May 2002
posts
Oooo,
this could be messy... (way spoilers through NW) --
SingedCat, 06:46:07 05/07/02 Tue
But weee don't seem to mind...
Woo hoo! What a heady episode, I loved it! That's it, I'm
done apologizing for the obsession. Where would we be
without all this wildass drama, people? Harrowing! Scary!
Morally (woohoo!) ambiguous! It's just a blast to sit down
in front of a show and have the world so completely on hold
for an hour. And where were you all last night? I got on
Chat right after-- nothing, crickets. Phooey. Had to sleep
on it myself. :P Sometimes being on the East Coast
sucks.
OK, here's my take on Connor & Angel:
Connor is not Angel's son, he is Holt's. It's not Angel's
fault, but years of reading about damaging custody disputes
and deadbeat dads (and living with a man who was adopted)
has convinced me that donating your DNA doesn't make a
parent. And spending time together doesn't do it either--
my aunts spent more quality time with me than my mom did,
but it doesn't mean they can criticize how I was raised.
The parent is the one who is *there*, for better or for
worse. The one who changes your diapers, washes your
clothes,cleans up your vomit when you don't make it to the
bathroom, and gets up for the bazillionth time when you've
had a bad dream, drives you somewhere when you need to be
there, and drives back to pick you up even though they have
other plans. The parent is the one who doesn't just give
you priority for awhile, they give it full time. A parent
is that, and more, and I'll cover that in a minute.
(remember Mom this Sunday!)
That being said, I'll acknowledge that given the chance
Angel would have done all these things and more, he would
have been a thougthful and loving father, **but he didn't
get to**. Connor doesn't know Angel from Adam except what
his father raised him to believe, his claims of paternity
mean absolute diddly in light of a lifetime of rearing, and
Angel is about to find that out. Now let's sit back and
watch the train wreck!
Because Holt does not love the boy more than Angel does. To
Holt, all this time he has been nursing something more
precious to him-- his vengeance. He has raised this boy as
an instrument of that vengeance, never forgetting that it's
Angel's progeny that will deliver the final blow to him. If
at any time his love for Conor/Stephen had become his
priority he would have discarded his vendetta and taken the
boy into his heart. But he hasn't done that. At best Conor
lives in his heart alongside his precious hatred, and it's a
tossup to me whether his ideal vengeance would be to have
Connor kill Angel and return to Holt-- or to let Angel see
Holt kill Conor just before he expires.
Angel, on the other hand, told Holt to take the child when
it looked like that was the only way to keep him alive, and
although he has now lost him in a way he can never make up,
he still loves him more than Holt ever did.
Wesley.... god, can I *be* any more obsessed? I'm sitting
there watching that shark make her play, biting my lip so I
don't shout "No, no, don't do it, Wes!" (my roommates
already think I'm insane.. :P ) She hit a serious nerve
with the Inferno-- always turn to the classics, people!--
and I guess Wes would have to be more than huuman not to
even think about her offer. (by the way, broke, fired,
medical bills [does workman's comp cover this?], part of him
must have been tempted, but he's been poor before)
I'm thinking and thinking about this, as we all are-- which
way is he gonna go?? Wes is bitter, and lonely, and
forsaken, but he's also shown he doesn't buy AI's current
interpretation of his actions. And though he has matured
greatly as a co-worker, Wes is often stronger on his own.
He's been rejected before for doing what he thought was
right (umm..a few times, actually....in fact, does anybody
remember a group of people he *didn't* piss off that
way...?), and each time, rather than lead to Angel's moods
of self-destructive darkness, it's been a painful catalyst
to his own growth. He's in his own hell right now, but
I've seen the results of that pressure cooker before. I'm
not going to give up on Wes just yet: I don't know if you
were watching, but I want to know what he was suddenly
working on so intently on that computer.
I wish Faith were on the scene. She'd smack some sense in
to these guys. Murderer, betrayer, many times over and
Angel worked harder to redeem her than anyone. She'd have a
few things to say, maybe grab him by his trendy black
leather lapels and ask how many times *he* needed
forgiveness from the people he loved the most, and how many
times was it given? Forget acts of the demon, I'm talking
about feeding off of Buffy to cure a poisoned wound the
night before she has to lead an attack against a 90 foot
demon, killing the noble protector of a pregant woman and
her mystically foretold child, firing all his employees and
alienating his friends and going on a misguided spree of
stalking, vengeance and destruction (Oh, and SEX) that
resulted in a couple of dozen dead bodies and his near re-
transformation into a bloodthirsty nightmare -- feel free to
add to the list here, kids. My point-- for all of these
things, Angel has found forgiveness, or redemption, or both.
And, I emphasize, **rightly so**. Because forgiveness is
not given because it's deserved; it's given because the
person needs it. (Thank you, Giles)
As a final tesimony to this lovely obsession-- who else here
has conversations with the characters in the
shower/car/privacy of thier cubicle? God, I love this part
of a story, where I can't wait to see what happens next!
[>
Re: Oooo, this could be messy... (way spoilers through
NW) -- maddog, 08:10:03 05/07/02 Tue
DNA doesn't make a man a father, but one that is in that
situation that didn't willingly give his child up is a
different story all together. He's never been given a
chance. He needs that opportunity.
ok, this Wes thing bothers me. Am I the only one under the
impression that he never meant for Holtz to get the child?
Did I somehow miss the part in the episode where he decided
to take the child to Holtz specifically? I thought he just
wanted to get Connor away from Angel...anywhere away. Cause
I've never considered him a Judas. And it seems as though
no one gave him the chance to explain himself.
I'd almost say given the chance he'd take the job with W&H
just to be an undercover spy. Cause no matter how much he's
disappointed with the AI crew he still cares. He knows
right from wrong. And if he saves the day in the end I
wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
What pisses me off about Angel is his attitude towards Wes.
How many times was Angel given a second chance by those back
in Sunnydale? None of them should have even talked to him
after what he did to Jenny. Yet they all(well, maybe not
Xander, but he hates vampires of all kinds) found a way to
forgive and work with him. Yet he won't show the same
compassion to Wes. This is a man who's purpose on this
earth...in this world is working for his own redemption, and
yet he has no forgiveness for others. Awfully hypocritical
if you ask me. So, I completely agree with you.
[> [>
Re: Oooo, this could be messy... (way spoilers through
NW) -- Marie, 08:28:16 05/07/02 Tue
I thought that about Wesley, too. From reading all the
spoilers, I was expecting, in 'Sleep Tight', to see Wesley
taking Connor to Holtz. No such thing! He was taking him
away, certainly - but his bags were packed, and he was
loading everything into his car, to take Connor away
with him not to someone else. He was
surprised to see Justine, which doesn't make sense if he'd
come to some arrangement with Holtz regarding the baby.
As regards Angel forgiving Wesley - well, it's only been a
few days. I do agree that if he could be brought to see
that Wes genuinely thought that Angel was going to kill
Connor, and that he never meant for Holtz to take the child,
Angel could be brought to some form of forgiveness, but as a
parent I can also see that people look at situations where
their kids are involved from an emotional, not a logical,
point of view.
Marie
[> [> [>
Re: Oooo, this could be messy... (way spoilers through
NW) -- maddog, 08:45:15 05/07/02 Tue
ok, so if you agree with me then why is everyone treating
him like a traitor? I've seen a lot of anti Wes stuff that
doesn't make sense. I know the parent angle gives Angel
lots of leeway in the forvigeness department...I just think
he's been forgiven enough over the years where denying
anyone else that same gift is hypocritical.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Oooo, this could be messy... (way spoilers through
NW) -- SingedCat, 08:54:46 05/07/02 Tue
(I don't know whow toi make italics, so use your
imagination:)
**Ok, so if you agree with me then why is everyone treating
him like a traitor? ...I know the parent angle gives Angel
lots of leeway in the forvigeness department......I just
think he's been forgiven enough over the years where denying
anyone else that same gift is hypocritical.**
Keep your shirt on, Maddog, the show's not over yet. :D
But you're right about how everyone's take has changed from
'it was the only thing he could do' to 'there's no coming
back from this'. It has to do with people reinterpreting
things according to the lead dog. They're siding with
Angel, so that's the party line-- even if their hearts say
something different.
Fortunately Fred's got her heart right out there where it
should be. Hang in there, what goes around comes
around.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re:Finally some people taking Wes's side ( spoilers
through NW) -- Calluna, 10:03:01 05/07/02 Tue
Obviously I should have written here, instead of way down
below.
This whole "Wes the traitor" thing has been bugging me since
it happened. Excuse me, but it would be nice if someone
would ask him what was going on. Let the poor man explain
that he was taking the kid away, not to Holtz. Better yet,
have Wes tell Angel that he was taking the kid to Sunnydale.
I would much rather have the Slayer and two powerful witches
(I'm assuming Wes wouldn't know about Willow) protecting
Connor than, let's see, a vampire (who's been drinking the
kid's blood), a demon (funny as he is who's pretty useless
in a fight), two half demons (one who has no idea what she
can do) and two humans (one a good fighter, but both
mortal).
Maybe Wes should just go to Sunnydale. The Scoobies would
probably actually appreciate him now that Giles is gone.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Oooo, this could be messy... (way spoilers through
NW) -- maddog, 11:13:37 05/07/02 Tue
I just have a bigtime hatred for people being treated
unfairly in these shows. It goes back to Xander and his
vampire hatred. Angel could have saved his life 10 times
over and Xander would still hate him. Just drives me nuts.
and I agree it's not over...and that in the end Wesley will
find a way to prove himself to the group. Not that he
should have to, but I'll bet he does it anyway.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
That reminds me of a quote... -- SingedCat,
16:14:18 05/07/02 Tue
"I just have a bigtime hatred for people being treated
unfairly in these shows. It goes back to Xander and his
vampire hatred....
"I know there are people out there who do not love their
fellow man, and I *hate* people like that."
--Tom Lehr
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Xander's and Willow's obsessions -- Malandanza,
16:36:43 05/07/02 Tue
"It goes back to Xander and his vampire hatred. Angel
could have saved his life 10 times over and Xander would
still hate him."
Much has been made of Xander's hatred of vampires, in
particular, and demons, in general. He has been compared to
the worst sort of racist. But I don't think that Xander
hates every vampire or demon indiscriminately -- in fact, he
has a very particular hatred for Angel and Spike. When he
had demons at his house, Xander was the only civilized
member of the family. He didn't have a problem with Clem or
Anya, and he didn't have the kind of seething hatred for
Harmony, Dru or any of the random vampires that he has for
Spike and Angel.
I see as analogous to Willow's hatred of Faith and Anya.
You might say Willow hates them for trying to kill her --
yet, Angel (as Angelus), Spike, Buffy and Oz (as a werewolf)
have all tried to kill her as well. Willow's problem isn't
that Faith and Anya each tried to kill her (or have her
killed, in Anya's case) but with their relationships with
Xander. She hates them because they had sex with her friend
and she feared that they would hurt him.
Similarly for Xander -- Angel and Spike are different
because they have each had sex with Buffy (or wanted to have
sex with her -- in Spike's season 4 and 5 cases) and each
has hurt her rather badly. Angel could save Xander's life a
hundred times, but it would not make up for a single
instance of Buffy abuse in Xander's eyes.
Willow and Xander have plausible reasons for hating Faith
and Anya, Spike and Angel -- certainly Spike has given
Xander reason enough to hate him. Willow and Xander have
forgiven terrible transgressions from others but maintain a
special hatred for these few people for other reasons --
reasons they might not fully understand themselves. Perhaps
the a bit of the Dog in the Manger in their attitudes, and
perhaps it is sisterly/brotherly overprotection, but in
general, they are both very forgiving people.
[> [> [> [>
I haven't seen all the eps yet... -- Marie,
09:04:21 05/07/02 Tue
...we're a couple of weeks behind in the UK, but I can
certainly see why it would take time to see Wesley's point
of view - after all, these people fell in love with that
adorable little baby - there're bound to be angry feelings,
hurt feelings, astounded feelings, lot of feelings! What
they have here, I think, is a failure to communicate on a
grand scale. It's going to take time, that's all I'm
saying. You don't get over the loss of a child. Ever.
Even if you can be brought to understand the reasons
why.
Marie
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I haven't seen all the eps yet... -- maddog,
11:35:22 05/07/02 Tue
I think you're missing the point though. If any of them
would stop and think for more than a second on the
situation, they'd take the time to ask their trusted friend
Wesley to tell his side of the story. Because Wesley wasn't
wrong....let me repeat that....Wesley wasn't wrong. He got
screwed...that's a fact. But if he'd left that child there,
Angel would have defended it...and in the end he would have
been craving it.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Oooo, this could be messy... (way spoilers through
NW) -- alcibiades, 11:02:14 05/07/02 Tue
I'd say it's not hypocritical. It's a moral failure.
Frankly, I'm finding Cordy's position really baffling.
I can understand it, but it is very disappointing.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Oooo, this could be messy... (way spoilers through
NW) -- maddog, 11:48:18 05/07/02 Tue
She's somehow decided that Angel's pain is more important
than Wesley's and I think it's a direct setup for her
figuring out there's more to her relationship with Angel
than just a friendly caring.
[> [>
Re: Oooo, this could be messy... (way spoilers through
NW) -- yabyumpan, 10:02:45 05/07/02 Tue
Ok, my perspective of the Wes thing. In the UK so just had
Sleep Tight and I'm feeling totally p***** at Wes, big time,
like put him in a room with Angelus for a couple of hours
P*****!
Why? Well apart from the whole taking Connor thing, and he
didn't just "take" Connor, he tricked Angel into giving
Connor to him, how crappy must Angel feel about that?
Wes is p***** because no one will listen to his side of the
story, maybe that's because he didn't give them the chance
to hear his side of the story "before" he took Connor.
I can sort of understand him not talking to Angel, although
Angel made it clear that he wanted to know all about the
prophesy and repeatedly asked Wes what was happening etc but
ok, I understand. I can also sort of understand him not
ringing Cordy and can maybe understand him not speaking to
Lorne but why didn't he talk to Gunn and Fred? Because he
was jelous; he allowed his jelousy to push Gunn and Fred
away, and remember that Gunn was supposed to be his best
friend with all the special hand shakes and fighting side by
side etc. He couldn't bring himself to feel anything but
bitterness and resentment towards Gunn, which IMHO shows how
much the friendship actually meant to him. He is cold to
Fred and pushes her away for "choosing" Gunn, even though
from her perspective, there was no choice, she only saw Wes
as a friend anyway. The only people he spoke to about it
were Hotlz, who hates Angel and a talking hamberger!
IMO, Wesley allowed his jelousey to cloud his judgement and
isolate himself. I agree that he never meant to give Connor
to Holtz but that is the result of his actions.
I can totally understand why Gunn would not want to see Wes;
he cut him off and was being really nasty to him before he
took Connor and didn't talk to him about the prophesy when
he was supposed to be Gunn's friend, I think Fred wanting to
contact Wes is partly out of guilt, maybe realising that the
reason the Wes didn't talk to Gunn was because of her.
I would want to see Wes really take responsability for his
decisions and actions, to actually say "Sorry", has he even
done that yet?
That's my take on the anti-Wes feeling on the web and in
AI.
It's very strange, I don't remember ever feeling such anger
towards a fictional character before. I don't know if any ep
has ever had the effect that Sleep Tight has on me. My inner
mantra at the momment seems to be "kill wes/cuddle
Angel"....:-)
[> [> [>
Hey, don't mince words - you can speak freely here
;) -- SingedCat, 10:51:12 05/07/02 Tue
"...can maybe understand him not speaking to Lorne but why
didn't he talk to Gunn and Fred? Because he was jealous; he
allowed his jeaousy to push Gunn and Fred away..."
Yowch-- Gotta say yea there. He was definitely leaning
towards the bitter, what with Gun & Fred together, plus
Cordy and Groo, *plus* Angel and his paternal thing with the
baby. I was making the point a little while ago about all
this sudden exclusionary bliss in the group being a huge
cause of Wes' isolation. I don't blame Wes so much as all
of them; I do believe that your own emotional state is
ultimately your own responsibility, but over the two weeks
he sweated over that prophecy, there was all this self-
involved happiness flying around and no one (well, almost
Fred) had a moment to spare to see that Wes was falling
apart. I can see both sides of that, but it was bad luck as
much as bad judgement, if you ask me, all the way
through.
And now to flip sides again (I'm just a metaphysical pancake
today!) I can think of several reasons Wes would not have
told Gunn or Fred what he was doing or where he was going.
Remember that according to his timetable, they were about to
be saddled with a suddenly turned Angelus, whose priority
would be to catch up with his son (reasons later, but look
at his history)--and all he'd have to do to get Gunn to
spill would be to hold a knife to Fred's throat. Or vice
versa. And if they knew nothing, Angelus might just be too
busy screaming off after Wes' false trails to *completely*
destroy the hotel.
[> [> [>
Re: Oooo, this could be messy... (way spoilers through
NW) -- maddog, 12:11:39 05/07/02 Tue
Picture yourself as Angel...you've had the most amazing
thing happen...you have a son...you never ever thought you'd
have joy in your life and now you have this bundle of joy.
No prophecy on this earth is going to make you decide to
willingly give that kid up. So Wesley telling him would do
NO good at all. And now you ask why he didn't tell anyone?
Because he spents weeks, if not months, trying to refute the
stupid thing...but it was everywhere he turned. So by the
time he finally buys into it...by the time he get it they've
already got Angel drinking the kid's blood and he's halfway
to the prophecy...at that point you have ZERO time to think,
or go talk to people. YOu have to take action. Your
jealousy theory is all wrong too. Sure, he is jealous...but
that's not the reason he didn't tell them. If anything kept
him from it(besides time) I'd say it was intimidation. He's
never wanted to broach that relationship between the two
since he knew it existed. I'm so glad you have such a high
opinion of Wes. Bitterness? come on...you take one action
and you make turn what ended up being a great guy(though no
one could see it coming when he was on Buffy) to this amoral
bastard that has nothing in his heart but bitterness and
envy. The only reason none of them broach the possibility
of talking to Wes is because of Angel...cause you know
they've all thought about it. I think people see way too
much animosity between Wes and the AI group...when mostly
it's between him and Angel. You won't hear Wes apologize
alone...they deserve to apologize to him too...for not
trusting him...for condemning him before finding out the
facts. Cause last time I checked it was innocent until
proven guilty and not vice versa. I just wish people would
put themselves in his shoes.
[> [>
Re: Wesley (spoilers through NW) -- Robert,
10:18:56 05/07/02 Tue
>> "Am I the only one under the impression that he never
meant for Holtz to get the child? Did I somehow miss the
part in the episode where he decided to take the child to
Holtz specifically? I thought he just wanted to get Connor
away from Angel...anywhere away."
I agree with you. Wesley never intended to give Connor to
Holtz. This was an unintended consequence of his actions.
Again I agree with you the he wanted to separate Conner from
Angel. His agreement with Holtz was to be allowed to take
the child before Holtz attempted to wreak vengeance on
Angel.
>> "Cause I've never considered him a Judas."
I absolutely disagree with you here. Wesley betrayed Angel
and the rest of the group by keeping the prophesy a secret.
If he had shared the prophesy and his research with the
others (maybe excluding Angel), they might have devised a
better ending. If not, then at least they all would share
in the guilt. Regardless, Wesley showed that he had no faith
in the rest of the group.
I dislike discussing religion on boards such as this, but
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by referring to Wesley as
a Judas. Judas' perfidy was not so much that he accepted the
30 pieces of silver for handing Jesus over to chief priests.
Judas was attempting to force Jesus to exhibit his earthly
power, take the throne, and free Israel from the Romans. He
made decisions and took actions affecting Jesus and the
other diciples without discussing it with them ahead of
time. Judas was unfaithful to his teacher and his
colleagues. This was his act of betrayal, so in this sense,
referring to Wesley as a Judas is appropriate.
[> [> [>
Re: Wesley (spoilers through NW) -- matching mole,
10:48:30 05/07/02 Tue
The Wesley debate seems to be converging on the Spike debate
in the sense that opinions seem unnecessarily polarized (but
that's just my opinion).
It never occurred to me that Wesley would have intended to
hand Connor over to Holtz. It seems crystal clear that he
he had no such intention. In fact it seemed so obvious to
me that I completely missed that it would appear that way to
the rest of AI (who lacked our Wesley POV information).
Wesley's action was well-intentioned and heroic but foolish
and showed a lack of confidence/trust in his colleagues. In
short it was very human and very interesting. In life we
are more usually judged on the consequences of our actions
than our intentions. Wesley's action had a terrible
consequence therefore he is being judged harshly by Angel
and co (except Fred). It's not fair but if life was fair
then there wouldn't be any show.
Right now I think that Wesley has the best story of any
character in the Jossverse. I don't find it necessary to
condemn or defend Wesley - just sppreciate him.
[> [> [> [>
Yeah, but aren't you a *bit* worried? :D -- metaphysical
pancake, 11:01:02 05/07/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
Yeah I am - being worried = being interested --
matching mole, 11:23:13 05/07/02 Tue
I can empathize with Wesley, Angel, etc. And I can also see
what they've done wrong. But I don't have to pick
sides.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Wesley - taking sides and hypocrisy --
Valhalla, 12:19:54 05/07/02 Tue
Hey, taking sides is what makes life interesting!
I agree that it's clear that Wes never meant to hand Connor
over to Holtz. What has always irked me about how the AI
team has reacted is that they haven't given him the benefit
of the doubt. Not a smidgen of doubt, bar Fred.
I can't quite buy that to the AI gang mistakenly thinks that
Wes was going to give the baby to Holtz. They knew Wes had
packed for a trip, and they knew Justine slit his throat!
The idea that Justine cut Wes to get the baby must have at
least occurred to the gang. If you find out that someone
you've worked with and fought with and trusted for years
does something really bad, don't you at least think 'Well,
he must have had a good reason' before zipping straight to
the worst possible interpretation of events? Especially the
AI gang, who knows better than anyone (except, perhaps the
Scoobies) that where great evil is involved, things are not
always what they seem.
Oh, but Wes didn't give Angel the benefit of the doubt
either, you may say. Wes (and Cordy) have seen the horrors
Angelus was capable of inflicting -- there is no one that
Angelus would hesitate to hurt, and he took great joy in the
art of torture, etc., etc. And Angel qua Angel has behaved
er, questionably, if not badly. Wes has never been
deliberately cruel, and while at AI has been level-headed
and worked only for good. And yet, except for Fred (who,
ironically, has known Wes the least amount of time), none of
them has said 'hey, it looks like Wes was totally betraying
all he loves and all his principles, but there must have
been something else going on? There's something we're not
seeing? Angel has not given Wes the very faith that he's so
busy being ticked off at Wes for not giving him. (hope that
made sense).
The other thing that's killing me is that Wes made the same
decision he thought Angel would have made (and in fact did
make). Wes thought the choice was between Angel living
with a live but lost son, or with having killed his own son.
In the Solomon's choice scene in Sleep Tight, Angel chooses
to have Connor alive but with Holtz over having Connor
dead.
Other folks have put the arguments for Wes much more
eloquently than I can, so I'll end this here (have to get
back to work!). But in the ME universe, what goes around
often does come around, so I'm waiting for AI's shabby
treatment of Wes to bite them in the butt. I think Gunn's
having to go to Wes to save Fred was only the beginning.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Wesley - taking sides and hypocrisy -- maddog,
12:52:53 05/07/02 Tue
No, that was perfect...I'm glad someone here is giving Wes
the benefit of the doubt.
[> [> [>
Re: Wesley (spoilers through NW) -- alcibiades,
11:22:10 05/07/02 Tue
Wesley can't be a Judas in any perspective because Angel is
no Christ. Witness Angel's current lack of forgiveness, his
inability to tolerate the notion of forgiveness vis a vis
Wesley, his tacit insistence that none of his associates
associate with Wesley. It's all the antithesis of Christ.
Frankly, if you are going to compare Wesley to any of the
three in the three mouths of Satan, I'd have to go with
Brutus, because Brutus betrayed Caesar even though Caesar
was his friend. The knife in the back that is entirely
unexpected. Although murdering a friend is not quite the
same as kidnapping his child. The one is death, the other
only a symbolic death for the parent.
Both Wesley and Brutus thought they were acting for the
good, Wesley for Angel and Connor's good, Brutus for Rome's
good.
[> [> [>
Re: Wesley (spoilers through NW) -- maddog,
12:42:28 05/07/02 Tue
I'm begging you guys to put yourself in Wes's shoes. Would
you want to tell your best friend he's about to kill his son
cause some prophecy says so? Wouldn't you exhaust EVERY
possibility before doing so? The situations are in no way
similar. Judas was trying to force Christ to prove his
power instead of trusting that no matter what happened,
Christ would win in the end. Wes found out what was to
happen and decided the only way for the child to stay alive
was to remove him from the situation. Where exactly are the
similarities there? Any time you make a decision you affect
those around you. You can't single out this one and assume
there's a correlation. Wes wasn't unfaithful to ANgel...he
did what was best for the child which is what Angel will
have to see in the end...cause at least Wes gave him a
chance to live...cause Lord knows if he stayed there he
could have been caught in the crossfire and even if not the
forced prophecy could have come true(thanks to W&H).
[> [> [> [>
Re: Wesley (spoilers through NW) -- SingedCat,
13:02:26 05/07/02 Tue
I have a whole other post I may dedicate to Wes' Watcher
ethics, and how his decision was similar to Giles' decision
to kill Ben. Or if someone else wants to hop on that
subject, it's ok by me. In the meantime, relax, 'Dog. As
they say in Brooklyn, we're just tawlkin' here. Nobody
sympathises with Wes more than I do (OK, maybe you :) ), but
part of the fun of the board is the multiple POVs.
I'm not giving up on Wes yet-- I suspect things aren't going
to turn out as bad as we think. All we have to do is wait
and have a little faith in the Wesster. And after he's
vindicated, we can make a happy-I-told-you so dance all over
this board. Date?
[> [> [>
I confess I'm mystified by the attempts to defend
Wesley. -- Sophist, 13:13:22 05/07/02 Tue
I think Robert stated the situation exactly right: no one
thinks Wes took Connor to give to Holtz, that's a red
herring. Fred told Wes precisely the reason, namely he
betrayed them by not talking to them in advance. As Robert
said, that's a betrayal.
