May 2002
posts
Entropy
as irreversibility (partly in response to Darby's
"Entropy questions, ...") -- Lonesome Sundown,
17:53:58 05/01/02 Wed
*delurk* Okay, my second attempt at posting this. My earlier
one never showed up. Anyway, I've been reading many
insightful posts here for some time now and finally have
something useful to say (I think).
Darby wrote:
> Don't get the title - everything falls apart? It seems
> like just the opposite was happening. The only entropic >
activity was in things that had already fallen apart,
> and even those forged new or stronger connections
> elsewhere.
Entropy (to be more accurate, the CHANGE in entropy) has
another interpretation: it is a measure of the
irreversibility of any process. "Things fall apart" and you
can't put them back together to be exactly the way they were
before. And I think some relationships and perceptions were
changed forever in the episode.
Xander says "I just wish we could go back to the way things
were before". To him it means the time when he and Anya
were dating and he didn't have to worry about the
commitment of marriage. This is also clear from his dialogue
with Buffy and Willow in Normal Again:
(from the shooting script of Normal Again at
http://www.studiesinwords.de/shooting/normal1.html)
WILLOW So, you left her at the altar but... you still
want...?
BUFFY You still want to date?
XANDER I guess. I know my life is better with her in it.
But Anya asks "Do you still want to marry me?" and Xander's
stumbling answer pushes her on the path to vengeance.
Clearly there's no way to "go back to the way things were
before", even before Anya has sex with Spike, because they
want different things.
The sex, now THAT changes a whole lot of other things. It
might actually help Anya and Xander to understand themselves
better. Anya, who was trying for the first 55 minutes of the
episode to get somebody, anybody to wreak vengeance upon
Xander hushes Spike just as he is about to make a wish. She
has seen Xander's anguish and anger mirroring her own
feelings when he deserted her, and realizes the futility of
revenge. She has lost touch with aspects of her demon
existence and is maybe rediscovering more complex human
emotions. After this episode I don't think she can go back
to being the Anya of old, either
the vengeance demon or the self-centered human.
Given Xander's antipathy towards Spike, how will he come to
terms with the knowledge that his ex-fiancee and one of his
closest friends have slept with him? If he continues to
loathe Spike as an evil, soulless thing, what should he
think of Buffy and Anya who slept with him and both of
whom he loves? If he is eventually able to overcome his
bitterness at them, he will also have to change his attitude
towards Spike.
Okay, done rambling now.
[>
Spoilers above for Hell's Bells, Normal Again, Entropy
(NT) -- Lonesome Sundown, 17:55:44 05/01/02 Wed
[>
Nice point -- Sophist, 19:54:06 05/01/02 Wed
[>
Re: Entropy as irreversibility -- Malandanza,
08:34:21 05/02/02 Thu
"Entropy (to be more accurate, the CHANGE in entropy) has
another interpretation: it is a measure of the
irreversibility of any process. "Things fall apart" and you
can't put them back together to be exactly the way they were
before. And I think some relationships and perceptions were
changed forever in the episode."
Certainly this is true for Xander and Anya. Leaving Anya at
the altar made it extremely unlikely that the relationship
would ever work again -- but Anya's sex with Spike ended any
possibility of reversibility. People can argue over whether
or not Xander had a "right" to be angry with Anya, but his
actions were understandable, more so than Lindsey's actions
after he found out that Darla (who was never his girlfriend)
had had sex with Angel. Anya/Xander is over -- it only
remains to be seen what happens to Anya. Does she go back
to being a vengeance demon or remain in the human world as
proprietor of a magic shop (or both -- a magic shop might be
a good place to meet people seeking vengeance)?
I also think Buffy/Spike is finally over. At the beginning
of the episode, we see Spike confessing his eternal love for
Buffy and at the end (the same day) we see him having sex
with her friend. From Buffy's perspective, it is easy to
see how these two events might seem mutually exclusive.
Given Buffy's penchant for overidentification, I doubt
she'll be angry with Anya -- she's been lost and vulnerable
when a vampire "slipped in and had himself a good day." By
excusing Anya, she excuses herself -- it's Spike's fault.
Additionally, since Spike broke his tacit agreement with
Buffy about not revealing their sexual relationship, he can
no longer hold the threat of exposure over Buffy's head,
which must be a great relief to Buffy (she made light of his
threats at the start of the episode, but that was partly
bravado, I think). Finally, Spike managed to destroy the
last bits of sympathy Buffy had for him. She's been feeling
sorry for poor William because he's in love and she's not --
but his deliberate attempt to hurt Xander, regardless of
Buffy's feelings (I mean, the girl was standing right
there!) had to have assuaged her guilty conscience. Spike
could not have a more hateful time to reveal the secret --
he's lucky she didn't carry out her promise to stake
him.
Buffy and Xander's friendship will, I think, not be
permanently damaged by the revelation. Xander will blame
Spike, not Buffy, once he's gotten over the shock.
Buffy the permanent changes in Buffy/Spike and Xander/Anya
bode ill for Tara/Willow -- ME loves titles that apply to
more than just the usual suspects (Epiphany is the
episode I always think of in this respect -- yes, Angel had
an epiphany, but so did Lindsey and Kate).
[> [>
My disgust is with Xander and Buffy, not Spike or
Anya. -- yez, 10:25:53 05/02/02 Thu
I disagree that "Spike broke his tacit agreement with Buffy
about not revealing their sexual relationship." As you
mentioned, Buffy told him she didn't care if he told -- she
practically even challenged him to do it by effectively
"bragging" about how loyal her friends were, IMHO. Also,
Spike clearly told her in "Normal Again" that he would tell
them if she didn't. To be fair, Buffy may not have had an
accurate memory of that as she was in the grips of
dementia... but still.
Also, I agree that "From Buffy's perspective, it is easy to
see how these two events [Spike's love and him sleeping with
Anya] might seem mutually exclusive," mainly because I think
Buffy is a jerk and I've lost just about any sympathy I had
for her. She admits to using Spike, repeatedly tells him so
and tells him she doesn't have feelings of love for him,
beats him to a pulp on occasions where he's expressed his
feelings for her, and then she has the nerve to give a damn
that he has sex with someone else? She's the queen of mixed
messages, that one.
Finally, I *really* disagree that Spike is the one that
needs to be held accountable for trying to deliberately hurt
someone in this episode. He's supposed to not only stand
there for Xander's physical violence and attempt to kill
him, but also not say anything to defend himself against
Xander's verbal abuse?
How convenient for Xander that Anya's sex partner was just a
soulless demon and so Xander can turn his homicidal
jealousy/rage loose and beat him and try to kill him and it
doesn't seem to really count. Just like Buffy can beat the
crap out of her lover, and it doesn't really count because
he's not human.
I have to say, right now, I'm completely disgusted with both
Buffy and Xander.
yez
[> [> [>
Re: My disgust is with Xander and Buffy, not Spike or
Anya. -- clg0107, 10:46:42 05/02/02 Thu
It's also worth keeping in mind that Spike could physically
hurt Buffy if he wanted to, and he doesn't even try.
And when he goes to the Magic Box, is *he* looking for
vengeance, or to inflict some sort of pain/harm on Buffy?
No -- he just bloody well wants the pain to stop.
I still get all the stuff about soulless demon, yaddah,
yaddah. But Spike finally letting the cat out of the bag,
really only points out to me how very long he refrained from
doing so. Even if you consider the weeks since Buffy broke
things off, he's never lashed out at her with the intent of
hurting her, and he's taken her abuse and that of her
friends rather than tell her secret. Damned chivalrous, I
think...then, he gave he fair warning that he wasn't going
to be her dirty little secret any longer, and she, in the
end, says to go ahead and tell them...
Whatever.
I am loving the show, BTW, the above rant
notwithstanding.
:-)
~ clg0107
[> [> [> [>
Re: My disgust is with Xander and Buffy, not Spike or
Anya. -- Lilac, 10:54:56 05/02/02 Thu
I do agree that Spike held off spilling his secret
remarkably well. Even when he is commiserating with Anya, he
never directly lets it slip that the girl he is talking
about is Buffy -- he does refer to saving Scoobies, so if
Anya had really been listening to him, she should have said
"what?", but she wasn't and she didn't. While I am sure that
Buffy will hold his having said anything to Xander against
Spike, it doesn't really seem like an unreasonable response
to defend one's own value after being almost killed and
derided as being less than nothing. Buffy should have
stopped the tirade herself. While defending Spike would
undoubtedly been beyond her, she could have at least
diffused the verbal abuse.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: My disgust is with Xander and Buffy, not Spike or
Anya. -- DEN, 11:49:03 05/02/02 Thu
It's interesting, isn't it, that in this final encounter of
the ep it's the two "demons" who are the most "human" in
their emotions and behavior, while Xander and Buffy are as
self-centered--dare I say as soulless-- as any creature of
the night we've met.
[> [> [>
Telling secrets -- Sophist, 14:33:45 05/02/02
Thu
I think that in order to judge Spike's action in revealing
the relationship, we need to know 2 things:
1. Whether he had a right to disclose it.
2. His reason for doing so.
Several of the comments above in this thread praise Spike
for not "telling" earlier. I can't see that as praiseworthy.
His relationship was with Buffy. Disclosing it, like all
decisions in a relationship, has to be mutual. Spike was
certainly right that Buffy's concealment of it was insulting
to him, but his remedy is to break it off, not to tell.
I can see 3 motivations he might have had: to justify
himself; to hurt Xander; to defend Anya. It's pretty hard
for me to see either of the first 2 reasons as praiseworthy.
He hardly needs to justify himself to Xander; that's
spitting in the ocean. Hurting Xander, while certainly
understandable given the provocation, is not something to
encourage. While I don't know that we can ever know for
certain, my view is that he said it to protect Anya. In
other words, he was telling Xander that he had no basis to
attack Anya for something Buffy had also done. As I pointed
out below, this was what Buffy herself should have done. If
this was his reason, and if Buffy herself should have made
the disclosure to protect Anya, then I think Spike was right
to say it.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Telling secrets -- Lilac, 14:48:20 05/02/02
Thu
I think that Spike did indeed have a right to tell at that
point (and even earlier, during his conversation with Anya)
because Buffy had told him that if he wanted it told so
much, tell it, she was sure that her friends would get over
it. From that point on, I think he would have been justified
telling any of them he wanted to -- although I don't think
he felt that way, because he was careful not to tell Anya.
When he did tell, his motivation seemed to me to be a
combination of defending himself, defending Anya, and not
letting Buffy sit out the storm. Buffy's silence during
Xander's attack on Spike and Anya was probably what drove
the secret out at last. I think it would have taken a much
more saintly person than Spike could ever aspire to be to
keep quiet in the face of the viciousness of Xander's
diatribe.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Telling secrets -- Sophist, 15:03:23
05/02/02 Thu
The reason I don't see Buffy's comment as giving Spike carte
blanche is that it came in reaction to his threat of
blackmail (I guess that's what to call it). It wasn't really
permission so much as a rejection of his attempt to force
the issue.
Just so we're clear here, I think Buffy was wrong in
concealing the relationship. That doesn't mean Spike could
just blurt it out.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Telling secrets -- Lilac, 16:32:06 05/02/02
Thu
Oh come on Sophist, was that much of a blackmail attempt --
I'll drop this garden variety vamp in your general vicinity
if you don't tell? I think that Buffy had either convinced
herself that her friends would forgive her just as they did
her almost murderous rampage or she was trying to convince
herself that would be the case, hence her willingness to let
him to tell if he wants to. OR she was presuming that Spike,
always up til now willing to do what she wants, would still
keep the secret -- which is what he did until really sorely
stressed.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Telling secrets -- Sophist, 17:19:54
05/02/02 Thu
I don't want to get hung up on the word choice. Blackmail is
too strong. He was pushing, she was resisting. His may not
have been a real threat, but hers was not real
permission.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Telling secrets -- yez, 14:50:32 05/02/02
Thu
Interesting. IMHO, while I wouldn't be surprised by Spike
trying to defend Anya (and was somewhat surprised that he
didn't do so more forcefully), I would be surprised if this
was the primary motivation for divulging the "secret." IMHO,
Spike would likely say it more out of trading an insult or
defending himself -- even being macho, like he does when
Riley finds them.
yez
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Telling secrets -- Sophist, 14:59:45
05/02/02 Thu
You may well be right. The reason I viewed it more
sympathetically to Spike is that it came after his very
empathetic time with Anya. But I certainly can't rule out
your suggestion -- it's very much in character for Spike to
do that.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
It's his secret as much as hers... -- Forsaken,
16:12:35 05/02/02 Thu
I say it's his right to disclose the secret any time he
wants. Buffy isn't his boss, despite her obvious control
issues. I am disgusted with the way Bufy treats him, and
the way Xander treats him. I'm also disgusted with Spike,
we've clearly seen that he can hit people despite the chip,
if he can stand the pain. We've seen him take Xander out
with one hit before. I think he could have taken a migraine
easier than he took everything he ended up getting.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: It's his secret as much as hers... -- Sophist,
17:24:57 05/02/02 Thu
I'm not going to disagree with your disgust about Xander's
behavior, nor do I disagree that it was a mutual secret. My
point was the one Tara made to Willow -- when there's a
relationship, significant decisions have to be mutual. If
the other person behaves unreasonably (and I think Buffy did
just that in hiding it from her friends), then Spike was
free to walk away. He should have, in fact. But none of that
makes it right for him to reveal the secret (unless, as I
suggest, he said it to protect Anya).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: It's his secret as much as hers... -- Valhalla,
20:47:53 05/02/02 Thu
But Buffy has consistently denied that they did have a
relationship, and she did give him permission to tell. I
took her 'go ahead' statement as a mixture of bravado and a
dare. Bravado because I don't believe she felt as secure
with her friends/Dawn after the asylum episode as her words
would otherwise imply, and a dare because, well, that's how
her words sounded. It made me wonder if she didn't almost
want to have him tell -- then she wouldn't have to.
Regardless of Buffy's state of mind, though, she did say to
go ahead -- unless she was clearly being sarcastic, or
joking, or changed her mind afterwards and made that clear
to Spike, how can you construe what she said as not being
permission? It's rather unfair to ask Spike to be
responsible for the 'true meaning' of Buffy's words -- it's
Buffy who should be responsible for them. Buffy hasn't been
clear on what she wants for herself all season (which Spike
has been the main victim of), but it's not right to hold
Spike responsible for that. I'm not saying Spike should
have told because she deserved it in any sort of punishment
sense, just that Buffy should know that words have power and
she can't just throw them out there and not expect
consequences.
The other thing (maybe someone's already brought this up - I
may have missed it) is that while Spike may have chosen a
better moment to tell people, his motivation for letting
Buffy's friends isn't entirely self-serving. In Normal
Again, he gives her the ultimatum partly because he believes
it will get her out of the rut she's been in all season.
Yes, people in relationships should make significant
decisions together. But it's not so clear cut when one
person in a relationship is making a choice that the other
person thinks is really bad for them.
I really didn't mean to go on so when I started this, but
now I may as well keep going -- on the issue of whether
Spike had permission to tell -- Buffy was acting
unilaterally when she told Spike he could never tell anyone
(she threatened to kill him, in fact, if he did). She
didn't consult with him on the decision, they didn't talk it
over, she made the decision for both of them and then backed
it up with a clear threat of force. Even if you think her
permission to Spike to tell was less than perfect, it was
clearly under less duress than her ban on telling.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: It's his secret as much as hers... --
Malandanza, 23:40:42 05/02/02 Thu
"I took her 'go ahead' statement as a mixture of bravado
and a dare. Bravado because I don't believe she felt as
secure with her friends/Dawn after the asylum episode as her
words would otherwise imply, and a dare because, well,
that's how her words sounded. It made me wonder if she
didn't almost want to have him tell -- then she wouldn't
have to."
I certainly agree that her statement was partly bravado
(perhaps even mostly). Part of it was also realizing that
he had no power over her and calling his bluff. The threat
that he would tell her friends has given Spike power over
Buffy. But it is only the threat that is power -- if he
tells, it hurts her once and then he loses that power.
My feeling is that Spike made a mistake -- had he been
thinking clearly, he would have kept the secret. By telling
he has lost whatever hold he had on Buffy, and by telling it
under those circumstances, he has made himself a very
unsympathetic figure, giving Buffy every reason to cut him
entirely out of her life. He doesn't even deserve her pity
now.
So why did he tell? Not to defend Anya. The things Xander
said to him recalled almost exactly the things Buffy had
said to him. He was in pain and wanted to strike back --
and did so without thinking through the consequences. It
was an incredibly stupid thing to do, but also typically
impulsive Spike behavior.
I'm glad he told. No more blackmail, no more secrets to
torment Buffy, no more dragging Buffy into darkness. Buffy
looked happy this episode when she interacted with Dawn and
I hope we see more of that in the future. It's what Buffy
needs -- and a great deal more satisfying for her than
guilty, abusive sex with a pathetic creature she
loathes.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
She hates the truth and is still in darkness --
Anne, 03:39:27 05/03/02 Fri
Buffy is still not anywhere close to getting out of the dark
because it's still inside her -- has nothing to do with
Spike except how she has abused him and how she has lied,
and continued to lie, about it. What Buffy needs to do to
get out of the darkness is something she has so far never
done: tell the truth about Spike to anybody, Tara, herself,
Spike, anybody.
Not only has she been a liar in not wanting to tell her
friends that she slept with him, she has not acknowledged
that her treatment of him was not just sexual use, but abuse
of all kinds: physical, verbal, and emotional. She has not
acknowledged that horrendous beating to anybody. She has
not acknowledged that in her relationship with Spike, she
was as much or more of a monster than him. This abuse,
other than the physical, has continued unabated, with the
one exception of the conversation in Hell's Bell's, since
she broke up with him.
Yeay, okay, as usual Spike told the truth, the truth nobody
wanted to hear. And Buffy looked at him with an expression,
to use the phrase from a shooting script that has been
kicking around the boards, "ripe with hatred". She still
hates the truth; she's still in the dark; she has learned
nothing and as far as I'm concerned is going nowhere.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Yes, she's reached bottom but hasn't started the
journey back... -- Caroline, 07:28:54 05/03/02
Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Maybe there is more to Buffy resisting Spike --
Ahira, 07:32:00 05/03/02 Fri
Thought just kinda popped into my head. Here we have
Spike. Often referred to as evil, bad, soulless and
chipped, Spike is basically still the demon he always was
with a limitation on hurting humans. Through all this and
for quite a while, he has worked very hard on telling Buffy
he loves her and has done many things to try and prove it
(at least as far as he sees it) plus been of help to the
scoobies in general. Revelation comes, Spike can now hurt
the returned Buffy. As far as the slayer is concerned, he
has no limitations any more to hold him back. What has he
done? Continued to want her in his life for more than just
sex.
Buffy knows he can hurt her, she has no special
protection from him anymore. She has seen no change in him
at all. He still does all the same things in trying to win
her heart. There is the possibility that the other members
of the group could revenge her if he did something, but I
don't think he is too worried about them. Willow and Tara
are the only ones he would really need to fear, and only if
they saw him coming. This experience can be very hard for
Buffy, as it would throw a lot of things in question. Are
even vampires simply evil?
I don't necessarily feel that these thoughts have run
through her mind, even subconsciously, but an even bigger
dilemma can be considered. Angel, vampire with a soul, her
first and greatest love. Something she felt was true and
real. Then, Angel loses his soul and immmediately sets
about hurting her in very deep and personal ways for his own
enjoyment. As things stand right now, is there any real
difference between Spike, chip not working where Buffy is
concerned, and Angel without his soul? I would say no, both
are/were completely free to be true to vampire nature where
she is concerned. Spike hasn't, Angel did. Could there be
rumblings in the back of her mind? Is it possible that she
is questioning the nature and depth of the love shared with
Angel?
How could one not be shaken deeply at even the
possibility of something you know to be true coming into
doubt. Does she look at Spike with the full knowledge that
he can be fully evil and free to indulge it where she is
concerned, but hasn't. Then, have to remember that Angel
had no problems reverting to full demon when his limitation
was removed.
As I said, just a thought.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Good observation. -- yez, 09:49:07 05/03/02
Fri
I would love it if ME had her talk about that fear/concern
as it would help her behavior with Spike this season seem
complex and interesting instead of just simple-minded, self-
pitying and mean, which is the way it's seemed to me.
yez
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Re: Maybe there is more to Buffy resisting Spike --
shadowkat, 08:10:47 05/05/02 Sun
I have always thought that the Angel thing is her biggest
problem with Spike. I think Spike must realize that as well,
since a) he was there when Angel turned and knows intimately
what Angel did to her and b) he brought it up to torment her
in Harsh Light of Day and to some degree in
Into the Woods and Wrecked. But he probably veers away from
it due to the fact that the Angel topic is as painful for
him as it is for her.
Angel is actually the biggest problem for everyone,
characters, writers and audience. The problem is enough to
make me wish they hadn't done what they did with Angel and
sometimes I wonder if they don't wish the same thing. It's
caused them a consistency nightmare that I've enjoyed
watching them attempt to write around for the last five
years. They've done a brillant job btw. Buffy and the
gang
can never trust Spike outside of his feelings for Buffy
because of Angelus. Soulless Vampires are evil, Angelus
proved that to them. What ME's view on this is...well, I'm
not sure...I change my mind daily. Spike is in some ways
more fascinating to me than Angel - b/c he's a vampire who
has no soul and is in complete conflict with his nature and
I must say there's a bit of the extentialist in me ;-).
He must be an endless source of confusion to Buffy - I don't
think she's ever understood him or her attraction to him. I
don't think she can. He on the other hand understands her
better than he understands himself. I don't think he gets
himself at all. Personally I think ME has written themselves
into a corner with Spike regarding the whole soul/evil
thesis. Can't wait to see how they get out of it.
As for B/S relationship? I don't see any hope unless they do
something major characterwise with Spike that would allow
her to trust him outside of herself. And not be in conflict
with her feelings for Angel.
That said - I often wonder how she's dealt with the fact
that of the vampires she's been involved with, he's the only
one who has not bitten her and he could. Also how has she
dealt with the fact that soulless - he continues to try to
help her save her friends and family while Angelus wanted to
kill them. Even without the chip - he never really
tried to kill them. He had ample opportunity with Joyce in
Lover's Walk and could have done it in HLOD (instead he made
a bee line for Buffy) -
heck, it wasn't until after Crush that Buffy thought to
disinvite him. He only tries to hurt Willow in the Initative
b/c Buffy wasn't there. I never got the feeling
he was going to kill Willow and Xander in Lover's Walk...but
that could just be me ...at any rate, at this point, I'm as
confused about whether we should trust Spike as Buffy is.
Maybe that's intentional?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Re: Maybe there is more to Buffy resisting Spike --
LittleBIt, 09:01:15 05/05/02 Sun
I have thought that Buffy can not allow herself to even
think that Spike could love her, let alone does, because
that would entirely negate all of the assumptions of
Angel/Angelus: that he was able to love her because of the
soul, but when the soul was gone the ability was gone.
If she so much as gives Spike the benefit of any doubt, she
has to admit that the undying, pure, Love of a Lifetime that
she had with Angel may not have been what she believed.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Re: Maybe there is more to Buffy resisting Spike --
SpikeMom,
18:46:31 05/05/02 Sun
Here goes my first big dos centavos worth.
By my online name you can see I am definately in Spike's
rooting section. My ultimate hope is that Spike somehow
ends up as Buffy's Watcher ala the Restless episode
(Xander's dream). I think think he is well able to love
Buffy without the human soul. So far in this Buffyverse the
soul seems to stand for conscience and choice more than
anything else: what you choose to do with the emotions you
have. I think that Angelus made a choice to reject the love
he had for Buffy (fountain scene at end of IOHEFY) and the
concept of real love in general. He definately felt it, he
just didn't want it. So, yes I think Spike's love for Buffy
is the real thing. That said ... here's my big dread ...
remember in the Angelus story arc where Spike is trying to
hurry up the Buffy killing already? Angelus tells Spike
that you can only kill this Slayer by loving her. YIKES.
So has the killer of two Slayers been applying the lesson
learned at the feet of the master tormentor? Gosh I hope
not! He did say the only thing better than killing a Slayer
is ... well, you know. I'm hoping Spike's love is the real
thing. If it's just a ruse, it's an incredibly elaborate
one with many missed opportunities for a simple, surprise
Slayer slaying.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Re: Maybe there is more to Buffy resisting Spike --
alcibiades, 21:00:33 05/05/02 Sun
I don't think you have to worry about it. As you said, that
is what Angelus told Spike. Angelus never killed any
Slayers. If he had, that would have been his perfered modus
operandi --first love them, then torture them, then once
they are weak, kill them.
Spike, OTOH, has killed Slayers and he never needed any
fancy psychological tricks, just regular battle lust to do
the job. Buffy of course is a harder case. But in fact, in
AYW, when Buffy tells him that their "this" is killing her,
Spike backs off immediately. He patently doesn't want her
dead. And he only begins importuning her again once it is
clear to him that it is not the "this" that is killing her,
but her lack of honesty viz. her friends about their
relationship, the secrecy, the lies, the shame and the lack
of respect she gives to her former lover.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: the lack of respect issue -- SpikeMom,
22:29:12 05/05/02 Sun
Thanks so much for the reply and the reassurance. As I said
it's just been a little voice in the back of my head about
how to kill this Slayer. Plus the constant repetition of
the trust theme.
As far as the respect issue goes I think it ties in with the
ongoing discussion as to whether or not Spike had the right
to reveal the relationship. I think Spike is tired of
waiting around for Buffy to show him some respect and has
finally decided to stand up and show himself some well-
deserved respect. Bravo Spike! And honestly, Buffy, if you
don't want people you love and respect to know the choices
you've made, maybe you shouldn't be making them?
