she's supposed to be psychic? She was going to pay him. But she did trust him, I will agree with you there. She trusted him to look after Joyce and Dawn because Spike was the strongest one there.

But I don't see how any of that constitutes "leading him on". I give you that she was clueless. But I don't think clueless = leading a guy on, either. I could be wrong, I'm no expert on dating or guy-girl relations. Perhaps your interpretation is different.

Take it and run : )
[> [> [> [> Re: I can't agree here, s'kat -- s'kat, 09:41:01 03/08/03 Sat

At first I would have argued - yes it just makes common sense for her to bring Joyce and Dawn to Spike, but let's think about this for a minute.

Buffy gives Spike mixed signals. She keeps bugging him to help her, instead of ignoring him. Punches him for no reason most of the time. Follows him when he says he has something to show her.

Fool For Love - her interactions with him in this episode are very interesting. She lets him comfort her. She confides in him (or so I think we can safely assume from the fact he seems to know more than Riley does in the next episode, which literally takes place the next morning - Shadow.)

Out of My Mind - he says he can't get away from her. Makes sense, we see her constantly coming to him for information.
She doesn't leave him alone. And no it's not the same as Willy. She goes to Willy in the bar, not Willy's home. She barges into what amounts to Spike's bed-room and living room. He even mentions at one point that she can at least knock.

Real Me - when she gets information from Spike, she continues to hit him afterward. She did not act this way with willy.

Now granted Spike has shown that he's willing to help on occassion - this happens in Triangel, Family, but why she never questions this is interesting. Why did he help them out in Family? With literally nothing in return?
Why did he help in Triangle? Is Buffy an idiot? Or is she just merely oblivious like most women, myself included, to someone liking her? Perhaps the idea that someone she considers to be a monster, a thing, falling in love with her is too horrible to contemplate - b/c Buffy can't consider him anything more than that - if she considers he's a person not a thing, capable of deep feelings - what does this say about her occupation, vampire slaying?
What does it say about her Watcher, Giles? what does it say about Angelus? If Spike is capable of being something other than just a monster, creature, harmless thing - than does that mean Dracula was right about her? Is she a "killer"?
These are issues I'm not sure she can face. It's easy to look at it in black and white. Fire Bad, Tree Pretty.
Angel good, soul=love. Spike = harmless evil dog with chip, without chip = bad evil thing that I slay. (I wonder if she's ever dealt with the fact that it was Spike for whatever reason - who helped her save the world in Becoming, or if she answered that question with well he did it to get Dru back or just ignored it.)

On top of all this we have Buffy bringing her family, the two people she loves most to Spike's crypt without offering money or anything. That's a level of trust that is well remarkable and by the way she never did that with Angel. Never placed the welfare of someone she loved in his care in that fashion. Nor did she ever do it with Riley - that's why Riley left. Spike is taken aback by this gesture, in the shooting script he even asks her if she's nuts, if she got a chip too.

Then in BloodTies - she comes to him again - infruriated that he told Dawn, like she's angry at a boyfriend or a close confidente. And later, partners up with him to find Dawn. Glory sees him as Buffy's boyfriend - I don't blame her, they acted that way when Glory saw them.

Then in Crush - when Dawn's missing - Buffy looks for Spike to help her find Dawn and is shocked Dawn's hanging out there. Okay, uhm Buff, you left Dawn and Joyce there when you were worried about glory, is it really that big a shock they'd trust him?

This could be a laspe in the writing, I don't know. But it surprised me at the time and I repeat, I did not get into the idea of B/S until way after Intervention. I wasn't really addicted or obsessed to the show in S5 to be honest.
At any rate - it is interesting that after Intervention, Buffy continues to rely on Spike, often more than anyone else. That is interesting.
[> [> [> [> [> Question: mixed signals = leading a guy on? -- Scroll, 11:54:50 03/08/03 Sat

I think I mostly agree with what you've written here, shadowkat. Buffy does seem to rely more on Spike than she ever did on Angel or Riley, and I'm not really sure why (nor am I that interested in finding out :) ).

I guess what I'm not sure about is if "mixed signals" = "leading a guy on". I think the "Buffy was leading Spike on" portion of your post was the part I couldn't really agree with. Maybe because when I think of a girl leading on a guy, I equate that girl with being a "tease", someone who intentionally uses her femininity or the guy's attraction to her to control or manipulate him. Now, I think Buffy was sometimes a tease in Season 6, but I didn't see it happening in Season 5 at all. Of course, that's just my interpretation; I'd be glad to hear your POV.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Question: mixed signals = leading a guy on? -- s'kat, 16:07:29 03/08/03 Sat

Maybe because when I think of a girl leading on a guy, I equate that girl with being a "tease", someone who intentionally uses her femininity or the guy's attraction to her to control or manipulate him.

Ah. No, you can lead someone on without being a tease. Let's clear up that confusion over semantics right now.
We do it unconsciously, whether we like it or not - lead someone on. Aresthua actually brings up a great point below - Spike didn't seem to consider sex with Buffy really until Faith came on to him in Buffy's body in Who ARe You S4, written by evil Joss Whedon. In a sense Faith is responsible for playing the tease. Not Buffy. Although Buffy did not push him off in Superstar, Jonathan did when Spike felt her up.

At any rate - I don't equate tease with accidentally leading someone on. We all do it at one point or another.
Tease is someone who intentionally does it - flirts. Faith did it with Xander, Angel and Spike at different points prior to being incacerated. Haven't seen her do it since.
Buffy to my knowledge has only do this a couple of times in the series: Bad Girls, When She Was Bad, and Who Are You when Faith was in her. I don't believe she was deliberately doing it in S6, although people could argue it. While Buffy clearly has power over Spike, I don't think she knows it, unlike Faith, Buffy seems to be oblivious to her power over men. In many ways she tends to see men as a 17 year old would and doesn't understand how they relate to her. So, I honestly don't believe she knows how much power she has over Spike or Xander for that matter. I don't get the feeling she's aware of it in the same way a tease would be.

I think the reason she seems to rely more on Spike is that her role changed in later seasons, she didn't have a sister to protect under Angel or Riley - they'd left before she went into protect sister mode, Spike was the only one left and of the three the only one who has not left her or abandoned her except briefly to get his soul. (Riley took off and got married, Angel took off to LA and his own gang. This girl has serious abandonment issues.)
[> [> Perspectives, good and bad and kinda homely -- Random, stopping by briefly, 09:35:09 03/08/03 Sat

There's actually a debate? Dark Side of the Moon is a superior album. 1999 is, um, mediocre Prince. Which is the same as saying that it's approximately on the same level as average Acoustic Armpit Orchestra. Not that I necessarily consider "DSotM" one of the all-time greats. It's just very, very good. And while I did smell of bong water occasionally while listening to the album (that was years and years ago), I wasn't generally sweaty :-} But this issue sounds like someone out there had the needle of their Vapid-O-Meter stuck in the "New Kids on the Block" Red Alert Area.

But onto more controversial issues. To place my opinion in the proper demographic slot: I'm a 29 year old intermittently-single male with very few, if any, relationship traumas in my past.[insert either "My Way" or "Life's Been Good" here. Heh...knock on wood...] So:

In spite of the fact that I loved "Crush" (or perhaps it was actually the reason I like it), the episode left me feeling a little, well, conflicted. I remember the debates on this board about the show and the way I felt a slight irrational annoyance at certain shippery perspectives. I got over the annoyance -- we all have emotional responses near and dear to our hearts, after all -- but I got over the sheer schizophrenic aspect of the themes and philosophical tangents of the ep. On one hand, I felt it was clear-cut. Kidnap a girl, chain her up, threaten her with death if she doesn't tell you what you want to hear -- I couldn't quite understand why some people considered that morally "ambigious." Or anything short of morally "repugnant," not to mention a serious warning sign that your local bleachblonde just might be a dangerous stalker and you should start reading up on case histories of such people that have made the news.

Of course, Spike is a vampire. To quote Spike 'imself in "ANM": "And you're what? Shocked and disappointed? I'm evil!" So maybe we're being too harsh on the boy. If you're not prepared to stake him, you might want to consider reserving a little judgment. Whether or not Buffy made her feelings and intentions clear -- and I believe she did -- we're still dealing with a psychological mindset far different from those of us who haven't been, oh say, tainted with a vicious demon.