The analogy to Brutus, suggested by alcibiades, is very
good. But it doesn't change the way we should view Wes.
[> [> [> [>
I'm mystified too -- lulabel, 17:19:48 05/07/02
Tue
Maybe it's a parent/non-parent thing (I'm a parent). I was
completely and utterly horrified by what Wesley did, and I
would personally find it very understandable if Angel never
forgave him. I am also sympathetic towards Wesley - I know
he geniunely acted under the very best of intentions, he was
just being fatally stupid (sorry, couldn't think of a more
tactful way of putting that)
[> [> [> [>
Re: I confess I'm mystified by the attempts to defend
Wesley. -- Malandanza, 17:49:32 05/07/02 Tue
"The analogy to Brutus, suggested by alcibiades, is very
good. But it doesn't change the way we should view
Wes."
I agree -- and Wesley ought to agree with you as well.
Here's a quote from TOGoM where Wesley explains the
importance of loyalty to Gunn (Gunn felt divided loyalties
to his old gang and new friends):
WESLEY: It's never easy. The pull of divided loyalties.
Any choice we do end up making, we feel as though we've
betrayed someone.
GUNN: Yeah...
WESLEY: (after a beat) If you ever withhold information or
attempt to subvert me again -- I will fire you. I can't
allow any one member of this team to compromise the safety
of the group. No matter who it is. If you do it again, you
will be dismissed -- bag and baggage -out of a job and on to
the streets.
I feel sorry for Wesley, but he violated his own code of
ethics. It's not just about Conner -- by consorting with
Holtz (and they know he met with Holtz, because Lorne read
it), he "compromised the safety of the group". Wesley
"withheld information" and betrayed his greatest benefactor.
To punish Wesley according to his own law seems rather
poetic. Wesley should quit sulking, realize he was wrong
and start trying to make amends -- like Angel did after
Epiphany -- if he's lucky, his friends won't give him
as hard of a time as he gave Angel.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I'm not -- Valhalla, 21:57:01 05/07/02
Tue
Angel did try to make amends after Epiphany, but it took a
while. Interestingly, it was Cordelia who continued to give
Angel the cold shoulder then (paraphrase: let's be clear,
we're not friends). But then she was won over completely
when Angel bought her a big bunch of new clothes.
All the characters have made mistakes. Several of them have
made the same mistake Wes did. Wes is being punished
because his turned out so badly. I'm not sure everyone
would consider Wes' failure to communicate (and yes, that
was a serious failure) so very deserving of abandonment (not
to mention physical attack) by all his friends if the
prophecy turned out to be true. Angel cut himself off from
the AI gang to go after W&H; Cordelia failed to tell
everyone how bad her headaches were; Gun didn't tell them
about selling his soul. But those all turned out more or
less ok in the end (plus or minus a room full of evil
lawyers).
Of course any parent would be enraged, grief-stricken, you
name it, if someone kidnapped their child. But what if
kidnapping saved the child's life? What if Angel started to
gnaw on Connor and Wes knew it was coming but didn't do
anything about it?
It's not that Wes didn't make a mistake, it's that within
the AI gang everyone has made mistakes (including mistakes
that can be termed betrayals) but they're making Wes pay so
very dearly for his.
Before he took Connor, Wes was obviously drowning; he was
distracted, short-tempered, and clearly sleep-deprived, yet
no one gave more than a cursory 'Are you ok? You should get
some sleep' (I'm so very glad my friends are slightly more
interested in my welfare than that!). Yet no one in the AI
gang has even remembered how Wes was acting, nevermind
thought that they might have done something to head this off
themselves.
[>
"Hi Dad." -- Dichotomy, 08:50:27
05/07/02 Tue
There was something about the way Connor said "Hi Dad" at
the very beginnig and very end of the episode, that struck
me. Obviously, his greeting to Angel was meant to be
chilling; calling him Dad and then attempting to stake him.
Then, after he fought alongside Angel in the shootout, he
seemed a bit surprised at Angel's fierce protection of him.
Right after, of course, he meets up with Holtz. Again with
the "Hi Dad." And still, there's no warmth in that greeting.
Which makes sense if you consider your take on their
relationship:
"Because Holt does not love the boy more than Angel does. To
Holt, all this time he has been nursing something more
precious to him-- his vengeance. He has raised this boy as
an instrument of that vengeance, never forgetting that it's
Angel's progeny that will deliver the final blow to him. If
at any time his love for Conor/Stephen had become his
priority he would have discarded his vendetta and taken the
boy into his heart. But he hasn't done that."
Good point, I think. While their interaction was admittedly
brief in this episode, I didn't sense that Connor was truly
loved by Holtz, and that Connor's love for Holtz is more of
a student for his master. Maybe we'll see something else
altogether in later eps, but I hope not. It will give Angel
the chance to "win" back his son perhaps.
[>
That's "Holtz" -- Holtz, 15:52:10
05/08/02 Wed
Scooby Gang vs.
Troika - Dealing with Reality (long! spoilers to
Entropy) -- shadowkat, 09:18:20 05/07/02 Tue
The Scooby Gang vs. Troika – Dealing With Reality
(Okay really long and complicated, so be kind. Spoilers to
Entropy. Won’t see Seeing Red until tonight. So please don’t
spoil me.)
“It's been a long road getting here. For you… for
Sunnydale. There has been achievement, joy, good times,…
and there has been grief. There's been loss. Some people
who should be here today… aren't. But we are. - Journey's
end. And what is a journey? Is it just… distance traveled?
Time spent? No. It's what happens on the way, it the
things that happen to you. At the end of the journey you're
not the same. Today is about change. Graduation doesn't
just mean your circumstances change, it means you do. You
ascend… to a higher level. Nothing will ever be the same.
Nothing.” Mayor Wilkins in Graduation Day Part II (Season 3,
Btvs)
After Graduation, the Scooby Gang did what most of us do –
went to college where once again they had set rules and
boundaries, they just traded the sheltered reality of high
school for the sheltered reality of USC Sunnydale. Even
Xander remained in this sheltered reality, by staying in his
parents’ basement. It wasn’t until Season 5 that this
reality truly began to break down and become something else.
Buffy’s mother died, she had to leave school, her boyfriend
left , and she had a sister to take care of. Giles’ reality
changed in Season 4, he had no job and no true purpose
outside of being a Watcher; he had blown up his old
reality, the library. Xander’s also changed, he’d lost Cordy
and was starting a relationship with Anya, he had to find a
job, a role in life, and a new apartment. By the end of
Season 5 – Xander built a reality separate from school and
from his friends and parents, or so Xander thought. Willow
lost OZ and fell in love with a woman, she reinvented her
sexual identity, stopped being roommates with Buffy and
became more independent and adept at magic. Spike also had
to reinvent himself, no longer able to eat humans, he
learned how to rely on other sources for blood and
discovered that he could beat up demons, so that by the end
of Season 5, he had not only realized and confessed his love
to Buffy but also began to aid the Scooby Gang in saving the
world. At the end of Season 5, the characters reinvented
themselves, got into established routines, and the
Buffyverse made sense to them and their audience, even Buffy
jumping from the tower to save the world made sense. She’d
be brought back. We’d go back to the same routine. All was
right with the world.
Yeah, right. I’m beginning to realize the moment I get
comfortable is the moment the world decides to shift on me.
Apparently the characters of BTVS have the same problem.
Fifteen years ago, a philosophy major I was dating, kept
trying to convince me that we create our own reality. We
control it, he said. No one else. We choose who to put
inside it and what makes it up. I found his argument
annoying at the time, because I felt the last thing I had
control over was my reality.
In 2001 –2002 Btvs is all about controlling and creating
your own reality. And in 2001, my reality shifted
dramatically, everything I thought was true about my job, my
career, my boss, my commute to work, my city, even my world
changed. There was no safe place and I felt like I was
careening off the side of an emotional cliff. The only
cultural experience that echoed this feeling of emotional
disorientation was Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Nothing else
did. Nothing else does. Someone mentioned crying during ER,
I’m sorry I didn’t shed a tear. That show now seems
incredibly false to me, not real. That is how drastically my
reality shifted. Like the characters on our favorite show,
I’ve been forced to reinvent myself and my reality this
year, so I agree with Shell and her recent post on the B C
&S board – what the writers are doing this year is truly
brilliant and more realistic than anything else on TV – they
are demonstrating how our reality shifts and how we have to
adapt and handle these shifts. How we have to learn to
actively participate in the construction of our reality
instead of merely reacting to, bending, or ignoring it.
Life Serial (Season 6, Btvs) succinctly explains:
MIKE: Social Construction of Reality. Who can tell me what
that is? Rachel.
RACHEL: A concept involving a couple of opposing theories,
one stressing the externality and independence of social
reality from individuals. (Buffy looks confused)
MIKE: And the flip side? (many hands raised) Steve?
STEVE: That each individual participates fully in the
construction of his or her own life.
MIKE: Good, and who can expand on that? (hands) Chuck?
CHUCK: Well, those on the latter side of the theoretical
divide stress...
BUFFY: (leans toward Willow and whispers) Will, I'm not
following this too well.
WILLOW: Oh. The trick is to get in the rhythm, kinda go with
the flow. (raises her hand)
BUFFY: Flow-going would be a lot easier if your classmates
weren't such big brains.
WILLOW: Buffy, that's ridiculous! They are no smarter than
you or me.
MIKE: (O.S.) Willow.
WILLOW: (lowers hand, speaks to Mike) Because social
phenomena don't have unproblematic objective existences.
They have to be interpreted and given meanings by those who
encounter them. (Buffy stares at Willow)
MIKE: (O.S.) Nicely put. So, Ruby, does that mean there are
countless realities?
Must admit, it took me a while to understand what this
meant. I’m a bit like Buffy, slow on the uptake, at least
that’s the way I’ve been this year. How many times have our
characters realities been shifted? In the first episode of
Season 6, we enter Sunnydale where everyone, including
Spike, is fighting demons together. The SG have included him
and they all have a definite role in their makeshift family.
When Dawn takes the Buffybot to parent teacher day, the
first theory, stressing that social reality is external and
independent from individuals is explored. In high school, we
don’t control or participate in the construction of our
reality; our reality is constructed by our parents,
teachers, and peer group. This is the reality of Seasons 1-4
of Btvs. The independent social reality is high school –
individuals don’t create it or actively participate in its
creation, instead it controls the individual within it. The
rules are black and white and fairly rigid. An example is
the Styrofoam utopia with orange juice cars that Dawn’s
classmates have created and in which, the Buffybot notes,
only tiny people can inhabit. The social reality that is
independent of the influence of individuals finds the
Buffybot an acceptable parent and reassuring presence. As
Spike notes – “(Dawn’s teachers) responded to BuffyBot
because a robot is predictable. Boring. Perfect teacher's
pet. That's all schools are, you know. Just factories,
spewing out mindless little automatons. Who go on to be ...
very ... valuable and productive members of society...” When
our reality is determined solely by an external force, we
act as cogs in a wheel, with clearly defined roles. In
Adolus Huxley’s Brave New World: everybody has an assigned
role in society and reality is controlled not by the
individuals but by the group governing them. In Huxely’s
novel the government keeps the individuals complacent with
drugs and comforting television messages. They become in
effect the “mindless automatons” Spike has described. In the
pre-Bargaining spell reality –the SG have defined roles and
the world makes sense.
Then, demons on bikes invade Sunnydale, Willow does her
spell, the world of Sunnydale looks like hell, reality
shifts. And Buffy? Buffy’s essence is shifted from one
reality (which we learn in Afterlife, was fairly pleasant,
heavenly, and controlled by external forces) to another. Her
initial response, was the same as mine,
BUFFY: Is this hell? (Bargaining, Part II)
Dawn insists it isn’t and takes Buffy home. Except it is no
longer the home Buffy remembers. It has changed. Willow and
Tara now inhabit her mother’s room. Willow’s computer is in
the kitchen. Giles is gone. Buffy feels completely
disoriented, until Spike appears. Here, finally, is a
constant she can deal with. He stands at the foot of the
stairs in exactly the same position he was in the last time
she was there. He has not changed. He wouldn’t. Vampires
remain arrested in their development, unchanging, ageless –
at least on the outside. Is it any wonder that she drifts
towards him the way someone adrift at sea might head towards
a life raft? When the others enter the house, they all look
different. Clothing. Hairstyles. We have switched to the
theory of reality proposed by my ex-boyfriend: “each
individual participates fully in the construction of his or
her own life.” When we leave high school and enter the “real
world” – we are responsible for the construction of our
reality, it is no longer constructed for us by our parents
and teachers.
In Season 6, Btvs, Buffy and her friends are being forced to
actively participate in the construction of their reality.
Reality has shifted on them. Buffy’s return shifts the
balance in all of their lives including Buffy’s as shown by
the ghost in Afterlife, who visits each of them. Willow and
Tara are almost broken apart in bed by crashing glass while
the ghost rails against their use of magic to control
reality. Anya tries to mutilate herself in Xander’s
presence. Dawn breaths fire on all of them and finally,
Xander’s unwittingly betrays them to the demonic ghost. We
also have Spike and Xander’s argument in front of the House
where Xander accuses Spike of being an obsessive stalker and
Spike accuses Xander of leaving him out of the loop – their
relationship had apparently moved past this, but Buffy’s
reemergence in their lives shifts it back to where it was at
the beginning of Season 5. And Giles is asked to return to
Sunnydale as their impromptu guardian. Buffy’s mere presence
has altered the realities of all the Scoobies.
In the very next episode, Flooded, the Troika are
introduced, and from this point on – the Troika represent
individuals who are not only participating in but also
actively controlling reality, particularly the Scoobies’. At
first their attempts appear fairly mundane. Willow’s
attempts to control reality are far more frightening as she
weilds magic to bend reality to fit her vision of it. The
Troika do the same thing, but not necessarily with magic.
In every episode in which the Troika appear, they shift
Buffy’s reality. First they send a monster to her house.
(Flooded) Then they manage to speed up her reality,
introduce demons at her work place, and torment her with an
endless time loop, which can only be exited when she figures
out how to satisfy someone else’s needs. Buffy only passes
their tests – when she takes an active role in deciphering
or interpreting the shifts in her perception of reality,
particularly since each shift is merely a shift in her
perception. Everyone else’s perception remains unchanged.
Once she takes an active role in interpreting and
controlling her perception – her reality reverts to normal.
At this point, Buffy is not actively participating in the
construction of her reality she is letting others manipulate
it. The only person she is comfortable with at this stage is
Spike, because from her point of view, he’s a constant from
her old reality. Unchanging. Also he understands her
difficulty dealing with the constant shifts. Of all her
friends Spike has had to deal with the most shifts in her
perception. He knows what it is like to wake up from a grave
and discover the world is not the way you left it.
Poor Buffy is having troubles keeping up with the shifts.
She has no clue what she should do next or who she is. Her
true love, Angel, has moved on without her. She is bombarded
with bills. Her friends have established lives outside of
her. And slaying no longer has the same appeal. She feels
adrift, as if she’s just going through the motions in a
world that feels increasingly hellish. Willow tells her that
she just needs to get with the rhythm. Buffy has lost the
beat. Her reality no longer makes sense to her. Her friends
appear to have gone on ahead. As a result, she spends more
time with Spike doing what she knows, patrolling. His world
has not shifted or changed as far as she can tell. Demons
still equal bad. Vampires still need to be staked. Except –
Spike is a vampire and she is becoming sexually attracted to
him. So even that dynamic is changing.
“Social phenomena don't have unproblematic objective
existences. They have to be interpreted and given meanings
by those who encounter them.”
As we encounter each shift in our reality, we struggle to
give it meaning, to understand it, and determine whether we
should accept or reject our new perception of it.
Controlling our reactions to shifts in reality is easier
said then done, as each of the characters in Btvs discover.
And each reaction or interpretation creates another
perception of reality. So as a result there are countless
realities or possible perceptions of reality.
1. Reacting Negatively to Shifts in Reality. Xander and Anya
are struggling to accurately perceive the continuous shifts
in their reality – which revolves around their relationship.
It doesn’t help that they are both pessimists. For the past
two years – their relationship has been the central focus of
their reality. First their engagement is kept a secret by
Xander. Then Xander decides to reveal the relationship and
Anya takes control, suggesting they move the wedding from
June to February (All The Way), she plans a big wedding with
demons and family in attendance, but it does not go off as
planned; Xander leaves her at the altar, regaining control.
Anya comes back, attempts to regain control by cursing
Xander – but fails, and sleeps with Spike instead. None of
these shifts are caused by external forces – Xander and Anya
are responsible for them. Each shift is caused by their
negative or positive perceptions. They separately interpret
and give meaning to each shift in reality.
Xander’s perceptions of reality are clouded by fear. He
deals with his perception by summoning a demon in Once More
With Feeling –in order to ensure a happy ending for himself
and Anya. Instead – he causes people to combust and shifts
the reality of everyone around him. Xander isn’t in control
of his reality, Captain fear is. If he was willing to
accept the word of a demon regarding his and Anya’s future
in Once More With Feeling is it any wonder he accepts the
word of a demon in Hells Bells? Xander who up until recently
appeared to be actively participating in the construction of
his reality, is letting a fear demon run the show. In As You
Were – Xander keeps asking Riley and Sam about marriage
–looking for outside reassurance regarding his own. By the
time we reach Hell’s Bells, Captain fear is in the driver’s
seat. All the vengeance demon has to do is show Xander his
worst fears, which Xander perceives as the only outcome. The
fact that it “could” be true is enough for him to call off
the wedding. He sacrifices his current reality, the reality
he spent so much time and effort constructing, on another
interpretation of it, in this case, a demon’s
interpretation. He chooses to accept this interpretation
over his own and in doing so betrays his own heart. How
Anya chooses to interpret this betrayal is important. She
interprets it as her fault. He left because she used to be
demon. This interpretation not only betrays the humanity
she’s worked so hard to embrace, it causes her to revert
back to her demon status. It doesn’t stop there of course.
Each negative interpretation of reality results in the
actuality of that reality until Xander and Anya have
literally destroyed everything they worked so hard to build,
returning to their origins: the loser and the vengeance
demon . It’s how we choose to relate to and interpret what
happens to us and around us that gives it meaning, that
makes it real. In that way – we control our reality.
2. Bending Reality to Fit our Own Ends: Willow and Tara
have also been struggling with shifts in reality. They are
in a better place right now – because Willow momentarily
stopped trying to bend reality to her will. Tara rightly
interpreted Willow’s actions as an insecure attempt to make
the world better for herself. The only problem is Willow and
the rest of the Scoobies interpreted her use of magic as a
merely an addiction. Please. If you thought this was a drug
storyline –then the writers fooled you, because it never was
– that was just how Willow and her friends chose to
interpret it. It was never about addiction - Willow chose to
interpret her abuse of magic as drug abuse. ‘I do it because
it makes me feel good.’ Sorry, Willow – that isn’t why you
did the magic. You did the magic for the same reasons the
Troika are doing what they’re doing – you not only wanted to
control your reality – you wanted to bend everyone else’s to
make it fit what was in your head. You still do.
There’s an old Twilight Zone episode that discusses the use
of magic to bend reality and others realities to fit your
own. I do not remember the name of it. But it was re-done in
the Twighlight Zone Movie. In this episode, an insecure
little boy has the ability to bend reality with his mind.
Feeling unloved and unwanted by his family and friends, he
bends their reality to match what’s in his head. If they do
not comply with his version of reality or protest – he sends
them to a cornfield where they are killed. Reminds me of
Willow’s attempt in All The Way to send people to alternate
dimensions for fractions of a second to find Dawn. Willow,
who also feels rejected and unwanted, bends the realities of
the people around her to make herself feel better. As cjl
pointed out in one of his posts – Willow is a pessimist,
she can’t believe life will ever turn out well – so she
helps it along, makes it better. In Bargaining – she brings
Buffy back. All The Way – she creates decorations and
considers moving people to alternate dimensions to find
Dawn, when Tara protests – she casts a spell that makes Tara
forget. In Tabula Rasa – she casts a spell that wipes the
memories of everyone including herself – out of fear of
losing both Tara and Buffy. She can’t deal with the fact
that Buffy was torn from Heaven or Tara’s anger at her – so
she attempts to make them forget, and in the process bends
their reality to match the one she prefers. She is the
external force controlling their reality – not giving them
the choice to react to it or give it their own meaning. It’s
not until she literally conjures a monster – that Willow
stops attempting to bend reality to fit her own interests.
Tara’s leaving did not snap her out of it. Dawn’s injury
did. Willow’s approach to handling shifts in reality is the
same as the Troika’s – I’ll control it, it won’t control me.
Xander on the other hand, attempts to escape or run from his
negative perceptions of reality. Both Xander and Willow are
pessimists, both victims of abusive parents and peers.
Neither character believes there will be a happy ending.
Neither character trusts their perception of reality. So
they either attempt to bend it to their will or run away
from it.
3. Ignoring or Denying Reality. Buffy has spent most of this
year ignoring reality or denying it and as a result it is
controlling her instead of the other way around. I identify
with her - because I am equally guilty of letting external
factors control my reality, ignoring that which I can’t
handle, hoping it will just go away. How many of us let
someone else or something else affect our moods, our
feelings, our actions? We don’t choose our destinies, we let
external factors such as money, parents, teachers or friends
choose them for us. We abdicate responsibility to someone or
something else. Part of growing up is learning how to choose
our own reality, to control it, by moving away from home,
finding new friends, locating a job. In Life Serial – Giles
asks Buffy what she wants to do with her life, what path she
wishes to take, how she wants to reconstruct her reality.
She truthfully responds that she has no clue. In fact
towards the end of the episode she requests that Spike fix
her reality. Spike misinterprets her request to mean that
she wants to create a new one with him. But no – that would
mean active participation –Buffy at this stage just wants
someone else to do the work, whether that be Giles, her Mom,
her friends, or Spike.
JONATHAN VOICEOVER: The Slayer always knows what she's
doing. Sharp. Decisive. Always with a plan.. (Life Serial,
Season 6, Btvs).
Maybe in the past – but this season Buffy has been anything
but sharp, decisive or with a plan. Last year she had
accepted her hands – symbolically Dawn and Spike – they were
together, they had place in her life, which she clearly
defined for them. She had accepted her role as the slayer.
This year she jumps between Dawn and Spike like a ping pong
ball with no clear direction, rejecting or embracing one or
the other without much thought for the consequences. As a
result, she appears to be detached, confused, directionless,
just going through the motions. I disagree with Om and other
posters – when they state Buffy is back in Entropy. Nope.
Sorry. She’s still unbalanced and if anything weaker than
ever. All she’s done is shift from the left hand (Spike) to
the right (Dawn). Notice who’s an emotional mess in Entropy
and who appears to be relatively calm and supportive?
(Violent/Off the rails Spike – calm understanding Dawn)
Notice who was going nuts in Older and Far Away, Wrecked and
All The Way and who appeared relatively calm?
(Whiney/Thieving Dawn – calm supportive Spike.) Also which
episodes is Buffy physically strong in and which is she
physically weak in? In Entropy, Buffy barely defeats those
two vampires and it took her way too long to figure out
Warren was behind the camera. Yet she’s wonderful with Dawn,
takes her shopping, reveals her secrets. While in Dead
Things and As You Were – she had no troubles fighting the
Beasties, but could barely relate to Dawn. The only thing
that’s changed for Buffy is the witty one liners, which for
some reason comfort the audience as much as the character –
but it’s just a defense mechanism, one that relates back to
high school, which she and Xander have in common. It’s not
the only one. They appear to be handling reality in a
similar manner. Letting it control them. And when things get
nasty? Crack a joke. It lightens the mood, but it doesn’t
change the reality. They are about to discover that there
are some things you can’t joke about. That they are no
longer in high school.
The Troika has succeeded is controlling Buffy and by
extension the Scoobies’ reality this year. Every episode in
which they appear they manage to do something that shifts
her reality out of focus or creates a new one. In Gone, they
make Buffy invisible. In Dead Things, they successfully
convince her that she killed someone. In Normal Again, they
make her insane. And finally in Entropy, they inadvertently
convince her that her ex- lover is spying on her, causing an
even greater rift to erupt between Buffy and her left hand,
weakening her further. Buffy and by extension the SG have
become the Troika’s puppets, jumping at the Troika’s whim.
Not once have they taken these nerdy villains seriously. So
as a result the villains control their perception of
reality, not the SG.
It didn’t surprise me that Buffy and Xander jumped to the
conclusion that Spike was behind the camera – because let’s
face it, Spike’s an amoral opportunistic demon and the
Troika are human. Even after Spike denies it, Xander is
still fairly convinced it’s him and not the nerds. This
interpretation fits with their old high school
interpretation of reality – where the world had rules and
boundaries and an end zone. Xander just can’t take the nerds
seriously. Poor Spike - external forces have shifted his
reality so many times that I’ve lost track. First the wheel
chair, then Dru dumping him, then the chip, then falling in
love with Buffy, then Buffy dying, then Buffy being brought
back, then entering a sexual relationship. He hasn’t been in
charge for quite a while. Gotta give the vamp credit for
adapting. After working so hard to reinvent himself as a
helpmate to the SG and as Buffy’s left hand man, confidante,
protector of Dawn, and occasional lover – it’s all being
shifted on him again this time by Buffy. She has turned him
into a sideshow freak that no one takes seriously and
everyone emotionally, mentally and physically abuses. Spike
is no longer in control of his reality, Buffy is at the
wheel and the Troika is manipulating Buffy. Is it any wonder
that poor Spike is about to go off the deep end? Unlike
Buffy and Xander – Spike prefers to create his own reality –
bend it to his liking. He can’t be happy with the fact that
he’s no longer in control here – Buffy is. I suspect he will
make at least one pathetic and incredibly violent attempt to
re-assert control. Just as Anya made a pathetic attempt to
re-assert control over her relationship with Xander. Like
Anya, he’ll fail of course and his failure will send him
reeling. By the way that’s usually the motive behind acts of
extreme violence –attempt to regain control. Willow did it
to Tara in All The Way and Tabula Rasa, Anya tries to do it
to Xander in Entropy, Spike will try in Seeing Red. In
Spike’s case – he’s attempting to regain control of his
reality, which he perceives Buffy as wrenching from him.