I brought up this idea in an earlier post but I think it got
buried in all the discussion over who had the right to
decide when to tell. I am amazingly new at this and am not
real sure where and when to post but the folks on this board
seem to be the patience sort.
I read all the posts and enjoy the thoughtful, civilized
discussion. Looking forward to more.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Postscript regarding Angel and dead Slayers --
SpikeMom,
22:57:33 05/05/02 Sun
In Fool For Love, when Dru announces that Spike has killed
his first Slayer, a very subdued Angel/Angelus replies "I
guess that makes you one of us now". Does that mean the
other three have indeed killed at least one Slayer apiece?
When Dru kills Kendra, Spike says "Dru bagged herself a
Slayer? Good for her!" not that she got her first. So I
don't think we can positively rule out Angelus/Angel from
membership in the Got A Slayer Club.
Perhaps you or another board member can answer a time-line
question for me. I have not seen AtS seasons 1 and 2. I
know from various sources that Angel stayed with Darla, and
I presume Dru and Spike, for a period of time after he
regained his soul. I know he parted ways with Darla in Asia
somewhere (Last time I saw you it was kimonos). Was it
Angel or Angleus in the Boxer Rebellion scene responding to
Spike's Slayer coup? He certainly didn't seem happy about
the dead Slayer although that could have been because he was
more concerned with keeping Spike in his place and/or
getting out of the explosive situation all around them. Any
thoughts?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Postscript regarding Angel and dead Slayers --
Miss Edith, 23:36:18 05/05/02 Sun
Angel had his soul during the Boxer Rebellion. In the first
series of Buffy Darla comments on Angel having been a "bad
boy" during the boxer rebellion. In the Buffy episdoe Fool
For Love it is implied that Angel was souless as he is
hanging with the gang and congratulates Spike on killing a
slayer. But in the following Angel episode Darla it is
revealed that Angel did have a soul at that time. He was
lonely and trying to ignore his conscience in order to fit
in with Darla and the gang. He made value judgements
regarding his victims and only killed thieves and murderers
in order to appease his conscience, hence his gloomy look at
Spike having killed a slayer. He ends up protecting an
innocent family and when Darla finds out she rejects him
again. And of course he is eventually set on the right path
about 100 years later by Whistler. Hope that helped.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Postscript regarding Angel and dead Slayers --
SpikeMom,
23:50:20 05/05/02 Sun
Thanks Miss Edith, For a blindfolded doll you've seen
things quite clearly :)!
I am anxious for the first two seasons of Angel to arrive on
DVD. I have all of Buffy either DVD or taped. Then it will
be easier to put the timeline in order. Speaking of
which...has anyone created a coherent timeline for both
shows? Perhaps including the books?
And should we start a new thread, this one's falling off the
margin of the main message index!?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Postscript regarding Angel and dead Slayers --
Miss Edith, 00:13:57 05/06/02 Mon
The Angel DVDs are out in the UK. Why not get a multi-region
DVD player so you can watch them? Or if you already have a
DVD player for Region 1 only there are ways of getting it to
play all regions. Check the net for tips.
Mind you the DVDs for Angel aren't that special. They only
have two commentries on each season and a severe lack of
documentries. The Buffy ones are worth getting though.
Season 4 is out next week and it will have 6 commentries
including Joss's commentries on Hush and Restless. And
there'll be a special documentry on Introducing Spike among
others! I'd say they're worth making the extra effort and
getting early although UK prices are pretty horrendus.
There's a reason why we're known in Europe as rip-off
Britain sadly.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Postscript regarding Angel and dead Slayers --
Slayrunt, 00:58:23 05/06/02 Mon
Masq has a timeline on her sight or at least did the last
time I looked.
About killing Slayers, only Spike has certainly killed one.
Perhaps Luke killed at least one, but no definates about
Angelus, Darla or Dru.
Slayrunt
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: She hates the truth and is still in darkness --
shadowkat, 19:04:09 05/04/02 Sat
Buffy has always had trouble with "truth" or sharing it with
people. Part of that could be due to the whole secret
identity thing - which plagues her. She has to keep what she
is a secret. When she was in high school she had to lie to
her parents, teachers, and other students about what she did
and who she was. How do you handle that? She has learned not
to show what she feels on her face, how to be hard on the
outside, but inside she's a marshmallow. As a result she
often comes across as a cruel bitch. Hiding her pain with a
well placed quip.
Angel was one of the few people who broke through that shell
and when she let him in - look what happened? 1)He
turned evil and she had to send him to hell 2) when he came
back, he left her. Xander is right, after that she did shut
down. She also was told by Giles that she had to resume her
secret identity.
Her relationship with Spike is incredibly complex. I find
myself defending both of them all the time. Spike, as strong
as he may appear on the outside emotionally, is also a
marshmallow. Buffy and Spike are incredibly alike in some
ways, part of the reason for their attraction. He has to
some degree allowed her to abuse him - part of the reason
for that is - he's a vampire and that is part of his
nature,
the other reason is he may truly believe he is deserving of
it...personally I believe she is about to drive him to a
nervous breakdown which he has been teetering on the edge of
for quite some time. You are correct - it's the
emotional
abuse, not the physical, that is the hardest to
tolerate.
But it goes both ways - it always has. These two know how to
hurt one another. He has emotionally abused her - with his
you belong with me in the darkness and not with your friends
comments, she does it with I don't love you, you're evil,
nasty thing that I hate and am just using remarks. Which
remarks are the most harmful? I don't know. Which character
is headed for the nervous breakdown? Spike. Because he
really has nothing outside of Buffy...well maybe Clem. He's
been stripped of everything and he has tried to change
himself to be accepted by her. Buffy hasn't really done much
of anything. Spike has done all the work and received very
little appreciation for it from anyone. In re-watching the
old episodes from this year- I find the comments about Spike
being evil - laughably ironic particularly since they are
constantly being paralled with
the Trioka who no one appears to be taking very
seriously.
(that's another essay in of itself).
At any rate...before I go careening off topic...I agree
she
has a great deal to answer to. But at the same time, before
we judge her too harshly we need to think about where she's
coming from. As she put it way back in School HArd to Cordy:
"I'm balancing three lives here and none of them fit
together, it's like oil, water, and uh..something." That
is Buffy's life. Spike is part of her oil life, her
friends
have become the water, and the bills/work/dawn is the
something. And she has no one supporting her...mom's
dead,
giles is gone. Xander and Willow - well....let's just
say,
they aren't exactly doing much better themselves.
I think Spike gets all this. His problem is he's not
exactly
sane himself. He's a vampire who has been chipped, can't
feed, and is in love with a vampire slayer. He doesn't
fit
in any world, the perpetual outsider. What has been
keeping
him going is some hope that Buffy will return his
affections...when that is gone, what will he do?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Extremely well said, thank you kat for expressing
this -- Etrangere, 05:51:51 05/05/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Partly an acting problem -- Anne, 07:01:08
05/05/02 Sun
I imagine you're right that Buffy is meant to be a
marshmallow-inside type, and if I were able to buy the
performance I'm seeing on screen that way I might have less
trouble with the character. But I don't, and didn't even
really in earlier seasons.
SMG is very good at certain things -- notably scenes which
require her to break down into tears, or express righteous
anger. But by and large showing vulnerability, passion,
compassion, or warmth, is not her speciality -- I didn't
even really buy into it in her scenes with Angel, whom she's
supposed to love so deeply. The one exception is Becoming
II, which made even me tear up.
Whether or not you see warmth and softness in Buffy in the
earlier seasons, however, season 6 is much more difficult
in that it is requiring two extraordinarily difficult things
from SMG: to play a character who is deeply conflicted, and
who therefore has to frequently be conveying two opposite
and contradictory emotions; and at the same time to play a
character who is going through a special crisis of being out
of touch with her own emotions, so she has to appear "dead"
and yet convey some type of feeling both at the same
time.
Unfortunately, the outcome for me is that the emotions are
not coming out conflicted but univalent; and the only
valency that has been visible to me with regard to Spike is
hatred and contempt. This, of course, makes her sexual use
of him even more distasteful. In the crypt door scene, the
shooting script called for Buffy to express the same longing
and desire as Spike; I personally thought she just looked
like she thought she heard a mouse on the other side of the
door. The shooting script for "Entropy" called for her to
show a reaction of pain in seeing Spike with Anya sufficient
to convey to Dawn and Willow that she had slept with him; I
just saw a blank. The couple of times she's said she's
sorry to Spike, she's done it with her patented Great Stone
Face and I don't get the impression she feels any compassion
for him at all -- just impatience and distaste at having to
deal with the whole sorry mess.
I guess, in sum, if I saw that she was at least wrestling
with the truth more I'd be able to bear with her better with
regard to the trouble she's having facing it. That's why I
just loved the last scene in "Dead Things", and why I feel
so betrayed by the show that that scene was never followed
up on. Even though I think she wound up concealing the
truth in that scene she emphatically was wrestling with
it. And I think the fact that she begged not to
be forgiven may have had something to do with the fact that
she knew she hadn't come clean. I loved that; I loved her
then. But they have just dropped it and look like they'll
never pick it up again. If they do; hey great.
Sorry -- I've wandered all over here; veered from acting to
writing. But I've got to run off right now and can't make
more sense of this post at the moment.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Re: Partly an acting problem -- shadowkat,
07:45:23 05/05/02 Sun
I too have struggled with the way SMG has been portraying
Buffy this year - having seen her in other things...I
agree
with you. Part of the problem of course - is that we have a
hugely re-active actor in JM. It's different acting
styles.
Her acting style is to convey limited emotion - sort of
stoic, lots of actors who started in television and film are
like this (yes - in another life I briefly studied acting),
she pulls back. Trusts the camera to pick it up. JM's style
- coming from the world of theatre this really makes sense -
is to let the emotion show. He has pulled back a bit since
he first appeared...but he is a reactive actor, similar to
Harrison Ford, and some of the other great reactors -
Deniro, Hoffman, Carrey come to mind. He knows how to show
emotion with a curve of a lip, a tightened jaw, or teary
eyes. SMG's style is to be very subtle, contained. But I do
sense pain and vulnerability and at times she is right on -
Normal Again was probably her best performance to date. But
it also provided her with material to show stone face and
emotion.
The problem with her style and the character she is playing,
is that we the audience can't tell any more than the other
characters can what she is feeling. Also she is surrounded
by some amazing reactive actors who aren't as overworked as
she is, so have more time to refine the craft - Alyson
Hannigan and James Marsters both come to mind. But - here's
another thing to remember about acting - of the characters
in the show, Marsters has been given the best material. He
also gets to show emotion. He doesn't have to be broody or
stoney faced or repressed. For an actor who specializes in
letting it all hang out - it must be a dream come true.
Don't get me wrong - he is amazing. But I think he'd be the
first to point out that SMG has a tougher role to play here.
Switch to writing: I agree - I too felt betrayed by the
writers after Dead Things. Just as I felt betrayed after
Wrecked. There is a little too ambiguity in the writing this
year - which is fine, but as old creative writing teacher
once informed me - you have to clue the reader/audience in
at some point. We know Spike loves Buffy, but we really have
no clue what she feels for Spike. We are also a bit confused
as to whether Spike is supposed to be a villain or a good
guy, which actually I like, but I am getting tired of
changing my mind on this issue on a daily basis. (This week
I decided he was always painted as villain but one who fell
for the hero, last week I thought maybe not, next week I'll
probably chang my mind again...it's why I keep writing
essays about him - I can't figure him out - LOL!)
The writers insist that Buffy's emotions are supposed to be
confused and all over the board and that's great. But - I'm
not really getting that from the actress' portrayle so much
as from the metaphors and writing. I keep wishing they'd
give her more dialogue or show us a scene with her crying in
bed or dreaming or something. Instead of all these scenes of
her telling people: "I'm good." Because like you I do at
times feel as if I'm trying to see something that may or may
not be there. And that may be more faulty direction and or
writing than acting. Don't know.
I'm hoping the next group of episodes break things wide open
and show us exactly what she is feeling. And everyone else.
As much as I adore Season 6 - and I truly do, first season
truly got obsessed with the show, I miss being in our
supporting characters point of view. Until Entropy, we
really haven't been.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Mostly agree but . . . -- Anne, 10:42:47
05/05/02 Sun
The main thing I disagree with here is with regard to JM's
acting, but I have the feeling I'm not going to be able to
express it very well. But to give it my best shot:
Yes, in Season 2 he was using a big scale, and in fact I
found him too stagey at that point for that very reason.
But by now I think the amazing thing about him is that he is
extremely subtle in his use of facial expression, but
nevertheless as you say gives the impression of letting it
all hang out. In other words he is expressing perfectly
huge emotions with perfectly tiny gestures. He does more
with less than practically any other actor I can think of.
Please, watch the last scene of "Intervention" for me and
tell me what was overt about what he did! The reason I fell
in love with the character, the actor, and the show in that
scene was that I couldn't figure out what the heck he was
doing to reach into my heart and tear it apart. I couldn't
even see his face under all that makeup.
As for the "stoic" style of acting: if you're a really great
actor, like the late great Alec Guinness, this consists in
using an almost completely impassive face but still, as you
say, stepping back and letting the camera pick up what's
there in your eyes, tiny things about the set of your facial
muscles, whatever. The problem is that the vast, vast
majority of actors -- even pretty good ones -- simply don't
have that ability. All they are really doing is holding
their faces still, and trusing a sympathetic audience to
project the appropriate emotion inside them, while crediting
them with the courage and strength of an admirable stoicism.
It works most of the time, as long as the script is giving
the audience clear cues as to what the supposedly hidden
emotions are, and as long as the technique is not
overused.
Now to me personally (I'm sure there are people out there
who disagree with me, but this is one of those things that
it's hard to absolutely prove one way or another) SMG does
not fall into the Alec Guinness class of actor. As best as
I can see she's just holding her face still, plain and
simple. And I think it's a technique that she overuses,
that she uses to cover far to wide a spectrum of emotions.
That's not to say that she hasn't turned in good
performances. I have already praised her work in "Dead
Things", and I agree with you about "Normal Again", though
again I have to say that the aggressive and maniacal
elements came through to me a bit more powerfully than the
vulnerability.
But we're certainly agreed that SMG is being given an
awfully tough row to hoe this season. I admire them for
trying to do something so difficult, but I'm afraid
somewhere along the line something isn't quite working for
the character of Buffy.
But maybe I'll change my mind after episode 22. I don't
think so from the spoilers, but boy would I love to.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Actually... I agree with you on JM. -- shadowkat,
09:33:52 05/06/02 Mon
You are absolutely right on James Marsters. His acting
ability has improved big time since the first season, but
even then I thought he was amazing. And yes - he does the
same thing to me everytime he appears on screen. I find it
interesting that so many people believe the show has turned
into the Spike show, when in reality Marsters has less
screen time on average than most of the characters - the
reason he is so magnetic, you remember his performance.
Alyson Hannigan comes closest to this nuanced
performance.
SMG is good, but limited. Stoic hero roles are close to
impossible to play. The best actors - Guinness, John
Wayne,Clint Eastwood, Laurence Olivier...they knew how to do
it and some of them - the better two Guinness and
Olivier
started on the stage. I agree with Marsters - the best way
to get experience is the stage - it is the actor's
arena.
I think SMG and some of the others missed out on that...and
it's showing in what they are being asked to do now. But I
give them kudos - they still are better than most of the
other young actors on TV and movies for that matter.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Agree on the acting: SMG/writers/directors not quite
pulling off the subtleties required. -- yez, 14:20:15
05/06/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Echoing Etrangere, brilliantly said, shadowkat. --
Ixchel, 17:51:36 05/05/02 Sun
Buffy's avoidance of the truth is evident throughout the
series, as is her fear of abandonment.
One aspect of Normal Again I really thought was genius was
her mention of the clinic. I find it can be integrated
believably into the rest of the story and explains a great
deal about Buffy.
She learned an incredibly harsh lesson (not that her parents
were intentionally cruel), if you tell people disturbing
truths (about the world, yourself), they will turn away from
you, withdraw love and/or abandon you. If you conform to
their idea of reality, you can maintain their love.
I think part of her deep bond with Willow and Xander
beginning in S1 is that they accepted the truth of their
world and did not reject her. As an aside, I think that she
reciprocated by "seeing" Willow, acknowledging her as
someone of worth (something Willow's parents persumably
didn't) and "knowing" Xander, permitting him to be something
better than his family (something his family didn't
allow).
Spike's isolation is disturbing. As much as Buffy is
isolated (even surrounded by friends, she has been deeply so
this season), Spike is more so.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Spike's isolation -- verdantheart, 07:50:53
05/06/02 Mon
Yes, I've found it interesting that much has been made of
Buffy's isolation, while little made of Spike's. Remember,
he started out the season really as part of the gang. They
were actually talking and joking with him. Buffy appears and
poof! Persona non grata. It started the first night with
Xander (who else?). Spike hasn't complained at all about
this, but we know it hurt. Buffy re-isolated Spike. Spike
certainly tried to separate Buffy from her friends, but
really, he has no power to do so. He merely picked up on her
feelings and expressed them back to her. She can only
isolate herself.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Re: Spike's isolation -- Ixchel, 13:54:43
05/06/02 Mon
I think Spike believed that he was part of the group (at
least somewhat) and then he realized in AL that he wasn't
(his p.o.v., Giles wasn't told about Buffy either, but
probably Spike didn't know that). He starts to retreat
after that (staying outside at the end of AL), because he
doesn't feel he belongs (and I think he wants to, even if he
would never admit it). Then, to his surprise, Buffy wants
to retreat from her friends too (AL, Flooded). The strain
of pretending to be OK so they won't worry makes Buffy want
the relative tranquility (at first) of being with Spike.
This further isolates him from the group. The only person
capable of noticing and understanding his isolation, Dawn,
is in pain herself and can't help anyone. It's all so very
sad.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
A quibble -- Malandanza, 07:59:13 05/07/02
Tue
"Buffy re-isolated Spike."
This is just a quibble, but I think that Buffy's
resurrection re-isolated Spike. Buffy's actions have
tended to include rather than exclude Spike. After
Crush, Buffy's friends unanimously ostracized Spike -
until Buffy brought him back into the group. Likewise,
Buffy's choice to spend so much of her free time with Spike
from Afterlife through OMWF made Spike feel
like part of the Scoobies again -- even in OaFA, he
expresses a desire to be part of the group and Buffy allows
him to be so (she could have tossed him out had she wished
to exclude him).
Asd both you and Ixchel mention, it is the Scoobies who hung
out with Spike during the summer, then forgot about him the
instant Buffy was back. But then, they've never been
Spike's friends, they are Buffy's friends. If Spike has
been isolated, blame Willow and Xander rather than
Buffy.
However, I think that Spike is primarily responsible for
Spike's isolation. He might have a few more vamp and demon
friends if he hadn't spent so much of his time hunting his
peers for pleasure.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
The theme of the outsider -- shadowkat, 09:45:59
05/06/02 Mon
Since Season 1 - JW has been obsessed with the outsider
theme. First we have Angel - who is the outsider. He doesn't
fit in the vampire world any longer - nor does he fit in
Buffy's, he stays outside. It's not until he loses his soul
- that he renters the vampire world and actually is less
outsider. You could argue that before that he was part of
the gang - accepted, certainly more than Spike, but
he still is outside - being older, etc.
Other outsiders - Jonathan - from day one, and remphasized
bit time in the controversial EARSHOT (funny if Earshot
got controversary, wonder what WB would have don with Seeing
Red? Haven't seen it yet - please don't say anything.)
Others - Marcy in Out of Sight, Out of Mind,
the young student in love with the teacher in I only
have eyes for you? Now we have the evil Troika - which many
ways were created by the highschool students who ostracized
them.
Spike seems to be a similar construction. Isolated. Neither
in one world or the other - struggling to recreat a reality
that somehow combines both and at the center, he has been
placing his love for Buffy, possibly trying to get her to
create a separate reality with him? Since in his eyes she
doesn't appear to fit in either reality either?
I agree his story is a disturbing one. I keep hoping it will
get better soon, but from what I've seen of spoilers, I've
serious doubts.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
They are all the Outsider, the Other, all of the
Scoobies -- Etrangere, 10:12:48 05/06/02 Mon
Buffy, by being the Slayer she became one, that was her
first choice in WttH : fit in the crowd that Cordelia was
standing for or saving Willow
And that's what her nostalgia for normality is about :
becoming anew a part of everyone's world.
The theme of the Slayer and her loneliness is featured very
prominently in Tales of the Slayer (esp Fury's one,
Glittering world) which begins with the world "i am alone"
and ends with "i am not alone".
Willow is always the one standing for the minorities, the
jews, the witches, the indians, the lesbians, the
intellectuals etc. She's always the one defending and having
pity (with some exceptions:) for the outsider.
Xander, if he is the most "normal" member of the Scooby, is
still the nerd, as Johnathan and the Trio is, and the Bully
/ Bullied theme is an important thing in his story, from the
Pack to Hell's Bells, he's always struggling to defend the
Bullied as he is one of them, and always end becoming one of
the Bully while struggling to find acceptation for
himself.
Giles is a legal alien in Sunnydale :) he is the adult among
the children, and we saw from his interractions with Snyder
he didn't really fit a lot in the Sunnydale High School
either. Also his past history then his interraction with the
CoW shows how much he can be the different one too.
There is a lot to be said about this theme in Buffy, yes
:)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Well said, Etrangere and LittleBit. I couldn't agree
more. -- Ixchel, 14:01:37 05/06/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Re: The theme of the outsider -- LittleBIt,
10:17:44 05/06/02 Mon
Actually the core characters of the show started as
outsiders. Buffy - the Slayer who has to keep her identity
secret. Willow - the 'brain' who is actively made fun of and
snubbed by the 'in' crowd. Xander - the 'loser' who doesn't
really fit in anywhere. Giles - the Watcher who doesn't get
respect from the WC, nor does he really fit in at the
school.
It's only when this core comes together that each ceases to
be an outsider because the others give them the sense of
belonging they need.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Don't forget Faith! -- warped, 16:10:15 05/06/02
Mon
It's ironic that the Mayor called Buffy and co. the "in
group" when he talked to Faith about them. While the
scoobies were outcasts in high school, Faith was an outcast
among them.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
guilty, abusive sex with a pathetic creature she
loathes. -I THINK SHE LOVES THE SEX -- Spike Lover,
14:50:59 05/03/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Parallels -- Sophist, 09:37:13 05/03/02 Fri
I agree that she reacted with bravado. The reason I don't
see it as "real" permission is that it came in response to a
threat to disclose. I saw her response as a way of saying
"You don't have power over me; don't try to intimidate me."
I don't deny the literal words, but I think the context
overrides it. Ultimately, remember, I'm not blaming Spike
for revealing it, based on my own (minority) view of his
motives at the time.
Buffy did make threats of her own about Spike revealing it.
She was wrong to do that. But it was, nevertheless, her
right to disclose it on her own terms. It's an interesting
parallel to Cordy/Xander in S2. Cordy insisted on the
secret, although it was demeaning to Xander to do so (and
she expressly said as much). Xander pushed to disclose it,
but he never did. If he had, instead of being found out
accidentally, what do you think Cordy would have done?
Remember also that Willow kept her relationship with Tara a
secret for a long time. Tara was understanding enough, or
insecure enough, that she let Willow disclose it on her own
terms.
Given these parallels, the fact that Buffy was belligerent
about keeping the secret is wrong, but it doesn't affect her
right to choose the time of disclosure.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Parallels - a slight twist -- Valhalla,
19:52:40 05/03/02 Fri
I was thinking about this thread today and suddenly came to
a clearer understanding of what I was trying to say. (very
slow sometimes).
You're right that Buffy's words weren't real permission
(they were under at least slight duress) and the fact that
her ban on his telling was backed up with a threat of
destruction doesn't mean that he was justified in
telling.
The bigger thing is that this is a situation where Spike and
Buffy have equal rights. The question is perhaps not so
much whether Spike had Buffy's permission but whether he
needed it. I think the starting point is that he has the
same right to tell as she has to keep it secret. And next
is, what do you do when two individuals have equal but
conflicting rights?
Was not telling hurting him more than telling would hurt
her? Actually, not telling seemed to be hurting Buffy.
Normally, I'd say even if it was hurting her, she's the one
that gets to assess the relative damages of telling/not
telling to herself. But not telling was definitely hurting
him - it was damaging both to his sense of himself, his self-
confidence, etc., and it hurt him to see her hurting.
("They'd either understand and help you, god forbid ... or
drive you out ... where you can finally be at peace, in the
dark. With me. Either way, you'd be better off for it, but
you're too twisted for that. (pauses) Let yourself live,
already. And stop with the bloody hero trip for a sec. We'd
all be the better for it.") In a hurt-based scale, Spike
comes out at least a little ahead because he wanted to tell
for both of them, but Buffy was wanting not to tell just for
herself. Buffy's exploitation and abuse of Spike doesn't
justify him telling, either (in itself), but the fact that
she's treated him badly tips the scale a little more on his
side, as does the fact that he's had many opportunities to
really hurt her and he hasn't. If Spike had revealed their
relationship simply to hurt Buffy or out of revenge for
being dumped, I'd give the edge to Buffy.