But what made me cringe was the response of Willow and Joyce. The transcript alone -- while sufficiently cringe-inducing -- isn't even as bad as actually watching Joyce go, "Honey, did you ... somehow, unintentionally, lead him on in any way? Uh, send him signals?" She actually sounded like she was blaming Buffy in the grand tradition of blaming rape victims. To the extent that common sense comes into play -- don't walk through Central Park at night, don't dry hump Spike and send him florid Valentines -- her reaction might not seem so utterly clueless. But re-watching that scene, I rather suspect Fury had somehow lost his feel for how Joyce's character would actually react. This is vintage S1 Joyce who is little more than a foil to establish one of the show's central tensions (she only really came unto her own in "School Hard.") Willow, I think, was a little better. Her advice was sensible...but ultimately wrong. Buffy had made it perfectly clear before. Demon or no, Spike couldn't have been so stupid as to miss the anvil-like signals Buffy was sending. So we are forced to conclude that he considered her either fundamentally stupid or completely lacking in self-awareness. And that he knew better than she did what she felt. Not exactly a situation geared to allowing the object of the affections to sleep easily. It's a classic stalker mode, and stalkers are divorced enough from reality that they will, without fail, misinterpret any contact as a good contact. Had she responded with, say, "Maybe there's something, who knows?" to Spike's ultimatum, she would have been feeding the beast, after all. Was it, given the circumstances, best to piss him off even more? Who knows? Compromising your principles to save your life? Hmmm.... But ultimatums (ultimatae?) are, in and of themselves, a sign that something needs to be nipped. And I don't mean in a sexy way, either.

But it's a fascinating episode. And Spike was (is? yes, but not so much) a fascinating character. Amore doesn't always vincit omnia, and certainly doesn't justify all. No matter what the Wife of Bath says. Even if she's a really great talker (I love her little prologue.) Spike did the right thing in the end. But take a recent lesson from Andrew (and Angel for that matter): sometimes you can't just fix past misdeeds by doing the right thing once in a while. As Angel said (I cracked up at the way he said it, too): "Man. Atonement's a bitch."

~Random, who never got any of this off his chest the first time around, or any of the subsequent times for that matter
[> Re: a question on Crush -- Rahael, 20:02:45 03/07/03 Fri

If that's true, God knows what kind of person likes 1999.

errrm. Probably me.

Last week I bought my first CD walkman. From then til today this is what I have been mainly listening to on my way to work, and back and various routine journeys/errands.

Hitsville USA (collection of Motown singles from the best years. This is an amazing compilation album.)

Bob Dylan (Blood on the Tracks)

Bach

Prince (Greatest Hits)

Chopin

Mozart (Le Nozze de Figaro)

Pulp (A Different Class)

Ella Fitzgerald (sings the Cole Porter Songbook.)

And I love the Prince album just as much as the rest.

So you know, taste and opinions vary. And I'm enough of a snob to be confident about mine ;)

Now on to Spike!!

I just don't get it. Interesting enough. Good actor. Scenes that stay in the memory, interesting to discuss. But I just don't feel anything more for him. Not the way I felt for Buffy and Cordy, not the way I feel about Wes, Angel, Connor, Gunn, Fred or Darla!

But I think a lot of it is really *overexposure* all over the internet. I'm a contrarian. I tend to want to disagree with people, cos I'm mischievous. Spike may be the underdog on the actual show but he's top dog outside of it; every single eyebrow lift, every head tilt, every moment of silence is just analysed and discussed. After a while I start wanting to go "ooh! New! Shiny! Pretty!" at AtS.

(d'H adds:You might have a case for "Wish You Were Here" being a hair better than, say, "Controversy". But Dark Side of the Moon better than 1999? Absolutely not. Anyone who thinks that needs to open the door to his or her dorm room and let the bong smoke out.)
[> [> Oh no...Intervention time... -- Random, 10:00:06 03/08/03 Sat

But not so much. Actually like your choices. Bach. Mmmm...The Brandenburg Concertos. Second only to the other great "B," Beethoven. Motown is fun, and jazz and blues are, IMHO, the only worthy successors of the classical composers (Bach, Chopin, Mozart, plus a host of others.) I can listen to Dylan for a while, and I've never listened to Pulp. (Why "Le Nozze de Figaro," incidentally? What about that particular piece strikes you? I haven't listened to it in years -- been spending more time with the Italians, plus some Wagner, whose music, as someone once said, is better than it sounds -- and I'm wondering whether I should re-visit some old favorites. Maybe some Russians too.)

But Prince? Maybe I'm just jaded. Or maybe the performer himself creeps me out. Or maybe I heard "Purple Rain" so often back in grade school that I can no longer make an object, monochromatic observation about the prevailing weather conditions. Or maybe -- the most likely possibility -- I'm just making a kneejerk judgment when I haven't actually listened to him in years. God knows, I listened to stuff that the FE should have used to torture Spike (Megadeth, anyone? Celtic Frost? Sonic Temple? Sex Pistols?) so my opinion should be take with a entire Rock Salt Mountain. Eh.

Poor d'H. Bong smoke out the dorm room door? How terribly stereotyped. I was living in an apartment on those occasions when I smoked up (all in the past, incidentally) and listened to Floyd. So there. Heh, heh, heh...

~Random, who has no business critiquing music. He once listened to Pantera for three hours straight, then topped it off with the Bee Gees. massive, overpowering shudder (Please don't tell anybody about this. It's a shameful secret.)
[> [> [> LOL -- Rahael, 10:35:16 03/08/03 Sat

Well, for one thing I grew up in a musical timewarp. I didn't grow up in the West, I grew up in South East Asia, which is really not a hip and happening place by Western standards.

I mainly listened to what my mother liked - Nina Simone, Billie Holliday, Tracy Chapman, Bob Dylan, and Bob Marley. A lot of people in my famly are also musical - my youngest aunt has a fine voice and played the piano, and my eldest aunt was almost a child prodigy, playing Indian classical music on the violin. She also composed songs/music for plays. So we made a lot of music ourselves. One aunt would write a song; another would set it to music.

I wasn't exposed to the whole earnest 'pop/rock must be taken extremely seriously and not playfully and it's definitely not about fun' which I encountered in my teens growing up in England. I'll listen to anything, but I like Pulp particularly because Jarvis Cocker writes lyrics which are both witty and playful. Also he's rather light hearted (infamous incident at the Brit Awards when he made fun of Michael Jackson's christ like - suffer the children to come unto me - pose)

I used to read New Musical Express and listen to the latest bands but after a while I just got tired of the pompousness and taking itself seriously thing, and just resigned myself to being terminally uncool. I'll listen to Frank Sinatra, to rap, to RnB, to opera, to Indian Classical Music, Cole Porter and to pop. I like listening to music, I like dancing, I like singing along, it's one of the things that makes the world pleasurable to me. So I tend to get bemused when people tell me that I shouldn't enjoy listening to something which I patently do enjoy.

Nozze de Figaro, to my mind is just the perfect Opera. It's sublime, beautiful, and when I listen to it I have to stop doing everything and just sit there. Which can sometimes be inconvenient because I play music at work in the background. But a special mention has to be made for the Queen of the Night aria in The Magic Flute, which I once played again and again 20 times. It's so wonderful that I have to say (in the words of my philosophy teacher) 'so lovely I could f*** it'.

Oh, and I'm really enjoying Motown, which I've never listened to properly. There are some really dark, heartbreaking songs "Standing in the Shadows of Love", "(I know )I'm Losing You" etc which makes me understand why dH once said half jokingly "can't you break up with me just so's I can go back and listen to my favourite songs again?". And early Stevie Wonder is just great!
[> [> [> [> Heh, heh... -- Random, 11:58:59 03/08/03 Sat

...wasn't Little Stevie Wonder great! I remember hearing about some musical contest -- a sort of Star Search thing -- between him and (I think) Marvin Gaye. Poor Marvin was booed by the audience because they perceived him as picking on "that little blind boy" by competing.

Anyway, you hit on one of my real secret shames. I tend to express a latent elitism in certain areas. Literature and music being the primary ones. Techno pop, for instance, garners my immediate dismissive disdain even though one of my close friends is an enormously talented composer who favors the genres. And you just try to drag me to a New Age or country concert. Go ahead, see how much you value certain of your more useful limbs.