It’s interesting that of the three – Willow appears to be
the only one who accomplished it and was later forgiven.
Right now, Warren is the only character who appears to be in
control of his reality and everyone else’s. Warren plays
with the other characters like you play with characters in a
virtual reality X-box game, which reminds me of an episode
of Star Trek the Next Generation (STNG). In an episode from
the second season of STNG, a holo-deck character, Professor
Moriarty, becomes aware that his reality is just a computer
program and attempts to wrest control of the program from
the Enterprise crew along with control of the starship.
Moriarty wants to venture beyond the confines of the
program’s reality and actually control his perception of it.
The crew tricks the character into another portion of the
computer so that the character perceives a new reality. Even
if they never open the program – this character’s reality
will continue to exist within the universe of the small box
they’ve placed him. At the end of the episode, the Captain
wonders: “What if we just exist within a small box and if
so, how many realities are out there in similar boxes
watching each other and how do we know which one is real?”
This concept has been explored in at least two sci-fi films:
The Thirteenth Floor, where the characters of a virtual
reality program create their own program within a program
within a program. And, of course, The Matrix, where
mechanical beasts enslave humans by convincing them that the
reality they imagine is the real one. BTvs explores the
concept in Normal Again.
In Normal Again – the Troika poison Buffy, so that she
spends the entire episode jumping between two separate
realities – the reality of the asylum and the reality of
Sunnydale. By the end of the episode neither Buffy nor the
audience is certain which is real. Buffy does not appear to
be in control of either reality. Although, in the asylum
reality, she is told over and over again that she is in
complete control of the Sunnydale reality. That she can end
it at any time and controls all of the characters. While in
the asylum reality she clearly has no control at all – she
is drugged, sedated and placed in a straight jacket.
Therefore she believes the asylum must be the real one –
because of the two realities, she has the least control over
it. The Doctor states: “(Buffy’s) created an intricate
latticework to support her primary delusion. In her mind,
she's the central figure in a fantastic world beyond
imagination. She's surrounded herself with friends, most
with their own superpowers ... who are as real to her as you
or me. More so, unfortunately. Together they face ... grand
overblown conflicts against an assortment of monsters both
imaginary and rooted in actual myth. Every time we think
we're getting through to her, more fanciful enemies
magically appear.” According to the doctor, Buffy is in
complete control of the slayer world or Sunnydale. The
characters that inhabit that world are her creation. Without
her, Sunnydale ceases to exist. Or does it? Does the asylum
world cease to exist if she refuses to remain there? Does
Sunnydale? Or can realities we create inside our heads exist
separately from us? If we leave them, do the characters
take control? Spike wonders this very thing when he helps
Xander hunt down the demon that poisoned her:
SPIKE: So, she's having the wiggins, is she? Thinks none of
us are real. Bloody self-centered, if you ask me. On the
other hand, it might explain some things -- this all being
in that twisted brain of hers. Yeah. Thinks up some chip in
my head. Make me soft, fall in love with her, then turn me
into her soddin' sex slave-
XANDER: What?!
SPIKE: Nothing. Alternative realities. Where we're all
little figments of Buffy's funny-farm delusion. You know, in
a different reality, you might not have left your bride at
the altar. You might have gone through with it like a man.
(Normal Again, Season 6 Btvs).
Spike’s remarks remind me of the Pirandello play, Six
Characters in Search of An Author. In this play – the
characters discover they aren’t real or in control. Fighting
writers’ block - the author leaves them, telling them that
they are now in control of their reality, because he’s run
out of ideas. At first they react with fear and
consternation, then slowly they start to adapt and enact
their own story. Buffy appears to be doing the same thing
with her friends and by extension Dawn and Spike. She’s done
it before, by sacrificing her life to save the world. Who
brings her back – Willow and Xander, just as they are the
ones who work to bring her back from the asylum. Willow and
Xander cannot live in a world without Buffy, even if she was
happier elsewhere. Dawn and Spike, interestingly enough, do
not try to bring her back. In Bargaining they are left out
of the loop. In Normal Again - they help but they do not
force her to drink. Spike even leaves her alone to do
whatever she wishes. They both get fed up with her inability
to accept them and leave. Or at least attempt to – Buffy
manages to stop Dawn and attempts to kill her, thus removing
her from the reality. Spike leaves on his own, fed up with
her reluctance to see him. Spike has figured out that it’s
not their sexual relationship that’s killing her, but her
inability to accept responsibility for it, to admit her
feelings whatever they are. As long as she doesn’t tell her
friends, as long as her friends do not perceive it as real,
she can ignore it, bury it under the rug. She doesn’t have
to admit its existence. She can erase it and Spike from her
reality. Buffy handles negative shifts in her reality by
denying them. You don’t exist she tells her friends and Dawn
in Normal Again. What we had isn’t real to me she tells
Spike in Entropy. As she explains to Dawn, when her
relationship with Spike is revealed, “I just didn’t want to
admit to myself.” (Entropy) True – she didn’t. By denying
her reality – the external forces shaping her reality begin
to assert control. I learned this lesson long ago, the more
I attempted to ignore my younger brother – the more he’d
scream in my ear. He was real. Ignoring him did not change
that. What has Buffy ignored this year? Willow’s use of
magic. Dawn and her stealing until it erupted in Older and
Far Away. Spike’s feelings for her. The Troika. Instead of
dealing with these elements – confronting them, interpreting
them and giving them meaning, she has tried to ignore them
like a child who believes if she ignores her chores they
will go away.
Remember what Willow states in Life Serial? “Social
phenomena don't have unproblematic objective existences.
They have to be interpreted and given meanings by those who
encounter them.” Buffy has avoided doing just that – instead
of attempting to understand and contructively deal with the
social phenomena she has encountered or that has entered her
reality – she has ignored it. Buffy, of all people, should
know how dangerous that is. In this sense – Buffy has become
Joyce, who managed to repress and ignore every supernatural
problem that entered Buffy’s life. It wasn’t until she lost
Buffy in Becoming Part II, Season 2 Btvs that Joyce’s
perception of reality shifted.
Up until now, external forces have controlled our
character’s perceptions of reality. What happens when they
begin to take responsibility and control? Isn’t part of
growing up learning how to actively participate in our
society? To move out on our own? Figure out our own way in
life? Create our own reality? But in order to do this, we
must first perceive our reality, interpret it for ourselves.
No longer rely on our parents, teachers, or classmates
interpretations. It’s our interpretations that count, not
the external one’s . We are responsible for and in control
of how we perceive and react to reality. Part of growing up
is understanding and handling that. Once we do we will never
be the same nor for that matter will the characters of
Btvs.
Well, hope that made sense. I think I might have gone a
little over my own head on this one ;-) Looking forward to
your comments as always. Feedback appreciated.
:- ) shadowkat
(http://www.geocities.com/shadowkatbtvs/index.html)
[>
Wow ! Brillant ! Plain and bloody brillant ! --
Etrangere, 10:00:32 05/07/02 Tue
Grand analysis, kat, probably one of my favorite of yours
'till now and i love them all :)
I love the interpretation of Spike and Dawn as Buffy's left
and right hands, which goes with Spike as the Shadow and
Dawn as her inner Innocence. Very perceptive point.
About this peculiar point among the great ones you made i
want to talk about this one : "This concept has been
explored in at least two sci-fi films: The Thirteenth Floor,
where the characters of a virtual reality program create
their own program within a program within a program. And, of
course, The Matrix, where mechanical beasts enslave humans
by convincing them that the reality they imagine is the real
one. BTvs explores the concept in Normal Again."
I was to understress that two other movies plays with the
idea in a more in-depth way. Those are eXistenZ, ofcourse
and the more recent Avalon. In both those movies the game
metaphore serves the idea of questionning the nature of
reality and wondering about the unknown reality, the
transcendantal reality (what happens after life, for
exemple, a topic that Buffy also explores when her death is
interpreted in NA as a brief recovery from her illness)
In both Avalon and Normal Again (in my interpretation
anyway) the important thing is not which "world" is the real
reality, but the fact that the character is placed in a
position to choose which reality she wants to believe in,
and each time someone tells them to believe in themselves to
make that choice. Thus the question of the myriad of
transcendantial realities is pushed away as unimportant
while the immanent interpretation of the reality the
character is put back into the center. We don't know what is
reality, we only know what we believe in, this is what make
us choose our reality, our interpretation of reality.
[> [>
Re: Wow ! Brillant ! Plain and bloody brillant ! --
shadowkat, 10:14:15 05/07/02 Tue
Thanks - I forgot about eXintenz which is actually
darker
and better than Matrix in some ways. Also a better
corollary
to Buffy. I haven't seen Avalon - will have to look for
it.
For those who don't know it - A woman convinces a man to
join her in a virtual reality game with organic plug ins, as
their realities shift within the game, we no longer know
which reality is the real one. The reality shifts with
their
perception of it. Exitenz reminds me of Total Recall -
which plays upon the same concept. In Total Recall which is
based on the Philip K. Dick short story "you can buy it
from me wholesale" - the character purchases a dream
which
utterly changes his perception of reality. The audience is
left at the end, wondering once again which reality was
real.
[>
Re: Scooby Gang vs. Troika - Dealing with Reality
(long! spoilers to Entropy) -- alcibiades, 10:35:53
05/07/02 Tue
What a great post, shadowkat. Agree with everything you
say. Also agree with Shell that what the writers are doing
this year is truly brilliant and more realistic than
anything else on TV. I've been saying that for months,
though possibly not on this board. That statement seems to
piss off a lot of people, however. The negative response to
that is always that that may be true but ME has forgotten
that TV is for entertainment purposes. And this year is so
depressing. That may be true, but the depression makes
profound psychological sense. And it so much fun to puzzle
it out.
I like the hands image of Dawn and Spike -- hadn't seen that
before. One up and one down, makes perfect sense, one calm,
the other violently unhappy.
I also like the idea of Spike as a comforting presence to
Buffy in AL and the next few episodes because he looks the
same to her -- she hasn't perceived that he has changed.
Two details to add in your delineation of Spike as the
person who is most comfortable with reality shifts. In DT,
unlike Buffy, who is entirely thrown off her game, Spike is
not confused or confounded by the time shifting demons. He
adjusts to it perfectly and even is able to help Buffy with
the reality shifts, calling out to her whenever she needs
help adjusting because she is not sensing danger
approaching.
The second occasion is in NA, when, as soon as Spike hears
about what is going on with Buffy, he is able to figure out
what the alternate universe looks like entirely from Buffy's
perspective, how that reality shift effects the way Buffy is
thinking/dealing with/looking at/treating both Xander and
himself. He can think clearly in a shifted reality and make
sense of it. Spike understands immediately that Buffy
believes it is only the chip that has softened him enough to
make him fall in love with her -- that it is not him at all,
his essence, his being, that Buffy thinks is in love with
her. Small wonder. That is a direct analogy to Angel and
his soul. It is only the soul that softened Angel enough to
make him love her. But the soul can be removed, just like
the chip can be removed, and that means that the underlying
demonic presence will re-emerge not loving her. Her lack of
trust of Spike even now with everything they have gone
through highlights this anxiety on her part.
I like the point about Buffy not being able to emerge from
the nightmare in the store in Life Serial until she has
figured out how to satisfy another person's needs. I think
she has spent the year entirely unable to do this. Even the
day in the outdoor mall last week with Dawn and making her
breakfast seems to me superficial, satisfying the externals.
She hasn't addressed the real issues that have been
separating her from Dawn this year -- her inability to give
to either Spike or Dawn in a meaningful way. To me, her
little tribute to Dawn in Entropy seems much the same as sex
without meaning she keeps giving Spike. Superficially
satisfying, and both Spike and Dawn can twist themselves to
accept the meager offering because they both need Buffy to
love them, but in neither case is she addressing the
widening abyss opening up at all of their feet.
You write: "According to the doctor, Buffy is in complete
control of the slayer world or Sunnydale."
I think this delusion has lingered past Normal Again vis-a-
vis her relationship with Spike. She keeps thinking if she
denies it in every which way, her feelings won't be true,
they will just go away. It is the voice of the super-ego,
which she associates with Riley spiraling up into the light
and the life of the hero.
Andrew is the troika member who keeps summoning reality
shifting demons. He's also shifted his perception to evil
villain pretty quickly. It will be interesting to see what
happens to him in future episodes. If he has to shift
again, how well he will do it.
[>
Re: Scooby Gang vs. Troika - Dealing with Reality
(long! spoilers to Entropy) -- maddog, 10:44:32
05/07/02 Tue
All I gots to say is...WOW! Well said.
[>
Re: Scooby Gang vs. Troika - Dealing with Reality
(long! spoilers to Entropy) -- MaeveRigan, 10:58:17
05/07/02 Tue
Excellent post! Really appreciate your insights here! Thanks
especially for highlighting the significance of the "Social
Construction of Reality" sequence of "Life Serial," which
comes so early in the season, but as you note, is really a
keynote for the whole arc.
[>
Drugs -- matching mole, 11:13:29 05/07/02
Tue
Thanks for the best analysis of season 6 I've seen to date.
I'll have to go away and think about this some. But in the
meantime I'm going to commment briefly on the 'drug
metaphor'. It seems to me that 'magic as a drug' fits in
well with your ideas. People take psycho-active drugs
because they want to exert some control over reality even if
it's only temporary. Willow's use of magic can be a means
of controlling reality to suit her wishes and an addiction
at the same time. I thought the magic as drug thing was
clumsily handled but seemed clearly what the writers
intended. It also doesn't seem as discordant with your
ideas as you seem to think it does.
[> [>
Actually agree - good catch -- shadowkat,
11:24:31 05/07/02 Tue
Uh yeah...I realized that when I was writing it, but was
hoping could get around it.
You're right of course - as anyone who has experimented with
mind alterring substances can attest to, specifically
ecstasy, LSD, and shrooms. Timothy Leary and Robert Anton
Wilson - two beat writers - used LSD in the sixties to alter
their perceptions of reality. The government experimented
with its use to alter people who had sociopathic or
schizophrenic tendencies. It was outlawed
shortly after this due to the fact that people were using
the drugs outside controlled situations and as a result
losing their sanity.
Yep - there's a definite corollary. But the story still
isn't about addiction so much as it is about the desire to
control or alter reality - which substances such as LSD
have often been used.
[> [>
Re: Drugs -- alcibiades, 11:51:43 05/07/02
Tue
The problem is that it deals only with the superficial
reality and goes no further. It's an addiction like drugs.
But even drug addicts have to ask, eventually and if they
want to recover, why they are addicted to drugs -- what's
driving them. Buffy thinks she knows because she fancies
she has been addicted to Spike all year. All she has to do
is stop inhaling and see, addiction over.
And ME keeps throwing Willow's drug addiction in our face,
like it is all settled as to what the problem was and now it
is taken care of. You just know it has got to rise from the
depths and bite someone.
It is rather like the way that Buffy, and now Willow, throws
around the conclusions Buffy reached from the entirely
unexplained demon eggs. They have been mentioned or implied
three times now, and everyone is just content to assume that
all it means is that Spike really is the same demon he was
in pre-Restless. He can't change. He is still the way
Riley pegged him, the way he was at the end of Season 4.
Buffy echoed Riley's words in Entropy. Steal or lie or
manipulate. entirely amoral if not immoral.
I think it is breathtaking that Buffy never asked her lover
once what was going on with those eggs. She saw it as a
personal betrayal however, Spike betrayed her, and like
Wesley on Angel, no one is going to ask him why, what it
meant, what was his rationale. Angel refuses to forgive his
betrayer as well so far, or even to contemplate the thought
of forgiving him.
Last year the Spirit guide told Buffy Love, Give, Forgive,
and she has failed in all three categories this year as far
as I can see, except that she still loves Willow and Xander.
And, to Buffy's mind, if Spike is the way he was at the end
of Season 4, so is Willow, so is Xander. So Buffy doesn't
think she has to consider their problems in any more depth
than she has. All she has to do is what she did earlier,
try to comfort them when they are down. Ignore the looming
abysses at all their feet cause they'll just go away.
To echo shadowkat, Buffy's conclusion reflects the reality
she is most comfortable with. The one from the past. All
year long, and she still is not attuned to the reality she
is currently living in and the shifts that took place when
she was dead.
[> [>
Magic and drugs -- Sophist, 12:53:40 05/07/02
Tue
The problem I'm having here is that magic and drugs aren't
the same in their impact on reality. Drugs alter one's
subjective experience of reality, but not the "outside" real
world. Magic, in contrast, does alter the world
outside in order to suit the preferences of the spellcaster.
Since magic controls external reality, the metaphor to drugs
is inconsistent because they only control the internal,
subjective construction of reality.
[> [> [>
Re: Magic and drugs -- matching mole, 14:02:11
05/07/02 Tue
Which is basically why I thought the metaphor was clumsily
handled when it got very blatant and obvious. Magic clearly
gives the user power while drugs generally make the user
less effectual.
However Willow's specific use of magic seems from her POV
very much like drug use. When she cast the forgetting spell
on Tara I don't think the emphasis was on changing Tara.
Willow liked Tara the way she was. Willow just wanted the
fight to go away. I think people often abuse drugs for much
the same reason - they want to excise tiny bits of reality
that they don't like. Those bits of reality are still there
though, when they come down. Similarly Willow's efforts to
remove the conflict between Tara and herself are always
temporary.
Now as you point out the metaphor is doomed to fail if you
extend it beyond this very limited scenario. Willow's
failure to get what she wants, in a strict sense, is due to
her underuse of magic rather than her overuse. If she was
willing to more blatantly abuse her power she could have
gotten Tara back anytime she wanted (of course it wouldn't
really be Tara anymore). Drug users aren't affecting
external reality in the same way - if they escalate their
drug use they will damage their health and possibly die.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Magic and drugs -- alcibiades, 15:05:47
05/07/02 Tue
"Willow just wanted the fight to go away"
I think that is an over-simplication. Willow wanted the
fight to go away because Tara was telling her this new power
- this new shift in her self-perception as a powerful person
- that she was enjoying more and and more was getting way
out of control. Tara wants Willow to remain Willow. Willow
doesn't want to question painfully these new feelings of
omniscience and invulnerability she was exulting in. She
didn't want to retire them, to make them go away or even to
diminish them. She was totally getting off on the new
magically enhanced Willow. It's her whole new existential
reality and her own budding self-perception that she is
enamored of that she will have to call into question. And
that she is not willing to do. Giles did it, and she
threatened him explicitly.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Magic and drugs -- Sophist, 15:32:56
05/07/02 Tue
I think I see mm's point here -- if we limit our view to the
forget spell, then there are similarities to drug use. In
this case, maybe, the analogy is to drugging another, or it
could be seen as Willow using a drug to make herself feel
good. In either case, Willow may be attempting to alter her
subjective reality (or Tara's).
Overall, though, I agree with alcibiades. The forget spell
was not the only one Willow cast. Almost all the others
attempted to re-make external reality in her own preferred
way; they were uses or abuses of power. In that sense, as I
think we all agree, the magic=drugs metaphor collapses.
[>
Re: Wow and Double Wowzers (long! spoilers to
Entropy) -- LittleBit, 11:43:43 05/07/02 Tue
Shadowkat, I don't think it's possible for you to go over
your head!
I find myself questioning whether or not Buffy did truly
'come back' with only just a bit of a cosmic sunburn. It
seems as though she has lost the knowledge of herself that
was an innate part of her success as a Slayer. She told
Kendra "my emotions give me power." And now she is denying
their very existence. Intellectually, she knows what
feelings should be there in a given situation, and can often
act as though she feels them, but underneath she's not
really getting it. The affect [as in emotional tone] is just
flat.
She hasn't been a friend to Willow or Xander, not the kind
of friend she could be. She hasn't been a sister or a mother-
figure to Dawn. There hasn't been much in the way of evil
activity around Sunnydale, yet she is unable to give her
emotional attention to her family and firends. She certainly
won't allow romantic entanglements, not with Spike, not
really with anyone. As much as this may be her desire to
pretend it isn't happening, it could also be a lack of
emotional recognition. She's been there physically, but
emotionally she's just elsewhere. [aside - I think the
portrayal of her emotions fits with this - they never look
real when we're only pretending to them]. She is able to
deal with bits and pieces, Spike here, Dawn there, but only
in isolated moments; never sustained, never fully.
She sees her reality, sees it shift, but never feels it.
Perhaps Spike is able to perceive it with and for her
because, of them all, he leads most with raw emotion. It may
be that she won't be able to until the price is paid for the
return of her life; it may be this is part of the price. But
until she and her emotions are back in touch, she will never
be, or feel, right.
[> [>
What's wrong with Buffy (again?) -- MaeveRigan,
12:12:18 05/07/02 Tue
LittleBit wrote:
"I find myself questioning whether or not Buffy did truly
'come back' with only just a bit of a cosmic sunburn. It
seems as though she has lost the knowledge of herself that
was an innate part of her success as a Slayer. She told
Kendra 'my emotions give me power.' And now she is denying
their very existence."
I suspect that when we look back at the entire season, we'll
say that it actually took Buffy almost the entire 22
episodes to really "come back;" that she was, as you say,
present physically, but metaphorically "dead" emotionally
throughout most of season 6. And that's part of the reality
that she has to face, grow up to claim and deal with in a
new way.
It hasn't been pretty, and it's not going to get better
until it gets worse. But that's typical ME for you.
[> [> [>
Re: What's wrong with Buffy (again?) -- maddog,
12:21:59 05/07/02 Tue
I'd even venture to say that if she came back any sooner it
wouldn't be believable....satisfying to the average fan, but
completely unrealistic. You don't just get over being dead
within a few months....life just doesn't work that way.
[> [>
Re: Wow and Double Wowzers (long! spoilers to
Entropy) -- DEN, 12:13:25 05/07/02 Tue
Add me to the list of enthusiasts--easily the best sense
anyone's made of s6 to date. I especially like the notion of
the troika controlling the scoobs. It seems to be a major
element of tonight's story as well.
[>
Re: Scooby Gang vs. Troika - Dealing with Reality
(long! spoilers to Entropy) -- Dedalus, 12:13:15
05/07/02 Tue
Bloody amazing. Someone needs to post this over at the
Existential Scooby site.
[> [>
Re: Scooby Gang vs. Troika - Dealing with Reality
(long! spoilers to Entropy) -- shadowkat, 12:26:50
05/07/02 Tue
You have my permission to post it - I'd do it, but I don't
know the url for the existential scooby site. Actually
didn't know there was one.
This board is the most in depth, philosophical, board
I've
found to date.
[>
Re: Scooby Gang vs. Troika - also long, but not too
spoliery -- redcat, 12:44:31 05/07/02 Tue
Thanks for the wonderful post, shadowkat! Once
again, you’ve made me think more deeply
about the psychological structure of the show. I agree with
you wholeheartedly that B is not
“back” yet, that our hero has a ways to go on her journey
yet. And your developing “hand”
critique is outstanding. Thanks for taking us along on that
journey as you continue to make
these connections
I’d like to raise an issue though, to see what you and the
community might make of it. I
apologize in advance if this topic has already been
discussed on another thread. If so, please
point me to it and many thanks. My question comes from the
fact that the mythic structure
that I find the most relevant to the show is based on my
reading of the Inanna myth as related
by Wolkstein and Kramer (and my understanding of similar
myth cycles in Polynesian cultures,
particularly that of Pele and her sister Hi’iaka). In the
Inanna myth, the hero-goddess ventures
on the archetypical hero’s journey, the structure of which
has been so carefully laid out by
Campbell and which has been discussed at length on this
board.
During that journey, Inanna has helpers, some sent by her
maternal grandfather, the god of
the heavens (? - I’m doing this from memory, so please
forgive, Inanna buffs, and help correct
any errors). Those helpers are her friends and obvious
allies. But some of those who help
Inanna on her journey initially appear to be opponents, like
her dark sister Ereshkigal who
hangs her on a hook, and others linked to the world below,
including a “gate-keeper” type
character who initially takes away her sacred attributes on
her way into the underworld and
then gives her back enhanced attributes as she makes her way
back up to the overworld.
I bring up Inanna’s journey because, as in many other
cultures’ myth cycles, the help she gets
from her opponents is crucial to the hero’s growth, and
getting that help forces her to deal with
the ambiguous nature of good and evil in both the world and
the “other” world, the “reality” of
the shared outside and the equally real world of the inner
self. Much has already been written
about the ways in which season 6 forces all the SG to deal
with their inner demons and
shadow selves, with the process of growing up (Inanna’s tale
is quite literally the story of a
hero growing up) and accepting the need to, as ‘kat sharply
observes, ACT in the world as
adults, to take responsibility for the consequences of their
actions as well as of their
*perceptions* of others’s actions, i.e, the “objective
existences” that Willow notes are so
problematical.
Given all of that, I keep wanting to read the Troika as in
some ways interpretable as Buffy’s
opponent-helpers. And I keep getting the feeling that the
three of them (well, at least two) are
in some weird ways direct correlates of the gang itself.
Each trial they’ve put B through has
had the direct effect of teaching her something about
herself and her strengths and
weaknesses, or about her need to act, or her need to not
hide and keep secrets, etc. These
lessons, though hard and painful and not at all what the
Troika intended, are, I would argue,
absolutely necessary for her to move on in her journey back
from the dead and truly into the
world of the living.
I don’t think it’s an accident that ME have developed such
close parallels between the Troika
characters and the Scoobs themselves. Andrew is clearly
homoerotically inclined (“Timothy
Dalton,” Spike is “soooo cool”) but still very closeted, and
while I don’t think he is evil in the way
Warren is, he seems to have a somewhat naive moral code that
allows him to think one can
“get away with” stuff as long as no-one “tells” on him.
This is uncannily similar to Willow,
especially her self -definition as someone who is rarely
“naughty” and her moral naivete during
the subtle disagreement she has with Tara when Dawn wants to
raise Joyce from the dead.