Of course, there's lots of other ways to look at this, if
they do start out with equal rights to tell/not tell. You
pointed out earlier that people in relationships need to
make a mutual decision when significant issues come up or
walk away (hope that's a correct paraphrase). Spike tried
several times to get Buffy to talk about it, but she
wouldn't. She stood in the way not only of a mutual
decision, but of even a discussion about the issue. It
doesn't seem quite fair to say that his only just option is
to just walk away. Buffy may want to deny that they had
sex, but they did. In doing so she accepted the risk that
Spike might tell, or do other things she didn't like.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: Parallels - a slight twist -- alcibiades,
08:25:49 05/04/02 Sat
Agree with what you say.
The other thing that must get weighed in the balance is that
Spike stops Xander's abuse of Anya effectively. Buffy not
telling in this instance was not only hurting herself and
Spike, but it was a way to stop Anya from further abuse.
Buffy should have been the one to tell but she was too busy
feeling ashamed of herself for exactly the reasons that
Xander was stating and perhaps as well for not having the
courage to speak in that moment.
Spike frees them all up.
The shooting script specifies that Buffy looks back at Spike
a few moments later with hatred. Surely some of that hatred
is the result of the fact that Buffy had not stepped up to
the plate to help Anya -- as she should have done.
Can't have a martyr complex if you are not being a saint.
In point of fact (an idiom with a new resonance ever since
AYW), there is a brief dialogue between Spike and Xander in
NA on the way to find the Glarghk Guhl Kashma'nik demon.
Spike has realized that in Buffy's delusion, the point of
the chip was to soften him up solely in order to fall in
love with her. He points out to Xander that in a different
reality, he might not have left Anya at the alter. What
Spike is really saying to Xander with that remark is that in
a Buffy centric universe, Buffy's retainers stay with her
because of their weaknesses. To get Xander to stay with
her, Buffy had to create a weakness in him -- and thus he
rejected Anya. Because a married Xander would be a Xander
who moved away from her.
Now apply this scenario to the final scene with S/A/B/X in
Entropy. I think Spike's astute observation applies here as
well. In this scene, Buffy is keeping Xander weak, allowing
him to be abusive to Anya in front of her face, as a way to
keep him from turning away from her, too, in disgust. This
is Buffy's addiction to the misery resurfacing. She's
indulging her feeling of shame both at sleeping with Spike
and at not stopping Xander from ragging on Anya in front of
her face at the cost of doing the right thing. Surely it's
nothing to feel happy about. Nor will she ever feel happy
if she continues to act this way.
Her weakness here, too, confirms that her earlier remarks to
Spike taunting him to tell about them because her friends
won't mind was pure, unkind bravado to get herself off the
hook and to make him feel bad. She was lying because it is
her great anxiety at how much Xander will mind that is
stilling her mouth now.
In Season 4, the Freshman, (good) Xander says: Buffy, this
is all about fear. It's understandable, but you can't let it
control you. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate
leads to anger... no wait...
The hatred Buffy darts at Spike at the end of Entropy is
entirely based on fear and the anger, at herself and at him,
born from it. Buffy has let fear entirely control her
relationship with Spike since Smashed.
As the first Slayer Guide told her in Intervention, the
Slayer forges strength from pain. Not I might add, from
being ruled by fear. Buffy is not only weakening her
friends, but is weakening herself.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
I agree with your analysis but not your conclusion.
-- Sophist, 20:30:52 05/04/02 Sat
Objectively, you are completely right -- keeping the secret
is hurting both Buffy and Spike.
The reason I don't accept the conclusion, is that it's not
up to me (or even Spike) to decide what's best for Buffy.
Only she can decide that. She may very well be making a
mistake, but it's her mistake to make.
Cordy paid a price when the secret came out, but it wasn't
harsh and she was a better person when she admitted dating
Xander. Let's see what happens with Buffy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: It's his secret as much as hers... -- Cydney,
08:25:18 05/03/02 Fri
>It made me wonder if she didn't almost want to have him
tell -- then she wouldn't have to.
Exactly! Buffy was tired of keeping the secret, unable to
tell for fear of her friend's reactions, and dared Spike to
tell. If Spike tells, then he is the bad guy.
I think Spike had every right to tell. Buffy asked for it
with the "Didn't take you long" comment. She told him to
move on, Xander tried to kill him...why shouldn't Spike be
able to say what he wants just like the rest of them! Makes
him human, not evil.
Anya and Spike connected because they accept each other for
what they are. Both have valid complaints about their wholly
'human' consorts.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: It's his secret as much as hers... -- Claire,
21:30:13 05/05/02 Sun
I actually think Spike's telling the secret was a very human
reaction. To use a more human analogy lets say I slept with
someone who had recently been dumped at the alter and her ex
found out about us and turned up with an ax and started
beating me knowing I couldn't fight back. Lets say his
exfiance was bisexual and I was a woman and much smaller
than the vengeful guy attacking me and I had no real way of
defending myself. Anyway if after that he started on the
verbal abuse perhaps by impling I smelt or something (which
is totally hypothetical BTW) I would respond harshly. I am
surprised Spike didn't say more than he did as I would have
expected him to boast about his sexual prowess in
comparision to Xander etc but he really did seem at rock
bottom with no fight left in him (he was practically
suicidal). Buffy was the one that needed condemning for
standing by whilst Xander was bullying Spike and Anya. If I
was in Spike's position and the vengeful fiance was yelling
like I wasn't even there "how can you sleep with that
disgusting thing, she smells The very idea is sick and you
have completely lowered yourself" etc than I would have
spoken up. Anyone with an ounce of self-respect would. Put
yourself in that psition and ask yourself honestly what you
would do?
Personally I cheered when Spike said "it was good enough for
Buffy". I'm sure his intention wasn't all noble and about
defending Anya. But I think the guy had the right to claim
back some self-respect. The relationship had always been on
Buffy's terms with her threatening to kill him if he
disclosed the secret etc. Not to mention the emotional and
physical abuse (although Spike was by no measns blameless
there and he does need to take responsibility for
encouraging Buffy's darkness in the Bronze scene etc). But
then again Spike would have been happy to have a tender,
caring relationship as was shown in Afterlife. He was to
some extent following Buffy's lead regarding abusive
behaviour although he does need to take responsibility for
his behaviour just as much as Buffy does.
Anyway my original point was that Spike had every right to
disclose the secret. Perhaps he didn't reveal it in the
nicest way but I for one don't feel Buffy deserved that sort
of consideration. She needs to learn the consequences of
messing with peoples emotions and the fact that you can't
always just walk away after causing someone else pain. She
has been so callous towards Spike's feelings I feel it is
time he regained some self-respect and sense of self. And
she did dare him to tell everyone bragging about how her
friends forgave her for trying to kill them. Spike did have
permission to tell in my eyes. Buffy was hardly intimidated
by the vampire Spike was rather pathetically threating her
with.
And I personally found Buffy's comment "didn't take you long
did it" a bit much as well as she was the one telling him to
move on as she had no feelings for him. But then she is
having a go at Spike for moving on too soon and hurting her
feelings. Make up your mind Buffy!
[> [> [>
Anya deserves some disgust too... -- Mando,
18:18:02 05/02/02 Thu
Let's not forget tha Anya /immediately/ went back to her old
ways before even trying to talk things over with Xander.
During the first conversation they had together she was
already trying to curse him and/or already had the back up
plan to curse him if the discussion did not go how she
wanted it to go.
You don't try to cause serious pain to someone you really
love, no matter how hurt you are. If she was at all
sensitive to Xander's feelings she would have realized that
he was hurting about it too. He was not simply trying to be
a jerk.
I don't have any problems with Anya sleeping with Spike
though. It wasn't like she was doing it to hurt Xander. They
had no idea he was watching.
[> [> [> [>
Xander walked out, left town, didn't call--how could
Anya "talk things out" with him? -- Dyna,
09:34:09 05/03/02 Fri
I don't think it's quite fair to critique Anya for not
"trying to talk things out" with Xander. Xander refused to
explain himself at the church, walked out, left town, and
apparently made no attempt to contact even his closest
friends while he was gone. I don't think we know exactly
how much time elapsed between "Hell's Bells" and "Normal
Again," but it's clear it wasn't just a day or two. At the
church, Anya was begging Xander to stay and "talk things
out" with her, and he told her that there was nothing to
say, it was hopeless, and then disappeared. I hardly fault
Anya for concluding that Xander isn't interested in talking
things out or trying to resolve their problems.
[> [> [> [> [>
I agree. -- yez, 10:05:03 05/03/02 Fri
Anya is completely justified in her anger. It's not true
that "you don't hurt the people you love." You *shouldn't*
hurt the people you love, but when people are in pain, even
if they love each other, they sometimes lash out and hurt
the people that they wouldn't hurt under normal
circumstances. With communication and understanding, though,
sometimes that can be repaired and bring people even close
together. Unfortunately, sometimes it takes lashing out for
others to really realize the effects of their own
actions.
Yeah, I feel bad for Xander who was so caught up in doing
things the right way that he didn't realize that he was
moving at someone else's pace until it was too late. I
understand freaking out about something and not thinking
clearly. But he dealt the relationship a major, if not
mortal, wound. And he has a lot of work ahead of him to make
things work again.
But for him to assume that Anya still considers them
together ("our problems") after all that, and to assume he
has any right to attack a new lover of hers after what he
did is just... it's completely self-centered and absolutely
unacceptable and repugnant, and somebody, anybody, should've
kicked his ass and put him in his place, IMHO.
yez
[> [> [>
RIGHT ON!! -- Spike Lover, 14:35:46 05/03/02
Fri
[> [>
Revealing the Secret -- Spike Lover, 14:33:20
05/03/02 Fri
I don't think Spike revealed that he had been banging Buffy
in order to hurt Xander, but as self-defense. The scene
changed from physical violence to emotional/verbal violence.
With every word X spoke, he was beating Spike. What Spike
said- was in his own self-defense, a word that BUFFY should
have spoken herself, but did not. Thankfully, it was a
strong enough blow to end the verbal abuse.
I think if Spike had really wanted to hurt Xander, he would
have said something more like: I may be dead,evil, and
soulless, but I have never been so cruel to a woman that I
loved by breaking her heart-
Well, something like that anyway. Leaving A at the altar
was a low-blow and X knows it.
[>
SHOOTING SCRIPTS!!! WIPPIE!!! -- VampRiley,
10:01:30 05/03/02 Fri
Showing my board unity in not believing this deserves it's
own thread:
E
ntropy
Do
uble or Nothing
VR, your friendly, neighborhood god.
[> [>
And we thank you... -- Masq, 11:25:44 05/03/02
Fri
[> [> [>
My pleasure, luv. -- VampRiley, 19:42:50
05/03/02 Fri
Intelligent deities knows they should make their subjects
happy.
VR
[> [> [> [>
An for those of us who are playing the home game, which
is me,... -- VampRiley, 16:57:16 05/05/02 Sun
Shooting Scripts, part dos.
The
Price
VR
[> [>
And some interesting bits didn't make the final cut . .
. -- Akita, 17:09:40 05/03/02 Fri
Including during the Buffy-Dawn scene after the videocam
revelations wherein Dawn jumps to the assumption that
Spike dumped Buffy.
In light of Buffy's many declarations that it is Spike who
is beneath her, I think that was a delightful twist -- and
funny -- and wish it had been left in.
Akita
[>
Jenoff's reviews are up -- trap, 06:45:04
05/05/02 Sun
Some interesting insights this week, worth mulling over, as
always.
Here
[> [>
I actually agree with his/her? reviews more than usual
this week, except... -- Rob, 21:28:06 05/06/02
Mon
...for the negative review of the Troika. I like them (well,
not like them like them, but like them as villians,
ya know?). Too tired now to go into why I like them, but
just wait till my big Buffy season 6 analysis in 3 weeks!
;o)
I also have some differences of opinion regarding character
and situational interpretation...but, on the whole, they're
very well-written and thought-provoking, as always.
Jenoff has what Jeff Jensen (that awful, awful EW reviewer)
doesn't...The ability to provoke me as a reader and thinker.
When Jensen gives a reason for disliking an episode, I just
get annoyed, not b/c he doesn't like it, but his
explanations for why he doesn't like it. When Jenoff does
the same thing, I listen...I may completely disagree, but I
listen and help formulate my own mental response. Jensen is
a reviewer operating on only the first level of
comprehension of "Buffy," as a piece of art...Jenoff goes
much deeper.
Rob
Is it always
necessary to start a new thread on the same topic? --
Masquerade, 18:10:26 05/01/02 Wed
Just a friendly reminder--
Every time a new thread is started (yes, even this one), it
increases the likelihood that old threads will be moved into
the archives. Please be considerate.
If you just want to post your own reactions to a new
episode, post them under a thread that has already been
started on that episode. Exceptions are essays and thoughts
that bring something new and unique to the discussion.
If you have questions, let me know.
Masq : )
[>
Re: Is it always necessary to start a new thread on the
same topic? -- Andrew, 18:53:44 05/01/02 Wed
It's also worth pointing out that if you start your own
thread you're far less likely to get replies, than if you
continue an existing discussion. I mean, look how many
'Entropy' threads there are with few or no replies. ;)
[> [>
Yes, and... -- Masq, 19:12:26 05/01/02 Wed
If you attach your post to an existing active thread, it is
less likely to be moved into the archives than a new thread
without many replies.
[> [> [>
Re: Yes, and... -- Cactus Watcher, 20:01:23
05/01/02 Wed
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'd guess that part of the critera
for when voy's software moves theads to the archives 1-5, is
the absolute amount of bytes the active part of the board is
taking up. Most of us enjoy reading the long essays people
put so much time in to post. Could I humbly ask that people
replying to posts minimize the amount of cutting and pasting
from other posts to emphasize what they are replying to.
When everyone does this it takes up a huge amount of space.
Generally if we've read the post before we will understand
what is being refered to. If it is necessary by all means
cut and paste to make yourself clear, but don't waste space
unnecessarily.
[> [> [> [>
There are actually two criteria -- Masq,
21:22:50 05/01/02 Wed
Total amount of K on the main board and number of
threads.
Plus, it just clutters the board.
[> [> [> [> [>
I think there's a third criterion -- d'Herblay,
21:59:39 05/01/02 Wed
Based on a quick skim of the FAQ, as well as
a dip into the Support Forum, I
have concluded that a thread will be archived when- we exceed a certain number of threads
- we
exceed a certain number of messages
- we exceed a certain
limit to the aggregate size of the posts linked to from the
main board
What this suggests to me is that while doing
a lot of cutting and pasting may hasten threads off the
board, so will posting (NT) messages. I think it's a
damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation.
[>
Question regarding new threads... -- Ixchel,
22:09:54 05/01/02 Wed
I was unable to reply on my post before it moved, so I
posted the above to let those who responded know I
appreciated their comments.
I hope this isn't inappropriate use of board space.
If it is, I apologize.
Ixchel
[> [>
Re: Question regarding new threads... -- Masq,
09:20:12 05/02/02 Thu
Starting a new thread on a topic that has been archived is
O.K. if you want to continue the discussion. I was referring
to new threads started on topics which are in threads that
are still on the main board. : )
[> [> [>
Thanks, Masq. :) -- Ixchel, 11:43:20 05/02/02
Thu
[>
Re: Is it always necessary to start a new thread on the
same topic? -- Lonesome Sundown, 05:29:06 05/02/02
Thu
Oops, sorry 'bout that new thread yesterday, and for this
evil board-space-grabby post :) as well.
Won't happen next time I post.
[> [>
Don't let it make you bashful about posting and
replying. -- Cactus Watcher, 05:37:53 05/02/02
Thu
Just keep what she said in mind. We want to hear what you
have to say.
The 'Because It's
Cool' Principle (S6 spoilers up to OMWF) -- Slain,
15:04:28 05/02/02 Thu
This is something I've written partly in response to the
character-bashing that's characterised some Season 6
discussion, as well as the specious moral judgements which
are often made by viewers, myself included. I haven't seen
past 'AYW', incidentally, though I've been thoroughly
spoiled for 'Hells Bells' (though my own
carelessness!;).
The world of Buffy is full of moral ambiguity: who's good,
who's bad, who's bad with the possibility of being good or
who's good with the possibility to being bad. But it wasn't
always this way; there was a clear moral universe
established in Season 1. The preferred reading was humans
good, vampires bad. True, a vampire could be good, but
really that vampire (Angel) was effectively human. The show
was also concerned with certain genre conventions, and with
subverting them rather than establishing new ones, so it
stuck to this mythology. You were either evil or you were
good, and audience was expected to condemn the evil and
support the good.
But gradually, since Season 2, this basic idea seems to have
been subverted. In Spike and Anya, for example, there are
two characters who seems to be in flagrant violation of the
morals of the Buffyverse, yet neither are character's we're
encouraged to wish dead, like the Master. It's not true that
the morals have changed; Spike killing humans is no less
evil now than it was three years ago, nor is it any more
acceptable for Anya to feel guiltless about a thousand years
of havoc. In theory, the show should be condemning Spike,
Anya, Xander and many other characters. So why doesn't it,
or more specifically why aren't the viewers expected to?
Well, because it's cool.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer is called Buffy the Vampire Slayer,
after all. It's not meant to be taken seriously, or at least
not entirely seriously, and we aren't meant to judge
everything by the show's specific morality. The moral and
metaphysical universe in Buffy isn't fluid, with everything
grey and no absolutes. Of course there are absolutes. There
is good and there is evil, that's the whole basis of the
show. Morals and metaphysics in Buffy are fluid or 'grey'
due to the 'Because it's Cool' principle.
A perfect example is Spike. Now, while he's gradually become
a more sympathetic character, this wasn't always the case.
Up and until Season 5, Spike didn't seem to have any good in
him. He was morally reprehensible, a killer with no
conscience. Except we were never really encouraged to
condemn him, in the way we were Angelus. Firstly, Spike
never really seemed to kill anyone, or at least he only ever
killed extras. Spike was never going to kill Willow in
'Lover's Walk', and we weren't expecting him to. But he's
evil, or at least he definitely was evil. So why aren't we
expected to condemn him, and bay for his dust? Because he's
cool. Spike might be irrevocably evil, but the idea of a
real vampire in love with a Slayer is cool; so, under the
principle, we can forget worrying about whether he's a fiend
of hell and deserves to be staked. After all, he's cool.
Similarly, take Anya. A thousand years as a vengeance demon
whose actions were feminist but still somewhat evil, and now
as a human she shows no regret for them. So by rights we
should be expected to condemn her; after all, once Angel got
his soul back he became the poster-boy for A Tortured
Conscience, despite his evil acts having been those of the
demon which had taken control of his dead body. But Anya
doesn't care, and while it's assumed she should stop
maiming, the show doesn't encourage us to think that she
should feel any guilt or the need for redemption. Why?
Because she's cool: or, more importantly, because the idea
that Xander could only find happiness with an immoral ex-
demon is cool, too.
Any similar thorny moral issue in the show can be resolved
by the 'Because it's Cool' principle, or it's companion, the
'Because that Would Suck' principle. Take the example of
Xander, who deliberately summoned up a demon in 'Once More
With Feeling' that killed several people and nearly abducted
his friend's sister to Hell. He's culpable, no two ways
about it. So why isn't he torn up with guilt? Why aren't the
viewers expected to want him to pay penance? Well, because
that would suck.
In Buffy the Vampire Slayer there are two main forces which
dictate the preferred reading of the show: fixed morals
(good vs. evil), and an inherent frivolousness (coolness).
Sometimes coolness can contradict the morality of the show,
where something which is done because it's cool can seem
immoral and even a subversion of the very idea of 'fighting
the good fight'. But of course the contradiction doesn't
matter; coolness is never immoral, but amoral, as it exists
apart from the Buffyverse morality. Why? Well, because it's
cool.
[>
LMAO -- excellent, now I understand EVERYthing. :)
-- yez, 15:10:56 05/02/02 Thu
[>
That was cool! *lol* -- Deeva, 15:29:11 05/02/02
Thu
[>
Well now, you combine this principle with Rufus's
'Magic Clause' and you'd have... -- OnM, 16:31:38
05/02/02 Thu
... ??
OK, I have absolutely no idea what you'd have. But it
wouldn't suck. What great and common-sensical insights!
I've always maintained that BtVS owes a great deal to the
world of cinema compared to the vast majority of television
productions, and where would the 'language of cinema' be
without 'cool'?
Thus, you can have explosions, car chases, and Ah-nold
growling 'Ahl be backk! and instead of being morally
bankrupt or even metaphorically gray, it's 'cool'.
'Come back to the Five & Dime, Jimmy Dean'...
BTW, welcome back to you too, Slain.
:-)
[> [>
Uhm, we'd be wearing black leather with our fingers in
our ears chanting "la la la la magic clause"?
-- The Second Evil, 21:13:56 05/02/02 Thu
Bwahahahaha.
[> [> [>
How did you know how I spend my Tuesday
evenings?..:):):) -- Rufus, 21:24:01 05/02/02 Thu
[> [> [> [>
Well, I've heard about The First Virtue's Black Leather
Miniskirt...... -- The Second Evil, 21:30:31 05/02/02
Thu
..... but I'm still waiting for the pictures. Inquiring
evils want proof! ;-)
[> [> [> [> [>
Too late, I traded my BLMS for a more virtuous outfit
.......:):) I have a reputation to keep..;) -- Rufus,
02:31:53 05/03/02 Fri
[>
Re: The 'Because It's Cool' Principle (S6 spoilers up
to OMWF) -- aliera, 17:39:40 05/02/02 Thu
Enjoyed your post Slain. I was wondering if you think
there's any difference in the type or severity of
consequences this season as opposed to the previous
ones?
[> [>
So no one's going to rush to disagree with me? --
Slain, 10:26:20 05/03/02 Fri
aliera, I suppose you could see as consequences as things
resulting from immoral (but cool) actions - like they're the
morality of the show reasserting itself; kind of "You can't
do that. It's wrong!". So more consequences would mean more
morals and less cool. But while some things this season have
definitely not been cool (drugs aren't cool, kids!
Apparently), I don't think there's been a greater stress on
morality, it's just that the characters have been
strectching the boundaries of what the show would class as
'cool' or amoral.
[> [> [>
Nope. ;) -- LittleBit, 11:23:25 05/03/02 Fri
It's really hard to disagree with a theory that gives a
reason for some of the seemingly off-the-wall actions and
responses we've seen this season. Especially when that
reason is just soooo Joss!
Great post, Slain!
[> [> [>
Re: So no one's going to rush to disagree with me?
-- Masq, 11:47:08 05/03/02 Fri
Hmmm... guess I'm the only one that thought your post was a
thinly veiled snarky swipe at the way ME handles the
morality of the characters. (If it isn't, I mean no
offense).
It's a good analysis. For me, it explains how we get all
tied up in knots debating whether Anya, Spike, etc., are
"really evil" or "remorseful". They aren't written to be
clearly one or the other, not because they are or they
aren't, but because it would be a big bummer to watch them
if their motives were actually clear.
Must be why I prefer broody Angel. He's morally ambiguous,
but you know where he stands, even if he doesn't live up to
it all the time.
Welcome back, Slain!
[> [> [> [>
Re: So no one's going to rush to disagree with me?
-- aliera, 06:16:19 05/04/02 Sat
We tend to analyse the characters as if they were people we
know; but perhaps need to ask why the writers are portraying
them this way giving them this type of dialogue, etc because
that is such an integral part. And also if they are
successful in what they are trying to do.
I probably should have come right out and stated that I
think there is a difference this season in consequences
compared to what we've seen before...the final episodes may
change this or clarify what has been happening.
[> [> [> [>
Re: So no one's going to rush to disagree with me?
-- Jane's Addiction, 05:19:05 05/05/02 Sun
Isn't there a broader thematic explanation for these changes
in how characters and their actions are seen?
Hasn't the underlying theme always been about charting the
course of these three main characters as they attempt to
grow up on the "Hellmouth"? Of course things seemed very
black and white the first season - there was good and evil
and not much in between. Friends = good, vampires and demons
(and perhaps Cordelia) = evil, pretty simple math. On a
metaphorical level, Does that not sum up how many of us saw
the world as adolescents?
But their world has gotten a bit murkier and more complex
with each progressive season. They've been exposed to more
characters from different backgrounds and begun to see the
shades of grey -- within themselves as much as others.
No, they're not responding to things in exactly the same way
that they would've in season one - they're growing and
learning more about themselves and the world.
Admittedly, some of the changes have no doubt been
influenced by the school of "this will be cool" and "that
would suck." After all, This is supposed to be entertaining
in the end. But it has all seemed to be based on the show's
theme of watching these characters that we've become so fond
of growing up and learning to deal with all the complexities
of a difficult world.
It's all about the journey - if these 20 and 21 year olds
were still responding to everything in the same way that
they did when they were 15, would there have been a
journey?
As Oz might say, "It's pretty compelling stuff."
[> [> [> [> [>
Well said, Jane's Addiction. I agree. -- Ixchel,
18:01:56 05/05/02 Sun
[>
Cool, thy name is Slain! -- ravenhair, 18:28:02
05/02/02 Thu
[>
Beyond Good and Evil is Cool and Sucky? ;) --
Ixchel, 19:13:53 05/02/02 Thu
[> [>
Cool, or cold? -- Cleanthes,
08:09:43 05/04/02 Sat
"So cold, so icy, that one burns one's finger at the touch
of him! Every hand that lays hold of him shrinks back! --
and for that very reason, many think him red-hot."
F. Nietzsche, `Beyond Good & Evil`, apophthegm 91 [aside,
can anyone, anywhere pronounce the word "apophthegm" without
spitting?]
Just a little comment on Spike and "coolness" from the
master...
I think Nietzsche's definition of "noble" and the definition
of "cool" have much in common. "Coolness" is master
morality whilst good and evil are slave morality.