But I really ought to know better, I really ought to. I mean, this board alone is a good example for me to heed: most of the times that I have tried to explain my love of BtVS to my friends (who tend to be well-educated and outgoing) I'm met with a look that asks, "What is this, a re-enactment of Invasion of the Body Snatchers?" I've learned to shut up and, whenever I feel an impulse to reference BtVS, I substitute the word 'sex' for 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer." Hence, "I love watching [sex]." Or "[Sex]is an extremely complicated conflation of modern myth and traditional archetypes." Or: "There's this website I visit with lots of discussion about [sex.]" Or "I hate summer because there won't be any more [sex] until October." Or even "I have [sex] on DVD, and I know all the dialogue by heart" (Plus: "I bought three years worth of [sex] at Amazon.com.)

It's a hard habit to break. Especially since I really do favor certain kinds of music that are regarded as being a little bit more "intellectual" (never said in a complimentary manner, either.) Classical. Love it. Can't listen to it enough. Jazz and blues -- "fruity jazz bands" are my favorite buscuit (as we call non-cookies over here in the States) spread. Opera: a straight male who can listen to "Liebstod" for hours. And so on. But I value my music with particular fervor for a personal reason which I'm not willing to explain to the whole public (not trying to be coy, just reasonably honest) of the board...which leads to me tending to close my mind to anything that doesn't fall into my own personal category of "art." It's a failing I'm working on. I've already accepted that Pollock, Jasper Johns, Robert Morris, Eva Hesse, et al, might not have been complete con artists (though I'm still struggling with Darboven.) It's an ongoing process of enlightenment and, hopefully, eventual benign deityhood.

I do believe I will go grab "Figaro." It's been too long. I love your teacher's phrase. Ask her (or him) if I could steal it for my own conversational purposes. I'm thinking Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata." Or something from "Aida" (my sentimental opera favorite.)

Poor d'H. I know very well how he feels.

~Random, who has a thing Bob Marley. And for Chariots of Fire too, because one of his favorite former girlfriends used to play it on the clarinet and he would just lie there entranced by her concentration. Good old Vangelis.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Heh, heh... -- Rahael, 12:39:50 03/08/03 Sat

Oh, I'm probably as elitist as you, just undone by my growing liking for things that don't fall into conventional categories of 'Art'!

I think mostly I get captivated by works that have something of the quality that you described so well in your Numfar post. It caught squarely exactly why I liked Buffy.

Oh, and steal away, with that phrase - He stole it himself. His wife and he were sightseeing, and they went into a beautiful pictaresque little church, and looked at the guestbook. It was obvious that a party of schoolchildren had been dragged there, and made to sign it. Most were pretty dutiful, and had written things like "very pretty", but one school child had written "It is so lovely, I could f*** it". LOLOL

I love classical music too. I went to a Debussy concert where I was literally transported with delight. I can still remember the warm sun on my skin and the sound of the sea, and all while sitting in a concert hall in a damp evening in England.

I remember a conversation with a friend who was studying on a music scholarship at college - we were discussing music, and I asked him whether he thought that Western Classical music was better than Indian classical music (that was the way his comments were tending) and he said "Yes". I pointed out that if Indian classical music had had a Bach or a Mozart, we wouldn't know it, because, you know improvisation, no sheet music etc. I wouldn't say he lacked anything because he still has access to a magnificent body of music - but I have access to that, and to another magnificent tradition.

I once attended a Indian classical concert where I was on the edge of tears the whole evening. I thought the performer had taken all my pain, and all my sadness, and mourned for me, and then transformed it all into exquisite beauty. And my aunt told me that it was nothing - he had been even better 20 years ago, when his voice was stronger, and then - he'd been mindblowing. But I have access to it because I grew up in it, and had context. My sister's boyfriend, a good violinist said that he was surprised that I found it so moving - he had appreciated it on a cerebral level, and thought it was less accessible on an emotional one.
[> [> [> [> [> [> 'The world is too much with us; late and soon -- Random, 14:03:25 03/08/03 Sat

Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers:
Little we see in nature that is our;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
The sea that bares her bosom to the moon;
The winds that will be howling at all hours,
And are upgathered now like sleeping flowers;
For this, for everything, we are out of tune;
It moves us not. -- Great God! I'd rather be
A pagan suckled in a creed outworn.
So might I, standing on this pleasant lea,
Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn;
Have sight of Proteus rising from the sea;
Or hear old Triton blow his wreathed horn."

And sic gloria mundi. The goal, the very justification, of music is found in its effect on us. I can completely identify with your reactions -- the first time I heard Beethoven's 9th, or one of Bach's concertos, or Mendhelsson...powerfully emotional moments. I still get a weird shiver ("surprised by joy, impatient as the wind") without fail when listening to Moonlight Sonata or Clair de Lune. I even try to budget my listenings to these works. It's not in any way cerebral -- though I certainly appreciate the cerebral aspects. It's a visceral response, much like love or awe. Probably exactly the same, in fact.

I've listened to very little Indian music (Shankar, that scene from an Indian movie in whatever ep of BtVS, plus some pop music played by a friend of mine, a graduate student from India doing his schooling in the States -- he was more interested in listening to American music, though. And eating hamburgers, for some reason. Lapsed Brahman, 'e was.)

~Random, who was actually going to try to make a point about emotional response and BtVS. But he figured, why get back on-topic?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh yes -- Rahael, 14:26:59 03/08/03 Sat

The visceral reaction - strangely enough, that's what I have with poetry too now. In the beginning, when I really didn't like poetry all that much, I had to struggle, and the pleasure was detached. But now, when I read a poem, I judge it by its effect on me - the cerebral stuff is happening too, but it's less conscious, less overt.

And I'd love to hear your on topic views!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'll get back to you on -- Random, 14:45:03 03/08/03 Sat

my on-topic views. Whiled away the entire day (not wasted! I feel very strongly that a day spent in pleasurable relaxation is a worthwhile day) watching the Discovery Channel, then the Sci-Fi channel, while writing posts and making spaghetti (actually, angel hair pasta, which I much prefer)...but I do have to do other things tonight. And I suppose it's getting late for you (why on Earth didn't d'H. take you with him to the sunny climes?). The Wordsworth sonnet is one that always "does it" for me, incidentally. Plus Eliot's "Prufrock," Arnold's "Dover Beach," most of Sidney's Astrophil and Stella, Marvell's "To His Coy Mistress" (god, I love the power of his imagery), anything by Dylan Thomas or John Keats or Swinburne. Those are just the obvious ones. I could move onto more obscure or modern poets, but then I'd never get around to what I need to be doing.

~Random, hoping that it's all worthwhile...but figuring that ultimately it will be, whether I understand it or not.
[> LOL! Thoughts on Dark side of Moon and Crush -- shadowkat, 20:13:34 03/07/03 Fri

First off:

I personally prefer Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon to 1999. Dark Side of the Moon is a favorite of mine. But then I'm into Floyd. Prince grew old fast. (God I hope I'm right and Floyd is the one behind Dark Side of the Moon...if not, how embarrassing.)

Second CRUSH remains one of my favorite episodes - because it makes me cringe, laugh, cheer and get afraid all within a brief 48 minute period. It also is one of the best examinations I've seen of how it feels to have an unrequited Crush on someone and not be sure what their feelings are for you.

Why does Buffy find this reprehensible? Well they cut a line in the FX presentation that may give you a clue.
Dawn chides Buffy on her reactions to Spike, by bringing up Angel. Buffy states Angel had a soul and Dawn says, Spike has a chip, same diff. This is important to remember.

The reason Buffy can't handle Spike falling in love with her or stating he love's her - is very simple. She even says it to him: "You don't know what feelings are." "You can't love without a soul." Buffy has idealized Angel. In her head : Angelus never loved her and he couldn't love her because he did NOT have a soul. Giles and Angel have helped Buffy come to this conclusion - both insist that vampires are demons walking around in human bodies, they have no feelings, no true desires. An infection nothing more. In order to deal with his guilt - Angel has literally made the demon responsible for everything. Buffy - in order to deal with what Angelus did to her - has done the same thing. To admit in the smallest way that Spike loves her and cares for and can do so - would be the equivalent of smashing that idealistic image. And she's not ready to do that yet.