While Jonathan is terribly wrong to have gone along with
everything so far, IMHO he has been
cast as the “heart” of that gang, and he acts (at least
somewhat) from the conflicts between his
deep sense of insecurity and an immaturely developed sense
of right and wrong --- at least
some of which sounds like a younger Xander to me. Even the
physical characteristics link
these two sets of characters, ie., relative hair shade,
preferred types of t-shirts, body type (as
an expression of lack of self-confidence), etc.
I can’t figure Warren out at all. He disgusts me so deeply
that I have a hard time dealing with
him on an analytical level - yet...
Don’t know if any of this makes sense or where it can be
taken, and am unfortunately stuck in
front of a huge pile of final exams and essays that
desperately need grading, so this is as far
as I’ve gotten. But it’s something I’ve been trying to work
out in my head for a few weeks now
and I’d be interested in others’ thoughts on the matter.
a hui hou (until we meet again),
redcat
[>
Absolutely brilliant -- Wynn, 13:18:28 05/07/02
Tue
I have always enjoyed your essays; they have illuminated new
perceptions and layers to BtVS that I haven't noticed
before. But this essay was mind blowing (at least for
me!)
I hadn't thought about Dawn and Spike as Buffy's right and
left hands, almost like the two sides of her personality,
Buffy the girl and Buffy the Slayer, that she has been
trying to balance since Season One. Excellent
observation.
Also, I was fascinated about your comments about the Troika
controlling the SG and how the SG has failed to take them
seriously. I agree with your statement about the SG not
taking the Troika seriously because they're the human nerds
they remember from high school (at least Warren and
Jonathan). If it was a demon or a vampire that had
manipulated them and killed a person Buffy and co. probably
would have reacted quicker. The Troika have taken the
Scoobies in general and Buffy in particular nothing but
seriously, and this makes them the most formidable villains
that we've ever seen on Buffy- the underestimated villain.
Lastly, I also noticed that Spike seems to be about to go
"off the deep end." He looked defeated when Xander was
beating him up- he didn't try to defend himself or attack
Xander; he just accepted it. Well, at least until the "It
was good enough for Buffy" comment.
Keep up the excellent work on your essays. They are very
much appreciated and enjoyed.
Wynn
[>
I love this! Thank you... -- Tillow, 13:24:37
05/07/02 Tue
Maybe you can do an addendum after tonight's ep? :)
Tillow
[>
Re: Scooby Gang vs. Troika - Dealing with Reality
(long! spoilers to Entropy) -- Raccoon, 08:16:19
05/08/02 Wed
Your essays are such great food for thought, shadowkat.
Thanks! *chomps on essay*
This gave me a flashback to my own days as a philosophy
undergraduate, when I took a class in Epistemology. One of
the questions raised was "How do you prove that the world
really does exist outside of your own perception of it?" The
professor admitted the absurdity of denying the existence of
a physical world, and I remember thinking that a good proof
was that nobody would imagine such uncomfortable lecture
hall seats. I didn't write that on the exam, though.
But whether you ultimately can prove the existence of our
physical reality or not (and can you? *g*) isn't the point
of this philosophical exercise. It's the steps we take in
trying to prove it that matters. The theoretical journey, as
the Mayor might put it.
I very much agree with you that the perception of reality is
an issue this season. I'd say that this is very evident on a
metanarrative level as well. Your reference to Pirandello is
spot on - the Scoobies *are* reminiscent of his bewildered
characters. The writers have pretty much taken a paintbrush
and redecorated Sunnydale from Country Comfort to Steel
Avant Garde. Buffy is ripped from her grave, and her friends
are scrambling around, having to deal with her death at
last. Suddenly there are benign demons, while the comfort of
magic as an aiding force is taken away from them. No more
comforting metaphors; just a very unhellmouthy reality.
More than in earlier seasons the audience is adressed by the
writers. Both OMWF and "Waiting in the Wings" can be
interpreted as allegories on the act of creating; the former
perhaps as a Dionysian excercise, the latter as its
Apollonian counterpart. In both IMHO we, as spectators, are
criticized for failing to accept change and altered
circumstances. AYW seemed to chastise both the Scoobies and
the audience for failing to appreciate Riley while he was in
Sunnydale. And, as many have noted, Buffy's psychiatrist in
NA seemed to voice many of the discontents and concerns
viewers have felt about the direction of S6.
On a narrative level it might be important to note that so
many of Buffy's altered-reality experiences are forced upon
her by the Troika, who are probably less in touch with
reality than anyone else in Sunnydale. (Which is
interesting, concerning that the writers have said that the
Troika were inspired by their own staff meetings:)) By way
of their technology they have become both the chronologers
and the dei ex machina of Sunnydale. In all their delusional
nerdiness *they* are the ones who force the Scoobies to face
their collective reality in Entropy.
Just some thoughts.
Son of Vampire
(spoilers) -- purplegrrl, 11:11:46 05/07/02 Tue
It just occurred to me that Joss may be playing with a more
obscure aspect of the vampire myth -- the dampire, the human
son of a vampire. My research is a little hazy, but if I
remember correctly the dampire may be half vampire (like
Blade) or entirely human (presumably like Conner/Steven).
The main goal of a dampire is to fight vampires, whether by
training or just because they are evil and he has the
knowledge and strength to do it. A dampire fights on the
side of Good.
Is Conner a dampire? Technically, yes. But he doesn't know
it yet, which I think is also part of the dampire legend.
The killing of the father is goal/duty of the dampire.
(Yes, very Oedipal.)
Of course Conner's vendetta against Angel is personal,
instilled in him by Holtz, and has very little to do with
the fact that Angel is a vampire and much more to do with
the fact that Angel killed Holtz's family. Yes, we see
Conner fighting hell-dimension beasties and Earth-dimension
nasties, but that is part of his training. He hunts demons
(for food? for sport?). Look at how Conner went to Sunny's
rescue -- saving the damsal in distress even though the
damsel put her own self in distress. This sort of attitude
is very much a product of Holtz's black-and-white view of
reality. (Which is not to say that Angel would not have
taught him something similar.)
But what Conner really wants is to kill Angel. Or possibly
even destroy Angel. The difference being just killing him
or letting Angel think that Conner is accepting his side of
the story, getting him to let his guard down, and *then*
killing him.
I hope we'll see a transformation of Conner. Not so much
that Conner betrays Holtz (although that could be a theme
this year!), but that he refuses to kill Angel because he
realizes Angel is trying to make amends for his past sins
(which, of course, Holtz will see as a betrayal -- similar
to how Angel currently feels about Wesley). There is
something very circuitous or mirror-image about all of
this.
[>
Re: Son of Vampire (spoilers) -- neaux, 12:09:29
05/07/02 Tue
hmm... never heard of that term.
I have heard of the term Vampeel (which is half human half
vampire)
[> [>
Re: looked up -- neaux, 13:00:18 05/07/02
Tue
after a quick search in google I came across Vampeel,
Dunpeel and Dampire. I guess all are interchangable..
thanks Purplegrrl.. I learned some new terms..
[> [> [>
I've also seen it spelled dhampire and dhampyre...
-- redcat, 13:07:39 05/07/02 Tue
...there's a good article that discusses the dhampire child-
of-a-vamp story in relation to Angel and his vamp family in
_Fighting the Forces_, the hard-copy-only :( anthology
from Slayage. It only goes up to AtS 2, but might be
useful.
Diana DeKelb-Rittenhouse, "Sex and the Single Vampire: The
Evolution of the Vampire Lothario and its Representation in
Buffy." If anyone wants a copy, I can xerox and mail if you
supply the postage.
[>
Mirror-image-ness (spoilers) -- VampRiley,
13:30:04 05/07/02 Tue
I, for one, am definitily enjoying the mirror-image-
ness:
1) Angel wants to explain to Connor his side of what's
happened.
Wes wanted to live to explain his side of his taking
Connor.
2) But when Connor and Angel meet again, Connor wants Angel
dead without hearing his side.
When Angel and Wes meet in the hospital, Angel tries to
smoother Wes without hearing his side.
It seems rather karmic: What you do, comes back on you and
bites you on the ass.
Never head of vampeel, dunpeel and dampire before, but I did
know of dhampire and dhampyre.
VR
[>
Mirror-image-ness (spoilers) -- VampRiley,
13:32:15 05/07/02 Tue
I, for one, am definitily enjoying the mirror-image-
ness:
1) Angel wants to explain to Connor his side of what's
happened.
Wes wanted to live to explain his side of his taking
Connor.
2) But when Connor and Angel meet again, Connor wants Angel
dead without hearing his side.
When Angel and Wes meet in the hospital, Angel tries to
smoother Wes without hearing his side.
It seems rather karmic: What you do, comes back on you and
bites you on the ass.
Never head of vampeel, dunpeel and dampire before, but I did
know of dhampire and dhampyre.
VR
[>
Connor seems half and half to me ;) -- The Last
Jack, 15:15:33 05/07/02 Tue
I don't know if I would call Connor entirely human, seeing
as he easily jumped off an overpass, and that whole thing
with the bus. While I wouldn't say he is as strong as Angel,
I would say he's got more vampire in his DNA than human. And
don't forget, he survived in a hell dimension for several
years, and ended up becoming a feared hunter called the
Destroyer.
[> [>
Re: Identity of Destroyer -- SpikeMom,
19:29:00 05/07/02 Tue
I agree that Connor is more Vamp than human, and probably
doesn't know it.
I also am thinking we're jumping the gun in identifying
Connor as the Destroyer. With the personality that is
Holtz, he could be The Destroyer and using Connor as a tool
to kill and control to his heart's content.
[>
Re: Son of Vampire (spoilers) -- Corwin of Amber,
20:45:15 05/07/02 Tue
I did a little research on the net into Dampiri a few weeks
ago when the whole Connor thing came up. There are several
names for the it Dampire, Dhamphyre, and Malsain for
example. All the folk stories are from the
Bosnia/Serbia/Transylvania/Moravia area of the world and
they all seem to agree that male vampires would have an urge
to have sex with their wives as soon as they crawl out of
their graves for the first. The result of that union is a
Dampir, which always seems to be male. Dampir have some of
the qualities of vampires...supernatural strength and speed,
an urge to drink blood, and the ability to sense nearby
vampires. But they are living persons, and can be killed by
anything that would kill a normal human. Usually Dampir seek
out and kill their father as a sort of rite of passage, and
then make a living as vampire hunters.
Dampir have appeared in tv and film before. Blade is the
most recent example, another one is Vampire Hunter D.
Cordelia's second
cut (a micro essay) -- matching mole, 13:33:13
05/07/02 Tue
In the Jossverse characters are like double bladed weapons;
the traits that get the job done (e.g. Xander’s moral
absolutism and loyalty) are also the traits that get them
into trouble (e.g. Xander’s general inability to admit his
mistakes and his harsh judgment of others). The blade cuts
both ways – where you want it to go and where you don’t.
An interesting apparent exception to this rule has been the
Cordelia Chase of the last two seasons of AtS. In her
(very) recent essay Shadowkat discusses the collapse of the
Scoobies’ realities in BtVS season 6 and their failure to
deal with the problem by either ignoring or attempting to
control reality. Cordelia’s reality collapsed much earlier
than this. Her father went bankrupt, she lost her friends
and popularity, she went off to LA and lived in poverty.
Then she got the visions, which forced her out of her anti-
empathic world. Cordelia met the challenge of the new
reality. She apparently retained her tough inner core but
developed compassion and a broader moral perspective. A
little vanity remained but Queen C was definitely the moral
center of AI, a figure of confidence and benevolence.
Or is she? I would argue that underlying Cordelia’s
sterling qualities a strong streak of lack of confidence
remains as a result of her transition from spoiled rich girl
to helping the helpless vision girl. The degree to which
Cordelia’s self worth is tied up with ‘helping the helpless’
or more specifically helping Angel is demonstrated by her
secretiveness about the toll the visions were taking on her,
prior to her demonization. Her willingness to take on a
sacrificial burden is noble but it can be narcissistic if
taken to far. You can’t help the helpless if your head
explodes and we get the sense that Cordelia might have
preferred to die a noble death than leave her visions behind
and resume life as an ordinary and, in her opinion, fairly
useless person.
Since becoming part demon Cordy’s barbs and criticism of
Angel have become muted. While she showed no signs of
returning Angel’s romantic interest (and in fact has
remained completely oblivious to it) she has become much
more vocal about her admiration for him as a ‘champion’.
Her self worth seems clearly to overly invested in a single
stock – helping Angel. Therefore Angel’s worthiness has
become increasingly identified with her own self-worth.
A year ago Angel’s two obsessions were Darla and
Wolfram&Hart. He shut Cordelia out and she was devastated
(more so than Gunn or Wesley). This year Angel’s two
obsessions are Connor and Cordelia. This crisis plays right
into her need to be useful. She is the person most suited
to comfort Angel, to help him so that he can go on. Unlike
last year, pointing out his obsessive behaviour is not going
to get her what she wants – an infallible champion that she
can help and thereby feel good about herself.
Many people, including me, were surprised that the return of
Cordelia from her vacation with Groo did nothing to alter
the dynamic between Wesley and the rest of AI. I thought
that she would go off to Wesley’s place within the hour to
find out what the hell was going on. But I think that her
identification with Angel has become too strong to allow her
to do this which would be an admission that Angel’s
behaviour may be, at least in part, unjustified.
For this reason I think that a romantic relationship between
Angel and Cordelia would be bad for both of them (not saying
that it won’t happen). Angel’s periods of obsessive
behaviour require a romantic partner who is willing to stand
up to him. The Cordy of the past would have done that but
not the present version. And Cordelia needs someone who
will encourage her to regrow that backbone of steel.
[>
Re: Cordelia's second cut (a micro quibble) --
pr10n, 14:43:22 05/07/02 Tue
I agree with your great essay -- it's a big no-no for Angel
and Cordy to pair off -- but I think she wants to give over
control, romantically.
>The Cordy of the past would have done that but not the
>present version.
I think Cordelia has always been written in search of a
strong romantic foil. When Jesse the Vamp shows up at the
Bronze in The Harvest, she agrees to just one dance
(paraphrastic) after he growls, "Shut up" and puts a little
vampy pressure on the small of her back.
And she falls for Xander after several chivalrous acts
change her opinion of him. Strong father figure much,
Cordy?
[>
Re: Cordelia and Groo/ Xander and Anya(spoils) --
neaux, 14:50:21 05/07/02 Tue
Great points. I find it interesting after watching last
night's episode that Cordelia is mirroring Xander and Groo
is sounding a lot like Anya. Cordelia and Xander both want
to fight the "good" fight.
Cordelia speaks too loudly of being by Angel's side and
being there in his time of need (which comes off as
offensive to Groo.) In the same way, Anya felt as if Buffy's
needs came first to Xander. Xander didnt seem to hesitate to
join in Buffy's battles, and Anya was put off by these
actions.
Groo and Anya I guess feel shafted. Maybe shafted is too
harsh, but they were coming in second to another person and
that can hurt.
You could say that love is about Undivided attention. Does
that sound too selfish?But in the game of love, you want to
be number 1.. dont you?
These are my fears...
After watching Xander and Anya fail at their relationship,
I fear that Cordy and Groo will not last. This scares me,
because I am really enjoying Groo's screentime and I would
hate to see that diminish.
The ultimate end
- an opinion how Buffy should 'Finally' end -- Goji3,
14:53:11 05/07/02 Tue
I'm not talking about a season ender, i'm talking about a
series ender, or better yet, if after the show, they do a
followup film or two, the end for the last one.
It boils down to this:
After defeating the 'Big Bad', in a costly battle. the gang
is tired, weak and injured...and just in time to face a
'Plague Monster'
A swarm of very nast monsters that, if left to trhere own
devices, could destroy the world. Individually weak, they
draw their main strength from there great numbers.
Despite there fatigue, they decide to fight the hoard. even
though they are not getting any help from other forces, even
though they are hopelessly outmatched, they decide to fight.
as the swarm approaches, they await there arival and...
it ends there.
That would be a most enjoyable conclusion to all this.
Opinions? Comments? Guesses as to where I got the idea
from?
[>
Re: The ultimate end - an opinion how Buffy should
'Finally' end - Frey spoiler -- Dochawk, 16:13:09
05/07/02 Tue
If Joss is to be believed in Frey, we know the series and/or
movies will end with some slayer (Dawn?) vanquishing the
last of the known demons resulting in several hundred years
of demon free living.
in my opinion, Buffy should find her peace in some manner.
Death or Love (or both) or maybe just acceptment and
contentment. But there needs to be a psychological
fufillment to this series that is run in metaphor.
[>
Re: The ultimate end - an opinion how Buffy should
'Finally' end - Frey spoiler -- Dochawk, 16:17:39
05/07/02 Tue
If Joss is to be believed in Frey, we know the series and/or
movies will end with some slayer (Dawn?) vanquishing the
last of the known demons resulting in several hundred years
of demon free living.
in my opinion, Buffy should find her peace in some manner.
Death or Love (or both) or maybe just acceptment and
contentment. But there needs to be a psychological
fufillment to this series that is run in metaphor.
Connor's
Reappearance and Wesley's Forgiveness -- Dochawk,
14:37:50 05/07/02 Tue
Does Connor's reappearance set the stage for Angel to begin
to forgive Wesley?
[>
Could be (spoilers for aNW) -- matching mole,
15:00:50 05/07/02 Tue
Good point - I'd been thinking much the same thing. Angel
seemed to go through another epiphany like change last night
much as we have seen in the past. Obsessive Angel suddenly
becomes, well less obsessive. When we first meet Angel in
BtVS he doesn't seem prone to being rash or judgemental. In
fact he is generally (when in posession of his soul) pretty
level headed. Angel is the one who reaches out to Faith
even when Buffy is out to get her for example. Recently
we've alternated between goofy Angel and obsessive 'noir'
Angel. In A New World we seemed to see a return to the more
thoughtful Angel of the past. We'll have to see how this
plays out when Angel is interacting with someone other than
Connor.
[> [>
Wesley, Angel & Forgiveness? (spoilers through aNW)
-- oceloty, 23:38:58 05/07/02 Tue
OK, spoilers below for Angel season 3 through A New
World.
The question at hand:
Does Connor's reappearance set the stage for Angel to begin
to forgive Wesley?
I'd say, the fact that Angel hasn't actually killed Wesley
yet is a good sign. :)
I'd agree with matching mole that on Buffy, Angel seemed
obsessive about Buffy but pretty thoughtful and almost
meticulously cautious. (One thing of the things that struck
me about him was the way tended to look around a room as he
entered, like he was always expecting an ambush.) On ATS, he
seems much more rash. (I chalk this up to writer
convenience, but maybe it's supposed to reflect his growing
humanity and connections with people he cares about.)
My take on Angel in ATS season 3 is he's been struggling to
change, with varying degrees of success. He knows he's
obsessive and that it's caused problems in the past (like,
all of season 2), but that doesn't mean it's easy to learn
new ways to deal. We didn't see his initial reaction to
Buffy's death, but in Heartthrob he's clearly worked through
the worst of it and is ready to get back to work. In That
Vision Thing, his rush-in-and-save Cordelia mode gets
(somewhat) tempered when he talks to Wesley. Of course, he's
still melodramatic "my responsibility" guy in Billy, and I'm
not even going to think about Provider.
I'd say a big change in Angel's ability to derail his own
obsessiveness came post-Connor. There's that conversation
with Cordelia (in Dad) about how he can't be everything for
his son, followed by his trusting his friends with Connor.
There's this look on Angel's face as he walks back into the
hotel, that says "hmmm." And I can almost hear the gears
shifting.
It does seem that when his life gets complicated, Angel's
first reaction is still his old behavior patterns. All the
mayhem in Forgiving being a prime example, or his brood-
athon in Double or Nothing. But, given a little time and
space, though, he can work through it, change his ways of
dealing. I was impressed with his willingness to try to move
on at the end of Double or Nothing, and especially with his
line to Cordelia in The Price, something like: "I'm just
trying not to be so wrapped up in my problems, so into my
own head." Give the guy a cigar, maybe he really did learn
something from the whole mess with Darla.
At last, the actual point: Does Connor's reappearance set
the stage for Angel to begin to forgive Wesley? Based on
Double or Nothing and the Price, I actually think that given
enough time and space, Angel would have gotten to that
point. With the curse, etc., Angel clearly understands the
need for forgiveness on an abstract. And from his
conversation with Gunn, intellectually, he understands (and
sympathizes with) people making desparate, shaky decisions
to protect those they care about. So to forgive Wesley, what
Angel needs is to understand and apply all these things
emotionally. But as we've seen, that can take a while.
I think that Connor's reappearance could actually make it
_harder_ for Angel forgive Wes. First, the poor kid has as
much emotional baggage as his father, so Angel is going to
be too busy with the latest rollercoaster (plus fighting for
his life, saving the world, etc.) to deal with issues as
he's been doing. (Or for Cordelia to talk to him about it.)
Also, Connor's presence and vengeance gig are going to be
constant reminders of the consequences of Wesley's actions.
And plotwise, is there really time to deal with Holtz,
Connor, and Wesley in just two episodes?
My biggest reason for thinking forgiveness won't happen soon
is that they've spent so much time (is it 3 episodes now?)
establishing Wesley's despair, that I think they're going to
do a whole beige Wesley arc. It's just personal speculation,
but my guess is that the Angel/Wes tension won't be
seriously addressed until next season. (Watch me be wrong.
Which would be cool, because I'd love to see the writers
pull it off.)
[> [> [>
beige Wesley -- Masq, 09:49:22 05/08/02 Wed
I assume you say "beige Wesley" because you can't imagine
him being dark. Me, either. Surely he knows if he wasn't a
traitor taking Connor from Angel, he would surely be a
traitor if he joined Wolfram and Hart. I just don't see him
doing that.
I'm spoiler-free, though, so I have no idea what's going to
happen. But I agree, with two episodes to go, Wesley's next
move will only begin to happen before the season ends.
I guess now we
know why it was titled "Seeing Red" (wholesome
spoilery goodness) -- RichardX1,
18:10:17 05/07/02 Tue
Pray for Warren, because now he is prey for Willow. And
despite what it may mean for her soul, I say Bon
Appetit (and maybe she'll get a cool suit of black armor
like Anakin does ^_^).
As for Spike, well, now we know what he felt wasn't love.
I'm betting he'll get that chip out of his head before he
shows up again. Personally, I thought he was going to end
up striking a dechipping-for-vampirism trade with Warren
(like Warren's making good use of his soul as it is).
On a different note, does Joss completely deny the existence
of hope or what?
[>
Re: I guess now we know why it was titled "Seeing
Red" (wholesome spoilery goodness) -- maddog,
07:57:43 05/08/02 Wed
I'm with you on the Warren front...I know it's not good for
Willow but for that stunt he deserves whatever torture she
can muster up. As for Spike...that was dispicable...no
matter how bad he felt in the end.
[> [>
"how bad [Spike] felt..." -- RichardX1,
10:37:18 05/08/02 Wed
I don't know if Spike felt bad because of what he almost
did, or because it meant Buffy wouldn't want him
anymore.
Interesting, though. This past year Spike's almost had
himself convinced that he was a man, that a chip in his head
was just as good as a soul. But Spike isn't a man... he's a
demon (and I don't care what anyone says, vampires are some
of the purest demons there are--"pure" being defined as
"capacity for evil"). I don't know if he ever truly loved
Buffy so much as wanted to be loved by her; of course,
humans mistake the one for the other all the time.
Thoughts on the
opening credits (spoilers) -- The Last Jack, 18:16:43
05/07/02 Tue
Okay, the inclusion of Amber after 3 years could mean one of
two things: 1) Amber, who thought being included in the
opening credits would limit her outside acting prospects,
has finally decided she wants to be more into the show or 2)
This being her last episode, was kind of a tribute to all
the good work she has done for the show. Considering Willow
going nuts next week, I am guessing its Theory #2. Its a
shame, she had really grown on me, and I will hate to see
her go. Oh well, life is about change, and nothing stays the
same forever.
[>
Re: Thoughts on the opening credits (spoilers) --
Rob, 19:46:08 05/07/02 Tue
I would guess it's theory #2. I think it was a very fitting
tribute. Some may argue that it was a mean trick to play on
the audience, especially since, the episode before Willow
and Tara had finally reunited. But I don't see it that way
at all. Amber Benson has been a cherished, valued part of
the show for three years now, and has gone a long time
without having her name in the credits. She has been in
almost every episode of the past three seasons, and it was
high time she received credit for all of her great work.
This serves as a bon voyage and a thank you for creating one
of the most beloved characters in the show's history. If
Tara really is gone forever now, she will be sorely, sorely
missed.
Thank you, Amber Benson, for bringing such light and joy to
our television screens every week! I hope to be hearing a
great deal from you, career-wise, in the near future!
Rob :o)
[> [>
I personaly think it was just a mean trick... --
Mando, 20:37:08 05/07/02 Tue
Everything they've done in the past few episodes has been
designed to give a sort of false hope to all the fans of
Tara. I could accept any number of other tributes to her,
but putting her in the opening credits was just a cheap way
to raise the hopes of people who were really fans of the
character and who don't make a habit of reading spoilers or
figuring out who's coming and going from the show.
[>
Re: Thoughts on the opening credits (spoilers) --
sTalking Goat, 21:59:43 05/07/02 Tue
I'm seem to remember after reading the spoiler about her
death a few weeks back. reading an interveiw with marti
Noxon (i think) where she says that Anya isn't going
anywhere (this was just after Hells Bells) soon, and neither
is Tara for that matter.
[>
Re: Thoughts on the opening credits (spoilers) --
Claire, 04:41:03 05/08/02 Wed
Just a neat way of lulling fans into a false state of
security in order to make the kick in the guts that much
harder.
[>
Re: Thoughts on the opening credits (spoilers) --
maddog, 07:51:53 05/08/02 Wed
I was pissed...cause that's just wrong...making the fans
think she was a regular on the very episode they kill her.
Just not right. And I was beginning to realize that she was
the best actual character on the show. What gets me is that
with next year's theme of light hearted episodes(as Joss has
mentioned, no mark dark of dark like this year), how does
one console Willow after losing Tara?
Who spotted the
'Psycho' reference? -- Goji3, 18:35:07 05/07/02
Tue
it's a minor Homage, I admit, but it is still there.