[> [> [>
Re: Cool, or cold? -- Ixchel, 16:16:05 05/04/02
Sat
Cleanthes, I must confess I know next to nothing about
Nietzsche. I was just trying to be amusing.
Aside: Am I the only person (even though I'm an atheist),
who thinks those t-shirts that say "God is dead. -
Nietzsche, Nietzsche is dead. - God" are funny?
Ixchel
[>
All is now clear... -- LittleBit, 19:36:43
05/02/02 Thu
...the guiding principles of the BuffyVerse:
1. Evil is evil and Good is good unless it is cool to be
evil or would suck to be good.
2. Evil deeds are punished except when it would suck to do
so, unless it's Buffy in which case good deeds are
punished.
3. True chaos results when it's cool to do the sucky thing
or it sucks to do the cool thing, regardless of goodness or
evilness.
...the non-guiding principles of the BuffyVerse:
1. Flutie - eaten by hyhena-possessed students - sucky
2. Snyder - eaten by newly ascended mayor-snake-demon -
cool
:):):)
[>
That's the, um, coolest Buffyverse idea I've ever
heard! Thanx, Slain, for brightening up the day! -- Rob,
20:31:45 05/02/02 Thu
[>
Finally a philosophy I can get behind! -- ponygirl,
06:30:45 05/03/02 Fri
[>
I'm going to buck the crowd... -- Darby,
15:00:00 05/03/02 Fri
I'm pretty sure that this isn't really a serious assertion,
but I'm going to respond to it as if it were.
I'd read this earlier and was just reading about The
Sopranos, when the two collided in my head (there's lots
of room in there, but sometimes that happens). Tony Soprano
(or Mackey on The Shield) is a type, like Spike or
Anya, who we the viewer wind up rooting for and we can feel
a little guilty about that. I don't think that it's "cool"
- I love James Gandolfini, but Tony ain't cool; what he is
is three-dimensional. These characters get inside
our heads, they become people whose attractive qualities
make us want to minimize their bad traits, they're
likeable, dammit, and we don't really want them to be
bad. Cool can enter into it, because coolness can equate to
likeability, but that's not the whole answer, and I think
that linking it all to cool denigrates both the creators of
the characters and those who grow attached to them. Think
how the opposite works - people get very negative toward
Buffy or Dawn, not because they become uncool, but because
they go through periods where they're hard to like.
So, whaddya think? I'm taking it too seriously, right -
?
[> [>
Tony vs. Buffy -- Slain, 07:43:42 05/04/02
Sat
I agree with your assessment of the Sopranos, Darby, but I
don't think you can relate it to Buffy. The Sopranos clearly
exists in this world, and furthermore clearly exists in the
world of organized crime. Morals aren't something Tony often
considers, and, as with most gangster films, the audience
enjoys the release from having to condemn criminals.
Buffy is very different, for two reasons; firstly, it
doesn't exist in this world, but rather in a world
where good and evil are not just vague philosophical
concepts. We don't know if Tony's going to go to Hell, but
we do know that Buffy went to heaven, and do we know that
she saves the world from demons.
Secondly, Buffy isn't serious, and I don't think it works if
you judge it by the same standards as a show like The
Sopranos. I think Joss clearly feels that it's acceptable to
do something because it's cool; how many times has he used
that as a reasoning for a plotline or device? Buffy has a
fixed morality like only a fantasy world can have, but this
morality doesn't dicate everything that happens in the
show.
There's nothing denigrating about cool. Of course people
like Spike because he's cool, or more accurately because
he's buff. But what I'm talking about is the preferred
reading of the show, not individual interpretations; you can
see which characters are set up as likeable or not.
Being 'uncool' doesn't come into it, because the show is
never intentionally uncool. You can't relate this to Buffy
or Dawn, because neither of them go against the basic morals
of the show. Spike, Anya, Xander, the Mayor and others have,
however, yet they haven't been set up as characters we
should hate. You can hate them, but the show doesn't
expect us to want Anya dead or Spike dusted.
[> [> [>
Re: Tony vs. Buffy -- Darby, 10:05:56 05/05/02
Sun
I was with you there at the beginning, even though I
disagree - I don't really differentiate between the
fictional Jersey and the fictional Sunnydale - to me, some
of the physical rules differ, but I don't agree that one is
more morally absolute than the other. I personally think
that this season of Buffy and Angel are an acknowledgement
that the worlds don't differ all that much, but they've been
filtering up 'til now through characters who have tended to
want a black-and-white world, where heavens and hells and
demons are absolutes, but we're being shown that this is no
more true than in the Sopranoverse, where similar characters
would have similar opinions about criminals.
And I'm not really convinced that this plays significantly
into how watchers relate to characters, who on a visceral
level are people, whether demon or mobster, if done well
enough. And I think that the same basic rules of acceptance
work for serious and non-serious shows alike, although it
impacts a character's acceptability if a show if only funny
or only somber (only the really good shows can tap into the
other side and round those characters out).
Somewhere about halfway through, though, you've lost me, so
I can't comment on your last points. It seems to be
contradicting the earlier points - I'm not sure how breaking
some artificial rules system relates to this.
[>
Agree on coolness - consistency note on OMWF (Spoilers
to Entropy!) -- shadowkat, 19:31:37 05/04/02 Sat
LOL! I completely agree...cool factor! And thank you.
This is the whole pleasure of fantasy tv...people can get
away with murder, you can root for them and not feel
quilty.
Certainly helps me deal with nasty feelings I have
during
the day. ;-)
I think we can take some of the morality issues a bit far -
that does not mean that I don't think the show has depth and
does not deal with complex issues of morality.
There's a reason behind Xander not paying for the demon -
it's consistent with the rest of Season 6. So far no one has
paid for the consequences of their actions...well almost no
one. They did kill three or four demons, but those don't
count. Oh and Tara left Willow...but she does come back.
Let's do a tally:
1. Bargaining/Afterlife - Willow kills Fawn, does nasty
spell, brings
back humogensis (which by the way also happened when
Angel
did his spell in The Price - Wes used same word.) she
doesn't pay for this.
2. Flooded - the Troika summon demon, rob a bank, get
away
with it.
3. Life Serial - Troika summon demons, torment slayer
and still get away (SG remains clueless)
4. All The Way - Dawn participates in hurting old man with
vampires, old man is never found, she gets away with it
Willow does forgetting spell, and plays with people at
Bronze - Tara cautions her and first mind wipe occurs
5. OMWF - Xander summons demon and it's shrugged off
6. TR; Willow does forgetting spell - her only
punishement?
Tara leaves, the others shrug it off
7. Smashed - Troika freeze a guy and get diamond, Willow
and
Amy play with people at Bronze
8. Wrecked - More magic playing. Willow does pay for hurting
Dawn but not in a major way, in fact everyone seems
to be fairly understanding - only Dawn condemns her for
it.
9. Gone - Trioka make Buffy invisible, finally SG catch
on,Buffy torments social worker, cop and people in park -
shrugged off
10. Doublemeat Palace - well finally someone pays - the
penishead lady dies. (an exception)
11. Dead Things - Troika gets away with murder and rape
12. OAFA - venegeance demon gets away with curse, Buffy
and
gang release demon in house which injures people they
shrug
it off. Dawn steals things - doesn't pay for it until four
episodes later. (but we see progress)And I guess locking
them all in the house with a demon is punishment?
13. AYW - well Spike pays for the eggs sort of - his place
is destroyed. And Buffy does break up with him but she makes
it clear it wasn't b/c of eggs. She shrugs off the eggs.
14. Hells Bells - now we see signs of payment but for past
crimes. A man anya curses comes back and shows X his worst
fears causing him to break up with her...
15. Normal Again - Buffy almost kills her friends, they
shrug it off. Trioka gets away with summoning another
demon.
Still aren't taken all that seriously.Or really appear to be
held responsible. Although at least they are hunting them.
Buffy is avoiding causing her to hurt people.
16. Entropy - they accuse Spike of all people of planting
the camera - makes sense, they haven't blamed the Troika for
anything up to now, why start? Besides easier to go after
demon friend. Xander is still holding spike responsible due
to his own dislike of Spike...once again
not taking Troika seriously...Also Troika gets away with
it
again! But we see progress on the Dawn front and everyone
else seems to be paying in romantic agnst department
while
willow is reaping rewards of being a good girl.
So you see - it makes no sense for Xander to pay for
summoning the demon - goes against whole theme of shirking
responsibility and not being punished. But believe
me..karma
does have a way of catching up with you. He'll pay.
Soon.
[> [>
Re: Agree on coolness - consistency note on OMWF
(Spoilers to Entropy!) -- LittleBIt, 07:20:33
05/05/02 Sun
I think the not-paying is also consistent with the current
Big Bad. How do you slay yourselves? They are all battling
their inner demons. Until forces build up and the inner
demons break loose, which I think will happen before
season's end (Joss always ties up), they are all avoiding
the obvious.
As for the Troika, the scoobies don't seem to respect them
any more than they did Harmony. It's as if they simply won't
comprehend that someone they once saw as rather inept or
pathetic could possibly be a serious danger. I've always
wondered what they thought Harmony fed on, Bloody Mary's
from Willie's? And while both Jonathon and Warren were first
shown as possibly brilliant but pathetic, the degree to
which they've been able to play Buffy (Gone, Dead Things)
should be eye-opening. Xander should have known better;
standard comic-book evil-genius villain is the brilliant but
pathetic nerd. And here we have three.
And I know the police are "deeply stupid" but a
little crime-stopper hint might have been in order. After
all (I know, not a police show) there may have been residual
blood traces or fiber matches on the stairs that would match
Katrina's. And yes, I know, the medics couldn't figure out
Ted was a robot!
All in all, payments will be made, for them all. And, I
agree, soon.
Growing Up Alone
— Season 6 (non-specifics through Tabula Rasa) --
LittleBit, 16:11:37 05/02/02 Thu
Growing Up Alone — Season 6, non-specifics through Tabula
Rasa
This season the arc theme is growing up. We have watched
the scoobies struggle with this. And an observation came to
mind with light-bulb intensity. Where are the grown-
ups?
Buffy, Willow, Xander and Tara are 21 years old. Willow and
Tara are juniors in college. Dawn is 15.
Buffy runs a household, is responsible for raising her 15 or
1.5 year-old sister, and, oh, saving the world because it's
her calling. Her mother died, tragically, and her father
never bothered to see how she was. To our knowledge he has
had no contact with her since before she graduated high
school. Buffy made certain her mother was safe that day, but
didn’t have to do the same for her dad because he wasn't
there. She's now responsible for things she never thought
she'd live to experience. Actually, she didn’t live to
experience them. She was resurrected to deal with them. Is
it any wonder that she's made a mess of it? There's no one
to guide her; Giles returned to England to force her to live
in the world and not allow her to retreat from it. Child
Welfare and the school system are both threatening to take
her sister away if she isn't immediately successful. Neither
are offering any sort of assistance in making the
adjustment, just passing judgment on whether she meets their
expectations. Saving the world – a lot – was easier.
Willow has two parents who, as far as we know, still live in
Sunnydale. Yet they were parents in absentia when she still
lived at home, and are essentially non-existent now. What
we do know is that while they have little awareness of their
daughter, they had a set of rules and expectations or her.
The one time her mother took notice of her, she tried to
burn her at the stake (while under a spell) and then picked
up that Willow was dating a guitar player and then wanted to
meet him, but she hadn't noticed Willow had cut her hair
months ago. Does Willow seek non-conflict because argument
wasn't acceptable? She basked in the love and warmth Tara
gave her. Did she panic when conflict arose because the
result she had known was the withdrawal of approval? Do her
parents even know about Tara? Would they accept her if they
did? Her mother seemed quite knowledgeable and involved in
the big issues that face the world, in generalized problems
and studies, but incapable of being there to form the next
generation.
Xander's parents we have met. They are alive and but not
reliable. He has spent is entire life rejecting their
behaviors. He is gainfully employed and now has his own
place, but their spectre looms over him. They are his role
models in an opposites way – what they are he doesn't want
to be, but he fears that it is all he knows. He looked to
Giles as a role model and for approval more than he knew. He
uses self-deprecating humor and bad jokes to cover his
feeling that he is the least necessary of the group. He
speaks before thinking, before considering others' feelings,
with mixed results. Sometimes he does say what needs to be
said, but it gets lost in the abrasiveness of the
presentation. He accuses when he should question. Sometimes,
he's just missed the point entirely or been nasty when he
should have been quiet. Xander's behavior was closer to his
goal when he was in high school than it is now. Have the
pressures of work, real world, and a fiancée been too much?
He has offered some of the most incredibly compassionate
moments and some of the most incredibly callous moments of
anyone in the group. But who does he model himself after to
learn how to be more compassionate and less callous?
Tara's mother died when she was 17, a couple of years before
Tara met Willow. Her father, brother and other family
members have rejected her. They tried to tell her that she
was unbelievably selfish for not devoting her life to making
things comfortable for the men. They had her convinced she
would turn into a demon at 18, like her mother, and would
have to be controlled which only they knew how to do. Is it
any wonder that she is most sensitive to being controlled,
having lived with it's threat all her life? It is a wonder
that she is able to reach out with the warmth and compassion
she has. She and her mother had a bond over magic, she
practiced with her since she was little, and admired her
mother's power. She had recently lost her when she met
Willow and Willow's power was one of the things that
attracted her. I think her mother may have been a very
caring person, at least to Tara, for Tara to have learned to
be so giving and accepting.
Dawn, well, Dawn doesn't have parents. She has the memories
of parents and about half a year with Joyce as her mother.
Anonymous monks forming a girl from pure energy do not
biological parents make. Buffy is all she has, and yet she's
unsure of their relationship. It has swung from annoying
little sister to learning that she's not her sister to being
the instrument that could unleash the destruction of the
world with a sister who would sacrifice herself to prevent
it. Now they both have to forge a relationship. They aren't
just sisters, Dawn has to answer to Buffy, and if she
doesn't toe the line, she could be taken away. How could
anyone resist rebellion in these circumstances.
Anya and Spike are so far removed from immediate family that
there is very little influence remaining, although I do
think that Spike's relationship with his mother may have pre-
disposed him to like Joyce. We know nothing of his father,
and nothing of Anya's parents.
In the absence of any guidance over the past year and a half
as the gang moved into their twenties, is it any surprise at
all that they are having such difficulty learning who they
are, and what they want to be. Is it a surprise that
relationships are crumbling as each struggles with their own
identity. They are able to talk to one another about some of
these things, but not about the deep down, crucial, self-
doubting questions. They each need the others to see them as
whole, and need to see the others as whole as well. No one
wants to confront Willow about the issues that led to her
abuse of power, because they would have to address those
issues in themselves first (inadequacy, insecurity, need for
approval). Everyone wants Buffy to be okay, including Buffy,
but they all fear to finds out what makes Buffy tick. She
said herself that she needs to know what she is, where her
power comes from, and there's no one to guide her in this.
Buffy is the lost-est lost puppy I've seen in a long time.
Xander can't talk about fears of turning into his father
because he fears what the others might tell him. He doesn't
want feedback on his behavior, and the others don’t want to
challenge him on it because that would call their own
behavior into question. Dawn is the one with the greatest
struggle for identity — she knows she wasn't real, yet she
has all the memories of a real girl, all the doubts of a
real girl, all the changes a real girl undergoes in her
teens. She is the one who screams for help, then rejects it
when offered as not what she wants. Tara is closest to
knowing herself, knowing when she has to take action to
preserve herself, yet still has no one to help her deal with
her own conflicting emotions: how does she deal with Willow,
who is as loving and powerful as her mother, and can be as
controlling as her father ever tried to be?
Each of them has been blamed for the terrible things they've
done this season, except Tara. Buffy has been an inattentive
guardian/sister who doesn't know what to do when her efforts
are rejected, and has entered into a sado-masochistic
relationship with Spike; she has such despair that she
doesn't see her own worth, sees only that she makes
everything worse, desperately wants something to be wrong
with her — something that can be fixed. Willow has been
addicted to power, reckless, controlling; she is so afraid
of losing the ones she loved that she brought Buffy back
from the dead, and put spells on Tara. Xander insisted on
asking Anya to marry him, didn't want to tell anyone about
the engagement, left Anya at the altar, has been very self-
centered seeing the world, and acting on it, from his rather
narrow point of view; he's so concerned about his potential
behavior that he is unable to see his effect on others. Dawn
has rebelled in many ways, doing poorly in school, truancy,
shoplifting, stealing from friends, lying about where she is
at night; she desperately needs limits and someone to
enforce them. If one wants to make the case that if Spike
and Anya were to leave all would be well, the issues go far
beyond two relationships that may be found questionable. The
troika should not be left out of this discussion either.
Warren and Jonathon were in the same class as Buffy, Willow
and Xander. Andrew was one of their classmate's younger
brothers. They formed as a group originally because they
were all outcasts, the ones that didn’t fit in. They began
their quest to be Buffy's arch-nemesis and rule the world as
if they were suddenly in their favorite sci-fi movies. Their
approach has little to differentiate it from playing games
except that the toys can do serious damage and the action
takes place in the real world. They take no responsibility
for the damage they do or the people they harm, just gloat
that they got away with it; all three know right from wrong,
all three choose to disregard this. Warren leads, Andrew
follows, Jonathon is trying to grow up.
Fingers have been pointed at Buffy, Dawn, Willow, Xander,
Anya and Spike. If there is blame to placed for the chaos of
this season, I would like to offer a 'target' of sorts.
Hank Summers, The Rosenbergs, The Harrises, Mr. Maclay, and
yes, Giles. How much time did Giles give Buffy to get on her
own two feet, adjust to being resurrected, learn how to
manage a home, mother Dawn, get a job to support them both?
Five weeks? Six weeks? Two months? And also, parents we
don't know at all: Warren's, Jonathon's (who weren't able to
keep him from wanting to kill himself), Andrew's (who
allowed his brother Tucker to somehow keep devil dogs in the
basement). These are the adults who would normally still
play a fairly significant part in the growth of these young
adults, the ones who should be their mentors, their mirrors,
their sounding boards, their guides. They have abandoned
and neglected their charges. No one in a legitimate position
to help has reached out to anyone, and while it's
questionable whether any of the group would accept an offer
if it was made, these are times when parenting gets tough.
Someone needs to intervene and be Teflon-resistant to
rejection.
How can we expect the gang to succeed at growing up this
quickly all by themselves? All of them need someone who can
see them as themselves, accept the flaws and then help them
work through to become the outstanding person each of them
has the potential to be. As Cordelia once said, "Tact is
just not saying true stuff. I'll pass." [Killed by Death].
Parents and mentors must also pass on this, because they
must address the issues, and help in resolution.
Or maybe Joss just doesn't want authority figures in his
BuffyVerse. ;)
Looking forward to your comments. :)
[>
'Hell's Bells' spoiler in the above post ;-) --
Slain, 17:00:31 05/02/02 Thu
Great essay, LittleBit! While it's true that character in
Buffy do seem to suffer from that lack of parents, you could
say that the message of Buffy is that friendship is often
stronger than family. Joyce and Dawn are exceptions, but the
show does seem to be saying that you make your own authority
figures: that those provided to you by society don't often
work. That might just be a way of cutting down on the number
of characters, but I think not.
[> [>
Dang! I meant to take that line out.. ;p on me --
LittleBit, 17:09:25 05/02/02 Thu
[>
Re: Growing Up Alone — Season 6 (non-specifics through
Tabula Rasa) -- Drizzt, 19:10:17 05/02/02 Thu
Wow!
Loved your post Littlit:)
Hopefully I succeed in my goal; I want to arrive in the
Buffyverse at the beginning of The Crush from season 5, then
repair that blood vessal in Joices brain. I would also give
the Scoobies all the eps of season six & seven; this would
let them see a possible future...give them an oppertunity to
make better/different decisions. Also give them a different
perspective on their life;)
[> [>
Re: Growing Up Alone — Season 6 (non-specifics through
Tabula Rasa) -- gds, 19:25:31 05/02/02 Thu
I too have thought about the effects of magically appearing
in the Buffyverse complete set of videos in hand, but I
picked a different time to intervene - when they discovered
the arm of the Judge.
[> [> [>
Criteria for Buffyverse arrival... -- Drizzt,
20:56:19 05/03/02 Fri
Ummm
I have good reasons for the ep I picked as a desirable point
in time to arive in the Buffyverse.
I would not want to arrive any time before season 5; Dawn
does not exist before season five. Imagine how much WORSE
Dawn's identity crisis would be if all of the Scoobies know
she will be created in the future from there perspective; at
the moment of her creation they would allready have had two
years(?) to think about her and judge her for what she has
not done yet if I showed them eps of the show in the time
period of The Judge ep. Whoo! that was long.
Ok, also I would not want to arrive before Dawn finds out
she is the Key; Blood ties. Would make her identity crisis
WORSE than the show if she found out there is a show about
her sister before she found out she is the KEY... Also Blood
Ties was an important ep for Dawn and Buffy to become
emotianaly closer. Also Dawn confronting Glory was EXTREMELY
dangerous; if I arrived before then and events did not
proceed as in the ep for whatever reason, maby Glory would
hurt/kill Dawn or another of the Scoobies. In the case of
things going bad in the confrontation with Glory I would
have to interfere to help out, but it would still be a risky
situation due to Glory being VERY fast and the confrontation
had a lot of people in a small room; combat in close
quarters is a recipy for accidental injury of allies, and is
just plain aukward and dangerous compaired to having
manuevering room.
Again, I want to repair the blood vessal in Joices Brain;
Cannot arrive after the first night of the ep "I Was Made to
Love You" without running the risk of Joice ALLREADY being
dead when I arrive in the Buffyverse.
I can arrive at the ending scene of Blood Ties to the first
scene of I Was Made to Love You and still be in acceptical
timeframe for my criteria.
Specifically why I want to arrive in the begining of The
Crush is the third scene; college. Buffy, Willow, and Tara
are discussing a book they read, then Buffy sees the front
page of the Sunnydayle newspaper. On the front of the paper
is an article about five deaths by vampires at the train
station. Buffy steals the newspaper, reads the article, then
says "..., Survay says vampire" I want to be the person
sitting in the chair reading the paper, then hopefully Buffy
will steal MY newspaper, then I want to stand up, yell "You
stole my newspaper!", then pinch her niple untill she
apologizes for stealing from me...
He He
SmorgasBorQ
Drizzt...Drow Warrior, Philosopher, Mage
Never be satisfied with easy answers.
[> [>
Done. -- skeeve, 08:22:52 05/03/02 Fri
Well, not yet.
Still, there are two, count 'em, two, vengeance demons
hanging around the Scoobies. Maybe someone will say "I wish
Joyce were still here." Giles coming back for a surprise
visit would raise the odds considerably.
[>
Delurking to say great essay. Totally agree with your
assessments. -- Artemis, 21:36:49 05/02/02 Thu
[>
growing up alone: buffy (somewhat long) -- anom,
12:48:59 05/03/02 Fri
"Everyone wants Buffy to be okay, including Buffy, but they
all fear to finds out what makes Buffy tick. She said
herself that she needs to know what she is, where her power
comes from, and there's no one to guide her in this.
Buffy is the lost-est lost puppy I've seen in a long
time."
I've been thinking about this for a while, since early in
the 6th season. Buffy was quite clear after her encounter
w/Dracula that she needed to learn more about what he had
said, to understand what relation her powers might have to
the darkness she fights. She was disturbed by what he had
said, but she seemed quite willing, if not eager, to pursue
it.
Then the matter seemed to be dropped. Dawn showed up
literally out of nowhere, Glory became a threat, & Joyce was
diagnosed w/a life-threatening tumor. All these could
certainly be seen as legitimate distractions from Buffy's
quest to learn her true nature, but they may also be symbols
of it. Dawn: When you start questioning who you are, you may
look around at people you think you know, people you've
known your whole life, & wonder who they really are too.
Glory: You may run into real-life (well, real in Buffy's
life) examples of how much darkness can be hidden in someone
who seems like a nice, friendly, attractive person. Joyce:
You realize that the people you count on to always be there
won't always be. How much of who you are depends on them?
Who would you be without them? And it makes you realize, in
a way even a Slayer w/a low life expectancy may not have
before, that you really will die some day--& you have no
idea when.
What does Buffy need to do to learn the source of her power?
Does it involve feeling as though evil--internal (a power
rooted in darkness) or external (Glory)--threatens her &
everyone she loves? As though she can't hold back that dark
power, & that it's her fault (she couldn't stop Glory & went
catatonic, believing she'd killed Dawn)? As though her
universe is falling apart? As though she--her former self?--
has died? Or is dying a way of running away from the threat
to her universe? And if it does enable her to get away,
maybe that felt like heaven...while it lasted.
But it didn't. Buffy has to come back to her world & grow up
alone. What do people do in trying to face their inner
darkness, to know themselves fully, to come into their own?
They may feel bereft, try to protect the feelings of those
around them, find the very person they turn to for guidance
can't be there to provide it (in the end, we each have to
find our own way), get carried away by their feelings till
they feel consumed by them, go on a spree when they find
themselves in circumstances where they can't be recognized,
not be able to be there fully for the people who count on
them, embrace some aspect of the darkness & feel crappy
about themselves because of it, feel as though they've gone
crazy, attack/try to silence the people in their lives, &
finally reach a point where they have to decide whether to
live in the real world. Then...they have to deal w/the real
consequences of that decision, & all the ones after it, &
sometimes of those made by others, in that real world. Buffy
has reached that point & made that decision, & I think
starting next week she'll have to deal with the real-world
consequences of the decisions after it, right & wrong &
others'.