She hasn't listened to Willow and Tara who tell her about the Hunchback of Notre Dame - a man with no moral compass, completely selfishly motivated, who does it all for the love of a girl. Or for that matter what Willow told her in Passion S2 - how all Angelus thinks about is now her, so clearly he still has feelings for her. Feelings that are driving him insane. For Buffy - love is idealized. She shut down after Angel. And she doesn't want to give up the romantic ideal of the love she thought or may have had.
Spike's declaration and subsequent acts drive a stake through that image, shattering it. Clearly by CwDP Buffy has grown up a bit and recognizes that the idealized vision she had of Angel isn't real, since she admits Spike did love her and really did care.


Buffy doesn't understand men. If she did, she probably would have realized just how much she has been leading Spike on. Coming to him for information. Coming to him to protect her mother and sister. She even leaves Dawn and Joyce with him. Her behavior is inconsistent and probably very confusing to him. She gets upset with him when she finds Dawn in his company, yet she went to him for the purpose of getting his assistance in finding Dawn. This is not a one-time thing - she's done it repeatedly: BloodTies, Checkpoint, and now in Crush. I don't blame Spike for being confused. I was confused.

I think Buffy is also a tad confused. She doesn't understand her own attraction and feelings for Spike. She, like Xander, has the childlike view that it isn't real. Both characters brush off Crushs as if unimportant. Xander laughs when Buffy mentions the idea that Spike loves her - not real he states. And Buffy thinks - he's right, b/c Spike isn't real. She's been using him. It never occurs to her that he is a person. Xander similarily is turned on by the idea that Dawn had a crush on him and is upset that she now has one on Spike. It's a theme that ME continues to pursue throughout the year - we start with Riley who tells Buffy he went to the vamp trulls so he could feel something real, feel needed, since he did not feel real or needed by her. Then we get Dawn who discovers she's not real, and Buffy whose initial reaction to finding out Dawn isn't real is to dismiss her as evil, but changes her mind when she realizes Dawn is human. And of course the Aprilbot - who Warren discards so abominably because she too is not real. Warren's misuse of Aprilbot is compared to Spike's rejection in IWMTLY.

Getting back to CRUSH - the writers seem to be asking some interesting questions: 1) What are Buffy's feelings towards vampires and towards Spike, does Buffy even know?
2)Has Buffy dealt with the pain of Angelus' rejection?
3) What are vampires? Can they love? Is the soul or moral compass really required? After all Quasimado of Hunchback fame had no moral compass and was the most heroic character in the novel?
4.)Why does Spike choose Buffy over Dru?
5.) How much has Spike changed b/c of his feelings for Buffy, and who is Spike?

These questions keep coming up. Crush is a very important episode - since it's the first time they are addressed.
And we are in Spike's pov through most of it, a rarity in the series. Usually we are in Buffy's.

I wasn't into B/S in this episode. And I found the first date to be incredibly awkward. But it did on second and third viewings make me re-look at the series and how it was handling vampires. Particularly the scene in the Bronze where Dru gets Spike to drink and he does it so reluctantly, tears are literally welling in his eyes - this scene is echoed brillantly in Sleeper, where he kills the vamp instead.

I think Spike's relationship with Dru and Buffy - is very Oedipal. Both represent mother figures to him. And the reason he gravitates towards Buffy - is I think - because she may be the closest to his first male/female relationship, the human one with his mother. I think that
may be why Dru loses him.

Also note the parrallels between Fool for Love and Crush,
in Fool For Love - William is seduced by Dru who touches his chest, just after declaring his love for Cecily and being cruely rejected. In Crush - Dru tries and almost succeeds in seducing Spike after he declares or attempts to declare his love for Buffy. Both Women, Cecily and Buffy refuse his love. In both cases MummyDru comes to him.
The difference is that unlike Cecily - Buffy comes back to discuss it with Spike. One wonders what would have happened if she hadn't come to talk to him. If she'd stayed away.
Would Spike have gone back to LA with Drusilla??

Hope this adds to discussion

SK
[> [> Re: LOL! Thoughts on Dark side of Moon and Crush -- manwitch, 21:22:09 03/07/03 Fri

I think this is a very plausible idea, that if Buffy accepts at face value Spike's declaration of love, then Angel is diminished for not overcoming his demon, and Buffy is diminished because Angelus rejected her. She feels the soul is where love comes from. Spike is merely acting out of selfish motivation. We will discover, in a couple of episodes, that such is not the case. Spike is effacing himself in his love for Buffy, not acting out of self-interest.

But her inability to even have a tactical response, when Spike says to her "if you don't admit there's a chance, I'll release Dru and let her kill you,"--she gives him this incredibly yummy coy look and gestures him to come closer and then devastates him--just seems to me to be so hostile. I mean, why is she there at all? Why does she accept the advice Joyce and Willow give her? Why is it important to them that Spike know he has no chance? They have no investement in Angel. There seems to be a cultural thing going on regarding not unrequited but unsolicited love. I mean, in a sense, she's slayed him, but she would prefer that he was a monster.

There seems to be little more horrible than being loved by someone you wished didn't. I just think its interesting, given how much time we all spend hoping to be loved.

Xander's response is totally different from their's. He says, don't get bent out of shape over Spike's dreams. And Xander, oddly enough, loves that Dawn has a crush on him. Or did. So maybe there is a gender thing going on as well, just like there is with Pink Floyd and Prince. Well, there's always a gender thing going on with Prince.

You also say that Buffy has been using spike, that she doesn't even consider that he might be a person. So I wonder, at what point is that something that she "should" consider? Is a vampire always a person? I don't think so. But somewhere along the line, Spike becomes someone whose feelings should be considered. When is that? Why is that? Or is it a false assumption on my part?
[> [> [> Puttin on my raspberry beret -- ponygirl, 22:00:10 03/07/03 Fri

I have to tell you my very first concert was Prince's Purple Rain tour. My mother had a big crush and dragged me, my dad and my then 9 yr old brother along. Nosebleed seats, Prince getting into his bathtub, and my brother constantly asking why people around us were smoking such funny-looking cigarettes. These things do stay with you.

But you ask if a vampire is always a person, and when Spike's feelings became something to be considered. I think these are pretty important questions. To answer the second one first, I'd say officially it happened in Doomed, when Willow says they can't let Spike stake himself because they know him. In a way that answers the first part too, vampires become people when we and the Scoobies know them on some level beyond "minion with a funny outfit" characterization. Otherwise they fit under the broad category of monster. I'm not comfortable with this distinction and I don't think the show is either, it's notable how terms like "animal" and "it" were easy descriptions in the first season, but now sound quite jarring (Potential). Buffy made the human/demon divide pretty clear in Selfless when dealing with Anya, I wonder if subsequent events and revelations have made the line more blurry for her.
[> [> [> [> When does a demon become a person? -- Tess, 00:02:37 03/08/03 Sat

""I'd say officially it happened in Doomed, when Willow says they can't let Spike stake himself because they know him.""

The only character I can remember staking a vamp he knew as a human is Gunn. Gunn loved his sister so much he couldn't bare to see her existing as a vampire. That takes strength.

Knowing someone as a human, even if that human is technically a demon, makes it more difficult for the good guys to stake them. Even though no one liked Harmony as a human, no one cared enough to kill her after she was vamped.

Xander didn't purposely stake Jesse. Jesse died when someone pushed him into the stake. In Xander's mind, the demon who wore his friends face still had to be his friend in some way.

And when they thought Willow had been vamped, they couldn't bring themselves to stake her, because the demon wore the face of their friend.

When Angel lost his soul in season 2, Buffy couldn't bring herself to stake him. Even though Angel was always a vampire, how was losing his soul any different than if a human had been turned? Buffy loved him too much to kill him, but enough that she didn't mind torturing him with the memory of everyone he'd killed. And if its okay to resoul Angel and allow him to live with the memory of the people he'd killed, than why don't they resoul other vamps? Because it would be cruel and unusual punishment on the human they used to be.

The one thing Angel did ask Conner was to stake him if he gets loose, not try to save him. And yet everyone is jumping on the kid's case because he wants to do as Angel asked, even Gunn. Why did Angel ask this of Conner? Because he thinks Conner is the only one who has a chance against him? No. Angel has proven he can subdue Conner without hurting him, even when Conner is trying to kill him. Trust me, that's not easy. Angel asked this of Conner because he believes Conner is the only one at AI that can seperate the 'man' from the 'demon'. Mainly because Conner has a hard time seeing the man for the demon. But the thing is that Angel was sincere in his wish to be killed rather than allowed to run around loose killing people.

As far as Spike, I would say he become unstakable when he stopped being an immediate threat. But he didn't become 'human-like' until he endured torture at Glory's hands in order to protect Dawn.