Durring the Scene where Buffy is in the shower, and Spike
takes her down, she grabs the shower curtten and pulls on
it, teating it from the loops.
Not only is the shot a deadringer from 'Psycho', but it's
the same kind of Shower Curtten!!
That was a very purpousful homage, I think.
Anyone else catch it?
[>
Oh, Spoilers for 'Seeing Red' here (NT) -- Goji3,
18:38:13 05/07/02 Tue
[>
Another One (spoilers, but of course!) --
Rattletrap, 19:40:35 05/07/02 Tue
I missed the Psycho ref., but I caught another one that I'm
having trouble with, maybe one of our knowledgeable film
buffs can helt (mole, OnM, whoever else?): In the scene
where Dawn visits Spike's crypt, the camera is positioned
with Spike in the foreground, the door swings open with
Dawn's silhouette framed in the doorway far in the
background. This is a visual cliche that shows up in movies
and TV quite a bit so it may just be a case of monkey-see,
monkey-do, but I'd swear it dates back to one of the classic
noir flicks: Maltese Falcon or Sunset
Boulevard or something like that. Anybody know what the
reference is?
Hmmm . . . Dawn as a femme fatale, interesting
concept, that . . .
[> [>
Re: Another One (spoilers for Casablanca) --
matching mole, 08:10:41 05/08/02 Wed
Like you said - it is a standard/cliche image in film. I
have no idea when it was first used. My most vivid memory
of it is from Casablanca - when Ingrid Bergman returns to
Rick's Cafe in the day to talk to Bogart about why she left
him in Paris but I don't know if that was the original. I
tend to doubt it. Given that it doesn't require motion it
may pre-date film - an art history students out there?
[>
Re: Who spotted the product placement? --
d'Herblay, 22:10:45 05/07/02 Tue
I'm trying to adhere to Masq's suggestion that we not start
new threads for the trivial and repetitious, so I'm plopping
down here, shifting the discussion from film allusion to
commercial allusion, and hopefully ending up with a
discussion of cinematic technique.
A week or so ago we discussed the Verizon "Can you hear me
now?" commercials that had been filmed on the Angel
set and shown during Angel's timeslot. During
Xander's walk about town, he passes a Verizon phone booth,
so there's definitely some more consideration given.
(Question for Californians: does Verizon really have pay
phones? Or are they just putting little kiosks out so that
their cell phone customers can have some privacy while
making their calls?)
More interestingly, as Spike pulls out of town, his
motorcycle is clearly branded "AHAMAY." I have trouble
believing that ME would go to the trouble of reconfiguring
the motorcycle just to obscure the brand name, so I have
concluded that the shot was reversed during editing.
(Someone much more aware of the intricacies of James
Marsters's face may be able to confirm this for me. There
wouldn't be anyone on this board who's ever paid attention
to such details, would there?) Was the shot reversed just so
people wouldn't think they were advertising Yamahas (much as
the post-it note goes on and off Willow's PowerBook
depending on whether or not Apple is granting promotional
consideration that week)? Or was it done because people
leave town from left to right? Spike left town in "Becoming,
Pt. 2" from left to right, and I think in "Lovers' Walk" as
well. Is this a film convention?
[> [>
Re: Who spotted the product placement? -- Anneth,
23:32:01 05/07/02 Tue
And there are Verizon payphones in CA.
[> [> [>
Re: Who spotted the product placement? --
ravenhair, 14:27:40 05/08/02 Wed
I wouldn't mention it normally, but since you brought up
commercials...when Andrew tries to escape via jet pack but
hits his head on the overhang it reminded me of the Budget
Rent-A-Car commercial featuring a man trying to get home
from the airport via jet pack but gets tangled up in the
electrical wires above him. The marketing team obviously
has second thoughts about the campaign. I've only seen the
commercial once or twice -- hubby & I both mentioned it when
we saw Andrew. :-D
[> [>
I think yes. -- yuri, 00:16:40 05/08/02 Wed
(I don't know if you were seriously asking this or not, but
I'm giving an answer anyway.) It in fact is a cinematic
tactic for people, when they're moving "forward" in whatever
sense, to be moving left to right. It's how we (western
culture, mostly) visualise progression. We read from left to
right, we more often walk on the right side of the road so
cars and stuff look like they're going left to right. If
you're imitating a car speeding by with your hand, which way
do you move it? There are many examples.
This left to right movement is even more sensetive with
stairs.
__
!!!!__
!!!!!!!!__
!!!!!!!!!!!!__
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
....................__
...............__!!!!
..........__!!!!!!!!
.....__!!!!!!!!!!!!
__!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Which stairs are going up and which stairs are going
down?
[> [> [>
Thank you! One question . . . -- d'Herblay,
01:26:29 05/08/02 Wed
I've been meaning to get out to the Cinamatique to take in
one or another of the crop of fine Iranian films, but I tend
to just go to Blockbuster instead. I'm not sure these movies
(or any filmed in Arabic, Hebrew, or any other language
which reads right-to-left) contain a car, a motorcycle, or
forward progression, but if they did, would it be filmed
moving right-to-left?
[> [> [> [>
Re: Thank you! One question . . . -- yuri,
01:53:55 05/08/02 Wed
See, in theory, yes, but unfortunately I don't have the sort
of memory that can help me out with some proof. Oh - I can
think of one Jewish short I saw once that followed a kid on
a bike and I do believe it was right to left. I wouldn't be
too suprised if it didn't hold up, though, it may be more a
result of many combined cultural actions.
and as an aside - where the heck are you? I though you were
an east coaster, but it's 1:53 here in CA (my excuse is my
biological clock, teenager and all) and that would make it
3:53 there... Have I miscalculated your location or are you
just an extremely late night person?
[> [> [> [> [>
Both -- d'Herblay, 11:26:43 05/08/02 Wed
I'm in Cleveland, currently on Eastern Daylight Time, so
when it's 1:53 AM in San Francisco, it's 4:53 AM here. My
biological clock refuses to grow up.
[> [>
It was reversed (judging from Marsters Facial
Intricacies...) -- SomeoneMuchMoreAware, 00:33:09
05/08/02 Wed
... either that, or he had his brow scar transplanted....
let ya know when I find out for sure... :)
[> [> [>
Oh, yeah, that would be the litmus test . . . --
d'Herblay, 01:28:54 05/08/02 Wed
Ok, I forgot all about the scar. I was trying to remember in
which hand he typically holds the cigarette.
[> [> [> [>
he's a south paw & usually holds it with his left -
- SMMA, 09:08:26 05/08/02 Wed
[> [> [> [>
Re: Oh, yeah, that would be the litmus test . . . -
- Slayrunt, 20:44:20 05/08/02 Wed
and the throttle on the bike was on the wrong side.
[>
Re: Who spotted the 'Psycho' reference? -- Anneth,
23:29:14 05/07/02 Tue
Actually, the first time I watched Smashed, I got little
Hitchcockian chills during the fight/love-scene... the
bluish tints, the physical blows being matched by verbal
ones, the metaphores, the repetitive music, etc. And
certainly, there are some parallels between relationships in
Hitchcock films (like Marnie, North by Northwest, To Catch a
Thief) and the B/S interactions.
[>
Seemed to me more cliche than homage -- neaux,
04:46:45 05/08/02 Wed
[> [>
Re: Seemed to me more cliche than homage -- OnM,
09:17:06 05/08/02 Wed
It is an homage, but IMO the point is that Janet Leigh's
character didn't survive the shower/murder scene, and Buffy
emphatically did. Also, Norman Bates was psychotic, what
about Spike? I could see either direct parallels to Bates
(Norman, his equally psychotic mother / Spike, Drusilla) or
opposites (Spike successfully rejects Drusilla in favor of
Buffy).
These little (or not so little) twists are fully in keeping
with ME's ongoing desire to tweak convention, so it's
'homage++'.
[> [> [>
On the other hand -- CW, 10:32:34 05/08/02
Wed
On the DVD for the Arnold Schwartzeneger film 'End of Days,'
the director as much as admits its a fairly standard thing
to put a woman in a bathrobe, right before an attack so that
she will look even more vulnerable. What better place to
put a woman in a bathrobe than next to the shower/ bathub.
And when things go bad, what can she grab at to try to keep
from falling or to try get leverage besides all that
porcelain? The shower curtain. It's only an homage if the
writer and director think it is. And even then it does mean
the rest of us can't see it as a cliche.
[> [> [> [>
It's a fine line, that's for sure. Mostly a matter of
intent, as you noted. -- OnM, 20:32:31 05/08/02
Wed
Restless and
Seeing Red : anyone else see the references? --
shadowkat, 19:06:52 05/07/02 Tue
I just rewatched a few scenes from Restless to see
if I was right about the references I saw in Seeing Red.
Here they are:
1. Willow's dream - Willow opens the curtain with Tara
lying on the bed, the light misses Willow and bathes
Tara. Willow says there's something out there. She also says
she doesn't want to leave. (Remember the amount of
time Willow and Tara are in bed together in SR? And
Tara gets it by the window, not long after they made love
and got dressed?)
2. Xander and Buffy in the Backyard, bathed in light.
In Xander's dream he tells Buffy who's bathed in light
sitting in a sandbox - that there's some stuff she can't
protect herself from...(Buffy is shot in her backyard,
bathed in light)
3. The scene in the bathroom - Spike goes after Buffy in
almost the same way as the first slayer at the very end of
Buffy's dream. In the last scene of Buffy's dream she is on
the rug on her stomach, the first slayer turns her over,
Buffy at first tries to get away then she tells the
first
slayer who is stabbing her repeatedly in the crotch -"Go
away, it's over. You're not the source of me. Get over the
whole primal power thing." It's Buffy's last rejection
of
the hands in her dream. After the dream she goes upstairs
and here's Tara's words spiritually in her head "you don't
know who you are..." Spike leaves after this scene, his
conscience ripping at him, he literally leaves town,
Buffy
is clearly weaker in this epsiode and is shot after he
leaves.
4. The Carnival - Buffy fights the Trioka at an amusement
park reminiscent of Gile's dream. Giles goes into what
appears to be Spike's crypt - he says "I always said she
should have killed you" and Spike does cruxfixion pose -
made me think of their conversation in the bathroom where
Spike says "you should have let him kill me". Spike also
says Rupert should make up his mind - this can also refer to
Spike in his crypt pacing. The crypt in the dream reminds me
of the amusement park cave.
Oh and I think someone has already mentioned all the gnomes
in front of the entrance of cave or crypt.
Am I reading too much into this?
[>
Re: Restless and Seeing Red : anyone else see the
references? -- LadyStarlight, 19:41:42 05/07/02
Tue
I also thought of Restless as soon as I saw the opening
scene.
I didn't pick up on the others, but now that you mention it,
I see the parallels.
And here I thought Normal Again would be this season's
Restless. ;)
[>
"Am I reading too much into this?" Not
possible... -- redcat, 21:25:15 05/07/02 Tue
[>
Seeing Red and Dead Things? -- Ixchel, 22:21:30
05/07/02 Tue
Interesting ideas about Seeing Red and Restless.
I'm wondering if we're supposed to see parallels with Dead
Things or is it just that they're both by SDK?
The scene between Spike and Clem (SR) seems somewhat similar
to the Buffy and Tara scene (end DT).
Buffy to Tara: Why do I feel like this?
Spike to Clem: Why do I feel this way?
I'm wondering if this was intentional?
Ixchel
[> [>
Re: "Seeing Red" and "The
Gift"? -- d'Herblay, 22:45:23 05/07/02 Tue
One more intertextuality:
"I know that I'm a monster. But you treat me like a man. And
that's . . . " --Spike, "The Gift"
"It won't let me be a monster . . . and I can't be a man.
I'm nothing." --Spike, "Seeing Red"
[> [>
Re: Seeing Red and Dead Things? -- Doriander,
22:53:03 05/07/02 Tue
I suppose so.
Also, Buffy realizing she's gone too far beating up Spike.
Spike realizing he's gone too far forcing himself on Buffy.
Note in DT Spike urged Buffy on, in SR Buffy pleaded for
Spike to stop. "You always hurt the one you love." Spike
certainly did this time.
Other references to old eps:
"Ain't love grand."
"Love's a funny thing."
[> [> [>
Re: Seeing Red and Dead Things? -- ravenhair,
14:51:15 05/08/02 Wed
From DT:
Warren to Andrew & Jonathan regarding Katrina -
"You can play with her all you want...after I'm done with
her."
From SR:
Warren to Andrew & Jonathan regarding the orbs -
"You can play with them all you want...after I'm done with
them."
[> [> [> [>
SR revised quote -- ravenhair, 15:00:43 05/08/02
Wed
SR: "Relax. You'll each get a whirl, as soon as I'm done
playing with them."
[> [>
It certainly feels intentional. -- Tar, 23:43:54
05/07/02 Tue
Buffy has always believed that she walks in the light with
the Good. Yet in DT, she beat Spike to a bloody pulp. She
was filled with remorse, but probably was able to write it
off as another side effect of her return, like Spike being
able to hit her without pain.
Tara's revelation took that away from her. Her pain isn't
just that her sleeping with Spike had nothing to do with
coming back wrong. She was also faced with the horrifying
truth that her dark side, her Spike side, has always been
there. No wonder she begs Tara to not forgive her. She
can't forgive herself.
In SR, Spike attempts to rape Buffy. He is stopped and is
filled with remorse as well. His quandary is different
though, being the other side of the coin. He attributes
his remorse to the chip. Spike believes he walks in the
dark, or would without the chip. But I think the parallel
is that just as Buffy was faced with her darkness, Spike was
faced with his light side, his Buffy side. Buffy got that
after talking to Tara. Spike didn't have the same
revelation when he talked with Clem, but I believe he will
soon.
There are other parallels as well. In the alley scene and
bathroom scene, Buffy and Spike's actions mirror each other.
Spike doesn't even try to stop Buffy from pulverizing him
even though we know he could fight back. Until Buffy slams
Spike into the wall, she doesn't fight back. Sure, it was
scary, but this is the Buffyverse, and we know Buffy can
kick Spike's ass from here to Tuesday usually. So why the
parallels in their behavior?
This is deliberate. Two people who believe they are on
opposite sides of the spectum, the Light and the Dark, but
in actuality, are much more alike than even they realize.
Growing up includes accepting all facets of yourself and
hopefully, finding a happy medium. It seems like Buffy and
Spike are on that road.
[> [> [>
Re: It certainly feels intentional. -- Traveler,
08:59:22 05/08/02 Wed
Growing up includes accepting all facets of yourself and
hopefully, finding a happy medium. It seems like Buffy and
Spike are on that road.
I think that remains to be seen. Both seem to be actively
denying their other half now.
[>
Re: Restless and Seeing Red : anyone else see the
references? -- ravenhair, 14:41:54 05/08/02 Wed
Just when I think I've seen everything worth noting in
Restless, something else comes along -- I must see those
gnomes! Good catch on the parallels, shadowkat!
[>
Re: Restless and Seeing Red : anyone else see the
references? -- Ronia, 16:10:26 05/08/02 Wed
First let me tell you how much I enjoy your
posts/essays. You can't make them too long with that
insight and flair. I can almost tie anything into restless
as it is so far my favorite by leaps and bounds. The only
possible connection that I don't see here is the fact that
in restless we are in fact seeing red...red all over the
place. There was a sale on red at the prop store, which I
think you may have mentioned in one of your essays. Whadya
think?
I think we have
a magic bullet on our hands, (Major Spoilers for Seeing
Red) -- Wolfhowl3,
20:03:56 05/07/02 Tue
Okay, we have Buffy and Xander standing outside the house,
Being overlooked my Willow and Tara in the Master Bed Room
upstairs.
Warren enteres the Backyard, and is standing between the
Bench that Buffy and Xander are at, and the house it's self,
and Fires 4 or 5 shots at Buffy. Now it looks like Buffy
was hit by 1 bullet at least.
Now somehow, one Shot does a U-Turn and flies in the Bedroom
window (both Upstairs and Behind Warren), and hits Tara
right though the Heart, (or so it appears to me). What I
would like to know, is does Buffy's Backyard have a Grassy
Gnole, because there is no way that Warren would be able to
Shot Tara from where he was standing.
Wolfhowl
[>
Watch more closely -- Mando, 20:19:13 05/07/02
Tue
If you watch the shot again, it makes sense, granted he
would have to have some terrible aim and shoot up, but the
house is not behind Warren when he shoots.
[> [>
Re: Watch more closely -- Ronia, 15:37:58
05/08/02 Wed
Can someone who was able to tape tell me if he was
shooting towards the house or parallel to it? To me it
looked like parallel. But I couldn't tell for sure. Did he
get his hands on some smart bullets? Heat seeking?
[>
No Gnolly Goodness -- lurker, 20:21:16 05/07/02
Tue
If you watch again, you'll notice that as Warren begins to
run away his gun discharges towards the house.
[>
Re: I think we have a magic bullet on our hands, (Major
Spoilers for Seeing Red) -- Robert, 20:53:06 05/07/02
Tue
>> "... because there is no way that Warren would be able
to Shot Tara from where he was standing."
Do you think the house was built with armor plated drywall?
The bullet did not need to enter the house through the
window.
[> [>
allow me to nitpick(Major Spoilers for Seeing Red)
-- sTalking Goat, 21:53:16 05/07/02 Tue
Yes, the bullet did not come though the window, it probably
came through the wall below it.
But the splatter pattern on Willow's shirt kinda confuses
the matter. The exit wound is over Tara's heart and the
bullet hit her at an upward angle, so the splatter should
have hit Willow in the face. Obviously having it hit her
white shirt is a little more dramatic and AH probably didn't
want fake blood in her eye anyway.
And speaking of which, I don't watch much network TV, but
this was just a bit greusome wasn't it? Even on basic cable
cop shows (I'm referring to The Shield basically...) they
don't usually show bullet wounds and if they do they don't
usually show so much blood (Buffy's wound was gushing). I
keep trying to think what this scene what would have looked
like if they were still on WB.
[> [> [>
not gruesome on the WB?! (spoilers for Forgiving) -
- lulabel, 22:59:43 05/07/02 Tue
You must not have seen the decapitated head being waved
around on the Angel episode "Forgiving" - the flashback
scene in which Sahjhan's race was still corporeal and rather
violent.
[> [> [>
Re: allow me to nitpick(Major Spoilers for Seeing
Red) -- maddog, 08:20:53 05/08/02 Wed
Much calmer to say the least...UPN's been letting them get
away with a lot more sexually(I can also see the almost rape
seen as a lot calmer on the WB too) so this would have been
much tamer too. Probably just Tara slumped to the floor
with Willow holding her and crying.
[> [>
Well, that would solve my problem -- d'Herblay,
21:55:42 05/07/02 Tue
I had no problem with Warren having hit the window: his last
shot was clearly wild and aimed upwards. What I did have a
problem with was the trajectory that bullet must have taken.
It appears to me that Tara was standing about six feet from
the window. The bullet broke the glass about two and a half
feet above the floor. It exited Tara's shoulder about four
and a half feet above the floor. I wouldn't be able to draw
a parabola without digging around for my Halliday and
Resnick, but that trajectory seemed awfully flat to me.
(Unless Buffy's backyard is much larger than most fry
cooks can afford.) So, ok, Warren fired two wild
shots toward the house, one breaking the window and
embedding itself somewhere in the bedroom ceiling, and the
other entering through the wall and perforating Tara. I can
accept that. I can't match it to what I saw on the tape, but
I can accept it.
[> [> [>
Ricochets -- Cleanthes,
06:32:32 05/08/02 Wed
I once read a good little short story where the cliches of
the movies continually bite the characters. At one point,
the bad guys, dragging hostages, come to a padlocked chain-
link fence. As in every movie, they shot the padlock. Hey,
bingo, one of the bad guys falls dead, killed by a hunk of
padlock.
As a child, my cousin and I would lie in wait at one of two
exit holes from the corn crib as my uncle cleaned it out.
When a rat ran out, we'd try to peg it with a 22. I missed
every time. My cousin shot a few. I DID hit the fence
well away from the crib, naturally hitting the hinge on the
gate which went flying wildly to break the windshield on the
tractor parked well off to one side -- my uncle not being
totally stupid when it comes to adolescents and guns had not
left it in the line of sight!
Oh, for the animal lovers on this board - the other exit
hole from the crib was guarded by my cousin's terrior. That
dog did not let a single rat escape. The cats on the farm
ate well that week.
[> [> [>
the Summers' back yard -- matching mole,
08:31:48 05/08/02 Wed
O.K. this may reveal me to be utterly shallow and heartless
but during the horrific last scene of Seeing Red the
following thought sequence was bouncing around in the back
of my mind.
Boy Buffy has a nice big back yard (or garden for those of
you from across the Atlantic).
When does she find the time to take care of it - she
certainly can't afford to hire a gardener?
The vegetation looks awfully lush for southern California -
she must use a lot of water -our Slayer's no conservationist
I guess.
[> [>
Re: I think we have a magic bullet on our hands, (Major
Spoilers for Seeing Red) -- Wolfhowl3, 02:50:34
05/08/02 Wed
You are right, the bullet didn't need to go through the
window, but it did, you see the hole it left in the Glass,
and you hear the breaking glass.
And the Angle between the hole in the glass, and the wound
in Tara's Chest is not one that Warren would have been able
to make from Downstairs on the lawn.
Wolfie
[>
Re: I think we have a magic bullet on our hands, (Major
Spoilers for Seeing Red) -- sanjerine, 12:12:44
05/08/02 Wed
Not sure if somebody's done this parallel anywhere else,
but, here goes. It might just *be* a magic bullet.
Certainly the same bullet that was meant for Buffy has to
hit Tara, in terms of drama and karma. Willow bargained a
life for a life back in "Bargaining". Did anybody seriously
think that baby deer was gonna do it?
And in case you missed it, that's also why we have the blood
all over Willow's white shirt -- white that she hasn't worn
since "Bargaining," when we *never saw* the blood she spilt
from the deer (well, not until the ritual).
Moreover, the blood of the resurrection ritual was called
Vino de Madre -- and who has been the Goddess'
representative (and the Scoobs' substitute mother) all
season?
There're resonances all over; it's one of the better things
they've done this season. The way Tara explains that Willow
will be tested during the resurrection spell, and that it's
all right. The way Tara stood in for Buffy with Dawn, for
example. Lots of connections.
Good stuff. So yeah, when the evil they've underestimated
(Warren) suddenly comes packing a very mundane and
underestimated threat (gun), and shoots the Warrior of the
People, karma bounces the bullet and sheds the Wine (Blood)
of the Mother instead.
I expect they'll probably spell this out a bit next week,
and we can see how wrong I am. But as much as I'm beside
myself over Tara's loss, I love the elegance of the
narrative, and I ache for Willow now, because I think she's
really going to realize what she's done.
--Sanjerine
[>
Re: I think we have a magic bullet on our hands, (Major
Spoilers for Seeing Red) -- Simon A., 16:45:24
05/08/02 Wed
Of course magic bullets don't explain Tara's X-ray vision.
She was ~6' from a high silled window and yet she could look
down and see Xander in the garden.
Spike's Future
(spoilers!) -- Purple Tulip, 20:40:25 05/07/02
Tue
Hi all! Just got done watching "Seeing Red" and I have to
say that I was very upset and disturbed by what happened
between Buffy and Spike. I mean, I knew it was coming, I
read the spoilers- but still, it was very odd to watch. I
am still one of those die hard Spuffy fans who want so much
to believe that Spike is good and that he really does love
Buffy. So, my question to all of you is, what do you think
will happen to Spike next year? I mean, there are various
things that could happen: he could get the chip out, regain
his soul, be evil again, become William again, etc. So I
just want to know what all of you think :)
[>
Re: Spike's Future (spoilers!) -- Cactus Watcher,
20:57:43 05/07/02 Tue
I didn't know what was coming, but I can't really say I was
surprised by Spike's attack on Buffy. It was the way they
always had sex. They attacked each other. This was why
Buffy was so disgusted with herself over it. The difference
this time Buffy was nearly helpless with pain before it
started. This time it wasn't shared and it certainly was
attempted rape. The amazing thing was that after it was
over and Spike had gone back to his crypt, he felt genuine
remorse over what he'd done. What could the chip possibly
have to do with him feeling remorse?
[> [>
Re: Spike's Future (spoilers!) -- JBone,
21:15:43 05/07/02 Tue
It's late, and my mind is a wee bit mushy at the moment.
But my theory is that Spike will find someway to get rid of
his brain chip. What all that leads to, I don't know.
Other than Spike's lease is off. And there are those that
know what Spike would do at any given moment all over the
web better than I. I just don't want any god damn spoilers.
Take those anywhere else, just not here.
[> [>
Re: Spike's Future (spoilers!) -- Doriander,
21:27:23 05/07/02 Tue
I think this is typical Spike blaming the chip. He can't
handle remorse. During the commercial break, Warren's words
kept echoing in my head. Remember when Spike took the fett
hostage?
WARREN: You don't wanna hurt the Fett, 'cause man, you're
*not* comin' back from that. You know, you don't just do
that and walk away.
He felt remorse because this is not some alley girl this
time, he was lucky then. This is the girl to whom he
professed just a day ago he would NEVER hurt. He got his
unlife revolving almost entirely on her for the last year or
so, even got himself tortured to death because he didn't
want to any hurt to come to her. Prior to his attempted
rape, Buffy said she didn't trust him enough to love him.
Well he blew it. Whatever trust there is left is surely
gone. I don't think this Spike would be one Buffy would ever
trust to watch over Dawn.
I don't see Spike coming back into the Scoobie fold. I don't
see any of the Scoobs forgiving him if they find out (at
this point only Xander knows). Tell you what though, I'm
thrilled to find out what this new incarnation of Spike will
be like. And if he still feels remorse after he gets that
chip out, I'm curious as to how he'd react. Will he start
blaming it entirely on Buffy (not that there's anything new
in that) or will he, er, grow up? Look into himself for
once.
[> [> [>
Re: Spike's Future (spoilers!) -- StALKING gOAT,
22:23:38 05/07/02 Tue
Frankly only two thing would seriously annoy me
1. We get pre-chip Spike back
2. We get a tortured, brooding Angel-esque Spike.
anything else I think I could handle, even poetry reading
William.