At the Buffy panels at Lunacon, some people complained that
it was taking too long for Buffy to get over having died &
been brought back. But many people take a year or more to
"get over" the death of a person close to them--how much
longer might it take to truly come back from one's own death
if that could happen? I like that the writers are making it
take so long & be so hard for Buffy. Don't we all fear to
find out what makes us tick? We all need to understand what
we are & where our power comes from in order to claim that
power, but we also want to be OK as our entire understanding
of ourselves changes. That can certainly make anyone feel
lost, but Buffy seems to have finally begun to find her way.
Do we all need to go through some version of what Buffy has
before we can, oh,...grow up?
"You think you know...who you are, what's to come...you
haven't even begun."
Now she has.
[> [>
Re: growing up alone: buffy (somewhat long) --
LittleBit, 08:38:44 05/04/02 Sat
Excellent points, Anom,
In many ways Buffy's situation is different from all
of the others.
No one else has died, twice. The first time was less unusual
since the death and resuscitation from drowning are not
uncommon events. The second time however was real death
("Hundred forty-seven days yesterday"). The return to life
was a resurrection. For what purpose? Will only time show us
that? She has returned to a Sunnydale / Hellmouth that seems
to have no more 'HST' than the average town [*snickers at
average*]. Is it significant that Buffy's prophetic dreams
seem to have ceased? Does this indicate that she may be in
the wrong place now? Kendra was sent to Sunnydale twice
because her watcher saw that "all de signs indicate dat a
very dark power is about to rise in Sunnydale." There's no
one to do this for Buffy. Even the "deeply stupid"
police of Sunnydale should be able to deal in some way with
the Troika, evil as they are, if they were given a lead to
them. Take away their toys and there's not much left. Maybe
the government could 'rehabilitate' them.
Her difficulty with self-acceptance has been around for
quite a while. Before she and Riley hooked up as a couple,
and as part of his argument for being a couple, he told her,
" But mostly I think you want to stay down in that dark
place because maybe it's safer down there." That
observation came from someone who didn’t really know her
yet, although as a psychology grad student he would have
some basis on which he might form an opinion. Interestingly
enough, the only other ones who tell her this (in different
phrasings, but same concept) are Dracula and Spike.
Vampires. Who know / see the nature of the Vampire
Slayer?
Giles was fully prepared to leave at the beginning of season
5. The reason he stayed was Buffy's need for him to help her
learn about her own nature as a slayer. As Anom pointed out,
several very significant and un-ignorable events occurred to
completely sidetrack that quest. And quest it is. Buffy must
reach inside herself and be willing to see her own true
nature, and accept it, integrate it, make both sides into a
whole. This is not an unusual task for a hero (especially in
fantasy, with which I am more familiar then mythology) to be
faced with: that success cannot be achieved until
recognition and acceptance of the darker side of their
nature is achieved. He does leave when he decides that his
presence is preventing her from growth, from accepting
responsibility. I happen to think he left far too soon. The
time required to re-establish herself, ground herself is
lengthy, and I, like Anom, am glad to see that the journey
is long and arduous. Anything less would reduce the
significance of the event. But guidance through the process
would not have been untoward.
In addition to trying to come to terms with her nature as a
Slayer, Buffy is also still a young woman coming to terms
with her nature as a human. She was initially a rather
shallow high school teenager, well-liked, well-accepted by
all the 'right' people, and probably didn’t care really
about anyone else. She may even have been as naturally
callous and cruel as Cordelia was. Then, pow, she has a
destiny, she's the capital 'S' Slayer, the Chosen One. She's
just beginning to develop as a person and define her role in
society and now has to take on a role that by its nature
causes her to be isolated. Perhaps this dichotomy is the
reason why the Watcher's Council decreed that the Slayer be
isolated from all social contact. So that the Slayer is the
dominant, if not only, part of the person that is developed,
and the teaching remains so entirely black-and-white so that
the darker nature is never explored. This puts Buffy in
unexplored territory, and without the information that the
WC could have provided. Even the Slayer Manual could help,
if the rules were analyzed to determine not what they are,
but why they are.
It's been long. It's been mostly self-directed, particularly
difficult when you have no idea where you are going. But
Buffy is beginning to arrive. And the rest of the journey
should be as interesting as the past has been.
[All quotes from Psyche Transcripts.]
[> [> [>
Re: growing up alone: buffy (somewhat long) --
Humanitas, 20:18:04 05/04/02 Sat
OK, it's late, and the adrenaline kick from seeing
Spider Man is starting to wear off, but here
goes:
It occurs to me that ultimately we all grow up alone (I
know, duh, mythic show). If we are lucky, we have family
and a band of Scoobies to support us along the way, but when
it comes down to it, everyone has to take that leap into the
abyss by themselves. Lotta folks aren't that lucky, and
some never make it across, either because they get lost in
the abyss (think Willow at her addicted worst) of because
they are afraid to jump (*cough*Xander!*cough*). I don't
really see this as being a sign that any of our lost-and-
wandering-in-darkness characters are lesser human beings,
just that they are human beings. I think it's fitting that
Xander, the least super-human of the bunch, is now prey to
the most extreme degree of human failings. I don't condone
or approve of his behavior, but it makes some sense. Here's
hoping he grows through it, and comes up out of the
abyss.
[>
oops--i got so caught up in my post above... --
anom, 13:14:08 05/03/02 Fri
...that I forgot to compliment LittleBit on a complex &
wonderful post, & to thank her for providing, somewhere in
there, a great jumping-off place for some thoughts I'd been
looking for the right place to express.
[> [>
Thank You and You're Welcome! -- LittleBit,
19:22:12 05/03/02 Fri
Giles's taste in
liquor (minor spoiler for Entropy) -- DEN, 20:03:06
05/02/02 Thu
A light counterpoint to all the heavy angst of the ep: I
CANNOT imagine Rupert Giles drinking Jack Daniels. much less
having a bottle of it in the Magic Shop. Single-malt Scotch,
yes--American sour mash, definitely NO!
[>
See, Joss would've known that... oh, Joss, come back to
us full-time! -- Solitude1056, 21:03:52 05/02/02
Thu
[>
Re: Giles's taste in liquor (minor spoiler for
Entropy) -- RelativeGirl, 22:40:32 05/02/02 Thu
And here I thought I was the only one peeved about the
liquor faux pas. Admittedly I am a single malt snob, but
I've never known anyone who truly drank both single malt
scotch and bourbon. You're pretty much either one or the
other and Giles is definitely a single malt man. *sigh*
I miss Giles.
[>
Re: Giles's taste in liquor (minor spoiler for
Entropy) -- Amber, 00:52:56 05/03/02 Fri
But it was the bottle he left behind!! Obviously he took the
good stuff with him. The Jack Daniels was probably a gift
from someone. I'm sure Giles didn't buy it:)
Or perhaps he bought in case the Watcher's Council came
back. Why let them drink the good stuff? Give them American
liquor and they'll probably leave sooner.
[>
Why do you think he left it behind?:D It was probably a
gift. -- SingedCat, 16:46:34 05/03/02 Fri
Fun Poll vote
-- Claire, 20:23:38 05/02/02 Thu
I could only be bothered to do the top 15 and here they
are
Tara: 5107
Willow: 5103
Spike: 3353
Buffy: 1470
Faith: 1324
Drusilla: 1302
Angel: 1085
Xander: 786
Giles: 685
Cordy: 652
Anya: 530
Dawn: 514
Wesley: 406
Riley: 143
Oz: 97
Glory: 73
And before anyone says anything I know this is really
childish and petty and probably a waste of board space. But
I am a huge Spike fan and can't stand to see him wallowing
in 3rd place. I now know that votes are being rigged as I
visited the Kitten board and a special thread was started to
get votes for Willow and Tara. They were being really smug
about Spike's lack of popularity compared to their girls.
The thing was I don't think most Spike fans are even aware
of the poll. It was suggested that the Spike boards would be
discussing it. The thing is I regularly visit
JamesMarsters.com (the unofficial site) and I haven't seen
any info on the poll. As I am not registated on the board I
cannot post a message I don't think. Does anyone know how it
can be done? I know it seems pointless rigging online polls
but I still want to rally the Spike fans if I can. Sorry if
anyone found this a huge wase of time but I was just looking
through the archives and got hocked on the online poll
results when I found the thread on it. I have tried to
register for JamesMarsters.com but I couldn't go to the
proper site to register as my computer wouldn't recognise
it.
[>
Re: Fun Poll vote -- SpikeMom,
20:29:00 05/02/02 Thu
What is the web page or site on which this poll is being
conducted? I'd gladly cast a vote for JM/Spike/William.
[> [>
http://www.funvote.com/fun/buffystars/ -- Claire,
20:31:50 05/02/02 Thu
[>
Uhm... a second poll. -- The Second Evil,
21:02:28 05/02/02 Thu
This is a philosophy board. I've heard some rumblings that
not all folks want to see it rambling off-topic, and I'm
curious - does this count as on-topic because it's about a
BtVS character, or is it off-topic because there's no
obvious link to philosophy, ethics, metaphors, or mythology?
Yes, it's good to support your favorite characters but there
are tons of other boards out there for discussions like this
one.
Me? I'd rather save the active posting bandwidth for posts
doubly on-topic - both BtVS/AtS and philosophy etc.
Normally I'd hesitate to appear to cut someone off at the
knees (which isn't my intention), but then I realized, if I
don't speak up and introduce someone formally to the fact
that it's called All Things Philosophical for a
reason, then I've only myself to blame if I get cranky at a
high percentage of non-ATP posts. In which case, the
original poster is welcome to "on-topic" the "semi-on-topic"
post - like by discussing the philosophy behind fandom or
the way that various fans group into camps, and how this is
also represented in Whedon's world? Hey, that would be
cool...
In other words, it's not a waste of space as long as you
find a way to tie in even the most unbelievably off-topic
post. Hey, we've even discussed fungi and market economies
and found a way to Whedonize them. ;-) And then there's less
likelihood that folks would react as though your post is
just spamming/trolling, which we've been hit with recently
quite hard and thus are gunshy about these days.
So now we know where I stand... What does everyone else say?
I'm curious. ;-)
[> [>
Sorry. -- Claire, 21:13:23 05/02/02 Thu
I was worried that people would get annoyed and I know it
was off-topic. I just wanted advice on registrating for
JamesMarsters.com so I could communicate my feelings with
other Spike fans. I don't know any other sites online where
I could ask the question. I sometimes visit the Kitten board
and JamesMarsers.com but that's about it. And I have never
posted before so I thought I'd post here as it's easy enough
(i.e you don't have to bother registrating). Sorry if you
found it a waste of time. The board moderaters are free to
delete my post.
[> [> [>
Don't be, and some info about JM sites, too ;-) --
The Second Evil, 21:19:21 05/02/02 Thu
There's a new JM board where you can get info, and it's a
bit more official than jamesmarsters.com. Problem is, I
don't know if it's okay yet to splash the page across the
web, but the site's webgod is also a regular here... I'll
let Liquidram know & she'll be able to post the correct
address. There's recent pictures, downloads, some other
stuff, I just can't recall.
As for JM/Spike stuff, there are oodles of Spike fans
on this board (too many, say the Xander fans! heh, just
kidding). As for whether or not you're ontopic, offtopic, or
semionofftopic... let's open the discussion to the rest of
the board and see what they say. In the meantime, you could
always come up with a nice several-page-long post about what
you've seen about fans, their relations to characters, and a
critical analysis of what you think this means to the way
folks interprete each episode. Not to give you a thesis, but
since you identified yourself as specifically a Spike-fan,
and noted the Willow-Tara fans are gung-ho to appearing
almost adversarial, just thought your input/analysis would
be interesting to hear. But no pressure, of course!
Oh, and, duh... welcome to the board! ;-)
[> [> [> [>
I wholeheartedly agree -- yuri, 22:24:59
05/02/02 Thu
Solitude puts graciously what I felt when I read the poll
post. I think those numbers could incite some really
interesting discussions, but without the discussion or some
inkling of it, they're just numbers that I don't care
about.
I wish you success finding fellow JM fans, Claire, and also
hope that you stay and enlighten some of us who do not
understand your perspective. Since you are someone who does
not seem to have been looking for philosophical explications
of BtVS/AtS, I would especailly like to hear your thoughts
on fandom and its factions, why people want to show that the
character they like the most is liked by the most people
(will it prove that they are actually the "best" character?
Why and what is "best?"), and if it enhances your enjoyment
of a show to hold one character most dear. (I know some of
things began to be adressed last time this came up, and I'm
sure they've been spoken of before that as well.) Of course,
I'm aware of all the wonderful people here already who have
the faculties to adress these things, and I'd want to hear
from you all too, of course.
Yup. I hope I don't come across rude in any way, I don't
mean to be.
[> [> [> [> [>
a comment -- cynesthesia, 00:55:20 05/03/02
Fri
I certainly understand the wish to keep the character of the
board intact and even offer advice on board culture to
newbies. This is a singular board because of it's philosophy
focus. But I have to say that if I were a first time poster
here, I think I would feel somewhat intimidated by the tenor
of the remarks.
Oh frilly heck, I still *am* intimidated about posting here
and now I just realized I didn't turn in my first posting
assignment. Anxiety! Eek! ;-)
OK, I'm trying and failing at humor. I'm just offering the
perspective of someone on the board who isn't well
established here and who sometimes struggles with that
"explication" thing that's been mentioned :-)
Cynthia
[> [> [> [> [> [>
A poll of an entirely different nature --
d'Herblay, 02:00:05 05/03/02 Fri
This is a singular board because of its
philosophy focus. But I have to say that if I were a first
time poster here, I think I would feel somewhat intimidated
by the tenor of the remarks.
Recently, someone
dear to my heart, and perhaps missed by many here, and I
were in conversation, discussing the common admission of
delurkers that they had been intimidated by this board. We
came to the conclusion that while neither of us had been
intellectually intimidated by the board, both had
been socially intimidated.
It seems to me that this is somehow backwards, that this
board should maintain high standards of discourse while
still being open and welcoming. In the interest of achieving
this (possibly impossible) goal, I think we need to know
whether many posters were actually intimidated by this
board, and, if so, what form this intimidation took.
All answers will be appreciated. (Footnoted answers will be
really appreciated -- it's part of that high standard of
discourse for which we aim!)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Ummmmmmmm -- Rufus, 02:30:21 05/03/02 Fri
This board was the only one that didn't move along at a
blinding pace. I learned how to "type" on this board. As for
being intimidated.....I guess I was too damn stupid to
notice that my uneducated "slip" was showing. To me
Philosophy doesn't just mean all the stuff written by Old
Dead Greek Guys, or later authors, it means the love of
wisdom....which isn't the sole purchase of persons with
letters following their names......I do however get feedback
from those who are too intimidated to post here, even with
someone as unschooled and undiciplined as me.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Ummmmmmmm -- yabyumpan, 22:56:46 05/04/02
Sat
I was (still am) intellectually intimidated. I'm not widely
read in philosophy or mythology. I just have a brain that
doesn't have an off switch and my parents never managed to
train me out of asking "why?". I also don't feel I express
myself as well as I'd like to so a lot of the time I end up
feeling a clutz when I do post. But that's all my stuff, on
the up side I actually find this board welcoming and not
socially intimidating. It can feel cliquey at times but I've
never been part of the "in" crowd so that doesn't really
bother me. My only real problem with this board is that most
AtS post seem to get steamrolled over by BtVS posts, as I've
pretty much given up on Buffy this season and am totally
obsessed with Angel, this can get pretty frustrating. I know
this is something that's been discussed before so it's not
too much of a problem for me, I'm just resolved now to keep
flying the AtS banner regardless. :-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
OK, so that's a good angle to work on. -- OnM,
09:17:48 05/05/02 Sun
You are right, this does tend to be a Buffy-centric board,
all the more reason for the hard-core Angel devotees to get
their champion some posting space!
In any larger community, there are going to be people who
discover common interests and thought patterns with other
members of that community. I think to most people, the word
'clique' carries a negative connotation, usually implying
snobbery or exclusion of some sort. I really don't see that
here-- what appears to be 'cliques' are usually just
linkages of common experience between/among longer-term
posters.
One thing to always keep in mind, if you
aren't already aware of it-- many posters schedule board
time around their 'realverse' life-- work, family, sports,
hobbies, etc. Never be offended or concerned if your
post does not get an immediate response-- there are times
that, even with the substantial growth ATPo has experienced
in the last year, that 'everyone is out'. Weekends, for
example, are typically very slow, sometimes almost
stationary as to responses. Allow for this before you assume
the other posters aren't interested in what you have to
say.
The Voy archiving system also causes problems with moving
posts/threads off the main page prematurely. Don't be afraid
to just pick up where you left off-- point someone to the
archives, or just recopy your post, if it's very short. (For
longer posts, save main page space by archive pointing, not
reposting.) Then, continue.
Be yourself. Everyone has talents and interests that
drive them-- many of these can be linked to the Buffyverse,
just like I link music and movies (and occasionally the
audiophile universe! ;-). You may not be an expert in the
fields of philosophy or literature, but so what? I'm not,
and I found a home here fairly easily-- others can too, even
if 'philosophically-challenged'.
A year ago, I thought it silly and obsessive to notice
things like character hairstyles or color choices in
clothing. Now, I pay close attention to such seeming trivia
because someone convincingly pointed out that doing so had
genuine merit.
So there ya go!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Gotta say I'm with you on that... -- Masquerade
, 14:35:21 05/06/02 Mon
" I've pretty much given up on Buffy this season and am
totally obsessed with Angel".
If you need an Angel thread pulled out of the archives, let
me know. : )
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Ummmmmmmm -- Aquitaine, 17:21:59 05/06/02
Mon
I like to think on the bright side of things and imagine
that S6 Buffy was specifically designed to irk me and make
me further appreciate the sheer pleasure of the skillful
word plays and the ambitious arcs on A:tS. I'm loving the
debit of the storylines on Angel (fast) and the slow, yet
gradual development of the characters. I find the voices of
the characters on Angel more consistent than on Buffy.
Furthermore, I like all the characters on Angel. It's
just a downright likeable show. Even Lilah has a special
place in my heart. Hehehe.
But, mostly, I enjoy how the two shows gain in meaning when
viewed alongside one another. For example, The Price
wouldn't have been the same if I hadn't had Amends
and Afterlife as points of reference.
- Aquitaine
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
A sincere response to the poll -- LittleBit,
06:19:31 05/03/02 Fri
As a relatively new poster to this board, or any board for
that matter, I can say that there is a certain intimidation
factor on both levels. I had never posted anywhere before
this board, and I wanted to participate here because of the
overall intellectual level that prevails here. I started
watching BtVS in January when FX began showing all the
episodes in sequence, read synopses and transcripts, checked
out the same for AtS because there's currently no way to see
the first seasons. [Tangent: should someone who couldn't
figure out when AtS was shown because it was on a different
night here post to a board full of smart people? ;)] Then I
found All Things Philosophical. I spent an entire weekend
reading everything on the site. Wow.
The intelligence and depth of knowledge and study that is
demonstrated by many of the regular posters is outstanding.
As one whose education went in a different direction I at
first wondered to myself if I should read up on mythologies
of different civilizations and literature, all the classics
that I hadn't read, (or it was long enough ago that I now
remember the names of the characters but no specifics)
before attempting to reply to post let alone initiating one
of my own. Would it be acceptable if I analyzed the
characters from the point of view of the BuffyVerse
mythology and my own life experiences without comparing it
to another myth, Greek philosophy or classic literature.
I was only able to lurk for a couple of weeks before I felt
I just had to get into the discussion. Sitting here and
thinking "yes! yes! but what about this point…" and "has
anyone considered this…" Having said that, I then decided
that, oh, what the heck, I'm anonymous, if everyone thinks
I'm an ignoramus they don’t know who I am, I can always go
back and do the homework if I need to, and I can change my
posting name and be smarter next time. (If Rippert ever
shows up — that's me being smarter ;). ) So I just screwed
up my courage and responded to a post. (And I can say, I
probably spend more time checking over my posts here to see
if they say what I want to say in the way I want to say it
than I ever did in an English class.) When I got a positive
response, I kept wanting to post just to say thank you! I'm
encouraged!
On the social side: I found two levels of intimidation, one
of which I got past by the same anonymous — ignoramus —
change name focus, the other is still working on me. The
first was that clearly the regular posters knew each other,
were in the habit of following a dialogue/discussion with
each other, while posters who didn't show up as frequently
were less likely to have that sort of discussion occur.
Well, so what. If my posts are worth reading, someone will
figure that out. Post and take the chance I may be
ignored.
The other came up when the person dear to your heart, who
is missed by the way, found herself at the center of
a controversy that should never have occurred. I was reading
that thread (I'm one of the odd ones who actually reads all
the posts) and was aware that she was involved in a debate
that no one would win. However, I was also aware that it
could be ended at any time by either party. When the call
for civility came, she responded instantly with an apology.
It should have ended there. As more and more people became
involved, weighing in with their opinions on whether or not
she was justified if the debate (not a discussion, a debate,
and a lively one), her distress became more and more
apparent. A new thread, well, two new threads, were started
to discuss nothing else. I did not participate, at her
request. But I regret that no one was hearing what I thought
she was saying. It doesn't matter whether or not anyone else
thought she was justified, she didn't, and as more
and more people joined, I kept hearing her distress that all
of them thought she had behaved in a way that she need not
apologize for because of the circumstances. Personally, and
as I said, I was following it as it unfolded, I thought it
was a lively debate. The two participants had engaged in
such before, and it ended with an appreciation of the
sparring match and looking forward to the next time. I
particularly miss the fact that her voice is no longer
present, and there will never be another next time.
I included the above because it was the reason for what I
now find as social intimidation. I no longer read my posts
just to see if they say what I want to say in the way I want
to say it, but if how I say it will be acceptable to
the other posters. Was I too opinionated? Did it sound too
didactic? Am I leaving things open to discussion? If it is
my opinion, how much can it sound like my opinion without
being opinionated? Change a phrasing, change a word to be
less strong.
It won’t stop me from posting because there's too much to be
gained from being a participant. But I am looking this over,
and hoping it doesn't offend anyone; regretting that I
brought up a painful topic, but not seeing a way around it
if I am to explain why I now concern myself with this.
All that said, I love this board, lurk and read far more
than I participate, and welcome the differences of opinion
every bit as much as I like the agreements.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: A poll of an entirely different nature --
Lilac, 07:05:58 05/03/02 Fri
I have been participating in this board since last fall. I
lurked briefly, and then hopped in, around "Smashed" I
think. If I have felt intimidated, I would not say it was so
much intellectually, or even socially, but by the amount of
effort some of the more accomplished posters put in here.
Good lord, how do people find the time to write the very
thoughtful, well supported, long essays they post here? I am
so pleased that the time is found, because those long essays
have given me so much pleasure and added insight into Whedon
world, but guys, how do you do it? I consider myself lucky
if I keep up with reading posts and throwing a small comment
in here and there. Often, by the time I get around to a
thread everthing I could have reasonably said has been
said.
I have, over all, been very impressed by the civility on
this board. I have never participated in another board, and
was surprised when I found one I wanted to take part in. My
husband reads a regional fishing board, and tells me about
frequent outbursts of name calling and insults -- who knew
bait could be so inciting? So nastiness can come out of
anything, and with the topics we touch on here, more could
arise than does.
I do think that when people first start coming here, it
seems as if there is a core of people who know each other
well, and it feels a little odd inserting oneself in the
middle of the conversation. But, unless a new poster comes
in being a jerk, I have never seen anyone mistreated just
for being new.
I have made some resolutions of my own about conversations I
will or will not participate in. I won't participate in
discussions of race, because while I feel it is a valid
topic, and equality and justice are vital, it seems to be a
topic that is favored by those whose goal is poking people
with a metaphoric sharp stick in hope of getting a reaction.
I won't participate in discussions about religion because I
know I have a very strong anti organized religion bias,
which I have a hard time controlling, but I also feel that
people have the right to believe whatever they want and have
their beliefs respected. Since I know I am likely to offend
someone's deeply held beliefs in that kind of conversation,
I chose not to say anything.
Well, I guess the point of all of this is that this is such
an interesting environment. I am very glad that I have found
it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: A poll of an entirely different nature --
Penguin, 07:19:19 05/03/02 Fri
The Board CAN be intimidating to newbies. I
have been lurking since November 2001 and have only “come
out” twice – to answer Milwaukee area programming questions.
The reason that I have not posted anything or joined in on
any discussions is simple – FEAR.
When I first discovered this Board, I was a complete novice.
Computers were only used for work, never for enjoyment. In
my first three weeks, I read all of Masq’s summaries of the
episodes and the character essays and was blown away. I had
watched BtVS and AtS from the very beginning but your
comments had brought a new meaning to things and I wanted
MORE.
I saw the link to the Discussion Board and decided to try it
(first time ever on a Board). I read everything that was
posted and went through the Archives. My enjoyment (and
awe) kept growing. I decided that the next time there was a
discussion that interested me, I would join in.
Unfortunately, at that point, there was a “troll” episode
and some posters identified this troll as easy to spot due
to Le Femme Nikita and DS9 comments. As a Trekker for 30
years and has every episode of Nikita on tape, would I
accidentally make comments that would be considered “troll-
like”? Safer not to try.
As the months have gone on, my courage has waxed and waned.