Not sure if any of this is making any sense, or what I'm even trying to say...a sure sign its time to go to sleep.
[> [> [> Being loved by someone when you wish they didn't -- Dariel, 13:02:23 03/08/03 Sat

I think Kds gets it right in his discussion about Buffy below. It's the meaning we ascribe to unwanted love that trips us up. If this jerky guy likes me, what does that say about me? we ask. For a woman to ask that question, she must already have doubts about herself. A woman who is clear about her own value doesn't have this problem with unwanted love--she is either flattered by it or just indifferent.

In Buffy's case, there is the further complication of projection. Yes, Spike is not a nice guy, but Buffy projects all of her own, feared darkness onto him as well. Which only makes his professions of love that much harder to take!
[> [> [> Love with all your soul. -- lunasea, 16:29:14 03/08/03 Sat

She feels the soul is where love comes from.

The Spirit Guide tells her to love with all her soul. That exchanged answered a lot of questions.

One of my favorite writers wrote that episode, Jane Espenson. She also said "I love the idea that the soul and the chip are very much the same but they are very different because of the heart behind them."

It is an interesting thing to play with. Angel does things because the soul makes him care. Spike does things because the chip has conditioned him. He gets around this in "Out of My Mind" by thinking he is in love with Buffy. Gives him justification for doing good then, since he is love's bitch.

I do not understand the whole Angel/Angelus denial argument. I believe people are saying that if Buffy admits that Spike can love her without a soul, that means that Angel didn't love her enough because he didn't care for her as Angelus.

buffyverse canon: Angel and Buffy are TRUE love.

Buffy doesn't have to idealize Angel or their feelings. They are the ideal. If they weren't, it wouldn't have been so tragic when he had to leave.
[> [> [> [> Yeah, that's the implication -- KdS, 03:21:32 03/09/03 Sun

I believe people are saying that if Buffy admits that Spike can love her without a soul, that means that Angel didn't love her enough because he didn't care for her as Angelus.

You do have the argument right - and while it isn't true (difference in the personalities of Angel and Angelus) she must fear it at some level.
[> [> A few stray thoughts tossed out there. -- Arethusa, 12:47:04 03/08/03 Sat

I can't imagine Joyce would ask Buffy if she led Spike on-that's blaming the girl for the guy's actions. It does set up a good joke though, which is probably why it's there. And Buffy does know that she's encouraging Spike by hitting him-"To Spike that's like third base."

I've thought about the genesis of Spike's crush a little. (I lead a very dull life.) I believe his feelings for Buffy changed dramatically when Faith came on to him. Before that time, he was obsessed with killing her, but after she talked about making him pop like warm champagne, he becomes obsessed with sleeping with her. However, she says she can't do it, because it's wrong. So he probably thinks that she wants him, but won't sleep with him because he acts evil. The next episode after Who Are You, Superstar, shows Spike feeling up "Betty," who doesn't shove him away-Johnathan does. It's no wonder he doesn't believe her when she says she doesn't want him. Then chained Buffy gives him that flirty, pouty look while telling him to shove off. Add on all the other examples everyone else has noted-coming to Spike frequently for assistance-and you've got one very confused vampire.

What was Spike's mother like? Probably very controlling, since he is drawn to strong women. She might have constantly demanded proof of William's love, giving or taking away affection and approval to manipulate him.
Was he attracted to Dru because she was the antithesis of the kind of girl his mother wanted for him-lower class, Catholic, extremely sexual?
[> [> [> Re: A few stray thoughts ... (well known casting spoiler) -- Scroll, 13:05:02 03/08/03 Sat

I can't imagine Joyce would ask Buffy if she led Spike on-that's blaming the girl for the guy's actions. It does set up a good joke though, which is probably why it's there.

Uh, how is it a joke? You mean that Buffy hitting Spike is like third base? Cuz I never saw Buffy as realising this until after she finds out Spike has a crush on her. And Joyce does ask Buffy if she led Spike on, as if implying that somehow Buffy is responsibile for encouraging Spike in his stalking. Yeah, I didn't like Joyce there. I agree with whoever posted above that this was really Season 1/2 Joyce, and very out-of-character for Season 5 Joyce.

I believe his feelings for Buffy changed dramatically when Faith came on to him. Before that time, he was obsessed with killing her, but after she talked about making him pop like warm champagne, he becomes obsessed with sleeping with her.

Hee! It'll be interesting to see what happens when well-known casting spoiler shows up on Buffy.
[> [> [> [> Re: A few stray thoughts ... (well known casting spoiler) -- Arethusa, 14:11:44 03/08/03 Sat

My point about Joyce was that her line seemed to exist only to set up Buffy's line, and wasn't really in character for Joyce at that time or the show's underlying message of female empowerment. (Posting while in a hangover-induced fog isn't condusive to clarity or spelling, although not all is lost because evidently I can still use pompous words.) I think Buffy already knows about Spike's attitude towards sex and violence, because of what he said to her and Angel in Lover's Walk:

Spike: (smiling) I'm really glad I came here, you know? I've been all
wrongheaded about this. Weeping, crawling, blaming everybody else. I
want Dru back, I've just gotta be the man I was, (stands proud) the man
she loved. I'm gonna do what I shoulda done in the first place: I'll
find her, wherever she is, tie her up, torture her until she likes me
again.

(Quote by psyche)

With the Well-Known Casting Spoiler, I'm really hoping the truth will come out, just to see everyone's reactions. :)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: A few stray thoughts ... (well known casting spoiler) -- s'kat, 15:55:18 03/08/03 Sat

On the whole Joyce thing - we have to remember who the writer is here: David Fury. Fury has possibly the most twisted sense of humor of the crew. Two big jokes in this episode:
1. The whole beating him up leads to third base and
2. You're like a serial killer in prison (Fury is the only writer who uses serial killer line in his writing, no one else.)

Also Fury doesn't write the emotional relationship stuff well, hence the Joyce scenes seeming a bit off. Personally, I thought it was in character for Willow but not Joyce and wish they'd left Joyce out of it. But on the other hand they had to get Buffy to go to his crypt - the creepiest scene in Crush - still creeps me out when she goes there.
I was afraid for her in that episode. And I remember thinking - get out of there you nit!! Don't go exploring the obsessed vampire's lair alone. Especially after you rejected him. Bad idea! sigh...methinks heroines in horror shows are predestined to do stupid things at times. Buffy to her credit usually avoids this.
[> Re: a question on Crush -- Sara, 20:27:33 03/07/03 Fri

I expect that requited hate is an easier emotion to anticipate than unrequited love which may be why Buffy had such a strong negative reaction to Spike's declaration. Being the control freak she is, I expect she's pretty comfortable with someone whose behavior is consistently based on wanting her dead, whereas if he's trying to win her over the situation is much more unpredicatable.

To answer Sophist's question - I think Joyce and Willow gave bad advice, Buffy had no ambiguity lurking in her first reaction to Spike and really shouldn't have gone back. But if she hadn't, it would've been a pretty short epsiode.

And hey, I love the song 1999, all the time I was testing code for Y2K I was wishing I could party like it was 1999 and there it was 1999 and yet no party...And to all the he who was once named Prince bashers (is he back to that name now? I have trouble keeping track) Little Red Corvette is one of my all time favorite tunes, I'm boppin to it as I type, which thankfully none of you can see, 'cause let me tell you, it's not a pretty picture.

- Sara, humming happily
[> [> Right on Sara! -- Rahael, 20:33:58 03/07/03 Fri

I love Little Red Corvette!
[> [> [> Giving Prince his due -- the poster formerly known as manwitch, 20:46:48 03/07/03 Fri

My wife also tells me that Jenny Calendar used to be a Prince babe. Any truth there? I guess you gotta give him a couple of points for that.
[> [> [> [> Yup, Robia La Morte was Prince girl -- Scroll, 21:00:47 03/07/03 Fri

"Robia was picked by Prince to dance with him for the Diamonds and Pearls album. A single from the album went to number 1 and Robia was pictured on the cover."

from www.restlessbtvs.com
[> [> [> [> [> Amazing! Is she in any of his music videos? -- WickedBuffy, 21:18:14 03/07/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> Um, I guess so? -- Scroll, 21:26:31 03/07/03 Fri

I'm assuming she was in the music video for Prince's album "Diamonds and Pearls", which is why she's on the cover. I don't know how many music videos she did, I'm not exactly a Prince fan.