[> [>
But he then fell into the Demona trap ... -- Earl Allison,
02:05:38 05/08/02 Wed
Spike STARTED OUT all right, feling remorse over his
actions, but quickly decided that it was anyone's fault but
his, the chip's, or Buffy's, but not his.
It reminded me a LOT of Demona, from Disney's much-missed
animated series, "Gargoyles."
One of the main "villains," and I use the term loosely
because no one was a true comic-book villain in the series,
is Demona, a female gargoyle cursed with immortality and
with a penchant for blaming humanity for all her
troubles.
Anyway, at one point, she almost, ALMOST sees her faults,
saying something along the lines of ...
"What have I ... what have THEY done?"
So close, and yet again, Demona found a way to blame
humanity instead of herself -- just like Spike did last
night. All he did finally was blame the chip, for not
letting him be a monster, and him not being a man.
Ah, so close ...
Take it and run.
[> [>
Re: Spike's Future (spoilers!) -- maddog,
08:35:25 05/08/02 Wed
I think that's the point...the chip's just a catalyst...he
genuinely cares for Buffy now. And I know the almost rape
isn't a great indication, but I think that's built up
vampire vengence. I think down deep he really does care.
So the remorse I expected...the graphic nature of the
incident I didn't(though I probably should have knowing how
lenient UPN has been).
[> [>
Remorse? Really? It went from remorse very quickly to
blaming the chip. -- Goji3, 12:19:48 05/08/02 Wed
[>
Re: Spike's Future (spoilers!) -- Robert,
23:10:53 05/07/02 Tue
I'm still looking for a dusty ending.
[>
Re: Spike's Future (spoilers!) -- shadowkat,
06:54:16 05/08/02 Wed
Actually that scene didn't bother me as much as I expected.
Don't get me wrong - it was intense. But what interested me
most about it was the dialogue, facial expressions and
conversations before and after it, and between Buffy
and Spike, Spike and Dawn, Spike and himself, and Spike
and Clem.
Also when I compared it to scenes I'd recently seen in
Harsh Light of Day, The Initiative, Out of My Mind, and
of course the faith raping of Xander in Consequences
and Xander trying to rape Buffy in The PAck - I realized for
the first time we saw actual remorse on the face of a
character after a desperate violent act.
Spike couldn't stop torturing himself with it. He
literally
broke his glass thinking about it. And his facial expression
was one of horror and pain and confusion. Just
like it was in the bathroom after she knocks him across
the room and says, "ask me again why I can't love you?"
He attempts to say - "he would have stopped" he looks so
horrified.
This character has been going insane for quite awhile. He's
a vampire who appears to be developing a conscience and
he
can't understand it. "Crawling, squirming, in my head"
clutches his head "all jiminy crickety".."why do I feel
this.."
When he tries it - he is trying to recreate their scene
in
Smashed and Wrecked...but it fails. The Writers have
cleverly put us in multiple points of view - for the first
time in quite a while. I saw it from Buffy's and Spike's
and
it was tough to watch. He didn't want to hurt her - he just
wanted her to show feeling for him, to prove to them both
she wanted him as much as he wanted her - to get some
demonstration of the feeling Dawn told him about. His line
before it happens is telling - "Trust is for
puppies,real
love is wild, passionate and dangerous." That's what he
believes. He's a romantic and a demon. Yet- he hurt her in
the worst way he could without biting her. It struck me
as extraordinarily interesting that he didn't attempt
it.
He is the only vampire she's been with that hasn't.
By doing it, Spike proved irrevocably to her and himself why
she couldn't be with him why she could never trust him.
After she pushes
him off - he tries to apologize, tries to say he wouldn't
have gone through with it but she says yes he would have
if
she hadn't stopped him.
The fact he went there at all after Dawn visited him,
surprised and interested me. For two reasons - it reasserted
the connection between him and Dawn. The very fact Dawn
dropped by demonstrated that. He apologizes to Buffy - in
that bathroom for what he did with Anya - he even tells
her
why. He also tells Dawn. I couldn't imagine him doing that
before. He is confused - going off the rails. Unfocused. A
bit like Pinnochio. In fact if you were hunting Pinnochio
references - they are really apparent in this episode.
He even goes so far as to call the chip "jiminy
cricket".
What I also found interesting was the use of Warren and
the Trioka. Notice who almost kills Buffy, Xander and
actually does kill Tara? Not Spike. Warren. Warren tells
Buffy in their scene - "you finally get to fight a real
man" - a "man with a soul". Warren is the monster she fought
way back in Season 3's Beauty and the Beasts - the
high school student who used Science to become a
monster.
Except Warren doesn't need Science when he has a gun.
ME is hammering us over the head with a very ironic
point - "everything you thought you knew about
Buffyverse
is wrong! Everything you were taught in that nice safe
little reality of black and white where the good guys are
stalwart and true and the bad guys have no soul - was
wrong!" Warren is worse than any villain Buffy has
fought.
He's the one who will walk up to her and blow her head off
with a gun - from a distance. A soul doesn't make you
good.
It doesn't make you safe. There are no guarantees. It's what
you do with the soul, with what you have that's important. A
theme reiterated this season in Angel.
I think Spike is coming back human. I think he left to
get rid of his chip and become the monster he once was.
But the chip is no longer relevant, any more than jiminy
cricket was for Pinnochio after a certain point or the
conditioning was for Alex in the British version of
A Clockwork Orange. Spike has moved past that old
version
of himself. He can't go back. He just doesn't know it
yet.
Anya is discovering the same thing - she keeps trying to be
a vengeance demon but she can't go back either. She's
just
beginning to discover that. They both wish they could -
it
was easier. But remember what the Mayor said at the end of
Graduation Day Part II? It's not just the journey that's
important, it's the things that happen to you along the way,
you will be forever changed by them and ascend to another
level. You can never go back to high school or
adolescence...no matter how much you might want to - that
was proven way back in Season 1, episode 3 Witch when
Catherine Madison
attempted it.
Sorry for the ramble hope it made sense. SR just got me
so excited - I realized that I hadn't overestimated the
writers after all.
[> [>
Re: Spike's Future (spoilers!) -- ravenhair,
16:18:40 05/08/02 Wed
I agree, shadowkat, SR was wonderful drama.
I thought the most disturbing character throughout the
episode was Warren. He is consumed by greed, power, and
vengeance. Andrew & Jonathon's behavior was unacceptable as
well: Jonathan, in a moment of weakness, greedily reaches
for the orbs (what would he have done if he succeeded?) and
Andrew who has put Warren on a pedestal cheers for the
Slayer's death. Being humans, there is no excuse for their
crimes; whereas, Spike is supposed to relish in evil but
can't understand why he couldn't hurt Buffy. He questions
Clem's opinion that what the vampire feels is love - Spike
has loved before. The unfamiliar feeling is actually guilt
and it's proven unbearable, breaking the glass and
eventually leaving town in search for change.
I didn't catch the jiminy cricket reference. I'll have to
go back and watch or read Pinocchio again. Wasn't Pinocchio
swallowed by a whale? Did anyone see the whale & heart
shaped designs on the iron trellis?
Line of the Week contender:
Clem - "Hey, c'mon mister negative. You never know what's
just around the corner. Things change."
I'm more certain than ever Spike is on a path to
redemption!
[>
Re: Spike's Future (spoilers!) -- Valhalla,
20:22:41 05/08/02 Wed
Whatever Spike's future is, it won't be what he's hoping
for. At the end he takes off to get the chip out and return
to his former self. To step out of the Buffyverse for a
minute, ME's character rarely get what they think they want.
Either they get a variation on the careful what you wish for
theme, or they get what they want, but it's quickly
destroyed by some external event or force. (big example:
Willow gets Tara back, only to lose her!).
My guess is that Spike will get the first alternative; he'll
lose the chip and find that it changes nothing about his
feelings for Buffy, or the remorse he feels over the
bathroom scene.
Back in the Buffyverse, I'm pulling for his redemption (I
just love the redemption storylines! I'm even pulling for
Jonathan!), but I don't think it's going to happen. Spike
has changed much since he started loving Buffy, but the
changes all relate to his relationship with her. I'm not
arguing that all his good deeds are simply cynical attempts
to win Buffy's love (much debated on this board), but that
his protectiveness of Buffy, Dawn, and helping out the other
Scoobies (even when Buffy was dead) were because his feeling
toward Buffy changed. His loyalty and protectiveness to
Buffy et al are consistent with his character pre-Buffylove;
he was the same way with Dru. Buffy loves and takes care of
Dawn, so Spike does; Buffy fights to protect (and often
save) her friends, so Spike does too. He cares about what
Buffy cares about because he cares about Buffy.
But he hasn't really been on a redemption path with the chip
and with his love for Buffy, so I don't see that anything's
happened to make him start now. Not even the SR bathroom
scene; Spike clearly felt horrible when he realized what
he'd done, but between doing something desperate to make up
for it and doing something desperate to rid himself of his
feelings, he choose the getting rid of option.
Fiction Update:
Leashing the Beast -- Nos, 21:34:28 05/07/02 Tue
It took me a week, but I have recovered from the post
'seeing SR writing slum shock'. *morns the unspoiled* Hope
you enjoy...
Leashing the Beast, by Nos
Summary: In response to my own challenge *heh*, found on
Crumbling Walls.
The Nerdy Three find out what Spike's chip does and
formulate a plan to kill
the Slayer.
Rating: R for violence
http://www.fanfiction.net/read.php?storyid=602842
Please read-
parents especially (Spoilers for the first three minutes of
Seeing Red) -- MayaPapaya9, 21:43:46 05/07/02 Tue
I know this has been (sort of) discussed in earlier posts,
but I just had to bring up the unfortunate circumstances
surrounding my attempted viewing of Seeing Red. First of
all, for those of you who don't already know, I'm 16, living
at home with two parents who mostly practice salutary
neglect in every area except my grades and, well, the
cleanliness of my room. They love me very much of course,
but are a bit paranoid.
So it's 8:03, and I'm going downstairs to get a glass of
water before I turn on Buffy on my upstairs TV, when my mom
yells from the living room, "MAYA get down here!" I run
down, scared that she's somehow discovered that I blew off
4th and 5th periods today, to see on our downstairs big
screen TV Willow and Tara covered only in bedsheets having
some discussion about Spike and Buffy. My mother says
something to the effect of, "What the hell is this? Is this
what you've been watching? I didn't know Buffy was like
this!" I get the sinking feeling that I won't be watching
any Buffy tonight.
By about 8:15, my parents and I are in their bedroom having
a "serious talk." They fear, somewhat homophobically, that
by watching two females in bed together, that I will
gradually grow to "accept" that situation as normal and
right, and that I may one day feel that it is normal and
right FOR ME, and therefore become a lesbian which my mother
is terrified of. I find this argument ludicrous because I
am 100% convinced that I like guys. It's inconceivable to
NOT like guys. Heterosexuality is part of who I am.
However, I DO accept that homosexuality is normal and right
FOR OTHER PEOPLE.
In fact, I was myself fairly homophobic before Willow's gay
arc played out in the fourth season. I listened to a lot of
Eminem, and I said things like, "That's so gay!" and I
absolutely HATED Willow and Tara at first. The point is, I
gradually learned to become more accepting, and now I love
Tara and Willow. I've learned, because of this show, that's
it's all just people loving each other in different ways.
My parents are not homophobic either, they would gladly have
a gay person over for dinner, but they are just scared of
having a gay daughter. Which, for heaven's sake, is not
even going to happen!
It took about half an hour to make them understand this
opinion. My parents are reasonable people and they
understand how much the show means to me, I've been watching
it since 7th grade. But at the same time, I understand
their arguments too. As parents, they have to draw the line
somewhere for what is and is not appropriate for their
children to watch. I have to wonder if I would let my own
children watch Buffy. But then again, I refuse to give up
that show. While the rest of my world is a whirl of AP
tests, grades, SAT's, boy problems, flaky friends, etc etc,
Buffy is my sanity. I love that show to death. I refuse to
accept that I can't ever have it again.
Here's where you guys come in. Since everyone here is so
incredibly intelligent and understands the value I place on
the show, I want to know, especially from other parents,
what could be a sensible compromise that would satisfy both
my worried parents and myself? I don't want to have to
resort to the childish (but practical) technique of
smuggling in tapes donated by my generous friends. I'd
rather that this was resolved honestly. Thanks so much for
taking the time to read this, it's a bit lengthier than
anything I usually post here, but I really need some help.
-Maya
P.S. I'm also spoiler free so no spoilers for Seeing Red or
anything beyond what I've mentioned above please! Thanks
ever so much!
[>
Do whatever your parents want you to do; 2 or 3 years
is nothing, especially for a tv show -- JBone,
22:01:14 05/07/02 Tue
you have more than plenty of time to figure whatever out
[>
It times like this I'm glad I got the whole teenage
thing over and done with. -- sTalking Goat, 22:06:08
05/07/02 Tue
*sigh* Its good to be 20
[> [>
Re: It times like this I'm glad I got the whole teenage
thing over and done with. -- maddog, 13:59:56
05/08/02 Wed
It's even better to be 24. :)
But I do remember back in the early 90's when I first
started watching 90210(please....no wisecracks). After
watching it for a few weeks my mom decided to see what I was
watching and it happened to be the episode Brenda thought
she had a tumor in her breast. At the time I wasn't more
than 12 or so...maybe 13. Needless to say she wasn't too
thrilled. But parents get over it.
[>
That's a tough one -- lulabel, 22:23:44 05/07/02
Tue
I've got very young kids, so it's a little hard for me to
translate your experience. I personally am very careful
about letting my kids see violence on TV (or I should say
NOT seeing violence on TV) I don't have any particular
squeamishness about my kids seeing sexuality, as long as
it's about love and/or mutual respect. I guess in that
respect, I'd be worried about my kids viewing the
Buffy/Spike sex scenes, but not the Tara/Willow scenes.
If it's just the homosexual stuff that gets your parents
upset, perhaps some education/information might help out. I
think there have been some studies which indicate that
children who grow up in gay households (one or more parents
are gay) are no more likely to become gay than children from
"average" households. Perhaps someone on this board who is
familiar with the topic can point you in the direction of a
magazine article which you can share with your parents.
[> [>
thoughts -- a lurker, 22:43:54 05/07/02 Tue
Well, I have a couple of thoughts on this.
First, if your parents are concerned about the show, ask
them to watch it with you and then discuss with them the
issues they feel uncomfortable with. This is the best
option, IMO, but if they are ultraconservative or otherwise
unwilling to deal with the show, this may only lead to them
making an outright ban.
Of course, it'd be silly of them to pass judgment on a show
having only seen 3 minutes of it. They need to watch it in
order to form a clear understanding of what merits the show
possesses.
Second, if they're really worried about you experimenting
with lesbianism, they're offbase in banning exposure to it
through television. If you really wanted to know about
lesbianism, you're gonna find out about it one way or
another, be it through TV or otherwise. I imagine that
they'd rather you learn about a lesbian couple on censored
television than through pornography or experimentation.
[>
You could do what seemingly 65% of the heterosexual
women on this board do . . . -- d'Herblay, 22:34:25
05/07/02 Tue
. . . and just audibly sigh whenever James Marsters is on
screen. A little drool probably wouldn't hurt your case.
Seriously, be open and honest with your parents; tell them
why you love Buffy, what it means to you. Tell them
what you've told us, how watching a loving lesbian
relationship has made you more accepting and open to the
behavior of others, but that no more means that
you'll change something as intrinsic as sexual orientation
than it means that you'll develop this overwhelming urge to
walk around graveyards at night.
(If they scoff at the idea that watching Buffy can be
a valuable experience, have them check out this board. I
think there are probably some posters here who have seen the
Willow/Tara relationship develop without becoming gay.)
**Seeing Red spoiler follows, highlight to view:
I must confess that I expected this thread
to be about the shocking pattern of crimson across Willow's
blouse. I don't know how parents who watch with their young
ones will react to that. I, however, will be having
nightmares.
[> [>
*Only* 65%? Wow. I've always gotten the impression we
are at least pushing 80%. -- Ian, 22:59:53 05/07/02
Tue
[>
Re: Please read-parents especially (Spoilers for the
first three minutes of Seeing Red) -- Ian, 22:45:44
05/07/02 Tue
Um.....
Forgive me for saying so, but the fact that your parents
"are just scared of having a gay daughter" pretty much
qualifies as homophobia in my book. If they are so
concerned that the thought of you *seeing* two women in bed,
covered by sheets and talking about non-sexual matters will
lead to your becoming a lesbian, than a "reasonable"
resolution to this seems a bit unlikely to me. Namely
because their "fear" is not based upon any understanding of
what being gay is.
As much as being heterosexual is a part of you, being gay is
also an intrinsic part of gay people. If explaining to them
that merely knowing of and approving of Pacific Islanders
will not inevitably lead you to becoming a Pacific Islander
yourself, I have no idea how you should proceed. You might
try to draw out just what their position is on
homosexuality, and what they believe is responsible for its
occurrence, as well as what they believe its moral and/or
religious consequences to be. You might already know all of
this, but I since you didn't really specify in your post, I
don't really know where they are coming from.
Also, it's okay with them for you to watch a show stuffed
full of the occult, violent and manipulative sex, violence,
creatures of the night and other demonic presence, but only
the sight of two women in bed prompted a deep discussion?
Is it just me, or is that a bit odd?
I respect that many, many people have deeply held beliefs
and opinions regarding homosexuality that are FAR from
positive, and that these beliefs are propagated by certain
interpretations of religious texts, but for many, many years
African Americans were considered to be sub-human enough to
allow slavery, apartheid and segregation. In many, many
countries today, women are less valued than livestock, and
are in fact treated worse than a cow or a pig. Sorry if
this is offensive, because I truly do not intend for it to
be so, but ignorance and fear are closely linked. The Other
is often foreign, mysteriously repulsive, and hence easier
to oppress. That's just the way it is.
It is incredibly neat that simply watching Buffy made you
more aware and accepting of the gay and lesbian presence in
our world. I think that speaks very, very highly of you.
I've seldom if ever grown more accepting of things by
watching any TV show, including the news or documentaries.
:)
If your parents are just too happy to invite a gay person
over for dinner, then I say, hurry up and invite one over.
Talk to them about what being gay is and how much risk you
really run from watching Buffy. You might even get info and
pamphlets from PFLAG, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and
Gays. They have some great, informative and positive
literature they'll send to anyone. If nothing else, it
might expose your parents to an entire world of humanity out
there that they may now be ignorant of.
Okay, last thing. lol
I'm gay. Big shock I'm sure to everyone who reads the
boards. I've gone through the whole telling my parents and
dealing with what they *thought* they knew about gays thing,
which really highlighted just how ignorant they really were
about it. Honestly, so was I. You're not gay. That's
great. (I'm not even kidding or being sarcastic here.) By
being heterosexual, you'll never have to deal with any
number of injustices, violent acts directed at you, or
legalized forms of oppression and discrimination. You'll
never be gay bashed, or be terrified to walk down the street
with the person you love holding hands. From my
perspective, it's NOT okay that your parent are scared you
might "turn out gay." Part of being a parent is learning to
love your child, no matter what. Okay, mass murder is an
exception, but you know what I mean.
Yeah, being gay isn't always a piece of cake, but the "gay"
is not the problem in the equation. The problem and blame
lie squarely with a society that tolerates and perpetuates
hate and fear. You're lucky: Your parents feelings may only
make it hard for you to catch a TV show you love, but for
gay kids with parents with similar views, their life will be
hell. Often way too close to literally like hell.
But I agree with you, missing Buffy would be horrible.
:)
I hope I managed to say something helpful here. I'm
incredibly sleepy and there's a great chance I'm totally
incomprehensible in this post. I don't mean for this to be
any kind of scolding, for you or for your parents. They
seem to want to the best for you, and that's wonderful, but
sometimes, what a parent "thinks" is best can be wholly
unconnected to the real world. Talk to them. That's about
the only thing you can do.
Best of luck,
Ian
[> [>
Exactly right -- d'Herblay, 23:03:40 05/07/02
Tue
I apologize for being flippant about this issue in my own
post, because I didn't want to approach this issue, but it's
really not your parents' attitudes towards Buffy
which are problematic.
Perhaps -- if "I was myself fairly homophobic before
Willow's gay arc played out in the fourth season. I listened
to a lot of Eminem, and I said things like, 'That's so gay!'
and I absolutely HATED Willow and Tara at first. The point
is, I gradually learned to become more accepting, and now I
love Tara and Willow. I've learned, because of this show,
that's it's all just people loving each other in different
ways" -- exposing your parents to the show might start a
similar process in them. One might hope, though such
feelings tend to be more deeply rooted than the reach of a
television show.
(This is not to say that your parents are evil, hateful
people who need to be taught a lesson. We all have our blind
spots. You are avowedly not gay; however, were you, I hope
that your parents would be able to love you just as
much.)
[> [> [>
Sigh -- MayaPapaya9, 23:46:32 05/07/02 Tue
First of all I want to thank everyone who's replied,
especially Ian.
Okay, my parents' stance on homosexuality is: they think
that it is something which is acquired, something that a
person decides to be or grows into, not something you're
born with. Well, actually that might not be quite accurate.
My dad said tonight that no one really knows for sure, but
he thinks that my exposure to homosexuality might lead to my
feeling that it is totally okay and normal to be gay, and
therefore I might want to experiment with it later. Which
is almost laughable to me! Thinking about kissing another
girl is just ishy. But that's just me!
I think, if I want to continue watching this show, I might
HAVE to watch an episode or two or maybe a lot more with my
parents, an idea which is also kind of ishy. How am I
supposed to enjoy my favorite show with a policeman type
watching over my shoulder? It would be terrible. Plus,
from what vague nonspoilery things my friends have told me
about Seeing Red, it will probably lead them to ban the show
forever, which would be MOST unfortunate. If that happens,
I would have to commence smuggling in tapes.
This is all so incredibly unlucky. What possessed my mother
to be flipping through channels tonight of all nights,
during the lesbian scene of all scenes?? My mother NEVER
watches TV. What was she even doing with a remote in her
hand???
And for the record, we're not fundamentalist Christians or
anything. My mom is Persian, raised in Bombay, India and my
dad is South Indian, both have lived in this country for 20
years and I was born in NJ. So we're quite American. It's
entirely possible that they feel guilty for not raising me
religiously. They come from different religious backgrounds
and so I grew up without religion entirely. Maybe that's
why I cling to Buffy. I make up my own silly rituals. Like
ordering a caramel macchiato everytime I go to Starbucks.
It's a security thing.
ANYWAYS. Hahahah it's getting late and I am growing less
coherent. Thanks so much for all your help, it's nice to
feel supported.
-Maya
[> [> [> [>
Re: Sigh -- LittleBit, 06:07:53 05/08/02 Wed
Do you have FX? If you are able to watch some of the
episodes with them before next Tuesday's new episode you may
have the chance for them to see what the show is about and
convince them it's okay. It's in the middle of S4, Tara is
about to be introduced. Given how intense the final episodes
are likely to be they may not be the best introduction to
the show for your parents. Don't know if this helps but it
was worth a shot.
[> [> [> [> [>
I should learn to look before I leap -- RichardX1,
19:20:25 05/08/02 Wed
LittleBit said the same thing I did, only she(?) said it
first. I did mention syndication and TV Guide's Top
50 Shows of All Time, though.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Sigh -- Ronia, 13:03:56 05/08/02 Wed
O.K., I haven't posted before so my deepest apologies for
any faux pas... I was reading your earlier post..about
getting called downstairs, big talk, etc..
I was also reading the responses, which for the most part
seemed to be 1) "helpfull" information about the subject of
homosexuality, which I can just about promise you will fly
like a lead balloon.
2) ways to continue to
watch buffy should your parents choose to disallow it.
Now I may be biased here because I am a parent, but to
me it seemed that the issue at hand was neither questioning
homosexuality as a viable option for yourself or finding
ways to smuggle the show in, to me it seemed to indicate
your uncertainty as to your parents legitimate authority to
make decisions concerning what programs will be allowed in
their home. I was further suprised and shocked to hear
suggestions that you show them tamer episodes as they may
very justifiably be concerned with the events in upcomming
episodes.
I suggest that you watch the show with your parents,
maybe give them some backround information and compare with
various myths etc.
But also, as it is their home, and you are their child,
should they decide that they will not allow it, I suggest
that you comply fully. It is only a T.V. show after all.
The trust of and respect for your parents should be more
important to you and will most likely be in the long run.
The day is coming when my own children will be on the net,
and if I were to discover that they were getting advice from
other adults that included ways to decieve me, that would be
the day this thing gets unplugged.
Sorry in advance because I know this will not be a
popular post.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Sigh -- LittleBit, 13:27:10 05/08/02 Wed
I'm sorry if the suggestion sounded that way. What I meant
by it is that there is the possibility of watching
together as many as 8 episodes of Buffy on FX, which
would give a chance to see the characters and presentation
of the show, before watching Villains, again
together. The upcoming episodes include the emmy-award-
winning Hush as well as the beginning of the Willow/Tara
relationship which I understood to be the sticking-point. I
do think it's difficult, if not impossible, to get an idea
of a show based on an emotionally climactic episode near
season's end, and to give parents an idea of the show
itself, this is not necessarily the best place to start.
I agree entirely that if the edict comes down for no more
Buffy, it must be respected. But I don't see that would
preclude the attempt to change their minds.
[> [> [> [> [>
Parental control -- Sophist, 13:29:44 05/08/02
Wed
This is a very difficult question in my view. I'm inclined
to agree that a consciousness raising session with her
parents is unlikely to succeed in the short term. OTOH, it
does sound like her parents are open to reason and they
might be here.
I think you may have misunderstood some of the above posts.
I think the suggestion to show her parents earlier shows was
intended not to deceive them, but to do 2 things: 1. Put the
events of this season in a larger context. 2. Reassure them
that the show has a strong long-term moral component.