Unfortunately, my higher courage moments seem to coincide
when the Board is in a state of flux. The LAST thing that I
want to do is be mistaken for a troll, say (or type)
anything that would cause someone to leave the Board, or
hurt anyone’s feelings. I have decided that it is easier
and safer to enjoy the Board passively rather that risk
potential injury to others.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
There's more to trolling than a tv show... ;-) --
The Second Evil, 11:26:18 05/03/02 Fri
While we do joke about our resident Troll Slayer, who
frequents the trollers with random bits of quotes from
Bonhoeffer and references to Nikita... I really doubt anyone
is gonna mistake your post for that of a troll. For
starters, you don't write with each sentence forming a
single paragraph with never more than 10 words, and you also
appear to have used multi-syllable words more than once. And
even your single-syllable words ("flux," for instance) are
signs of an intelligent mind and not a trollbot who's just
out to regurgitate the opposite view. So, really, consider
yourself welcomed and next time you think to say, "oh, I
won't post," think again and post!
The real key is that if you post a reference to something
and someone takes it the wrong way, the expectation here is
that they'll do so civilly. That's always been a hallmark of
this board. And if you get a reply that reads, "I read that
as confrontational, but it could just be me," it's perfectly
okay to say, "oh, gracious, I didn't mean it that way." We
have, after all, had folks who've posted using english
that's unfamiliar and indavertantly used an english word
with a negative connotation. Some polite explaining cleared
up the misunderstanding.
Thanks to Masq, this board is always willing to give the
benefit of the doubt. And even with the worst trolls, we
have always been willing to give someone a second
chance, which is really good, or I probably wouldn't have
been allowed back! ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Sol, when have you ever been troll-like? -- The
First Evil, 11:50:45 05/03/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: A poll of an entirely different nature --
SingedCat, 18:34:21 05/03/02 Fri
Hmmmm. My two cents-- I've been a Buffy watcher since my
friend dammed me in Season 3. I found the board a year ago
off the WB bords and never went back. I loved it, and
couldn't possibly read all the posts before I posted myself,
I had so much to say, to ask, it was great, I bounced in my
chair and read every response. If nobody responded I didn't
take it personally-- there are a lot of threads, you can
never predict which one is going to take off. I've never
been intimidated by the posts, even the ones that brought up
amazingly obscure academic subjects--hey, those were the
cool ones, they talked about things I didn't know!
There are four reasons I can name for this abject lack of
intimidation:
I have seen all episodes of Buffy and all but one of Angel,
so I frolic free of spoiler fear amongst the posts, and get
most of the references;
The benefits of a liberal arts education-- you never know
the whole subject, but you can follow a conversation in
nearly *all* of them;
I was using TALK programs to converse with distant fellow
students in 1983, and outgrew flaming long ago.
But mostly--and I cannot stress this enough-- because of
reason four:
I have a serious glitch in my social programming. You know
how, when you get into a new class or around any new group
of people, you stay prudently quiet for awhile, you watch,
get the vibe of the group, see who's who, before you start
expressing your own views? I don't do that.
(Believe me when I say I don't look down on such intelligent
precaution! -- ignoring it has gottton me into trouble at
times, and if I weren't generally pleasantly disposed I'm
sure it would have been worse.)
Anyway, I'm not posting except to say that for these reasons
intimidation on this board (or any board, really) isn't much
of an issue for me. There are times when I may refrain from
posting, maybe until I have all my thoughts gathered, I've
read everything I think is relevant, or I've gone & looked
something up (god forbid!) But mostly I just post when I
have something that just *has* to be said, and if I find
later it's a similar post to a previous one, or it turns out
to be dim, or overly involved, well, I imagine people will
skip it, and I don't worry about it. I'll add one more note
on this subject and I'm done (see following post)
(and yeah, never been tested, but I *could* be a little
ADD...:D)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
In praise of caution (then post,post,post!) --
SingedCat, 18:49:05 05/03/02 Fri
Now having posted that I love to speak my mind (and with a
pretty good record for not ticking people off, I think), I'm
going to risk all and say this:
If you've got a thought that you want to throw into the mix
and see what happens, it's a shame if you feel too
intimidated to post it.
On the flip side, if you have thoughts like, "Hmmm...maybe I
won't make this headline-post, since the pun's been made
twice already now.." or, "OK, five people have posted 'I
agree!', I don't have to post it as well", or even, "this
guy has just made a mistake that four other posters are
pointing out, I don't need to jump in." Well, then maybe
those thoughts aren't so bad. As masq has pointed out (on a
page swiftly retreating in the distance), it's great to
post, and even better when they stay on the active board
long enough to get really involved in!
There. I'm done. Off to a movie!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: A poll of an entirely different nature --
Cactus Watcher, 07:50:40 05/03/02 Fri
My experience was something like Little Bit's. This was one
of the first places I posted in my internet experience.
Before deciding to post here, I peeked into a fair number of
Buffy boards including the original Bronze. Largely, I
couldn't stand what was going on elsewhere. It was like
being in a room full of screaming teenagers. There is
nothing wrong with teenagers, but there is a stage in one's
life when the most desirable thing is to incite everyone
around you into wild, screaming, mindless, ecstasy (or
passion, or even anger) over the most mundane things. That
stage passes. Some people here love Spike (Willow, Tara,
fill-in-blank). But, virtually without exception the folks
who post here have thought a good deal why they like
whoever, and are prepared to give you sound reasons. When I
discovered that even the occaisional babbling about cats and
chocholate here had a certain wit and slyness about it, I
knew these were the kind of people I wanted to share ideas
with.
Frankly, my background in Philosophy with a capital 'P' is
pretty limited. I took one course in college, and though I
enjoyed the lectures a lot, I couldn't stand the reading. I
can't discuss that kind of formal philosophy, and pretty
much wouldn't want to if I could. But, there is an older,
broader definition of philosophy which encompasses
practically everything in the sciences and liberal arts.
That kind of philosopy interests me, and that's how I try to
contribute when I can.
Practically the first time I posted here, I got into it with
one or more people over something I disagreed with the
majority over. As in real-life, I argued passionately, but
only as long as necessary to be sure the other person/people
understood what I was saying, rather than trying to actually
convert them to my 'belief.' Sometimes it's better to let
the other person think about what you've said rather than
keep after them. It isn't always possible to have that kind
of detachment. Certainly, I don't.* Intellectual arguments
can become heated, because we all have reasons for thinking
the way we do. It's good that we challenge each other to
examine what we think to be sure our reasons are valid.
It's not good when the arguments become personal. It's not
good when some people take abstract arguments personally.
It's certainly not good when trolls post things simply to
enrage others. One of the great things about Wisewoman is
that she seems to have an uncanny nack for seeing almost
instantly whether a strange post is an attempt to flame
someone or just an awkward attempt at an intellectual
argument. Then she wades in and appropriately scolds or
sooths. She may rarely post anything deeply philosphical,
but I miss her.**
Footnotes
* from - Me, The Complete Collected Works, Pompous Press,
Hoboken, Mantua and Ballerup, 2002
** - ibid
(Sorry d'Herblay. Couldn't resist. ;o))
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Intimidation and some advice on coping with it --
matching mole, 10:25:32 05/03/02 Fri
In keeping with my scientific background I won't use
footnotes but will use a modification of the usual
scientific citation technique instead.
Well I guess it depends on how you define intimidation.
There are certainly lots of topics discussed on this board
that I have little background in. It would be pretty
difficult for me to contribute anything to a thread on
mythology or that makes extensive reference to literature
from before say 1780 (that's not to say that I have a
comprehensive grasp of everything written since the dawn of
the Romantic era but at least the chance that I would be
familiar with a literary reference would be statistically
greater than zero (matching mole unpublished observation)).
So I don't tend to contribute to those threads (although at
times I read them with interest). And like Cactus Watcher I
have essentially no formal training in philosophy (Brock
University 1984, University of Oklahoma 1987, University of
Chicago 1993).
However, despite the fact that in real life I am a somewhat
shy and non-confrontational person I don't really find
myself indimidated in the sense that I am afraid to post
things here. I'm not sure why, this is my only real
internet experience. My guess is that it is both the sense
of distance and control posting has (I am never likely to
meet most of the people here and I don't have to read any
post I don't want to look at) plus the lack of any
substantive cost to myself of a disagreement. Graduate
school made me more thick-skinned than I used to be I
guess.
On the social side of things I do feel that the board (as
any organization like this would) contains whole series of
social groupings, insiders and outsiders, that I am largely
unaware of. But people have generally seemed pretty
friendly to me.
One place where I definitely am intimidated (or at least
envious) was mentioned by one of the earlier posers. That
is energy and productivity. More and more thoughts just
some to come pouring out of some people and they seem to
find the time to write them down. I'm exhausted just
looking at the posts.
I have a few pieces of advice from years spent in
intellectually intimidating atmospheres.
1. Talk about what you know - So you've never cracked open a
book by Joseph Campbell in your life (matching mole lifetime
reading list) and you found fresne's Dante/Buffy fanfic
impenetrable because you don't even know what century Dante
lived in (matching mole - knowledge of literary history
prior to c1780, lack thereof). But you know a bunch about
macrame. Relate Buffy to macrame - I'm sure you can do it.
And I'd be really interested to hear about it. Really.
2. Ask questions. This is something I'm guilty of not doing
enough of. Take advantage of the board's knowledge. People
who know a lot about stuff are generally only too happy to
enlighten you. Go on. Ask me a question about evolution.
See what happens.
3. Be honest, polite, and unpretentious but not apologetic.
In my opinion people apologize for being new or not knowing
things way too much. I'm a big fan of self deprecating
humour (as is hopefully apparent in this post) but not of
abasing yourself.
Literature Cited (with annotations)
Brock University Academic Transcript - only non-science
courses are in English (2) and Politics.
University of Oklahoma Academic Transcript - only non-
science courses are German for Reading (2)
University of Chicago Academic Transcript - no non-science
courses.
matching mole lifetime reading list - my readings of work
written before about 1780 (in all areas of discourse) can be
pretty much summed up by the following.
Selection of English lit (Chaucer, Donne, Pope) read in my
intro English class that I now remember basically nothing
about.
Some Shakespeare, Swift, and Dafoe. A few dabblings in the
Bible and the Tao De Ching.
my post 1780 reading list is considerably longer but still
contains no Joseph Campbell
And I really couldn't tell you (although I might make an
educated guess) what century Dante lived and wrote in.
Please note that my list here is a perhaps overly elaborate
joke on dH's request for footnotes and should not be taken
as evidence for my being either proud or ashamed of my lack
of education in certain areas.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
O/T: Good to see another OU person on this board!
-- Rattletrap, 13:30:59 05/03/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
It's been a long time -- matching mole, 08:58:54
05/05/02 Sun
but I was an Okie for three years. Never went to a football
game though.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
And another UofC person! -- anneth, 15:37:09
05/05/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: A poll of an entirely different nature --
Caroline, 10:27:07 05/03/02 Fri
I'm really glad you brought up this point. About a year ago
I was searching for more info on Buffy, found a lot of
boards that rude and/or fanatic about a character or ship
and/or not willing to engage in discussion of a more
metphoric or symbolic nature. Discovering this board was
great and intellectually I felt at home. I've had a somewhat
classical education so I feel at home with the
philosophy/mythology/literature/psychology stuff (I dabbled
in all of these before deciding on my current career, which
is also one that keeps the analytical juices going because I
essentially think about ideas all day) but I do feel
somewhat at sea when people start discussing things I don't
know about. But my attitude is that people here can teach me
a lot, so I'm grateful. I'm now inspried to read Ursula Le
Guin watch the Alien movies! And I'm surprised that someone
like Cynesthesia, who will long be remembered for her
amazing essay on OMWF should feel intimidated - I say you
have some fabulous insights and I would certainly love to
hear way more from you.
I was socially intimidated about entering discussions.
People knew each other and I felt like I was butting in and
also some people came across in writing as being rather
snarky. That could be my interpretation but that's just how
it seemed to me. I lurked for months before I finally
screwed my courage to the sticking place and contributed a
post about Buffy, Spike and the Persephone myth last
February, where it seemed appropriate. I got some wonderful
feedback from Age, Rahael and later Anne, Leslie, manwitch,
Sophist, Darby which greatly lessened my fears, contributed
greatly to me feeling more comfortable and confident here,
een though some of them disagreed with me! I want to send
out a big thank you to all those people and everyone on the
board who has made this experience a very worthwhile one for
me.
While a lot of my initial hesitation and fear to join was
probably just a product of my head, I have noticed that some
posters are not very kind. In written communication one does
not have the same cues to provide intent as with verbal
communication and some people, since they write in a very
conversational manner, do come across more harshly than they
perhaps are aware. Also, when someone, especially a newbie,
contributes a less 'philosophical' post, more established
posters come out and get all intellectual on them. While I
greatly appreciate anyone's ability to make a silk purse,
could we please do it more kindly?
I am in an environment where my work and that of my
colleagues is regularly vetted by intellectual peers and
superiors within the institution as well as well-known
academics in my field. I've consistently found that many of
the big-names and most respected people in my field are
extremely kind, courteous and considerate of other people's
feelings when supplying responses. It doesn't mean that they
agree with your hypothesis and won't critique the hell out
of it but they will do it without destroying your
confidence. Let's strive for that.
P.S. I miss Rahael.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Good points -- matching mole, 11:06:02 05/03/02
Fri
Now I feel slightly guilty (although not enough to apologize
in keeping with my own advice) about the tenor of my post
immediately above Caroline's. I was really struck by the
friendliness of the board when I first started posting
(about six months ago now) and when I was a newbie I did try
and make an effort to be welcoming.
While I always try to be civil and non-confrontational I
feel that I may not always have been as careful not to be
intimidating. It is often very difficult to see yourself
from the perspective of another person, especially one whose
only contact with you is through a computer. Students have
told me that I am intimidating a few times which was always
shocking and dismaying to me. To myself I feel so timorous
that it is hard to imagine anyone else seeing me like that.
And it is so far from how I want to be perceived by other
people that it disheartens me. So if I have ever
intimidated anyone on this board it was unintentional. I'll
try to welcome more newbies and emulate Wisewoman (who I see
has returned to the fray in a thread above) in her
generosity and consideration.
The advice I gave in the post above is the sort of
information I was given when I was younger. It is useful
and I stand by it. But I remember that I wasn't always able
to act on it and in some cases being given it actually made
me feel worse rather than better. I hope that isn't the
case here.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Seconding that, so to speak ;-) -- The Second Evil,
11:38:46 05/03/02 Fri
Same here. I'm always surprised, just a little, when folks
tell me I'm getting all intellectual on them. In person, I
give about as intellectual an impression (I'm told) as your
average small mammal. We're talking otter, jack russell,
platypus. Not exactly intellectual creatures. But I learned
a long time ago that my humor in person is much more
physical - gestures, expressions, tone - and none of that
translates. Hell, if I were to say this part in person and
add those elements, you'd be reading something like:
Same here. [headshake, shrug] I'm always surprised, [eyes
wide, hands thrown up in the air, more headshaking] just a
little, [eyes narrowed, eyebrows raised] when folks
[eyeroll, handwave in general direction of other nonpresent
people] tell me I'm [emphasis on "I'm" by leaning forward,
drawing the word out, and exaggerated shrug] getting all
intellectual [open mouth after word, eyes wide, both hands
pointing at self] on them. In person, [exaggerated innocent
look] I give about as intellectual an impression [waving
hands vaguely, while frowning as if in thought](I'm told)
[head nod, wry expression, hands making "so-so" gesture] as
your average small mammal. [head wobble, eye roll, one hand
doing "brush-off" motion]
And y'know, that makes for a really hard-to-read post. So
yeah, if you don't see/hear/grok the undercurrents, it does
make a post sometimes intimidating. OnM, for instance,
intimidated the hell out of me when I first posted here, and
so did Rufus. I just hoped they'd give me the benefit of the
doubt if what I said didn't make sense or sounded abrasive.
Now I try to do the same for others. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
LOL! Thanks matching mole and Second Evil... --
Caroline, 14:19:24 05/03/02 Fri
it's nice to find people who grok you. I've had similar
experiences with people thinking I'm intimidating when I
think I'm being as meek as a lamb and accusing me of being
too 'intellectual' when I think I'm expressing my self in an
ordinary manner. So now my personal policy is to try to be
considerate of others, try to remain detached and realize
that people are often to busy to be thinking about offending
me, and seek clarification about something that has offended
me before I go off.
And, Second Evil, that was classic! I often put little
facial gestures, shrugs, eye rolls etc in my my emails to
friends precisely to convey non-verbal cues but yours takes
the cake.
PS Sorry about the spelling in my previous post - I was at
work!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
You've gotta be kidding........:):):):) -- Rufus,
21:23:12 05/03/02 Fri
Second Evil........have a talk with WW, and if she forgets
the threats I gave her, she will tell you what the real
Rufus is really like....you will be so disapointed.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Rufus? Intimidating?? BWA-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!! ;o)
-- dubdub, 08:59:18 05/05/02 Sun
She's as cute as a button, and about as intimidating as an
ice cream sundae, but you didn't hear it from me...
;o)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Could you make that an evil button?...;) -- Rufus,
01:18:53 05/07/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
You've gotta be kidding-- The Sequel. -- OnM,
20:31:26 05/04/02 Sat
I waited at least about 4-6 weeks after the board first
started up before I posted anything, and then what I
did post was some fairly short comments on threads started
by other folks.
I was somewhat (although not severely) intimidated
intellectually by the board content; I am only a high
school graduate, I have no particular background in
philosophy or literature, and it was obvious that many
of those who posted were college graduates, and had
substantial experience in discussing
‘heavy-duty’ philosophical and literary materials. I just
waited until I felt I had something to say that was
within my own range of experience, and then tried to craft
it thoughtfully so while it might not appear
‘brilliant’, at least it wouldn’t be stupid or pointless.
The first few posts got only a few responses, but none
of them were rude or unkind, and after a while I became more
adventurous, and the responses grew as I
posted more and more. Several of the early board regulars--
Ryuei, Rufus, spotjon and others-- were
significant influences on me, and I found I started clicking
on pretty much anythiung they put up on the
board, no matter what the topic.
I never felt socially intimidated by the board, possibly
because I have spent over 2 1/2 decades of my
working life dealing directly with the general public. If
you can waltz into someone’s home on a daily
basis, do appliance or electronic repair work, and then
write up a bill for it, you learn not to be too timid--
not all customers are pleasant to deal with, and even the
ones who normally would be pleasant could be
stressed out and therefore act atypically.
Sol, I gotta admit, I’m chuckling at the thought of you (or
for that matter, anyone else) being ‘intimidated’
by someone whose gravestone will probably read:
Here lies OnM
He Saved the World’s Refrigerators
(A Lot)
Ya know, my attitude most of the time pretty much sums up
with the phrase I normally close each week’s movie
column
with-- ‘Post ‘em if you’ve got ‘em.’
So...
;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: A poll of an entirely different nature --
Malandanza, 10:58:10 05/03/02 Fri
I think that this board is open and welcoming -- at least
initially. I doubt either you or Rahael have anything to
complain about regarding the reception of your first posts
to this board. Perhaps the receptions of your third or
fourth posts were less gushing, but by then, we expected
more. I think much of the unhappiness with the board comes
from the mistaken impression that the honeymoon period will
last forever. Furthermore, I think there is a tendency to
try to take part in every discussion after the initial
welcome, whether you have anything to add or not (I know
this was the case for me -- I was so excited with having
found an interesting discussion board, that I treated it
more as a chat room than a message board). While there is
nothing wrong with frequent posts, the greater volume means
greater chance of meeting an opposing response and less time
spent refining the logic of the post. I remember rather
clearly the first hostile response I received from this
board and refrained from posting for a days following, but
that was not a problem with the board, but my own
hypersensitivity and unrealistic expectation that everything
I said would be greeted with rapture.
As for cliques, I don't think anyone on this board would
snub a new poster whose essay was brilliant in order to
respond to an essay by a regular that was rather pedestrian.
If it seems so, perhaps it is because when we skim the board
(before work, or at lunch, when time is limited) we don't
have time to sort through every post, so we read the
comments of people we know will have something interesting
to say, reserving the other posts for when we have more time
at our disposal. I'd also say that a post that languishes
may not do so because no one agrees or no one has bothered
to read it, but because everybody agrees and cannot think of
anything to add worthy of comment. In other cases, it is
ignored because we've already had that debate, dozens of
times before through the years, and nothing new is being
said.
So I think most of the social intimidation comes from the
people who feel intimidated and not the board. Responses by
a regular to a new poster are not less civil than those to
another regular. If a new poster feels attacked it is more
likely a sign that they have been accepted rather than
excluded.
Incivility is far more likely to be initiated by a newcomer
than a regular. Deliberate, personal attacks by strangers
are rarely well received. Then there are the hypersensitive
people (and, no, I'm not referring to shadowkat, Sophist and
LittleBit), who choose to be offended by anything you say --
no matter how carefully you couch your language (not that I
am particularly careful about what I say, but other people
are). Any post can twisted into something hateful -- for
example, you say that you found us "socially" intimidating
but not "intellectually" so. Is this some sort of attack on
our intellect? Are you so far above the poor simpletons who
inhabit this sector of cyberspace that we are left blinking
stupidly in the blinding light of your massive intellect?
Clearly my interpretation of your statements is unreasonable
and you would be well within your rights to say so rather
forcefully or ignore me entirely. If you backpedal and
apologize for the unintended slur in your remarks, you
legitimize my interpretation.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Mind clarifying? ;-) -- The Second Evil,
11:50:38 05/03/02 Fri
Clearly my interpretation of your statements is
unreasonable and you would be well within your rights to say
so rather forcefully or ignore me entirely. If you backpedal
and apologize for the unintended slur in your remarks, you
legitimize my interpretation.
If someone misunderstands and you do not make a
genuine attempt to clarify, then - and only then - you
really are legitimizing their reaction because you're
not taking the chance to try & set the record straight. All
we've got here are words. If we're not using them right -
whether or not we realize it - then we've only ourselves to
blame when communication breaks down.
PS. Your "unreasonable" interpretation of the post was
exactly the gut reaction I had. I'm almost certain that's
not how it was meant, and I'm willing to give the benefit of
the doubt, but if I were new, my reaction might've been
different. Possibly even intimidated. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Mind clarifying? ;-) -- Malandanza, 23:38:20
05/03/02 Fri
If someone misunderstands and you do not make a genuine
attempt to clarify, then - and only then - you really are
legitimizing their reaction because you're not taking the
chance to try & set the record straight. All we've got here
are words. If we're not using them right - whether or not we
realize it - then we've only ourselves to blame when
communication breaks down.
If it is a genuine misunderstanding, I agree. And in these
cases, a simple clarification suffices and the matter is
dropped. But just as it is not particularly difficult to
tell the difference between a troll and a poster who merely
enjoys a good debate it is not that difficult to distinguish
between someone who misunderstood and is legitimately
offended and a person who makes a career out of pretending
to be offended. The problem with trolls is that they seek
to offend, the problem with these anti-trolls is that they
seek to be offended. Just as ignoring a troll-attack does
nothing to injure your reputation (few will give credence to
obvious troll-speak), ignoring a baseless complaint about
your offensiveness will be seen through by most other
posters. Because a few might believe the attacks, I favor
the less mature, but more emotionally satisfying, approach
of mocking them.
The problem with backing down and apologizing when you've
said nothing wrong is that you end up like Xander at the
start of Entropy -- where every attempt to explain
yourself just gets you into more trouble. I've been on the
board long enough to remember a "Canned Dough Blitzes"
remark you made as a Buffyism joke -- or was it "The
Lemurs?" -- that got you lectured by Voxpopuli for religious
intolerance. You didn't back down or apologize -- had you
done so, you very well might have been labeled as a
religious bigot -- or, at the very least, insensitive.
Instead, you handled the situation perfectly and the "issue"
died a natural death.
PS. Your "unreasonable" interpretation of the post was
exactly the gut reaction I had. I'm almost certain that's
not how it was meant, and I'm willing to give the benefit of
the doubt, but if I were new, my reaction might've been
different. Possibly even intimidated. ;-)
Actually, after I wrote it, I thought "Hey! that
could be insulting!" But I filled it with enough
hyperbole that it's still unreasonable even if a reasonable
person suspects that a kernel of truth might be buried
beneath it. Even then, I think reasonable assumption to made
is that d'H was either saying he saw us as intellectual
peers (which is only insulting if you think d'H is your
intellectual inferior :) or that he didn't feel as though
there were intellectual bullies on the board.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Um . . . I'll go with the first interpretation! --
d'Herblay, 01:24:25 05/04/02 Sat
Had I seen the vast majority of the posters here as my
"intellectual inferiors" (were I in fact given to grading
intelligence on a linear scale), I wouldn't have started
posting here. The discussions here were worth getting into.
However, I never felt unsure of my ability to contribute to
that discussion. If that is arrogance on my part or
insulting to others, well, so it is.
I have to take issue with Sol's interpretation that a newbie
could be offended by my statement, though. It obviously
reflects only on the level of discourse on the board when
I started posting in June. The level of discourse now
is, if anything, even higher. And now that manwitch has
reappeared, it can get only better!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: Um . . . I'll go with the first interpretation!
-- The Second Evil, 08:15:50 05/04/02 Sat
Canned Dough Blitzes? Uh, that was me? Short-term memory,
I'm tellin' ya, once you're over 30, it all goes downhill
from there... ;-)
I have to take issue with Sol's interpretation that a
newbie could be offended by my statement, though. It
obviously reflects only on the level of discourse on the
board when I started posting in June.
Well, yeah. ;-) I'm aware of that, and I also know your
writing enough to know what you meant, and I'm also
willing to give the benefit of the doubt. But I'm also on
the weekend before finals, stressed-out, sleep deprived, and
have a head full of a three-page presentation that's
completely in Mandarin, with finance bouncing around in the
back of my head. So I'm a bit touchier than usual, and it
seems to me that might put me in the category of a more
sensitive and unfamiliar newbie. I wasn't saying it to make
you back down & declare that you were wrong, so much as to
make a point that an at-first-blush reading can sometimes
give an impression entirely separate from what you meant.