You know, people always talk about how hot SMG or CC are, but I always thought Ms. Calendar was quite beautiful. Very graceful, bohemian in style, and a wonderful match for Giles.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Indeed, she was quite the babe at that.... -- Random, 10:08:09 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> [> The artist formerly known as Drow family insignia -- Celebaelin, 03:50:30 03/08/03 Sat

Has indeed reverted to 'Prince'.

Incidentally only 'When Doves Cry' really does the business for me so I'm firmly in the Dark Side of the Moon camp.

"Sitting around on a piece of ground in your home town,
Waiting for something or someone to show you the way,"

"Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way,"

C'mon, that's gifted - totally outstanding, red-eye or not. On the other hand I should declare an interest as a long-standing member of the provisional wing of the hippy movement (DO NOT victimise the hippies, they are gentle creatures who cannot, and will not, retaliate. I, on the other hand, will beat you to a bloody pulp and walk away laughing).

Incidentally, on a related theme, about which I hope to post later, can anyone give me the address for a full list of the episode titles, in chronological order if possible. I have this theory ya see...
[> [> [> [> Re: Episode titles -- LadyStarlight, 09:00:48 03/08/03 Sat

try http://www.tvtome.com/BuffytheVampireSlayer/eplist.html

This will also take you to episode recaps, if needed. :)
[> [> [> [> Curious on the Prince vs. Pink Floyd album debate -- shadowkat, 10:09:48 03/08/03 Sat

Am I the only female on the board that prefers Dark Side of The Moon and Pink Floyd to Prince's 1999?

Seems to be splitting alongst gender lines, except for me.
LOL! Sorry Prince fans, but agree with Random, only When Doves Cry did it for me. The rest of the songs? Jazzy.
Nice to dance to, but just don't have the lasting impact of Floyd's Another Brick in The Wall, Wish you Were Here, and the songs in Dark Side of The Moon.

And nope I don't smell of bong water. Allergic to smoke.
Drugs did zip for me. So you can't use that rationale.
I listened to both in the 80s. Loved both. But now, in 2003? Can remember Floyd better and prefer it. More lasting in my humble opinion. So, if it's a gender thing...once again going the minority route. ;-) SK
[> [> [> [> [> Can I pick neither? -- fresne, 11:03:09 03/08/03 Sat

I mean in a choice between Elvis and the Beatles, I go for Elvis. But only young Elvis.

In a choice between, I don't like it and oh, it's okay, I mean it doesn't irritate me or anything. Well, this isn't like voting for the lesser of two evils here. Vote Cthulu for President. Why vote for the lesser evil?

Hmm...okay, that doesn't help much.

No, wait we're talking about Vampires here. So, I vote for Covenant - We stand alone. Great song. Really depressing, but with a great beat and you can dance to it. At midnight. In a darkened club, with really beautifully dressed people. The scent of clove cigarettes, not really in the air, because this is San Francisco and we have ordinances against that, but lingering outside as you walk out into the soft rain.

Oh, yeah, BtVS...let's see. The advice Joyce and Willow gave, terrible. Buffy had already shot Spike down. End of story. What she needed to say, no really, really, really, there's no way?

Then again, maybe Joyce having told Angel to leave like the week of the Prom, romantic advice, not her strong point. Maybe she wanted Spike for herself. Cause you know Passions. What will happen to Timmy? Maybe I'm posting because I really don't want to have to clean house, but the Dust Buffalos roaming the plains of my floor are threatening to stampede.

I eye them nervously, but go on.

Crush. Great episode. Then again I love it for the whole Pope/Rape of the Lock vibe it's got going. Of course Spike's got an alter. Heck, my great grandfather stole one of my great grandmother's gloves and then pressed it with lavender. Aren't reading 100 year old love letters great and/or invasive.

I remember something Jenoff (no not the demon gambler) wrote early in S5 about Spike doing a great imitation of a pressure cooker. Then came the love and the stalking. Cause you know, vampire. It's all so, well, we've already written lots of essays on the subject.

At this point, I'm a Spike/huge block of cement shipper. I hope those two crazy kids can work it out. While, Buffy, she just needs a trip to a nice spa for like a year. But not the being dead kind of spa. The other kind. With unguents and backrubs and possibly a CDs of ocean noises.

Not Pink Floyd (surely Giles favorite), nor the Sex Pistols or do Angel and Riley have a favorite music? She needs the Buffy Soundtrack. Now that's been a good mix. And you can dance/kick posterior to it. I give it a 10.
[> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! Fresne...wonderful -- s'kat, 15:45:38 03/08/03 Sat

At this point, I'm a Spike/huge block of cement shipper. I hope those two crazy kids can work it out. While, Buffy, she just needs a trip to a nice spa for like a year. But not the being dead kind of spa. The other kind. With unguents and backrubs and possibly a CDs of ocean noises.

Me too! Me too! I keep wanting to ask people who ship for Buffy/Angel(Spike, Xander, Riley, Wood, Scott Hope) fill in the blank: if they hate the other character. Because let's face it - becoming Buffy's boyfriend might be fun for a while but it's not real great for long term emotional or physical health. Look at the track record. Not Buffy's fault. Problem is she's the hero and evil writers don't want the hero happy in love so her boyfriend gets it, repeatedly. The JossGod is cruel to Buffy's romantic interest.

I love Angel too much to wish another round of writer Buffy angst on him. Actually I'm beginning to sort of wish Angel went for Fred ...Fred was nice. Or Kate. I liked Kate. I miss Kate. (sigh, maybe we should send Angel to a nice monastary for a while? or to Law and Order where he and Kate can reunite.)Spike? I think buffy helps him grow, but I'm hoping he goes off on his own at the end of the year, works it out with the block of cement or the crypt door or maybe becomes a companion to Faith. Buffy? I agree with you - she should take a year off spend some quiet time at a spa, no men, no vamps, no fighting, no teenage sisters who used to be keys or wonky wiccas, and last if not least no evil writers plotting her fate.;-)


Maybe I'm posting because I really don't want to have to clean house, but the Dust Buffalos roaming the plains of my floor are threatening to stampede.

Yep. Dusted finally. Feeling angsty today - my birthday is tomorrow, turning the big 36. ugh. One would have hoped a job would have come my way by now. Oh well. I did buy Promethea as an early birthday gift for myself. Much fun.

I think Angel likes Opera - he was playing it Passion. Seems to be into classical stuff - hence the ballet. Fits his aristocratic image. Riley? Sounds like a country-western guy. Spike - punk rock. Dru - weird goth romantic pop - like Dru's taste, I need help - I know. Giles? Now this guys taste I dig. Except for Freebird...not a favorite.

But then I dug the Beatles over Elvis...;-)

Haven't heard of the Covenant...need to check that out.

SK
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Happy Birthday, SK. Many Happy Returns. And... -- Random, 08:09:24 03/09/03 Sun

Don't be angsty. Big 36 isn't so bad (or I wouldn't imagine...I still have a few years to go.) But hope you enjoy the day all the same.

~Random, who'll eat a piece of pie today in honor of SK's natal anniversary. (Any excuse for pie, I always say...)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Have a happy one shadowkat!! -- ponygirl, 09:03:31 03/09/03 Sun

Best wishes for a year of creative and financial success!

Cake for all!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> For Shadowkat's Birthday -- Celebaelin, 11:32:53 03/09/03 Sun

If I may be so bold.

While we learn to work on lines
Shadowkat posts her shining sculpted prose
We consume cannon and themes
As her words meld distant minds

Happy Birthday SK




btw

This poem is my (first) feeble attempt at a Welsh verse form called Englynion. The technique of matching consonants is called Cynghanedd (picked out in bold, the order must be maintained), it's interesting to note that strictly what would be referred to as assonance in English specifically dismisses the matching of consonants in its' definition as regards versification.

Assonance

2 Prosody The correspondence or rhyming of one word with another in the accented vowel and those which follow, but not in the consonants.