The trickiest part is what to do if her parents say no. If
the reason for saying no is, essentially, homophobia, I (and
I'm speaking as a parent here) think a 16 year old need not
feel obligated to give in to bigotry. An incident from my
own teenage years partly explains my reaction. When I was
17, my best friend was black (terminology then). He wanted
to date a white girl, whose parents were racist and wouldn't
allow it. We arranged a system by which other boys would
call to ask the girl out, pick her up, and take her home,
but the date was actually with my friend. Did we deceive?
Absolutely. But it was a good cause, and I'd do it again in
a heartbeat.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Parental control -- Ronia, 13:53:27 05/08/02
Wed
I agree with showing earlier shows for purposes of
context, but not to mislead about content. I am a long time
fan of the show, but the content is what it is and it is
entirely possible for a parent to feel that the context does
not justify the content.
If her parents decide that it will not be on her list
of viewing options, then it really doesn't matter what the
reason behind it is while she is a child in their home. As
an adult she has the option to say "I disagree with you and
choose to embrace a different set of values and beliefs."
As a minor though...as long as her parents are not asking
her to break the law, they have the right to veto anything
they find offensive, whether they are right or not.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Parental control -- myra, 16:22:53 05/08/02
Wed
Okay, I'll have to de-lurk for a bit to disagree here.
I don't think that just because you're a minor you should
comply with everything your parents tell you to do. If
parents are asking unreasonable things of their children and
they're mature enough to recognize it as such, for example a
rule based on homophobia or racism, I do think they have a
right to question it.
(Now I may be a bit biased since I'm a teenager myself and
personally think a little rebellion can be quite
healthy;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Parental control -- Ronia, 16:40:50 05/08/02
Wed
I absolutely agree that children have the right to
question the issue at hand, but not the authority that their
parents hold over them. That authority is fact. You may
choose to rebel against it, but then you may have to submit
to disciplinary action. Also at what age does a child get
to decide what is reasonable and what is not? A parent
cannot force a child to think parallel to them on all issues
and shouldn't try, but they absolutely have the right and
the ability to enforce what is and is not acceptable in
their home. As a minor you are in their home, part of their
home. The old adage applies, what you pay for belongs to
you.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The duty to resist moral wrong -- Sophist,
17:37:48 05/08/02 Wed
Even though I'm a parent (18 and 14 year old daughters), I
agree with myra here. Here's my thinking on it:
I start with certain assumptions that I think we agree
on:
1. Moral actors have a duty to resist moral wrongs.
2. Racism (and I'm including homophobia within this term) is
a moral wrong. I'm assuming that, as MayaPapaya stated, the
only reason given for not letting her watch is
homophobia.
3. The resistance has to be commensurate to the wrong and to
the capability of the actor.
As I see it, the first question is whether teenagers can be
moral actors. The law certainly creates an arbitrary cutoff
at 18, but that is like most laws -- it includes people who
aren't capable and excludes those who are. To make a moral
judgment, we need to examine the individual case.
MayaPapaya's post showed me that she fully understands the
moral issue of racism. As far as I'm concerned, she is
capable of moral action on that subject.
Is watching the show against her parents' wishes a
commensurate response? This is more of a judgment call, but
I'd say it is. To me, it is equivalent to dating someone of
a different ethnic group against your parents' wishes. It is
something a teenager can do, it doesn't harm anyone, and it
makes the protest a clear rejection of the reason given for
the prohibition.
Your last post raises the question of submitting to
punishment. I've never really understood why the person in
the right has some obligation to submit to punishment for
engaging in correct moral behavior. There sometimes are
practical reasons to do it, but I'm not sure I see those
here. I'm open to a good argument here, but I'm inclined to
think no punishment is justified, so there is no obligation
to submit.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Okay. That's just very, very well said, Sophist. -
- Ian, 18:30:39 05/08/02 Wed
I aspire to duplicate your logical and structured posts.
lol
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
(lol) Yeah, what Ian said. -- yuri, 19:12:09
05/08/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The obligation to accept the consequences --
Vickie, 19:07:49 05/08/02 Wed
I'd agree with your statements regarding the duty to resist
moral wrong, if you were willing to accept the consequences
of that resistance.
Philosophers from Plato to Thoreau have discussed this very
issue, and to my knowledge (will the more erudite
philosophers here please correct any error?), they all say
pretty much the same thing. You can protest an immoral rule
from within a system, but you must be willing to accept the
penalty for that protest. The penalty is the price you pay,
which makes your resistance to wrong clear.
In a society, civil disobedience has the consequence of
legal action. In a family, filial disobedience has the
consequence of parental discipline. If you are unwilling to
accept the consequence of the action, you shouldn't
undertake it.
This is why we consider those who protest in the way brave.
They chance the consequences.
If Maya's goal is to oppose her parents' (perceived) moral
inadequacy (let me say here that, as described, I agree with
that evaluation), then she should openly defy the edict. If
her only goal is to watch Buffy at any price, then this is
hardly a moral or protest issue.
take it and shred...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
I have to go with Vickie on this one -- RichardX1,
19:35:41 05/08/02 Wed
If defying a rule because you perceive it as immoral
absolved you of any punishment, then punishment would be
impossible, especially in our modern age of Relative
Morality.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: The obligation to accept the consequences --
Sophist, 20:11:39 05/08/02 Wed
There was a lively debate on this issue in the 1960s for
fairly obvious reasons -- antiwar and civil rights
protesters were being told to "bear the consequences" of
their protest, when they were the ones who were right
and the wrongdoers themselves were the ones dishing out the
punishment. I can refer you to a number of books if you'd
like.
Quite often, the protesters did accept the consequences for
the very practical reason that it helped make their point;
the oppressive response generated a backlash. This, however,
is a pragmatic reason, not a philosophical one.
You are probably right that most philosophers have argued in
favor of accepting punishment (not Plato, though -- he
didn't allow protests at all). That's because most of them
were writing to please the powers that be (only half joking
here). The real issue is not who said it, but how good are
their reasons.
Let me suggest 2 issues to think about. First, why should
the wrongdoer get to punish the person who is right? What
theory of moral conduct would reach this conclusion, i.e.,
what theory of power would we be upholding by such a rule?
Second, assuming we are all polite dissidents here in the
democratic USA, and our governments would never, say, sic
police dogs on us for trying to sit at a restaurant counter,
what do we do in cases where the punishment is likely to be
far more severe than the "crime" precisely because the
holder of power wants to remain immune from criticism? Can't
severe punishment deter protest for even the most worthy
causes?
Aside to Ian: LOL. And your original post was excellent.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Socrates' death was the consequence of a
"protest" -- Vickie, 22:08:51 05/08/02
Wed
Plato, in the Apologia, wrote of his teacher Socrates' trial
(and subsequent execution in a later text) for "impiety and
corruption of youth".
He taught people to think for themselves
Socrates, in the Platonic texts, explains that it is his
duty to accept the execution order, because is is a part of
the fabric of society. He chooses to remain a part of it,
and so accepts the consequences of his actions.
So there is your "civil disobedience" in Plato, so far as it
goes. (I agree that the Republic disallows much of any of
this.)
As regards your other points....
The "wrongdoer" doesn't have the right to punish the "person
who is right." Allow me to point out that these are your
interpretations, from your side of the divide. By contrast,
the theory of civil disobedience says that we participate in
a society, and when we believe that society is wrong, we
resist. If that resistance has legal (societal)
consequences, we bear them.
This is a courageous stand, one that I have not been called
upon to make and doubt I could if called. But many have done
this thing, from Thoreau to Gandhi and beyond.
As to your second point, that makes it harder. People likely
die. I doubt I have that kind of courage. At that point, you
might not want to stay within the system.
But one should, at least, have the moral courage to admit
that one has stepped outside the system.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Fair enough -- Sophist, 09:53:00 05/09/02
Thu
I had in mind The Republic. I don't think Plato was entirely
consistent here.
My argument assumes, and is only valid if, the protester is
right. Obviously, if the protester is wrong, he/she deserves
to be punished for the wrong. One of my stated assumptions,
though, was that racism was wrong and that the sole reason
for the parental order was racism. Given these assumptions
(and I don't think you disagree with them), your first point
does not apply.
Yes, we do generally agree to follow the rules of a civil
society. My arguments, though, challenged 2 aspects of that.
One is why we should do so if the result is that those who
are wrong are allowed to punish those who are right. It
seems pretty hard to justify that on moral grounds.
The other, which you acknowledge makes a hard case, is when
the wrongdoer is motivated to punish more severely than the
offense deserves (and it may deserve none at all) precisely
in order to preserve an unwarranted power. You suggest we
admit to stepping outside the system in that case. If you
mean admit it to ourselves, I completely agree. If you mean
tell the wrongdoer, that seems no different than submitting
yourself to punishment, which is the point where we started
and the point I am challenging.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Re: Fair enough -- Ronia- oh I see now, 10:08:31
05/09/02 Thu
I think we're finally on the same page. I think what you
are saying is that because you feel the person in authority
has come down on the wrong side of the fence in your
opinion, that it negates their authority, and they no longer
have the premise to expect an explanation for things they
dissapprove of on the issue, therefore, why tell them? I
don't necessarily agree with this position, but I understand
your point of view now.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Not quite. -- Sophist, 10:19:42 05/09/02 Thu
My position is that the wrongdoer has no moral right to
punish the one doing right (there should be a word for this,
but "do-gooder" is just not it). If disclosure to the
wrongdoer will result in punishment, especially punishment
that is harsh because the wrongdoer is trying to preserve
the power to do wrong, then disclosure is not morally
necessary.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Not quite. -- clg0107, 13:25:03 05/09/02
Thu
And who is the ultimate arbiter of which parties are right
and wrong?
The trouble is the fact that each party believes himself to
be right and the other wrong. And just because you can find
a wad of people to support one side or the other still
doesn't mean that the popular stance is the "right" one.
I'm not defending any particulary evil or unpopular 'ism
here.
But the trouble at hand is that Maya has a show she wants to
watch, and though she'd rather convince her parents that it
is innocuous and watch it aboveboard, she's considering
watching it on the sly if they put their feet down.
In this case, since their stand is against a piece of
entertainment, and their instruction, should it come, to no
longer watch the show, will cause no one any physical harm,
she as their child should comply. The minute she moves out,
she can do buy the entire series on DVD and watch it all,
and explain to them if they ever ask that she respected
their wishes while in their home, but now in her own chooses
to do otherwise.
Is it going to be an earthshaking violation if she just
decides to sneak tapes anyway? I guess not. But, as they
say, if you're doing something you're ashamed to tell your
mother about, should you be doing it?
The thing is that Maya is making a compelling arguement here
-- "they are homophobic so I should defy them in this". But
what about all the other situations where a child believes
his parents are being unreasonable -- they won't let me buy
"x", they won't let me go to ...wherever, they said I can't
date that guy because he's been arrested twice -- how do we
say that defiance in one case is appropriate and not in
others, and besides, who are we to decide that for another
family's child??
Being a teenager is all about feeling put-upon by your
parents' rules, but the fact remains that they do have a lot
more experience at the world than their kids do, and are
just trying to keep their kids safe, and if they sometimes
make mistakes, it is their right to do so and not have their
children lying to them and sneaking around. And certain ly
to expect that other adults will not be encouraging them to
do so.
So, Maya, if your folks say, "no", make it respectfully
clear that you disagree and why, but that you respect their
right to try to guide you. And then respect their decision,
if not the reason for it. If nothing else, you can feel
good about yourself for taking the harder but more honest
road.
~clg0107
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: The duty to resist moral wrong -- Ronia,
23:35:44 05/08/02 Wed
Well, I guess I'd just have to respectfully dissagree.
Although I have made allowances, I'd have to take a stand
and say that while racism (and I do not include the issue of
homosexuality here, because there are several religions that
consider this practice not one of race but of sin against a
God that others may or may not believe in, nonetheless
people have a right to practice religious freedom) is
against the law, and I have stated that children should not
be expected to submit to their parents if their parents are
themselves putting their children at risk for legal
repercussions. The person in question was not watching the
show out of conscience, but for entertainment. If her
parents merely dislike the show it is different than if they
outright fobid it. I would have to say in the case of
disliking the show...it's a moral cointoss, however, if they
forbid her to watch, it would be rebellion against ones
parents to continue. Which to me seems to have two ways to
manifest. Either she can decieve them and become a liar, or
she can rebel openly and risk recieving either less freedom
than before ( instead of having one program off the menu,
she may have no tv, no phone calls, and may not leave the
house except to go to school) or even worse realize her wish
of emancipation and receive an adulthood that she is not
prepared for, one where all the good things her parents had
planned for her she will now have to achieve for herself.
And the statistics speak for themselves on the likelyhood of
success in teenagers on the street.
As for the issue of "punishment" to me discipline is
an act of love, it says I love you enough to make us both
uncomfortable in order to try and help you grow in this
area. Even assuming that her parents are completely wrong,
people have been sufferring for being morally right for
thousands of years and it is naive to think otherwise. They
didn't chose to submit, they took their stand and those in
authority did with them as they wished. And her parents ARE
in authority. Lying would damage her and defiance damages
her relationship with her parents, regardless of the
scenario. Adulthood is full of consequences, and people to
whom you will have to submit whether you agree with it or
not. Yes, there have been people who refused to obey the
laws and take a stand on an issue, but lets not sugarcoat
the fact that those individuals took great risk to do so.
How can a person who cannot even legally own property,
including themselves without the court finding the parents
incompetent and the child competent notwithstanding, be
prepared to take on the risks and consequences of adulthood
along with the perks, because it is a package deal.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
discipline vs. natural consequences -- Can I be
Anne?, 13:18:15 05/09/02 Thu
you said:
"As for the issue of "punishment" to me discipline is an act
of love, it says I love you enough to make us both
uncomfortable in order to try and help you grow in this
area."
I'm glad you can justify your behavior with this statement.
I'll bet you sleep like a baby at night.
I don't question that you love your children, but I'm pretty
sure you continue to learn from your mistakes in your adult
life without getting sent to time out or having priveleges
withheld. Likewise, believe it or not, minor children don't
need false consequences to mature. The natural consequences
of their actions and the natural guilt that results from
their inner moral compass is the hardship that catalyzes
maturity. Sometimes parents make up rules that have no
negative naturalconsequences like "you can't put ketchup on
tortilla chips" or "you have to wear the same color socks".
False consequences have to be made up in these cases because
no harm is being done. Perhaps your children have no inner
moral compass. Thus, when you discipline them, they may seek
to avoid punishment by obeying your rules but they aren't
going to grow from it.
[> [> [> [>
If you have cable... -- RichardX1,
19:16:14 05/08/02 Wed
FX shows past season episodes of Buffy about as
frequently as Cartoon Network shows Scooby-Doo. Also, if
you don't have cable, past-season episodes have been
syndicated for weekly viewing; check your local listings
(with particular attention to the Fox/WB/UPN/independent
channels).
If you can get your parents in on the ground floor on BtVS,
they might realize why you like this show so much. Finding
a TV Guide from a week or two ago might also help--a
show that makes that magazine's Top 50 Shows of All Time
can't be that bad.
[> [>
very well said! And I was also going to mention PFLAG
... -- yuri, 23:52:14 05/07/02 Tue
a good resource for proof that being exposed to
homosexuality doesn't cause it..
PFLAG
I don't know how much there is at the site, but they
definitely have a comprehensive resource page, and if you
called them (I'm not sure how much you're wanting to invest
in this, but I urge you to) and told them your problem I'm
sure they could point you in the right direction. I agree
with lulabel that the best thing to do is show your parents
the data that says homosexuality isn't contagious. Then
maybe you can get them working on the whole problem with
having a gay daughter thing.
and Ian, wonderful post, thanks.
[> [>
Thanks for your thoughtful post -- MayaPapaya9,
00:02:45 05/08/02 Wed
In response to your wondering why homosexuality and not the
violence and occult stuff bothers them...well, we watch
violent movies as a family all the time (hehe) and I think
my parents are pretty secure in their feeling that I won't
pull a Columbine. Because in movies, violence is generally
portrayed as bad, not something you normally WANT to do.
It's like, they let me watch the (excellent) movie Traffic,
which was very graphic about drugs and the like, but the
drugs were clearly portrayed as bad.
This is not to in any way mean that they think homosexuality
is bad. They think it's just fine, for some people. And I
think that if I or my brother was to say one day that we
were gay, they would love us just the same about. But they
would be afraid of what this would mean for the rest of our
lives. Like you said, being gay isn't a piece of cake. My
parents believe that it is a decision you make, and they
don't want me to make a decision which will make the rest of
my life harder. I personally don't know whether I think
being gay is something you're born with or something you
become, just because I'm not old enough and I haven't met
enough gay people to make that kind of judgement. I just
know that I am not, and won't ever be. What can I say, I
just like boys! :)
As for the occult, when I was 12 I actually told my parents
I was Wiccan and we had another "serious talk". I've since
grown out of that, I realized that I'm too lazy for
organized religion. But they know the occult is on the show
and that's a discussion we've already had.
-Maya
[> [> [>
"Look how cool it is - but don't do it, it's
bad!" Simultaneous glorificatoin and condemnation.
-- yuri (this is sort of a hijack, sorry MP), 00:44:23
05/08/02 Wed
I should have some really insightful and pondrous things to
say with subject like that, but really I just wanted to
point something out that I find continuously annoying.
Because in movies, violence is generally portrayed as
bad, not something you normally WANT to do. It's like, they
let me watch the (excellent) movie Traffic, which was very
graphic about drugs and the like, but the drugs were clearly
portrayed as bad.
First of all, I think on the whole violence is NOT
portrayed as "bad." However, what annoys me even more is the
way movies make drugs look. So often a movie is billed as an
anti-drug movie, showing the "real" and "disturbing" effects
of drugs, but at the same time that those effects are
disturbing, the people who are doing them are hot, and
there's usually some sort of reverence or something given to
those sweaty, hollowed out youths. Traffic, I dunno, it's
iffy. I mean, for gods sake it freaking TEACHES the audience
how to freebase! One of THE worst ways to take heroin! I
thought that was pretty amazing, but that doesn't really
have to do with my point. I guess I don't feel like the
majority of people watch movies like that, like pulp
fiction, like Trainspotting and walk out saying "wow, I'm
never going to try heroin ever." Like, just the fact that
hollywood considered those people's lives were fucking
"interesting" enough to be made in to a movie
glorifies it. I'm rather sensetive about this because my
dad, though he never prohibited me from watching anything,
can hardly handle to watch any of those movies. He's had
several friends lost to heroin, dead and alive, and even
though he can weather other stuff just fine, he can't stand
those films. I have come to agree that just because there's
a "this is bad" current to the plot, doesn't mean that the
content is totally unattractive.
I should probably stress that in no way am I anti-
drugs. Pretty much anti-herion, but in terms of most else I
just advocate complete (and when I say complete I mean
extensive, I've never done a drug whose exact physiological
effects I did not know) education.
[> [> [> [>
Re: "Look how cool it is - but don't do it, it's
bad!" Simultaneous glorificatoin and condemnation.
-- Caire, 04:33:27 05/08/02 Wed
This is a bit O/T but I doubt the movie Trainspotting would
encourage heroin use as it very graphically shows how
hellish withdrawl can be. Not to mention the death of the
baby and the gruesome way Ewan's character is haunted by it
in withdrawal. The main character actually jumps in a toilet
to retreive his heroin so it is hardly presented as
glamorous or cool. It is the sort of film I would show young
people so they can understand the effect of drugs. No one
ever swallows the argument that all drugs only have bad
effects and anyone who takes them gets sod all out of them.
The film Trainspotting just shows both sides of the argument
and helps explain why people are drawn to drugs but the film
ultimately concludes with the argument that drugs just
aren't worth it.
Sorry for getting O/T but I love that film and I do strongly
disagree with the frequent argument that it encourages drug
use. JMHO.
[> [> [>
Re: Thanks for your thoughtful post -- Tanker,
07:15:18 05/08/02 Wed
There's one thing that I sometimes use with people who claim
homosexuality is a choice: I ask them why and how they chose
to be heterosexual. Sometimes this leads to a shouting
match :-) , but sometimes it actually has its desired effect
and makes them think. Because I doubt you will find many
heterosexuals who will say that they chose to be straight.
I know I was born the way I am (straight, for what it's
worth). The logical assumption is that other people are
too. Human sexuality is way more complicated than
100%straight/100%gay. Or even male/female.
Note that this may not work anyway. You can't force people
to change their minds. That has to come from within,
although it can (hopefully) be influenced by arguments and
evidence.
[> [> [> [>
(OT) Kicking a hornets' nest, here... -- RichardX1,
19:51:12 05/08/02 Wed
If homosexuality is a biological determination instead of a
lifestyle choice, wouldn't that mean that the children of
homosexuals would be more likely to be gay
themselves, instead of less likely as the studies
have shown?
Feel free to hate me now, but I just had to bring that
up.
[> [> [> [> [>
Not all "biological determinants" are
genetic -- d'Herblay, 00:08:13 05/09/02 Thu
I hope that mole or Darby might be able to back me up on
this, but they're asleep, so I'll be flailing along by
myself now. It seems to me that the influence of environment
on an individual's development in the fetal and infant
stages is popularly underestimated. (Not all birth defects
are genetic, after all -- think thalidomide. For that
matter, at least one genetic birth defect, Down's Syndrome,
is due to a copying error during meiosis rather than to
heredity. And I'm not sure if the correlation between breast
feeding and intelligence has undergone suitable regression
analysis to rule out an analogy to the correlation of a few
centuries ago between intelligence and wet nursing, but,
whether or not it implies causation, the correlation is
there.) These environmental factors may not be what people
think of as "biological determinism," but I have a hard time
seeing them as "lifestyle choices." (The characters of the
mother's womb and milk would be themselves influenced by
genetic, environmental and developmental factors, so the
"lifestyle choices" of the mother may be hard to separate
from her "biological determination.")
(I am not, by the way, likening homosexuality or
heterosexuality to a birth defect. Also by the way, do we
"hate" people for asking questions here? Really?)
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Not all "biological determinants" are
genetic -- Ronia, 00:19:46 05/09/02 Thu
Must agree here, to some extent. That things that
affected our parents affect us although we can't put our
finger on it dna wise (although I'm thinking maybe downs
syndrom is genetic, not sure, but it sure seems to be right
according to my memory) As for the breastfed/bottlefed, I
think that there are too many variables, for example,
breastfed babies must be held to be fed, bottlefed babies
can be propped up to feed themselves and thus denied the
nurturing experience, which we know for a fact plays a
role....
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Down's Syndrome -- d'Herblay, 01:10:45 05/09/02
Thu
Down's Syndrome is caused by a replication error during
meiosis (the process through which germ cells -- sperm and
eggs -- acquire half the parent's chromosomes). Humans have
46 chromosomes in 23 pairs; normally during meiosis one
chromosome of each of these pairs is sent to a germ cell
(and the other to a second germ cell -- it's a binary
process). This is called disjunction. Occasionally,
an error called non-disjunction occurs in which the
two chromosomes of the pair do not disjoint and both are
sent to the same germ cell. When that sperm or (more often)
egg combines to form a zygote, that zygote will have three
chromosomes where it should have two. This condition is
known as trisomy. Trisomy of the 21st chromosome is
the cause of Down's Syndrome.
I suppose that this is "genetic" in the sense that it
involves genes. It is not, however, "genetic" with the
implications of the popular usage, including heritability.
One cannot carry a gene for Down's Syndrome as one can carry
a gene for hemophilia, Tay-Sachs, sickle cell anemia, or
colorblindness.
(You can read more about the cause of Down's Syndrome at this site. I
also recommend chapter 15 of Stephen Jay Gould's The
Panda's Thumb. I don't know why anom thinks I'm
didactic!)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Down's Syndrome -- Ronia, 08:24:37 05/09/02
Thu
Standing corrected, double checked and found age rather
than heredity to be an affecting factor.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Down's Syndrome -- Darby, 13:54:14 05/09/02
Thu
You can think of Down's Syndrome as being an inheritable
MUTATION - it's a sex cell mutation on the chromosome level
(commonly in the egg cells, for reasons too involved to go
into here), but someone who has Down's Syndrome certainly
can pass it on from there, on a 50-50 chance I would assume.
And all of the conditions d'Herb mentions started as
mutations in someone's ancestor...
And things certainly can be inheritable without being
genetic - think accents, or property, or some aspects of
morality and religion. So the "nurture" part is just a non-
DNA-based inheritability too, sort of...
And I've gottat say that a lot of the accepted "facts"
wandering through this thread are generally neither.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Down's Syndrome -- matching mole, 14:19:40
05/09/02 Thu
Technically that's true - someone with Down's syndrome has a
fifty-fifty chance of passing the extra chromosome on to any
child they might have. However most people with Down's
syndrome are sterile (according to the source I have at hand
in my office) and I would assume that the vast majority of
children born with Down's syndrome are born to parents
without the disease.
In contrast a large portion of the people born with sickle
cell anemia or any of the other genetic diseases dH
mentioned do come from families with a history of that
particular genetic ailment. So I'd say that while at the
mechanistic level Down's syndrome and the classic 'genetic'
diseases can be thought of as similar at the population
level they are very different.
Your middle point - that the environment can be heritable -
is a major problem in studies of the genetics of any
organism and is particularly pernicious in studies of human
genetics of complex traits like sexual orientation.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Not all "biological determinants" are
genetic -- matching mole, 05:21:10 05/09/02 Thu
All I can say dH is that I wish I knew as much about
philosophy as you know about biology. This discussion seems
to be taking a standard nature vs. nurture form. There are
several points to be made here about the limitations of
taking an either or position.
1) As dH points out there are a number of ways a trait can
be affected by genes and not be hereditary. Genetic
accidents such as those that cause Down's Syndrome. Also
genes interact with one another to produce affects that
don't manifest themselves if the gene occurs on its own.
For example imagine an individual with two copies of allele
(version of a gene) A has red hair and an individual with
two copies of allele B has white hair. These two
individuals marry and have kids. There are a number of
possibilities for hair color in their kids depending on the
nature of the interaction between the A and B alleles (each
child will inherit an A allele from one parent and a B
allele from the other)
If A is dominant then all children will have red hair
If B is dominant then all children will have white hair
If the effects of A and B are additive then the children
will have pink hair
If there is an interactive effect between A and B then the
hair color could end up being completely different - say
green. The green hair would be genetically determined but
not inherited from either parent.