You clarified, I got it, and we're good.
As for the issue of communication, I think Mala's right
about trolls. I didn't get though, from his post, that he
was speaking specifically of trolls - I thought he meant
just in general, which is why I said something.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: A poll of an entirely different nature --
Slain, 12:19:49 05/03/02 Fri
I have to say that while I understand your point of view, I
don't like what you seem to be implying, Malandanza. It's
all very well saying that people are 'hypersensitive', but
that's not unlike saying the problem isn't the trolls, it's
the people they abuse. I think it's clear where the line is
between being argumentative and offensive lies.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: A poll of an entirely different nature --
Zooey, 04:42:10 05/04/02 Sat
I agree entirely. People aren't always hypersensitive, and
it's not a given that anti-trolls seek to be offended. It is
redirecting the problem at those who get hurt rather than
those seeking to hurt. Also the nature of the kind of
discussions that have erupted ie on race, Pc etc are things
about which I would hope people would reply and be offended
by. That would be an ethical thing to do rather than always
ignoring the comments. either that kind of things always
reeks of 'you are unworthy of answering too' or it leaves
contentious issues as unchallenged or undiscussed. As
discussion aids our growth. Sometimes it seems easier when
I've had (and i'm sorry to pick such an emotive issue but
thats what springs to mind) racist abuse said to me as i
walk past to ignore it. Sometimes though I feel signally
disempowered by doing that and I turn round and challenge
them to justify or argue through their comments with me.
Ignoring them, though sometimes the easier option, is
legitimising comments and redirecting the hurt onto the
person on the receiving end.
to make it clear I don't want this to be taken as
contentious, this is just a discussion rather than an
accusation of maladanza'a post
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Polls and trolls -- mundusmundi, 06:52:56
05/04/02 Sat
In principle, I agree with and understand completely what
you're saying. The problem with trolls, however, is that
they deliberately employ inflammatory rhetoric in order to
bait people to provoke a reaction. Their minds cannot be
changed. They will not listen to reason. They achieve their
objective by luring others into responding to them, and
sooner or later, as we have recently seen, regular posters
previously friendly to each other get caught in the
crossfire. All of which, in my opinion, is destructive to
discussion, rather than conducive.
This is not to say blatant abuse should go unchallenged. We
were wrong to not defend a relatively new poster in this
thread after he got insulted by one of our more unfortunate
regulars, for example. Some of us have become so used to
this particular regular's incivility that we've grown immune
to it, or we've just come to not read his posts in the first
place.
A newspaper columnist may write something incendiary that
prompts us to respond with a letter to the editor; but I
doubt there's many people who would feel compelled to write
letters after every single column. Ultimately the
shtick grows tiresome and the columnist finds new employment
as a shock-DJ. I guess what I'm asking is the question of
the moment: how do we deal with trolls effectively without
playing directly into their hands?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: Polls and trolls -- Slain, 13:17:05 05/04/02
Sat
I'm biased by my own experience in this issue, to be honest.
I've not found a problem with the discussion, however
argumentative. The problems begin when people clearly, and
with full knowledge, step over the line after they've
lost an argument; not with people being too argumentative,
but with simply abandonning the idea of discussion
altogether, in favour of bullying and insults. That's what
I'd call a troll. No amount of argument, however forthright,
constitues trollish behaviour. Trolls don't argue, because
if they were articulate and intelligent enough to do so they
wouldn't be trolls.
I don't think that happens often, however, but when it does
it's going to create the wrong impression of the board.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Re: Polls and trolls -- mundusmundi, 14:40:27
05/04/02 Sat
I've not found a problem with the discussion, however
argumentative. The problems begin when people clearly, and
with full knowledge, step over the line after they've lost
an argument; not with people being too argumentative, but
with simply abandonning the idea of discussion altogether,
in favour of bullying and insults. That's what I'd call a
troll. No amount of argument, however forthright, constitues
trollish behaviour. Trolls don't argue, because if they were
articulate and intelligent enough to do so they wouldn't be
trolls.
I agree for the most part with your definition. I am
concerned, however (and I'm not sure you're saying this, I'm
just running with the idea), with the notion that we're out
to win or lose our discussions on the board.
OK, at the moment I'm hoping to persuade you with my
reasoning, and perhaps you're hoping to persuade me with
yours, but we're conducting it in a civil manner. A main
reason is because the topic -- trollery -- is a vexing one
with a multitude of opinions. (Strange how trolls never
weigh in when we talk about them; wouldn't My Life as a
Troll be an revealinging tome?) On the other hand, the
topics spawned by trolls are always hot-button issues that
rarely bear fruitful discussions. This is in part because
there is no effort at real discussion, as you stated,
but another reason is because the topics themselves are
either so divisive or so decontextualized that they
invariably breed dissent and misunderstanding.
Occasionally we've seen thoughtful posters hijack a troll
thread and turn the subject into something interesting. But
more often than not lately we seem to be responding to troll
behavior by unconsciously growing more entrenched in our
positions. By the time we've finished congratulating
ourselves about how open-minded we are, the trolls are back
to work on another thread, generating more responses,
getting more people hurt, causing more problems.
I hope I'm not coming across as astringent here myself --
your points and personal experience are well taken. If a
poster is directly insulted by another then we should take
action, because what we're defending is an individual and
not just an idea. In the big scheme of things, however, I
think that we need to revert back more to the board's raison
d'etre (Buffy and philosophy), or at least tweak our ideas
so that they're more in context with the show. As Buffy and
Xander recently learned (hey, I did it!;), I think we have
to be accountable for our own actions -- our own responses.
Trolls do have one glaring weakness: they rely on us
to achieve their objective. Perhaps there'd be less need for
action, and there would be fewer trolls, if we'd simply stop
responding to them in the first place.
Just a few thoughts,
-mm
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Re: Polls and trolls -- Slain, 15:28:25 05/04/02
Sat
I didn't really mean that I consider an argument that way -
it's that the trolls do. In my opinion, you can't win an
argument, all you can do is bring someone towards your point
of view in a discussion.
Ignoring people works in certain cirumstances - when they're
bashing characters, for example, and have no motive other
than to provoke the board in general. We've seen that a lot,
and continue to see it; but that's usually when people are
starting new threads with an obvious agenda.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
My view is that we should simply ignore the trolls.
-- Sophist, 20:07:30 05/04/02 Sat
Of course, my parents always gave me that advice for dealing
with my annoying younger brother, and I never thought much
of it then.
I also think it's very effective for someone to select out a
point and turn the thread into a serious discussion. This
has been done many times, and often led to valuable
posts.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: A poll of an entirely different nature --
Deeva, 11:00:25 05/03/02 Fri
I like this board and it's also the first board that I've
ever been too. I lurked for about a month before I finally
jumped in with some inconsequential thought or another.
I'll admit that I am occasionally intimidated to post what I
think because ultimately all the smarties might think I'm
not too bright. Which is ridiculous, I know. I want to come
up with the "deep" thoughts that many here do have, but I
just seem to ramble before I get to the final thought. And
then, I think that no one knows what to make of my
blathering so, well, you know, I just stopped. Now I just
stick to fairly short and quick responses. And the
occasional funny/sly joke, which only I seem to get,
sometimes. But then, I was always one of the kids who could
entertain themselves endlessly with nothing.
I don't have more than a passing knowledge of Philosophy, in
all it's scary grand categories. It's just me speaking from
my experiences, which I guess I can call the philosophy of
me.*
*The Philosophy of Me, A Work in Progress Series 1,
HellaCrazy Publications, San Francisco, Kuala Lumpur,
2002
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: A poll of an entirely different nature --
redcat, 13:51:20 05/03/02 Fri
Thanks, d'Herblay, for opening a conversation about
how the board "works." I'm an extreme
newbie here and have only posted a few short responses to
others’ works. This board is the
only one I've ever read or posted to. I came to it a few
months ago by way of a link at Slayage,
The Online Journal of Buffy Studies. *1
Like others above, however, I am awed by the time and
energy some of the regular posters
here put into their analyses, just as I am often intrigued
by the work itself. I've been a serious
(i.e. critically-engaged) viewer of Buffy since mid-season 3
and was therefore delighted to
discover that there were lots of other people who watched
the show and made the kinds of
connections between it and philosophy, classical literature,
postmodernist debates, cultural
theory, etc., that I had been stumbling towards in my
lonely, but sincere, way for years. In fact,
the greatest shock in finding both this board and the
Slayage site was simply the discovery
that there were lots of obviously intelligent and culturally
sophisticated folks out there who
found the show to be as well-crafted, complex, thought-
provoking and interesting as I did. *2
And while the essays posted at Slayage are more in line with
what I’m used to reading in
academic cultural theory and literary analysis, many of the
substantive posts to this board have
shown an equally astute level of analysis as those written
by the “professionals.” More
important, almost everything I’ve read here has been
interesting and much of it quite insightful.
Perhaps it is the thick skin that one develops during years
in graduate school and working in
academic institutions, but I don’t find the debates on this
board to be terribly incendiary.
(Ever been to a faculty meeting where proposed department
consolidations are on the table?
Now that’s incendiary.) When I have found a thread to be
too off-topic for my tastes or
veering toward too many personal issues/comments, I simply
move onto another thread,
generally discovering a really interesting conversation
going on simultaneously elsewhere on
the board. I am glad this board exists and that its regular
posters continue. But just as it
doesn’t bother me that I might disagree with an
interpretation I find interesting, it doesn’t bother
me that someone might someday disagree with something I
might post (whether or not they
find it interesting). It would, on the other hand, bother
me greatly if that disagreement turned
into a personal attack. I’ve always believed that honest
debate is a necessary ingredient in
intellectual inquiry and, if all parties are well-
intentioned and civil, it can lead to the sharpening
and refining of analysis on all sides. That’s a big but
crucially necessary “if” and, most of the
time, the posters to this board understand and respect that.
It’s why the board works so well.
Every community I’ve ever entered has had webs of
relationships, lines of connectivity
between individuals and groups of people. In most
communities, power flows along such lines.
In this one, certainly, a form of power flows, but it seems
to me that the coins of this realm are
ideas, succinctly expressed in text, and commitment to the
community, expressed by showing
up on a regular basis and contributing something interesting
to the conversation. It’s pretty
clear that the circles of power and the webs of connection
are not closed; rather, I feel both
new and regular posters are encouraged to contribute and to
do so in ways that engage,
inspire and pique the interest of the community’s
members.
So, d'Herblay, a long answer to your short question. Do I
feel intimidated by this board? No.
Do I feel excited by this board? Yes. Do I hope it
continues to grow and mature? Absolutely.
Hopefully, conversations like this one will help. As
Alexander Pope once wrote, “My friend is
not perfect. Nor am I. And so we suit each other
admirably.”
A final note: it took me awhile to figure out how boards
like this function, but it’s clear that
Masquerade puts an enormous amount of energy into keeping
the board up and running. My
sincere (hell, nearly gushing) thanks to you, Masq, for all
your hard work.
*1 In the interests of reasonable disclosure (and in an
attempt to satisfy d'Herblay’s taste for
footnotes), I hereby forthrightly admit that I’m an
academic and hope that fact doesn’t
intimidate anyone who might be reading. I found the Slayage
site while doing research on the
portrayal of witch images in popular culture. I teach at a
local university, mostly interdisciplinary
cultural studies, some political theory, occasionally some
feminist methodology and, if I’m
REALLY lucky, something in my actual field of research,
which is Oceanic historical-cultural
studies. However, I’m also untenured, underpaid and
overworked. I have friends who sell ugly
clothes in brightly-lit boutiques who make more money than I
do.
*2 Reading a post by shadowkat on the ways in which Spike
and Anya function as shadow
selves was the “aha!” moment, wherein I finally acknowledged
that I was not, after all, totally
beyond the social and cultural pale of my civilization just
because I don’t PERSONALLY know
anyone else who has ever actually sat through an entire
episode of Buffy. (Damn you,
shadowkat, for dragging me back into the fold!! I was happy
out there in my cold and lonely
cave, growing fat on my self-assured and terribly snobbish
sense of intellectual superiority over
the whole rest of humanity...)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Welcome, redcat -- Masq, 15:16:21 05/03/02
Fri
Thanks for your kind thanks. Glad to have another academic
on board. We have a few.
I'm an ex-academic myself (university-level philosophy,
unsurprisingly). You know what they say, those who can do,
those who can't start websites to bring together those who
can do.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Strange, I had the exact opposite reaction.... --
mundusmundi, 14:15:36 05/03/02 Fri
I found this board very intellectually intimidating
when I first arrived, and a few posters still leave me
feeling suchly, albeit in a good way. (That includes you,
incidentally, d'Herb, and I mean that without a modicum of
sarcasm.) Fortunately for me, intellectual intimidation is
often synonymous with intellectual stimulation. I remember
Malandanza, his self-described "black hat" notwithstanding,
responding to one of my first posts with thoughtfulness,
polite criticism and encouragement. It was the social
openness of the board -- its welcoming vibe -- that
prompted me to stick around.
Having said that, I do think things have changed somewhat,
to where I can see how new posters or lurkers could feel
socially intimidated under our present conditions. The
chatroom has definitely altered the dynamics, IMO. I'm not
going to knock too hard a medium that has dramatically
improved some of our social lives. But it does seem that the
chat can create a socially stratified atmosphere, to where
those of us who have come to know each other better are more
likely to respond to each other's posts (or avoid them, as
the case may be) than to posters whose names are more
unfamiliar.
I'm still incredibly fond of this board, and I don't mind
the schism between the esoteric posts and the frivolous. If
I miss anything, though, it's the threads that contained
both.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I'm stubborn -- Etrangere, 15:27:09 05/03/02
Fri
When I discovered this board the first time, i found it way
too interresting to content myself with lurkdom and started
posting about a month or two after coming.
I didn't feel intellectualy challenging, because, well i
don't doubt most people here are a lot more knowledgable
about me about most philosophical subjects. i certainly
learnt a lot of a very wide range of subjects here, from
litterature to physical science. But that's not the point. I
strongly believe that, as every one person is different,
they have a unique point of view on everything, and thus
bring something unique to any discussion.
I don't think you *need* to be very knowledgable in
philosophy or whatever to discuss about it. All you need is
a mind in state of working and the will to explain your
point of view.
Of course, one can judge you on the way you express your
mind.
After my first few posts, I felt it was the case, I was sad
to see very little answers, as they went straight into the
archive. I though, ok, you're new in the place, you need to
deserve those answers with interresting posts, that's
normal, and went on. After I took upon the time to write in
english a three parted analysis about Buffy and Spike's
evolution that I spent several days writing and recieved
nearly none aknowledgement I was still a little bit
bitter.
So I complained, I wrote a PS to one of my post about Dead
Things, asking wether people found I wasn't writing anything
up to the level of the board.
I had plenty of answers there (none to my post itself, i was
amused to notice), one of them advicing I explain my many
typos and syntax errors to people by the fact I was french,
so I switched my name to Etrangere and went on posting.
Nearly after that I posted another multiple part essay that
had a lot of feedback and from then I felt more accepted in
the board and enjoyed writing here a lot more.
Now, I'm not a shy person, and i'm stubborn, that's why I
stayed. I think many other kind of person would not have
keep on trying.
Is someone at fault about this ? I don't think so. This is
an internet community, lots of person post, and it's hard to
notice everyone and everyone's post or to even answer to
every interresting stuff you read. Moreover the way Voy
work, chasing unpopular thread away very fast doesn't really
help.
Can we really oppose intellectualy intimidating to socially
intimidating ? isn't the reason why people find the place
socially intimidating is because the supposedly intellectual
level is linked with the use of a particular kind of style
and vocabulary or quoting some particular kind of authors ?
That's not something to be criticised : I think everyone's
got his own style about this, and that's exactly what is
interresting about this board, the sheer eclectism of
people, all very smart and wise in different ways bringing
their own knowledge baggage to the discussion. That's why I
love discuting on internet, that's why I love this
board.
But some people will get intimidated by this. It's not our
fault. We can only show them how much we welcome any kind of
interresting posting when they do leave lurk-dom.
By the way, d'H, I hate footnotes :o) (except in the Dante's
fic cuz they were so funny )
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: A poll of an entirely different nature --
LadyStarlight, 16:09:44 05/03/02 Fri
I found this board completely by accident and immediately
let out happy squeaks of joy. (People! Grownup people who
talk in sentences!) (1)
I've felt a tiny little bit intellectually intimidated at
times, simply because of my particular post-secondary
education. (2)
However, I've never felt socially intimidated. I have a
sneaky feeling that it might be because I found the board in
the summer, where there's perhaps a little more leeway for
OT stuff. A lot of the really pertinent stuff is discussed
immediately after an episode airs, I've noticed.
(1) I'm a stay at home mom who is geographically isolated.
Thus the happy squeaking.
(2) I went to a technical institute, not a college or
university. You have no idea how much that screws me up
when taking a survey....
(hah! 2 footnotes for you, dH.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: A poll of an entirely different nature --
Ixchel, 20:42:55 05/03/02 Fri
I admit to having been somewhat intellectually and socially
intimidated at first. I believe I was a little awed by the
intelligence and thought that went into the posts here and,
maybe, I had a sense that everything worth saying was being
said. I think the social aspect was more an effect of my
personality than any particular quality of the board. When
I finally posted a few times, I received encouraging (and
kind) responses from Solitude, Rahael (very much missed),
Rufus, Etrangere and Sophist (I'm sure I'm forgetting
someone) that made me realize what a very welcoming
environment ATPoBtVS is. I really enjoy the polite and
civilized general tone of the board and its calmer pace (I
lurked at a few other boards).
Ixchel
No footnotes were harmed in the making of this post.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: A poll of an entirely different nature --
cynesthesia, breathless and late for class again ;-),
03:31:12 05/04/02 Sat
Thanks to people for understanding my comment wasn't an
objection based on content or a criticism of the board, but
a simple "how might I feel if" reaction based on feelings I
remember as a newbie. And Claire did very well on her own. :-
)
As to intimidation, the intellectual aspect first: I make
what for want of a better word I'll call art (visual objects
and not nearly enough of them lately). The process ends up
being extremely intuitive, non-verbal and non-linear. Silly
as it might sound, thoughts less coherent than "fire bad,
tree pretty" can get me through a few hours work. I get used
to that mode of thinking. If I could put certain things into
words, I wouldn't need to make the object in the first
place.(1) OTOH, posting is logical, verbal and very linear.
Add to that the fact I've been away from an academic setting
for some time and am still somewhat new to the internet and
there's a certain comfort level I'm still finding.
As for the social aspect, I think often it comes down to a
difference in style and trying to accommodate that. I'll
admit to having a thin skin about some things. I'm also shy
and conflict adverse, but I know that about myself and
consider the other person's intent before I decide I've been
rebuffed. Sometimes it's good old personality conflict --
someone you disagree with turns to be a sweetie(2) and
another you agree with in principle makes you clench your
jaw.
I think a certain amount of OT silliness can even be
helpful. At another board, I constantly disagreed with
someone until we discovered in an OT thread that we watched
the same silly TV shows as kids and were both relieved to
find that small bit of common ground. Also ITA with other
comments made about the non-verbals that are lost on the
internet.
Over time, the intimidation has lessened. My greatest fear
now is that I'll Forget To Label A Spoiler.
I make rounds of other boards because the whole fandom thing
interests me. Based on those experiences, there are things
here I value apart from the terrific content. Threads don't
vanish off the board with lightning speed. Threads are not
deleted lightly. I don't see the kind of cliques that can
lead to some posters being routinely blown off no matter
what they write. Most times, this board is adult and self-
policing so I blessedly don't have to read frequent tongue-
lashings from TPTB about rules, forbidden topics and
invitations to go somewhere else. So, this board is a pretty
good place IMHO. I also value feeling it's permissable to
think aloud and that not every idea must be polished to
perfection before putting it out there.
Overall I've found BtVS boards to be far more civil places
than most other internet communities. I looked for a while
before finding one that felt this comfortable.(3) But
recently the angstiness of S6 and the frustrations of some
viewers has begun to take a toll on the mental health of
some boards. People are drifting away. It's a pity there's
so much sadness out there right now over a pursuit that's
meant to be fun.
Woohoo, I created a need for 3 tangents:
(1) One of the best characterizations I ever heard of art
was as "inarticulate certainty," while science was
characterized as "articulate uncertainty."
(2) Sweetie: someone you'd have *several* beers with :D
(3) Apparently, it's a proven fact all musical artists go
into a steep and irreversible creative decline with the
release of their first album. Never argue this fact.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Definitions of art and science -- matching mole,
05:04:06 05/04/02 Sat
Articulate uncertainty is the best two word definition of
science I've ever heard. And the counterpart for art is
excellent as well.
Can you tell me where they came from?
And great post overall as well.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Definitions of art and science -- cynesthesia,
12:56:25 05/04/02 Sat
If only I could remember where I read the definitions - I've
been trying for over a year now. (Note to self: write things
down.)
The idea of art and science being the reverse image of each
other really appealed to me. There's an enormous amount of
creativity in science or so it seems to me. It's nature is
just very different than the arts.
There's a book I keep meaning to read by Leonard Schlain
called "Art and Physics" where he compares/contrasts cubism
and relativity theory. I heard him lecture years ago when he
was promoting the book and it was fascinating.
Cynthia
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
An equally sincere response and still unclear on
trolls -- shadowkat, 18:38:10 05/04/02 Sat
I wasn't aware of this board until Yoda requested permission
to post my essay Dawn - Buffy's Inner Child
on it. I was incredibly flattered and went over to check it
out. And have to admit, I was a little intimidated at first,
by the scholarly arguements and tone. But I've come to
actually prefer this board to the other boards on the
internet, because of the level of discussion. I've learned
quite a few things here and the board has expanded my
appreciation of the show.
Regarding trolls - still unclear what a troll is - my guess
is it is someone who rants and doesn't support their
arguments. In a recent post of mine - I misunderstood a long
term posters response and thought he/she was indicating that
I was a troll. When the poster tried to apologize, I still
misunderstood it...it wasn't until another poster intervened
and explained no insult was intended that I realized I was
probably over-reacting and felt ashamed and almost left the
board. I've since changed my mind (obviously ;-) )This was a
minor incident and I admit had more to do with things going
on in my private life (work life) than the board. (My boss
is
a horrible troll who has delighted in derailing my
confidence over the past year, attacking me on a personal
level and not a professional one...this week he launced
another attack which I had to deflect with a well placed
grenade - he was one of the inspirations behind my vengeance
and respect essays. Hence my sensitivity this week.) Usually
I try not to respond to posts that intimidate
or that are heated...until I know for sure what I'm
thinking, particularly since I am fairly new to the whole
posting board/chat situation. Never did it before
February.
So I apologize for any infractions that may have occured
this past week. Enough on trolls. ;-)
My background for those who are interested:
Undergraduate degree in English Literature, Minor in
Epic,
Myth and Folklore. I visited Wales in the 80s to collect
Welsh folkstories, legends and I compared these to the
Mabinogi. I also did a thesis comparing Joyce's Ulysess
to Sound and the Fury (which was a tad above my own
head and my advisors b/c I used Jung and Freud...to
analyze it.)
I do have a law degree but do not practice law, unless you
count handling issues of copyright, trademark and
negotiating publishing agreements. Before moving to NYC,
I defended clients at Leavenworth Penitentiary in Kansas
and worked for the Domestic Violence Coalition and
Legal Aid Housing Authority, also spent time with Public
Defender Office and State Legislature.
I'm in the process of revising my first novel - it's an
occult thriller that has elements of my celtic folklore
background and antiquities. Similar to The Secret History
(blanking on the author right now), Waking the Moon by
Elisabeth Hand, and Ann Rice. It's dark. And anti-
Machiavelli.
Books: every genre. Have read everything from Heinlein,
Frank Herbert, Tolkien, Le Guin, Mythology, Fairy Tales,
Philip K. Dick, Philip Pullman, Shakespeare (most of his
plays, although I think Malandaz found one I've never heard
of), Greek playwrites and philosophers...oh and huge
comic book fan (Dark Knight, Spiderman, X-men,
Sandman(not
all, but most), Swamp Thing (several issues) Watchman,
some superman, several art ones..)
Movies; every genre. Luis Bunel's films, Francis Ford
Coppola, Lucas, Spielberg, John Ford, Nosfretu, Shadow
of the Vampire, Apocalypse Now Redux, Lord of the
Rings..Anime endless.
Haven't seen anything recently or read much recently, too
busy reading essays, writing essays and working on my
book.
best shadowkat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: An equally sincere response and still unclear on
trolls -- mundusmundi, 20:09:12 05/04/02 Sat
d'Herblay's Law states: "If you wonder whether you are a
troll, you are not a troll." Trolls have a high degree of
self-awareness. You, shadowkat, are most certainly not a
troll.
An informative link on trolls is here.
Best of luck with your novel, btw. And please don't leave
the board.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
not saying you aren't self-aware, btw. LOL. -- mm,
20:15:15 05/04/02 Sat
I'm too tired to think clearly, much less type, but
hopefully you know what I meant. :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The link in the above post is both familiar and
informative -- Darby, 20:54:17 05/04/02 Sat
Although I found it to be a bit too free with the
absolutes.
But if you are a bit of a novice to this whole troll issue
(and I'm trying to decide whether I want to preserve my
niavete in the face of possible trolls), this is a great
quick read.