The verse form itself is syllabically defined - 7,10,7,7 the 10 is actually 3+7 but it starts getting really difficult if you have to be able to transfer the 3 syllable portion to the end of the first line when reciting the Englyn as in

Trawsfynydd tros ei Feini
Traveiliaist dros foelydd eryri
Troedio wnest ei rhedyn hi
Hunaist ymhell ohonni

R. Williams-Parry In Memory of Hedd Wynn

This is rather sad actually, it speaks of all those who (like the Eisteddfod winning bard known as Hedd Wynn) died in the First World War and would never again see the beauty of Trawsfynydd or walk through (upon) the bracken of Snowdon.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> CutPrint! Thank you guys! -- s'kat, 11:51:12 03/09/03 Sun

Thank you for the wonderful poem, Celebaelin. It made me smile. I printed it off.

And thank you to all the above for the lovely sentiments, most appreciated!!

SK (doing the snoopy dance)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wow. It's like Anglo-Saxon all over again -- Random, 12:38:22 03/09/03 Sun

Much like Anglo-Saxon poetry, in fact (difficult stuff, let me assure you.) I really like it.

The consonant equivalent to assonance is, not surprising, "consonance." Same as assonance, but with, you know, with consonants. It's all alliteration, though, prosodaically speaking. "Sien e sege and e assaut watz sesed at Troye..." (a rough version of the beginning of "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" -- from memory, so it might not be the exact spelling of the original text.)

The technique is probably borrowed from Anglo-Saxon, with Gaelic influences. I'd try to offer Beowulf as a much better example, but I'd have to track down that text too because there's no earthly way I'm gonna try to do either Anglo-Saxon or Old English from memory.

How's this: Bede's death hymn

For am nedfere næni wyre
---and so on. The rest of the poem follows a similar pattern --

ances snotera, onne him earf sy
to gehicgenne ær his heonengange
hwæt his gaste godes oe yfeles
æfter deae heonon demed weore

~Random
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Consonance -- Celebaelin, 13:26:38 03/09/03 Sun

Nice one Random, sounds like you know a fair bit about this. I was hoping someone would tell me the nearest English equivalent to Cynghanedd (~Kunghaneth, the technique includes the stricture about maintaining consonantal order in the repetition in order to be part of the Cynhanedd structure), it didn't occur to me that it should be consonance. When I read your post I went straight to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary but was surprised to find that it doesn't mention the meaning you ascribe to the word, what it says is:

Consonance

1 =ASSONANCE 1589
2 Pleasing combination of sounds 1594
3 Music The sounding together of two notes in harmony; the quality or fact of being CONSONANT (Opposite of DISSONANCE) 1694
b. A consonant 'interval', a concord 1624
4 Figurative Agreement, harmony, concord ME

This ME is, as I'm sure you know, Middle English.

No mention of prosody or versification specifically except with respect to being a synonym of assonance (which in its' looser, non poetic, definitions seems to cover the repetition of consonants), I guess definition 4 covers it but perhaps you'd like to write to the OED and make them worry about ascribing the 5th meaning of the word. If you want to be totally cool you could site where you first saw 'consonance' in print in that context. Thanks for the pointer, great word.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry, not I'm not totally cool because... -- Random, 13:43:20 03/09/03 Sun

I honestly don't know where I first saw it in print. I first encountered it in class, from lectures. It's the term currently in use in literary circles. Admittedly, it's less common than assonance, primarily because it's less euphonic and thus less commonly used by modern poets (Gerald Manley Hopkins is a major exception -- read the poem that starts "Margaret are you grieving....") It'll likely be found in any really good handbook of literary terms (unless said handbook focuses more on literary criticism) and you'll certainly -- I just checked -- find it in the back of the Norton Anthology in the section poetic forms and literary terminology. I'm surprised to hear that the OED doesn't have it. I gave away my own Compact OED -- a full version, but compacted into very small font in two volumes...you need a magnifying glass to read it. I'm actually kinda really regretting having given them to a friend who really needed them for school, after I had already left school.

I imagine the modern literary meaning derives from its relationship to "assonance" as you cited above (=ASSONANCE 1589) and the distinction in meaning was created precisely because they needed the word to describe a specific phenomena. Perhaps one of the other literarily-inclined board members (Rah?) could help with the origins of this specific definition.

~Random
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hopkins (fine Welsh name) -- Celebaelin, 15:26:44 03/09/03 Sun

From http://www.yesenglishonline.com/poetry.htm#Hopkins

Spring and Fall (1880)

MÁRGAR...T, áre you gríeving
Over Goldengrove unleaving?
Leáves, líke the things of man, you
With your fresh thoughts care for, can you?
Áh! ás the heart grows older 5
It will come to such sights colder
By and by, nor spare a sigh
Though worlds of wanwood leafmeal lie;
And yet you wíll weep and know why.
Now no matter, child, the name: 10
Sórrow's spríngs áre the same.
Nor mouth had, no nor mind, expressed
What heart heard of, ghost guessed:
It ís the blight man was born for,
It is Margaret you mourn for. 15


The melancholy of Autumn leaves, always makes me feel that tugging in my chest. Like damp weather or cheese on toast to quote Goscinny and Uderzo (Asterix anyone?).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Lovely poem. One of my faves -- Rahael, 15:45:54 03/09/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Anom may be able to help -- Rahael who doesn't even own a dictionary, 15:43:52 03/09/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Tell me where lost years are -- fresne, 10:44:40 03/09/03 Sun

We Spike/huge block of cement shippers must stick together. Although, I had forgotten about crypt door. Hmmm...I hope this doesn't develop into a tragic love triangle. I have this sudden image of an episode of after-BtVS. Spike is bouncing off the walls because huge block of cement has gone to confront crypt door. Cut to Twin Peaks-ish scene of a huge block of cement sitting in front of the crypt door. The wind blows in the trees. Seconds tick by. Cut back to Spike bouncing off the walls again.

I miss Kate too. It was nice seeing Angel interact with someone outside of the Fang Gang. And the nice dollop of chemistry was a pleasant twist on the film noir hero and his buddy on the force trope, which reminds me I need to pick up the next installment of Jim Butcher's Dresden files. Nice universe, the main character is the only Wizard listed in the yellow pages. Crime. Investigation. Gathering apocalypse. You know, all the usual suspects.

Hm, yeah classical for Angel. That makes sense. I was just somehow stuck on trying to imagine Angel doing 1700s set dances and possibly a pavane. It was a very silly image and involved harpsichords and for some reason ragtime hand gestures. Classical works much better for Angelus. Danse Macabre perhaps.

Now Dru - she listens to Covenant. Oh, and the singing of falling stars, got with child mandrake roots, but I'm not sure that those albums are generally available.

Happy Birthday and felicitations.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks all!! And on Butcher's Dresden -- s'kat, 11:46:30 03/09/03 Sun

I'm familar with Butcher's Dresden - James Marsters does a fantastic reading of him in STORM FRONT, enough to make me want to check out another of the series. Wish Marsters would do more audio books - I've listened to other audio books in the past but he does the best.

and thanks for that!! It's a nice sunny day in NYC so what am I doing on the computer? ;-) SK
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ROFLMAO! -- dub, 13:57:57 03/09/03 Sun

The harpsichord and the ragtime hand gestures? For a menopausal woman, it was a Depends moment!

Y'know, I think this new medication is somehow renewing my lease on life...nah, it's gotta be the Board.

;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wishing you many wonderful unguents on your Special Day, s'kat! -- dub ;o), 13:29:48 03/09/03 Sun

Okay, I stole that from fresne...

;o)
[> [> [> [> [> Female here and agreeing with S'kat...... -- yabyumpan, 11:27:11 03/08/03 Sat

....but then I did smell of bong water at one time, I was the 'acid queen' ;o) I used to be into Prince at one time untill I saw him concert, it's the only time I've ever walked out of a gig!
[> [> [> [> [> My mom doesn't post here, but she definitely would agree with you. -- Rob, 13:57:38 03/08/03 Sat

I actually grew up listening to mostly my mom's music, so I know Floyd, Zeppelin, Yes, Janis Joplin and even Fleetwood Mac, Elton John and Billy Joel, better than most of the 80s music that was on the radio when I was little. And according to her, she did pot very rarely, so that isn't a factor. If we believe her. ;o)

Personally, I don't do any drugs at all and love Dark Side.

Rob
[> [> [> [> [> I'll vote for Dark Side of the Moon over Prince any day -- Masq, 19:37:41 03/08/03 Sat

That album is a classic. A listener's album. Prince is merely fun to dance to.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Am I the only one on this board... -- Scroll, 20:33:03 03/08/03 Sat

...who has no idea what either song/album sounds like? I don't listen to Prince and I've never even heard of "Dark Side of the Moon" before today.