2) Environmental effects can be extremely subtle and can be
very powerful, especially those very early in life. The
environment can also affect individuals differently
depending on their genes. The Siamese cat color pattern is
the result of a gene that makes fur color (in the
developmental stages of hair formation) very temperature
sensitive. Fur at the extremities where body temperature is
slightly cooler is darker than elsewhere. In other cats
temperature has no effect on fur color.
3) I've given relatively simplistic examples but in reality
a trait like sexual orientation is likely to be affected by
a complex assortment of genes and environmental factors.
[> [> [>
A practical suggestion -- Malandanza, 08:36:30
05/08/02 Wed
While Ian's post is thoughtful and well-intentioned, I can't
think of anything that would convince your parents that
you're a lesbian more quickly than bringing home anti-
homophobia pamphlets, talking about gays and bringing home
gay friends. This course of action might be good for your
parents, but it would be very bad for your future Buffy
watching.
I suggests watching Buffy at a friend's house for the last
few episodes. Alternately, get a friend to tape them for
you and watch them on Wednesday or Thursday (to allay
suspicion -- if you disappear every Tuesday at 7:00, they
might just figure out what's going on). Even if your
parents give you permission to watch the next episode under
their guidance, I think it would be your last -- these last
episodes are likely to be very dark indeed. You're actually
kind of lucky all your parents watched was Tara and Willow
in bed together.
If you have moral about deceiving your parents, wait for the
shooting scripts and read those (that's how I keep track of
what's happening on Angel) -- it's not the same, but it's
better than nothing.
I like the idea of having your parents watch the FX reruns.
The first and second seasons are pretty safe. Good moral
messages with very little grayness.
[> [> [> [>
Yeah, I think so...(kinda spoilerish for Seeing
Red) -- MayaPapaya9, 20:28:55 05/08/02 Wed
My friend who watched Seeing Red told me if I ever want to
watch Buffy again, not to let my parents see that episode.
Apparently it has attempted rape. That's all I know. I
think my honest Buffy-watching days are over. I'll probably
have to resort to smuggling or whatnot. Thanks for your
practical viewpoint. It's really too bad that this had to
happen, but I am definetely not, as some people have
suggested, going to just accept their decision. It really
has nothing to do with my moral standpoint on homosexuality
or my moral standpoint on ANYTHING really. I just want to
see the goddamn show, and I will be seeing it, by any means
necessary.
-Maya
[> [> [> [> [>
Go Maya, disobey! -- can I be
Anne?, 21:03:10 05/08/02 Wed
And I mean that. You're 16 and I've been there. You're
obviously sentient, morally culpable, capable of making
informed decisions.
I have to say, also, that parental authority is not a fact,
it's an opinion enforced by certain parents. I believe that
parents need not censor unharmful experiences from their
children. It's a cheap argument to say that paying for the
house makes children equal to chattel. Children may not
legally buy property so there isn't another option for
them.
That you like Buffy and it doesn't harm you or others is a
fair reason in my book to sneak around your parents. Good
luck!
[> [>
But on the other hand... -- Darby, 11:01:41
05/08/02 Wed
As a parent, I'm protective of my son. If I thought that he
could "turn" gay, I might want to protect him from the
potential abuse that might lead to. It's a nasty world, and
it's nastier to some people than to others.
Back when interracial couples were unusual in the U.S., I
might have been concerned if my son was in one for the same
reason - it's not that there would be anything wrong with
him or what he's doing, but I'd rather that he not paint any
larger target on himself than is already there. And I'd
tell him exactly that - I wouldn't forbid, or even
discourage beyond this point, but I'd want him to be aware
of what he was possibly getting into from the rest of the
mob. Hey, I'm a believer in a low profile when
possible...
[> [>
grrrr.... (mostly off topic rantage) -- celticross,
15:31:35 05/08/02 Wed
Sorry to thread hijack, but this was the best place I could
think of to put it. (great post, btw, Ian *hugs*)
*begin rant mode*
I so completely do not get the idea that homosexuality is
*acquired*, that one *grows* into it. What the huh? I
think anyone who believes this has ever talked to a gay
person before. Living in the small town South as I do,
being out is next to impossible for most, so the number of
gays I've known who feel they can be honest about their
sexuality is limited, but I do have a couple of wonderful
examples to draw from. My dearest friend in the entire
world is gay. He and I have been friends since the 6th
grade, and for all intents and purposes, we've evolved into
brother and sister. He finally came out to me our senior
year in high school and he was able to be out at college.
And I've never seen someone so transformed as he was. He
was finally free to be himself and in coming to terms with
his sexuality, he finally found that his life made a bit
more sense. Why the rambling testimonial, you ask? Because
the idea that my friend just "decided" he was gay is
ludicrus to me. From my observation, I find this view
uninformed and ridiculous. Ok, so maybe this post has no
use in the dicussion, but I felt the need to get it off my
chest.
*end rant mode*
[> [>
grrrr.... (mostly off topic rantage) -- celticross,
15:33:39 05/08/02 Wed
Sorry to thread hijack, but this was the best place I could
think of to put it. (great post, btw, Ian *hugs*)
*begin rant mode*
I so completely do not get the idea that homosexuality is
*acquired*, that one *grows* into it. What the huh? I
think anyone who believes this has never talked to a gay
person before. Living in the small town South as I do,
being out is next to impossible for most, so the number of
gays I've known who feel they can be honest about their
sexuality is limited, but I do have a couple of wonderful
examples to draw from. My dearest friend in the entire
world is gay. He and I have been friends since the 6th
grade, and for all intents and purposes, we've evolved into
brother and sister. He finally came out to me our senior
year in high school and he was able to be out at college.
And I've never seen someone so transformed as he was. He
was finally free to be himself and in coming to terms with
his sexuality, he finally found that his life made a bit
more sense. Why the rambling testimonial, you ask? Because
the idea that my friend just "decided" he was gay is
ludicrus to me. From my observation, I find this view
uninformed and ridiculous. Ok, so maybe this post has no
use in the dicussion, but I felt the need to get it off my
chest.
*end rant mode*
[>
Why cave in to censorship? -- Joe Bleaux,
22:53:06 05/07/02 Tue
Why do you feel a need to compromise? You haven't done
anything wrong -- your parents are the ones with the
problem.
If they forbid you to watch Angel just because Fred kisses
Gunn, would you be so quick to defend them? Of course you
wouldn't. "I swear they're not racists, they just don't want
me to date black boys." Give me a break.
Parents have the right to set reasonable rules for their
kids. This does not fall into that category. Catering to
somebody else's irrational prejudices just to avoid arguing
amounts to voluntary censorship. Are you content to give up
your right to make informed choices for yourself and let
somebody else tell you what's best for you?
I don't know what you mean by "childish." Think of all the
morons who are constantly trying to get classic works of
literature banned from schools. They get hung up on
superficial things like sex, violence, or irreligiousness
and can't see any of the artistic or literary merit of the
books. Is the teacher who says "screw them, I'm going to
teach these books anyway" in any way "childish"? I don't
think so. And yes, Buffy is very well-written with artistic
merit up to here. Anyone who can't be bothered to learn the
context and mythology of the show and just freaks out about
sex and violence is, well, an idiot.
With that said, maybe your parents are capable of being
decent people, and just need a kick in the rear. In that
case, show them some earlier episodes with W/T's
relationship developing. Like, Who are you?, Family, Tough
Love. These last two brought tears to my eyes. "I am, you
know.... yours." is about the sweetest thing I've ever
heard. If someone can't see that these are two amazing
people with a beautiful relationship, then I would have to
say...
"Are you made of human parts?"
[> [>
It's always about compromise -- lulabel,
23:31:08 05/07/02 Tue
Well, I have to disagree here. The issue is not about
whether or not the parents are being reasonable. I don't
think anyone is entitled to tell parents what they should or
should not be worried about. What is important is that
their concerns are being addressed, and also that
MayaPapaya9's feelings are being respected.
When I was 18, I returned to my parents house for the summer
after my freshman year away at college. My mother asked me
to be home by midnight whenever I went out with my friends.
I told her that was silly and illogical because when I was
away at school I would stay out til 3 AM and she was never
the wiser. She understood my point, but said that when I
was living at home she knew that I was out, and would
worry about me (and not get any sleep) until I was safely
home. This had its own logic, which I conceded to without
further argument. The point being that a parent's concern
has its own validity because it's all ultimately about the
wanting what's best for the child.
I can only reiterate what some others have said here -
communication is key, and respect for each others' concerns
and opinions.
[> [> [>
Try getting some backbone. -- Joe Bleaux,
00:20:04 05/08/02 Wed
The ability to have a child doesn't guarantee that you are a
decent, rational person. And no, not every opinion
automatically deserves respect. I don't think homophobia is
"concern" that I'm going to have any respect for.
I think my earlier analogy still stands. You probably don't
have to look too hard to find white supremicists who hate ME
because Forrest and Gunn and Kendra are good guys. Are you
going to trip over yourself to compromise with these sickos?
They're parents after all; how dare you judge a parent?
I don't see how homophobia is any more legitimate than
this.
And in what world is teaching that homosexuality is wrong
"what's best for the child"?
[> [> [> [>
Re: Try getting some backbone. -- yuri, 01:30:18
05/08/02 Wed
If we indeed want the world to be a more open and accepting
place, then I assume we would rather change the opinion of
bigots and homophobes rather than say "fuck them, they're
idiots" and turn away. Approaching a prejudiced person in a
sensitive and understanding way (firm and passionate, yes,
accusatory, no) makes their conversion much more likely.
I agree that not every opinion automatically deserves
respect (and we may be in the smaller camp here but I also
have never reconciled with the strict "your opinion is as
valid as mine" thing), but the fact that someone has grown
up in a place where homophobia (or whatever) is accepted and
encouraged deserves consideration.
[> [> [> [> [>
Zorg -- Joe Bleaux, 03:39:45 05/08/02 Wed
"(Firm and passionate, yes, accusatory, no)"
All right. I'm not saying such people aren't worth talking
to or can't change their minds. I'm just objecting to
lullabel's implication that parents are always right, by
definition, which is patently absurd (e.g., nuts trying to
ban Harry Potter).
Although I think that sometimes, in this cultural fog of
namby-pamby-ness, it is useful to speak plainly and directly
that some things are right and some are wrong, touchy-feely
"perspectives" and "viewpoints" be damned.
***To go slightly off-topic, consider biologist Richard
Dawkins' no-nonsense writing style, which when applied to
fruitcakes (psychics, astrologers, creationists, pomos), is
often misinterpreted as rude and arrogant. Well, it's a
simple fact that creationists are wrong and the professional
ones (the book-writers) are either very stupid or
deliberately lying. Why should a eminent and informed
scientist have to beat around the bush and walk on eggshells
just to avoid offending crackpots who twist and misrepresent
science? No reason I can see. Maybe he won't persuade the
extreme fringe, but a direct, clear, and firm style (without
becoming hectoring) can certainly persuade the moderates,
fence-sitters, and those who haven't really thought about
the issue before.
(FWIW, I personally think Dawkins is a model of gentlemanly
restraint, and people who whine about his writing style are
usually slightly fruitcakey themselves. And don't think I'm
comparing myself favorably; I can't hold a candle to Dawkins
in the writing department.)
Back on topic***
"The fact that someone has grown up in a place where
homophobia (or whatever) is accepted and encouraged
deserves
consideration."
Maybe, but not much. Did they grow up in a place where there
were no libraries? Part of growing up and educating yourself
is reading everything you can, exposing yourself to dozens
of viewpoints on a subject, then using your own rational
judgement to decide which ideas are valid and which aren't.
Maybe, just maybe, you might realize that your parents,
regardless of whether they think they mean well, are simply
dead wrong. That doesn't mean you have to hate them, of
course, but you shouldn't excuse them either. It's a weak
mind indeed that never questions what it was taught as a
child.
Now I'd better stop before this gets too preachy....
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Zorg -- lulabel, 18:17:05 05/08/02 Wed
No way am I trying to imply that parents are always right.
My assertion is that a parent's opinions or concerns should
not be dismissed out of hand, regardless of how wrongheaded
those ideas may be to someone else. Parents are the ones
who make sacrifices and compromises every day for their
children. That gives them the right to have their opinions
taken seriously.
I would certainly agree that this young woman's parents are
bigoted. I would also certainly say that any
confrontational or antagonistic reaction towards this kind
of bigotry is NOT going to lead to any positive results. It
is certainly not going to change her parents' minds about
the issue. The type of behavior that may change their minds
is an open dialogue where all parties show respect for each
others concerns and opinions.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Try getting some backbone. -- Ronia,
14:03:29 05/08/02 Wed
If we were in a more open and accepting place we would
not be trying to change the opinions of others, nor would we
feel that we have the right to. Calling people bigots and
homophobes, is claiming moral superiority for your opinion .
You would not accept this in return, and that would most
likely cause you to utter....
I have to argue that all opinions are equally valid
although not all opinions are equally correct. They are
valid because they are the opinion of your fellow human
being.
Who is going to decide the final case for correctness on
the issue? Hopefully not just some shmoe with an
opinion.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Try getting some backbone. -- yuri, 14:34:13
05/08/02 Wed
I know completely where you're coming from, but I don't like
it there because it makes it very hard to make change. I
am going to claim moral superiority over beliefs in
racism or homophobia, but I'm not going to go up to a person
and be like "hey, you're racist, shape up. It's wrong and
you're wrong for believing in it," because I know that
people won't respond to that. I know the arguments opposing
my beliefs and find them insubstantial. I want to give other
people the chance to make that decision.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Try getting some backbone. -- Ronia,
15:27:14 05/08/02 Wed
By what authority do you claim moral superiority over
others beliefs, whatever they may be? I can understand
making a case for your opinion, but in claiming moral
superiority you are in fact declaring "shape up, it's wrong
and you are wrong for believing it" My argument is that in
no way would you or I or anyone accept that no matter how
eloquently phrased. Maybe I am missunderstanding?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Try getting some backbone. -- yuri, 17:56:42
05/08/02 Wed
by my own authority. And by no one else's. I believe that
discriminating against someone because of the color of their
skin (and so on and so forth) is wrong, and I will not
hesitate to say that. When I approach someone who disagrees
with me, I will tell them I think it is wrong, and then tell
them why. A special few times I have reached someone (and I
must in turn say that I have been reached myself many times,
I do not claim that I am right about everything or that I
have any less to learn than any body else) and helped them
to become more aware of their prejudice and to see it is
irrational and cruel. I came at them honestly, letting them
know what I believe and what I think is right, and then
showed them why. People do respond to that. (it's a whole
help them help themselves thing, right? no one can reach a
person if they won't let themselves be reached, of course.)
I don't understand how "making a case for your opinion"
isn't in itself saying "look, I think I'm right and here's
why." Are we just arguing about terminology?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Try getting some backbone. -- Ronia,
23:51:55 05/08/02 Wed
No, I don't think we are. Although I am pleased to
hear you say that it is your own authority (which is no
greater than mine or anyone elses) that you claim moral
superiority for your opinions. Yes, I agree that your
recent "look, I think I'm right and here's why" is entirely
acceptable, it is also entirely different from what you said
before, something to the effect of I am right and you are
wrong and you need to change your opinion to suite my
beliefs because I am morally superior to you. If a person
did not agree with you after hearing case does that make
them beneath you morally, or just someone who disagrees and
has a right to?
[> [> [>
Re: It's always about compromise -- Ronia,
14:13:47 05/08/02 Wed
I had a similar situation my first year of college. I
was an adult (sorta considering I was still on my parents
dole) meaning I was 18 and no longer living at home. I
stayed out . In retrospect I would have rather asserted
that although I now had the authority to dictate my comings
and goings, that I would still comply to the rules of my
parents home while I was a guest in it. It is a question of
respect and maturity isn't it. A true adult already knows
she/he can come and go at will, but doesn't feel the need to
be rude and uncaring of parents desire to protect the
children that they love...it's a process. Also, when we
come home to mom and dad do we expect the bills to be payed,
the dinner cooked, and laundry washed as though we were
still a child while we make demands for the adult status we
crave? Really glad you took your mothers concerns to
heart.
[> [>
Re: Why cave in to censorship? -- Ronia,
13:22:18 05/08/02 Wed
I have a few issues with this arguament that I think
should be addressed
1) thank you for saying that parents have the right to set
"reasonable" rules. Children do not get to decide which
rule are "reasonable" and veto the rest.
2) her parents may or may not "have a problem". You have no
more right to suggest that they do than you would be willing
to accept their suggestion that the problem lies with your
point of view.
3) teachers should never, ever, disregard parents wishes
regarding curriculum. They have not assumed responsibility
for the children and they are in fact paid by the parents.
It is their job to educate, not to be a social engineer, and
like it or not differing opinions on
social issues are protected by law.
4) the person you are addressing in fact does not have the
right to make informed decisions for herself because she is
not yet an adult.
Disregarding your parents authority can have long reaching
effects on the relationship. They have the right to censor
material they find (for whatever reason) offensive. I'd
love to have responses to these arguaments....
[> [> [>
Re: Why cave in to censorship? -- yuri, 18:12:11
05/08/02 Wed
"Children do not get to decide which rule are "reasonable"
and veto the rest."
So parents have the unalienable right to make whatever rules
they want and never be questioned by their children?
"the person you are addressing in fact does not have the
right to make informed decisions for herself because she is
not yet an adult."
I (respectfully) find this statement unbelievably out of
line. First of all, in you entire post, you assume that
parents always are in the right, that just because you
fornicate and produce a child you somehow have some sense of
the right way to raise a kid. I know where the argument will
be here -- there is no right way, but then I really
must ask, if parents, for instance, teach their children
that all blonde people are cheats and liars, is that okay
because, well hey, that's their right? (And I could make
many more gruesome examples of parental influence, I'm sure
you can imagine.)
Also, the non-adult you are referring to is sixteen years
old, old enough to have children of her own, to drive a car,
to be responsible, and she is not allowed to make her own
moral judgments? Does she have to wait till she's 18? Will
the night of her birthday magically make her an adult? Or
must she wait until she's moved out of the house? Even
living in their parents' house, kids can have countless
adult responsibilites. I am almost self-sustaining, I clean,
I cook, I buy. I'm 17. Can I be an adult, yet?
heh, a little heated, I guess. You said you wanted
responses, right? My tone isn't exactly sweet, but I don't
mean to make an enemy or create resentment or whatever, just
to discuss something I feel strongly about!
[> [> [> [>
Thank you yuri! -- MayaPapaya9, 20:40:00
05/08/02 Wed
I've been getting slightly annoyed with the posts which are
telling me to blindly respect my parents' every wish. I
really don't think that the people who advise that course of
action were really that obedient when they were 16. And in
a year and three months I will be 18. Will I really undergo
some fantastic change before then? I'm asking that as an
honest question, I'm not being sarcastic. I really don't
think it'll make THAT much of a difference.
Anyway, my parents raised me to be strong willed. My father
himself taught me never to blindly follow what other people
tell me to do. I trust my own instincts and the bottom line
is, I'll be watching the show with or without their
permission. I respect them, of course, but I respect myself
too.
-Maya
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Thank you yuri! -- Ronia, 00:06:33 05/09/02
Thu
More than likely a tv show will not dramatically alter
your life in any lasting way (let's hope not ), and if your
parents raised you to question their authority, then why try
to suggest they have it in the first place? If they want
you to do as you see fit in any given situation, why all the
hullaballoo of being called downstairs and possibly
forbidding the show? In any case the question I think
became one of principle..do parents have the right to
control activities in their own home, or regarding their
children (18 in a year and three months was 14 pretty
recently). The question at hand became do you have the
right to insist on having your own way, not do you have the
means to insist on it. And will you extend this "gift" to
your own children when they desire to do something that is
offensive to you, and at what age? Or will you insist on
your own way then as well? I'd really like to know because
I have an ongoing discussion with a friend about the
child/adult separation and I too agree that you don't wake
up one day fully matured although the world now holds you
accountable as though you had.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Why cave in to censorship? -- Ronia,
00:50:55 05/09/02 Thu
Yes, parents have the right to make whatever rules they
want, and expect them to be obeyed. No, they should not
expect to never be questioned or even shown to be wrong,
resulting in a change of rules.
I have never assumed that the parents were always
right, just always in authority.
What do you mean fornicate? Some people achieve
pregnancy without fornication (sex between unmarried
parteners)
Parents may teach their child that all blondes are
liars and cheats, but that really isn't a rule...when the
child grows up or even before this they may disagree,
disagreement and disobediance are two different things.
It is true that a 16 yr old may produce a child (not by
way of responsible decisionmaking), but that young mother
has no ability to provide for her child, she can't own
anything yet including the car she drives.
Yes, she has a right to an opinion on moral issues that
differ from her parents, but no she does not have the
authority to overrule her parents decisions while she is
living in their home.
No, turning 18 will not magically make her an adult.
But she will hereafter be regarded as one whether for good
or ill.
Cooking, cleaning and shopping do not qualify as adult
responsibilities. Accepting responsibility for yourself and
your actions and accepting responsibility for others is
pretty much the point of no return. At the moment your
parents are being held responsible for you whether you will
it so or not. You are still considered a minor. Also, you
are not self sufficient. You may clean and cook in the
house that your parents provided for you but that's not
really something that deserves a parade is it? I mean you
live there. I am assuming of course that when you say you
are self sustaining that you don't mean that you pay the
mortgage, health insurance, etc.
[>
Re: Please read-parents especially (Spoilers for the
first three minutes of Seeing Red) -- Dedalus,
22:54:05 05/07/02 Tue
Are they afraid you're going to start slaying vampires
too?
:-)
[> [>
Hehehe...I know, I may just start frequenting
graveyards and underground crypts for kicks... --
MayaPapaya9, 23:49:50 05/07/02 Tue
[>
FOR THE RECORD (Moniker use) -- neaux, 04:41:29
05/08/02 Wed
Just a little message to say I'm not taking part in the
above discussion. There is a moniker of the name of Joe
Bleaux that could possibly directed as a spoof of my name or
maybe this person didnt know that some one with the EAUX
posted on this board.
Just to set the record straight before there is
anyconfusion. I am NOT Joe Bleaux.
Pardon the Interruption.
[>
Re: Please read-parents especially (Spoilers for the
first three minutes of Seeing Red) -- maddog,
08:47:20 05/08/02 Wed
Well after this past episode I'd tell them it's not really
an issue anymore...Tara is dead afterall. :(
It comes down to trust. They have to trust that you're
making the right decisions. It's not about the show. It's
about their insecurities. Focus on that. Cause the show's
not gonna change. Joss wouldn't do that to us. :)
[> [>
SPOILERS for end of Seeing Red in above post --
matching mole, 08:54:56 05/08/02 Wed
Maya specifically asked not to be spoiled for Seeing Red as
she didn't have a chance to see it.
[> [> [>
Too late...(stupid goddamn spoilers for everything)
-- MayaPapaya9, 20:33:24 05/08/02 Wed
OH MY GOD! She does???? Ohhhhh noooooooooooooooo!!!!!!
DAMN it!!!!! I love Tara! This is terrible! I'm now
completely depressed, more so because I didn't even get to
see it with my own eyes.
-Maya
[>
Personally, I'd be proud of a daughter who wrote this
great post... -- Marie, 08:59:11 05/08/02 Wed
...(after all, shows they must be doing something right!) so
why don't you show it to them, and some of these replies,
and TALK about it. Communication, communication,
communication. (Of course, you know your parents, so only
you can be the final judge of their reactions).
Marie
[> [>
Aww, thank you Marie :) -- MayaPapaya9, 21:01:15
05/08/02 Wed
[>
the Pill -- skeeve, 09:56:19 05/08/02 Wed
This might be a good time to ask your parents whether you
can go on the Pill, whether you need it or not. You never
know, JM might come to town.
Do you have any male friends with whom you might watch
Buffy? This one suspects that your parents might not
object too strenously.
[>
A compromise -- matching mole, 15:24:05 05/08/02
Wed
I've been really tempted to weigh in on the more abstract
portions of this thread but have restrained myself due to
fears of pulling the wrath of the board's parents down on my
head. So I'll limit myself to the practical.
I suggest that the remaining episodes be taped unseen and
that your parents watch a bunch of earlier episodes on FX
with you. You can expain the characters and so on.
Then your parents preview the new episodes and decide if
there is anything they don't want you to see. They can edit
it out or fast forward through it. Or they can just tell
you what they find disturbing and you can talk about it. I
certainly don't think this is the ideal solution but if you
can get your parents to put in the effort it might be the
best bet.
[> [>
Re: A compromise -- Miss Edith, 01:21:34
05/09/02 Thu
At 16 I think MayaPapaya9 is mature enough to watch Buffy
regardless of her parents opinions. We shouldn't blindly
follow our parents wishes if they are blatently unfair. If
the government suddenly made a law that no one could watch
tv shows with black people in them would we all blindly
follow their wishes because we don't have the right to
decide which rules are fair and resposible? If young
children are watching the show (around 10-12) I agree recent
developments aren't something they need to see. But I fully
support a 16 year olds right to watch a show promoting
tolerance with a happy lesbian couple. If her parents do
object do W/T representing the lesbian community on tv I
would say that is an unfair rule. Good luck MayaPapaya9.
[> [> [>
Re: A compromise -- Ronia, 09:12:07 05/09/02
Thu
I still stand by belief that parents have the right to
enforce whatever rules in their home they see fit. However,
I do question the wisdom of feeling the need to make a rule
that didn't previously exist, about a tv show, in regards to
a "child" who, although you still have authority over, you
hope turn out to the world as mature an adult as possible in
the near future. I would say imo that the teenager has the
responsibility to respect her parents wishes, and the
parents have the responsibility to decide if this is a
battle worth fighting, and I'm guessing they'll go with
"no". Because teenagers pick up on inconsistency very
quickly, and her parents are being inconsistent.
Homosexuality is great...but not for you.
[>
OT, but nice to know there's another indian american in
the world, Maya -- Can I be Anne?, 21:22:48 05/08/02
Wed
Current
board
| More May 2002