Thanks,mm! (Those are my initials, too, BTW)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Thanks.... -- mm, 07:07:37 05/05/02 Sun
It overgeneralizes, I admit, but as an introduction to the
subject it seems helpful. Wish I'd read it when I started
perusing the net.
Should we confuse everyone further on the "mm" issue? LOL.
The mole can correct me if I'm wrong, but while others have
called him "mm," I don't believe he's actually ever posted
as "mm." I usually post as "mundusmundi" but occasionally
use "mm" so not to appear redundant, or in case my post
sucks or is inflammatory and I can blame the other mm for
writing it.
;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
(Not that anyone's ever fooled, btw.) -- mm,
08:24:27 05/05/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
You are correct -- matching mole, 08:53:36
05/05/02 Sun
I have always posted using my complete board name or on rare
ocassions a more elaborate versions thereof. If I was to
abbreviate I would use mole to avoid confusion (unless I
wanted to generate confusion).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thank you...the link really helped -- shadowkat,
07:00:51 05/05/02 Sun
I'm clear on the whole troll concept now...and thanks for
that. I have met a few of them. I agree with Sophist, the
best way of dealing with a troll is by not responding to it.
It's certainly how I dealt with my little brother in the
past...LOL!
Don't worry not planning on going anywhere. I really miss
the two people who left...though.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thinking of everyone who's left without submitting
notice.... -- mm, 07:55:00 05/05/02 Sun
Ryuei, bible belt, AK-UK. Where's rowan these days? Come
back all!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Could be wrong, but I think rowan goes on sabbatical to
avoid possible spoilery... -- OnM, 09:50:27 05/05/02
Sun
...'cos of course she showed up last summer to led the ATPo
Summers' Arts Festival. :-)
Hopefully, she will appear again this June.
Ryuei, I suspect, is too busy with the demands of his
ministry.
Bible belt, AK-UK, I dunno, but yes, all of these folks are
missed. But, I'm thankful we have all these great new
posters to help keep us duly philosophized!
The wheel turns...
:-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Actually, Rowan has had some health problems... --
Marie, 01:42:09 05/07/02 Tue
...but I'm occasionally in touch and will forward everyone's
best wishes if you like...
Marie
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Thanks, Marie. Please forward mine. -- mundusmundi,
06:45:49 05/07/02 Tue
We need a special care unit on this board for our favorite
posters.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Oh yes, tell her my grabby hands will never be the same
without her....:):):) -- Rufus, 14:27:05 05/07/02
Tue
We had that perfect partnership, she got Spike, I got the
chocolate...:)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
oooh, mundus, this should be in our FAQ or somewhere
more prominent -- Masq, 10:35:57 05/06/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
um...shadowkat, when do you find time to sleep? :-)
Please keep the essays coming -- cynesthesia,
20:23:50 05/04/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: um...shadowkat, when do you find time to sleep? :-)
Please keep the essays coming -- shadowkat,
07:05:43 05/05/02 Sun
I recieved your email by the way and tried to respond
but
it bounced. Anyway...thank you for that. The information you
provided on A Clockwork Orange was wonderful!
I've enjoyed your posts as well - particularly the
Persephone myth.
Not doing a ton of sleeping of late...;-)(Actually I've been
writing these babies at work a lot as well as at home.
Outside of Buffy and Angel, tv has been boring me of
late..can't think why?)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
pesky e-mail -- cynesthesia
, 17:11:23 05/05/02 Sun
Grrr. E-mails I want to receive are getting bounced and the
spam is coming through in an endless stream. This isn't
encouraging. Glad you got mine though. This more direct addy
should work OK. :-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: An equally sincere response and still unclear on
trolls -- LittleBIt, 20:11:56 05/05/02 Sun
Thank you for the bio, shadowkat!
Also a question: when you asked (in the vengeance post)
about keeping eyes open for alternate work possibilities,
did you have a geographic area in mind? I'm in Ohio and I
know you're in NY, so I thought I'd ask.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: An equally sincere response and still unclear on
trolls -- shadowkat, 09:19:23 05/06/02 Mon
Regarding job possibilities?
At the moment I'm willing to look on the moon...my boss is
truly a troll of the first order.
Only place won't go is Kansas City...too many years
spent
there already. Willing to consider Ohio. Although have
become a bit of a city girl and exploring heavily the
east coast - culture junkie. People have told me to try west
coast - but LA intimidates me. LOL!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Will keep eyes open then (and crossed) :):):):) --
LittleBIt, 09:34:30 05/06/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: A poll of an entirely different nature -- yuri,
20:59:05 05/04/02 Sat
I agree with Etrangere and some others who have made the
point that yes, intimidation happens(1), but that's not
necessarily bad, and we shouldn't always feel like it
needs to be eradicated. (Though, of course, sensitivity and
kindness should still be praised and well used.)
In terms of social vs. intellectual, I felt both very
strongly (and, honestly, still do). I assume that people who
feel one more than the other are people who generally feel
more confident either socially or intellectually.
(1) A bestseller in my imaginary bumper sticker company.
[> [> [> [>
actually... -- That'sWebGoddess,
13:13:32 05/03/02 Fri
The Second Evil is partially correct. The new site is
authorized, but is not a good forum for this kind of poll
for two reasons.
1.) No message board. (Hard to get around that
one....)
2.) The site is solely dedicated to James' musical
endeavors and steers completely away from BtVS and Spike, so
a Spike poll would not be appropriate.
Anyone interested in the URL's ... pop me an email. We have
his latest show with the new band posted.
Liq
p.s. Eliza Dushka has an appearance at my local mall today
promoting her new film, so I'm turning into FanMom and
taking my 11 year old daughter to meet her. Pics may be
coming....
[> [> [> [> [>
err, Miz WebGod... (&Claire) -- The Second Evil,
18:06:22 05/03/02 Fri
I didn't mean that it'd be a site for polls, just that if
someone is a fan & wants more JM, yours would be the best
place to go with most recent stuff. (Well, maybe not done,
but getting there.) ;-)
And in case you haven't figured it out, Claire, you can
email someone if their nick on the board is in blue. Just click on the name & it'll
open an email window for you. ;-) And if you want to do
funky coding, read the FAQ, there's lots of information
there.
[> [>
To newbies but especially oldbies. -- Darby,
05:56:23 05/03/02 Fri
Anyone who has been here for more than a week knows that a
thread, any thread, can weave into and out of "topic"
as people respond. I've always felt that "OT" just means
that there's no direct connection in the initial post to the
two shows.
And I challenge anyone to demonstrate that people here can
not add a little / way too much philosophy (or wisdom, I
like that) to any thread - we're doing it right here, right
now, in a discussion of what's appropriate. I've got to
confess that even trolly (or, if particularly one-tracked,
trolley) threads generally keep my interest, but I've never
minded the rollickin' kinds of discussions as long as people
respect each other during them. And a controversial
assertion, even if the poster isn't serious, isn't
necessarily invalid. And questions looking for what
miniscule expertise (self-deprecating joke there, not a
slam) we might collectively have should always be welcome as
well.
And I gotta say, I found this to be an inappropriate
response to a first-time poster from a courtesy standpoint.
Claire, I've been enjoying the poll discussions - and they
have all become full-fledged, philosophical discussions.
[> [> [>
As a guilty party -- Sophist, 08:55:12 05/03/02
Fri
in a number of pretty OT threads (religion, the First
Amendment, the Civil War), I have to say that I think the
occasional discursions add a lot to the Board. I learn a lot
from them, anyway.
I'm not much for online polls, but the topic is BtVS, and
someone here will find a way to make a silk purse out of the
thread.
[> [> [>
Re: To newbies but especially oldbies. -- Claire,
10:12:57 05/03/02 Fri
I just wanted to say thanks for speaking up for me but I do
understand why a few people brought up the fact I was
getting OT. It is after all a board with a large group of
regulars on it who know what they are interested in and the
purpose of the board. If newbies do start taking the board
off-topic and posting loads of polls etc I can understand
why people would want to bring up the fact that it isn't
relevent before it gets too out of hand. I got the feeling
that is what the original criticisms were aimed at (the
purpose of the board in general) rather than taking a slam
at me and suggesting I wasn't welcome. I have to say that
everyone was polite to me and did invite me to join in the
board in a more appropriate way. I think that was what I
found a bit intimidating lol.
It was just the perfectly friendly suggestion that I
consider a several page analysis on fandom I found a bit
worrying because I'm not sure I'm up to it. But now I seem
to have generated a bit of discussion I thought I'd better
have a go at expanding on my original post.
I do think Spike is the most popular character but I could
be wrong. When I read science fiction magazines (and I spend
far more money on them than I should) it is frequently
mentioned that Spike is the best character on Bts. Not just
the most popular but the best. When SFX interviews
celebrities I remember the guy who wrote Queer As Folk
(Russell something?) couldn't stop talking about how much he
loves Spike. I believe this has happenned since season 5.
Spike was a great big bad and very memerable. But season 5
is when I feel the character with mass appeal began to
emerge. Spike was no longer just the snarky outsider making
the witty remarks and laughing at the scoobies situations
when things threatened to get too serious (a good example of
that is season 2 when Spike and Dru first arrived and the
old pretentious story arc was discarded by Spike with the
memerable words "time for less ritual and more fun").
In season 5 Spike actually got a serious storyline as he
endured the heartbreak of unrequited love. The story could
have come across as cheezy with all the knicker sniffing etc
but James Marsters did an incrediable job in conveying
Spike's conflicted feelings to the audience. We had already
seen the storyline of Buffy falling for a vampire. The bad
boy who she was supposed to hate Angel. But Angel never
really fit that story for me precicely because it was so
black and white. Angel brooded over his past and felt
genuine remorse yet he would still never be accepted by
Xander and later Giles. My main issues with the storyline
was that Angel had techniquely done nothing wrong. Buffy
forgave him instantly in season 3 and was kissing him again.
She viewed Angel's two personalites as completely different.
He had a good side and a bad side. This has been fleshed out
more in his own show and we have discovered there is more of
Angelelous lurking under the surface than we might like to
think. But in Bts I personally didn't buy the argument that
Angel was a true monster that it was aborent for Buffy to
love.
But I do feel that with Spike. Many viewers would never
consider acepting the relationship because of Spike's past
and the fact that he is still the same person, yet he feels
no remorse. I am drawn to Spike's struggle to be a good
person this season in particular. He will do anything for
the people he loves and in Smashed he was shown to be
struggling with his natural instincts to feed. He had to
talk himself into it and keep reminding himself that he was
evil. But was there really any need for that? He had Buffy
and her friends to constantly remind him he would never be
good enough. Spike is the outsider and the underdog in my
eyes and I do pity him. Remember Smashed when Buffy told
Spike he couldn't be a vampire or a human and he didn't fit
in anywhere just as she was struggling to find her place in
the human world when she was so much a part of darkness
herself being the slayer.
In Smashed Buffy calls Spike an "evil disgusting thing". I
personally have always found that worse than the scene
talked about more in Dead Things. As any bullied child can
tell you emotional abuse is far worse than any punches or
kicks. Who can forget the pain of being told they're
nothiing/worthless. That is what Buffy does to Spike who has
done so much for her. Intervention is the only episode I
remember her thanking Spike for doing good for her.
Following that episode Spike did continue helping the
scoobies and saving their lifes. He also babysat Dawn over
the summer in honour of Buffy's memery and a promise he made
to her. Yet Buffy treats him as evil and not good enough.
She has never thanked him for keeping his promise and taking
care of Dawn. Some positive reinforcement would mean a great
deal to Spike I'm sure. Particularly as his past is always
being discussed and critisised.
Spike is trying to understand humans but unlike Anya he has
no humans who will accept him and help him fit in and learn
about the human world. In Dead Things Buffy is disgusted at
his attitude towards Katrina when he dismisses her murder so
casually not understanding why one individual means so much
to Buffy. Faith was a human with a soul and she had this
same problem. But with Angel's help she eventually learnt
the value of human life (whilst Buffy threatened to beat
Faith to death when Faith tried apologising and making
amends). Buffy does nothing to help Spike when he pleads
with her to help him understand her moral dilema in Dead
Things "explain it to me then". In As You Were she finds out
Spike has been dealing in demon eggs which will cause mass
destruction. Her response is not to beat him down and tell
him he is worthless as it was previously. Rather she is
tired of dragging herself down with Spike. It's no longer
worth the effort and she tells him she was wrong to have
expected more from him and she was wasting her time. She
should have realised that he was "just Spike". That is why I
love Spike and support him because he is a social outsider
and we know that is his worst nightmare, not fitting in. He
was proud to be part of a gang in Fool for Love when he
discusses his past with Buffy. He is almost in tears in
Afterlife when Xander dismissed him even after Spike points
out that he has fought alongside the scoobies all summer.
This apparently means nothing to them as he is dropped after
Buffy's return. Following her lead once she starts sleeping
with Spike and feeling the need to treat him like dirt so do
her followers. I just want Spike to find some self-respect
and happinness. I love him not just because of his attitude
but because I pity him. I have to confess that I do look
forward to the day when Spike gets the chip out and tells
the scobbies to "kiss my arse" because I do feel it is long
overdue.
Willow and Tara have similiar votes and are popular because
the Kitten board are urging fans to go out and vote. People
enjoy seeing the positive representation of a gay
relationship and that is why the Kitten board started, to
celebrate that. Tara was also belittled by many fans in the
beginning and is also seenas something of an underdog.
People missed Oz and found Tara undynamic in comparision
with no interesting qualities. Of course she has really come
into her own this seaosn as Amber has finally been given
some good material to work with. Tara is more mature than
the other scoobies. She has had a painful childhood but she
has dealt with that and is in comparision to the other
scoobies stronger. She also has a great sense of humour
which was shown in Older And Far Away. She was teasing Spike
in her gentle way "you had a muscle cramp in your
pants...maybe you should put some ice on it". She was also
caring and level-headed and supported Buffy fully with no
evidence of self-righteousness.
This does seem to have got OT again so I'll just conclude by
saying that yes online polls don't mean that much if we
think about it logically but if people are huge fans of
characters we want to show our support. The polls do seem to
reflect how committed fans are. For instance the Giles and
Anya fans haven't bothered voting much. Why? Perhaps because
whilst they are fans they are not as obsessed with the
characters as W/T fans or Spike fans are (or I suppose they
could just have better things to do with their time lol). I
can't think of many people who dislike Giles but his fans
rarely see him as the best character on the show and are
obsessive in their support to the extent that W/T or Spike
fans might be (generalising a bit there I know as lots of
people do have Giles as their favourite character overall).
Spike fans often admire and emphasise with the character as
Tara fans do (and W.T are usually seen as a package deal)
and want to make a bigger effort.
[> [> [> [>
bravo! knew you could do it! & explanation, too... & a
question! -- The Second Evil, 12:03:36 05/03/02
Fri
As you may have noticed, this board does tend to find a way
to keep dragging things back to an analytical viewpoint.
It's unfortunate that "philosophy," which really can cover
so much as we use the term - anthropology, mythology,
sociology, science, communications, multiculturalism,
politicism, belief, faith, hope, and ME tricks - is such an
intimidating (err, overused word right now) thing for new
folks.
There were two reasons I decided to say something. The first
is that I really do want to hear what the current
board members (lurkers and posters alike) consider ontopic,
offtopic, or onofftopic. [Aside: I'm visualizing a sign that
says, "This ATPoBtVS Bar/Restaurant has an On/Off License."
Sorry, American humor.]
The second is that a lot of folks, like yourself, want to
post something for whatever reason and if it's way offtopic,
it can sometimes get lost in the bandwidth and there's
little to no response. So you're not even given a chance to
rephrase yourself and join in, or challenged/welcomed to
elaborate further. We used to always welcome new folks, but
I'm afraid as the new names have piled up, it can get hard
to keep track. That made me decide to somewhat hijack your
thread to achieve both - ask people what they thought,
and invite you to elaborate on what you'd noticed in
terms of the two camps of fans. Me, I'm thinking you did a
very nice job of explaining just that. Now your next
assignment is to stay put and keep posting. ;-)
So it's all good, cause I've got a question for you... you
gave an excellent review of Spike's development since he
first entered, and then you mentioned that Tara has gone
through an equally complex development since she was first
introduced. Do you think the fans that specialize (so to
speak) in those two characters are more adamant about their
support because those two characters appear to have
undergone the most significant changes in the past two or
three seasons? Could that be part of why people respond so
strongly, because those two characters in particular have
moved at a faster pace?
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: bravo! knew you could do it! & explanation, too...
& a question! -- Claire, 12:53:52 05/03/02 Fri
Personally I feel it is just because humans do have a
tendency to speak up for the underdog. Spike has been
treated really poorly all season with his self-esteem left
in shreds. That interests me far more than the bad boy
cliche that is all many non Spike fans can see and
mistakenly believe is what most people find appealing about
the character. If that were the case more Spike fans would
dislike the current Spike and be demending him to return to
his season 2 ways.
And Tara is such a nice character and she was attacked by
fans a lot when she first started on the show (not to
mention the personal attacks on the actress which were of
course inexcuseable). I was pretty much indifferent to the
character until season 5 where I found myself liking her and
I now count her as one of my favourite characters. Giles and
Xander are core scoobies and pretty much accepted by fans.
But Tara is still somewhat marganilised which maight
encourage her fans to speak up louder in order to show that
many people do like her character.
Also Buffy and Xander have been quite self-righteous and
judgemental this season which many people find unattractive
qualities in friends. People tend to explain away Spike's
past as he was a vampire and following his nature etc. But
it is easier in some ways to condemn basically good humans
who are committing misdeeds that we can all relate too. E.g
Xander leaving Anya at the alter or Buffy feeling she is too
good for Spike has caused lots of comments about her acting
like spoiled princess who is too good for the bad boy etc.
Those actions are easy to condemn as we do it in everyday
life. When I see Xander critisicising Buffy for the
relationship choices she makes I am reminded of people I
have known in my own life and think I hate people who
interfere in others business, so and so did that and I
couldn't stand them.
Spike is the type of person you generally have no personal
contact with. He is the character you watch on tv or the
literary character who draws us in to their journeys and
encourage us to root for them. All JMHO of course.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
On this board we expect the Why of the Why... --
LittleBIt, 08:25:29 05/05/02 Sun
...and you have responded with two fabulous posts! Welcome
Claire! And keep posting. Pleeeease!
[> [> [>
Diversions and discourse -- matching mole,
10:46:46 05/03/02 Fri
I'm not brave enough, despite what I said about not being
intimidated, to actually start using a dictionary but I
wanted to point out that word diversion means both something
of interest and a movement away from something. Personally
I value this board primarily as a place for interesting
people to talk about interesting things and secondarily as a
place to talk about BtVS and AtS. My favourite posters are
those who are willing to go off on tangents both
philosophical and decidedly non-philosophical.
Although I've had a basically life long love of science
fiction and fantasy I've never really considered myself a
fan in the social sense of the word. I have a psychological
abberation that tends to make me dislike things that are too
popular with other people. Perhaps it makes me feel like
less of an individual if I express enthusiasm for the same
thing as those around me. A weird sort of insecurity I
know, I fight against it but there it is. So I tend to be
very interested in the behviour of people who are definitely
fans in the social, organized sense (e.g. Spike fans or
Willow/Tara fans) simply because it is so different from my
own inclinations. Therefore, I find what they have to say
pretty interesting although perhaps not in the way they
might imagine or want. And what I love about this board is
the diversity of interests here, the fact that we talk about
a really wide range of topics.
[> [>
Not intimidated, but awed, perhaps... -- Marie,
06:45:14 05/03/02 Fri
I often think to myself that perhaps I shouldn't post
anything at all, because I never post anything remotely
'philosophical', and often feel like a bit of an idiot,
frankly, and am always delighted to get any sort of
response. And I am guilty of posting very OT posts
sometimes, so I'm sorry, Sol!
And while I didn't go to College, although I had a good
education, I don't think I am an idiot, and I do have life
sense, I think, so I tend more to post comments if someone's
made me go "Huh?!".
But then I always figure, Masq has the power to delete me,
so no harm done. Although if I always had to post
'philosophically', I'd probably stick to lurking.
And have you noticed how many people tack on apologies
lately?
Marie
[> [> [>
Delete Marie? Inconceivable! -- Masq, 09:26:46
05/03/02 Fri
Marie, IMO, you add a breath of fresh air to this board.
And a note for any newbies that read this post--I rarely
post anything remotely philosophical or deep in any way. My
brain gets its fill on my episode analyses.
But I do like to watch (other people do it)
PS Marie--you are the Marie who had an actual date a few
months back. Any news updates on that, or your love life in
general???
[> [> [> [>
Re: Delete Marie? Inconceivable! OH! Thank you for
this! -- Marie, 02:45:27 05/04/02 Sat
I very rarely check the board on a Saturday, but I was
trying to figure out how to print pictures from my new toy
(digital camera) and I thought I'd see what was new before I
logged off. I'm so glad I did. Thank you for your kind
words.
And the reason for my extra time today is playing football
with my son in the back garden - so yes, Liam is sticking,
it seems (I did tell you he was a "Liam", didn't I? I mean
with a name like that, how could I resist?!). I'll let you
know if you ever have to announce anything, but don't hold
your breath just yet!
Marie
[> [> [>
Deleting either Marie is out of the question! --
The Second Evil, 12:07:56 05/03/02 Fri
Besides, way I see it, we need Non Academia Non Philosophy
Types (TM) to keep the rest of us from going too far into
the clouds with fifty-cent words. Uh, no offense Masq. I'm a
APT myself (Philosophy Academia Type - TM), so I always
welcome someone who can jerk me back down to reality with a
refreshing well-grounded perspective. ;-)
[> [> [> [>
Offense? Nope, I'm the first one to welcome the lighter
side -- Masq, 12:19:13 05/03/02 Fri
Mainly because my brain is often mush by the time I get to
the board, and I don't have the gray cells for the more
profound of our crowd....
[>
I got just one thing to say to this... -- Goji3,
12:14:22 05/03/02 Fri
Well, actually a few things:
"..And because I think you suck, everyone else should think
you suck."
"I love america, everyone's opinion maters, no mater how
uninformed or ignorant they are"
any online poll will be flawed and show a skewed view of the
truth - especially when one can vote several times.
Basically, people have to A) know about the poll and B) give
a rats ass.
Democracy only works when people make it work.
I don't trust online polls, or polls that only take into
account a segment of the population - like this one
obviously does.
and your adding fuel to the fire, foreshame.
[> [>
I agree, and yet don't quite agree. Allow me to
explain... ;-) -- The Second Evil, 12:27:57 05/03/02
Fri
I'm in the middle of writing a survey - one to be used by
about 500 people in a nonprofit organization, and thus must
also be reviewed by my university to make sure it follows
federal guidelines for dealing with "human subjects" - and
believe me, some of the online polls make me grit my teeth.
Talk about biased questions! So yes, you have a point.
Online polls are inherently questionable, especially if
anonymous, because there's rarely statistical validity.
(For a good example of a non-online non-valid test, take a
look at the written-at-a-kitchen-table-in-fifteen-minutes
survey that's the first chapter of Please Understand
Me, a survey you can now find all over the web. Talk
about biased against certain MBTI types. Yipes. But I
digress...)
On the other hand, the entertainment factor has a lot to do
with the type of polls being discussed here. It's unlikely
that any of these results would ever be used as a focus
group's substantiative information gathering process, so
what's the harm? People like to fill out surveys and polls,
and see how they measure against other people. Hell, look at
all the endless emails just talking about the latest version
of the Purity Test. ;-)
No harm, no foul, and if we can find a way to drag a survey
post into the realm of ATP, all the better.
[> [> [>
uh..."mbti"?? "purity test"?? no
idea what these are -- anom, 21:33:28 05/05/02
Sun
[> [> [> [>
Re: uh..."mbti"?? "purity test"??
no idea what these are -- d'Herblay, 07:10:14
05/06/02 Mon
"mbti" is short for Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator, a
semipseudopsychological attempt to shoehorn all of humanity
into 16 different perso
nality types.
"Purity
tests" were a popular pastime during my freshman year at
college, though the cachet wore off after one turned up on
the premiere season of The Real World. They're long
quizzes with questions designed to bring out intimate
details.
Google, people, Google.
[> [>
Re: I got just one thing to say to this... --
Claire, 13:02:14 05/03/02 Fri
I'm sorry you don't give a rats ass but I don't remember
forcing anyone to participate in the poll. I don't think I
was particularly antagonistic in my post as such polls are
just for fun. I am not forcing everyone to agree with me at
all. I was just interested in contacting Spike fans, just as
the Kittens have made an effort to convince W/T fans to
register their support of the characters. And what do you
mean by your comment I am adding fuel to the fire? It is
just a fun poll and I fail to see the problem with them. I
wasn't aware that there were big arguments over such polls
on favourite characters. It's a bit of harmless fun. You
find it a waste of time, than don't read my post as it was
specifically about a fun poll in the title.
[> [> [>
Re: I got just one thing to say to this... --
Goji3, 07:28:23 05/05/02 Sun
Basically, I just did not think that it was worth the effort
of going to vote in an online pole. Hell, you didn't even
link it!
sorry if I came off offensive. Mesage boards don't really
alow for voice inflections that can turn seemingly mean
statements into humor.
As for the fuel to the fire comment: You're doing exactly
what the people you are 'pointing the finger at' already
did. rallying support to increase someone elses chances of
winning the pole.
Talk about moral ambiguity. - Sarcasm! Gotta love it!
Eh, whatever...why did I even bother to respond...God, I
must have lost my brain for a few minutes...
Crap...where'd it go now...
Current
board
| More May 2002