Yes, I admit it, I'm a cultural ignoramus : (
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Really? -- Random, 08:04:27 03/09/03 Sun

How old are you, Scroll? If you're younger than say, 23 or so, I can see how you might not have actually listened to them. But never heard of "Dark Side of the Moon?" That amazes me. Like it or hate it, most people have heard of it -- it's a legendary album. And the cover graphic falls into that category -- with "Signs", the White Album and Sgt. Peppers, "Thick as a Brick," "In the Court of the Crimson King," "Sticky Fingers," et cetera -- of instantly recognizable cultural icons. As much as any corporate logo, really. As for "1999" -- that's more understandable. You've probably heard the title song though. Big thing around the turn of the millennium, for obvious reasons. It's even been referenced on BtVS at least once.

~Random
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm 23 exactly -- Scroll, 11:35:46 03/09/03 Sun

Yeah, I might have heard "1999" before, especially around New Years : ) I've just turned 23 -- good guess! Perhaps it's because my parents never listened to music when I was growing up. My sister listens to pop stuff, my brother to rap/R&B/hip-hop.

Me, I listen to Sarah McLachlan and my Buffy CD. Besides classical piano and music history, I don't really know anything about music. I know stuff about Gregorian chants and Debussy, but nothing about anything after Duke Ellington. And even what I know about classical music is fading fast, much to my dismay.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That'll do it. And Debussy and Ellington are nothing to sneeze at. -- Random, 12:42:52 03/09/03 Sun

[> OK, I've gone through the topic and there's one aspect that has been missed -- KdS, 03:41:12 03/08/03 Sat

Yes, Buffy's threatened by the implications for her relationship with Angel - are vampires really monsters with no feelings, what does it mean if Spike loves her while Angelus stopped loving her as soon as he didn't have a soul - but nobody has brought out how threatening it is in relation to Buffy's self-image.

Look at the episode in context of the second half of S5 - Buffy's afraid that she's turning into a monster, losing her emotions, becoming something cold and predatory. What does it does it say about *her* if Spike loves her? If this evil predatory monster falls in love with her, what's attracting him? Is it that he sees her as something similar to himself? And of course, when Spike's feelings towards her start darkening post-Smashed her worst fears start being realised.
[> [> Re: OK, I've gone through the topic and there's one aspect that has been missed -- LadyStarlight, 09:11:15 03/08/03 Sat

Look at the episode in context of the second half of S5 - Buffy's afraid that she's turning into a monster, losing her emotions, becoming something cold and predatory. What does it does it say about *her* if Spike loves her? If this evil predatory monster falls in love with her, what's attracting him? Is it that he sees her as something similar to himself? And of course, when Spike's feelings towards her start darkening post-Smashed her worst fears start being realised.

If we turn this around to Spike's POV, he goes through a sea-change of 'how to treat Buffy'. Go back to Lover's Walk when he says "I've been going about this all wrong. I'm going to find Dru and torture her until she loves me again."

This sums up (imho) how vampires love. Yes, we've seen Spike be incredibly tender towards Dru, but that was when a) she was weak & sickly and b) when he was confined to a wheelchair. That crack on the head in Becoming 2 wasn't exactly tender -- and he couldn't just talk her into leaving.

Crush was Spike's attempt at wooing Buffy. The 'date' was his interpretation of how humans act, probably gleaned from the media. The tying up was swinging back towards how he would behave as a vampire.

Once she de-invited him, they were back on a more-or-less equal footing. She knew how he felt, he knew how she felt and a truce could be declared.

In S6, once the sexual relationship started, Spike starts slipping back to the vampire way of treating Buffy. Rough sex and rough words. When she beats the snot out of him, that probably confirmed subconciously that 'she loves me'.

(all of the above is just my theory, I like Spike as a character and obviously, I have waaayyy too much time on my hands to think about this. Maybe I should go clean the house now??)
[> [> [> LOL! Ditto. -- s'kat, 09:44:43 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> Ditto on the house cleaning?? 'Cause I changed my mind. ;) -- LadyStarlight, 09:59:22 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> On all of the above....and housecleaning? what's that? ;-) -- sk, 10:11:32 03/08/03 Sat

[> [> Re: OK, I've gone through the topic and there's one aspect that has been missed -- ponygirl, 17:20:26 03/08/03 Sat

I always saw Buffy's reaction in Crush as a mixture of disgust and fear. The disgust was to be expected, but the fear was pretty interesting. I think, as you say KdS, that Buffy is worried about how Spike's feelings reflect on her. It's a fear of what she is, of what her friends might think, and also what it says about her relationship with Angel. As Anya, talking about relationships, points out in Triangle when something happens more than once you have to question what it means. Having a second vampire fall in love with Buffy makes the first seem like less of a pure, once-in-a-lifetime love and more of a pattern.
[> To thine own self be true -- lunasea, 12:43:01 03/08/03 Sat

I think the problem with S5 is that Buffy didn't know who her own self was. Spike being capable of good doesn't throw Angelus or Giles into question. It throws her entire vocation into question.

When it comes to Spike, Buffy is incredibly conflicted. Riley and any of the Scoobies would have dusted him in a heartbeat if they didn't know this would piss Buffy off. Buffy every now and then would see Spike as the pathetic creature he was. Her heart went out to this creature. The Slayer in her says, "hunt, kill" this pathetic creature. She is incredibly torn and her inconsistency in her treatment of Spike results.

Buffy has a pattern in her treatment of Spike. 1) Spike is vampire. I hate vampires. 2) Spike does something pathetic or sweet 3) Buffy's heart goes out to him. 4) Spike does or says something to mess this up. 5)Buffy gets more angry and demeaning because not only is Spike a jerk/evil afterall, but for a minute she thought he wasn't.

Buffy doesn't know what she is, especially S5. She is questioning her ability to love. She doesn't understand her nature. She thinks those moments when she feels for Spike are wrong. She is trying to be true to what she thinks she is, so when Spike tells her he loves her, she reacts badly.

Spike and Buffy really aren't that different. Both act how they think they should. Buffy as Slayer shouldn't feel compassion for a soulless vampire and Spike as love's bitch has to be willing to do anything for Buffy.
[> [> Very astute -- Scroll, 13:12:34 03/08/03 Sat

Buffy has a pattern in her treatment of Spike. 1) Spike is vampire. I hate vampires. 2) Spike does something pathetic or sweet 3) Buffy's heart goes out to him. 4) Spike does or says something to mess this up. 5)Buffy gets more angry and demeaning because not only is Spike a jerk/evil afterall, but for a minute she thought he wasn't.

Love your little point-form explanation. Very accurate, IMO, except for 1).

I'm not sure Buffy hates vampires; I think she kills them because they're dangerous killers that snack on innocent populace. But shy of the vamps Buffy knows personally -- Angel(us), Drusilla, the Master, Spike, Harmony, (maybe) Darla -- I don't think vamps even register on Buffy's radar as things she can hate. They're just obstacles to hurdle, in her way of thinking. Monsters to dust, not actual sentient beings to hate.
[> [> [> I agree, to some degree -- lunasea, 15:03:16 03/08/03 Sat

I was just trying to be quick in my response. She does have some sort of negative feelings in order to do her job. We could say Buffy thinks "vampires are evil/harmful and I need to dust them."

She even tells Angel that he was the first vampire she ever hated. (that hate didn't last long) She sees vampires as non-entities. It allows her to do her job. I would say she did hate Spike and Dru when they started picking on her boyfriend. Not sure she feels anything for Dru any more.

I think part of the problem with the Spike-Buffy dynamic is the angle the viewer approaches it. If they approach it from how should Buffy treat Spike, they are going to see a bitch who mistreated him. We all want our favorite characters to be treated well by the other characters, so Spike shippers tend to characterize Buffy as a bitch who mistreats Spike.

The writers weren't writing from Spike's perspective. They were using how she treated Spike to show something about her. It wasn't that she was an uncaring bitch, but the contrary. Everyone around her wanted him dusted. She at least was conflicted over this. That Buffy could feel for a soulless creature shows how amazing she is. It is easy to love the loveable. It is another thing to find compassion for the serial killer rapist.

I think how Buffy views vampires will be very important this season. (same thing with Angel)
[> Strongly agree...about Crush AND Dark Side (Prince better?!? Feh!) -- Rob, 13:51:28 03/08/03 Sat

Current board | More March 2003