May 2002
posts
What's
William's full name? -- Ishkabibble, 22:00:52
05/22/02 Wed
I was on a ladder painting the trim on our house and started
daydreaming about Buffy. One thought lead to another and I
started wondering what would happen if Spike became human.
What would his name be? Then all kinds of names started
flooding my mind. What if William’s last name was
Masterson….get it? Master’s-son? That brought me to
thinking about his middle name. What if it was Arthur or
Andrew or any name starting with an A? His initials would
be WAM. If he and Buffy married, her initials would be BAM.
WAM, BAM, thank you...well, you get the idea.
Ok, so this is little lame, but it’s going to be a long time
until new episodes air in October. Who has any better
suggestions for his full name?
[>
Re: What's William's full name? -- O'Cailleagh,
22:30:58 05/22/02 Wed
I always liked William The Bloody...because it makes me
think of Winnie The Pooh. And if this were followed through
we'd get Xander as Tigger, Buffy and Dawn as Kanga and Roo,
Giles as Owl, Willow as Eeyore (being all mope-y now), and
Anya as Rabbit.....anymore parallels between Sunnydale and
100 Aker Wood?
[> [>
Re: What's William's full name? -- West,
01:42:22 05/23/02 Thu
I would have to sub Willow as Piglet and make Angel Eeyore.
Or Jonathan as Piglet! Well, the old Jon, at least.
And Christopher Robin as the PtB. ;P
[> [> [>
I'd forgotten Piglet! And I suppose Angel does have the
broodiness.... -- O'Cailleagh, 07:42:42 05/23/02
Thu
[> [>
Anya REALLY wouldn't like being Rabbit! -- dream of
the consortium, 12:51:10 05/23/02 Thu
[> [> [>
I think that was the point -- skeeve, 08:35:08
05/24/02 Fri
[> [> [> [>
Yes...it was a joke I made up.... -- O'Cailleagh,
14:31:55 05/24/02 Fri
[>
And what about Liam? -- A.C.S., 08:38:45
05/23/02 Thu
Angel's pre-vamp name was "Liam." But "Liam" is just an
Irish nickname for "William," like "Will" or "Bill." So both
Angel and Spike were Williams.
[> [>
I wonder if that was intentional? -- vh,
06:36:54 05/24/02 Fri
[>
I hope he stays Spike! -- DickBD, 14:05:34
05/23/02 Thu
To me, Spike is perhaps the most interesting character on
the show, if not the most likable. (The most likable
characters are Buffy, Xander, and Willow, of course, and I
really like Anya, too. But Spike dominates almost any scene
IMHO.) It would sure ruin it to have him made completely
human again. I'm hoping he will still be a vampire, just as
ticked about his soul as he was about his chip. Anyway, I
hope he will still be known as Spike, with his real name
only occasionally made reference to, as Buffy did when she
tried to soften the blow in ending their relationship.
Spike's
Dilemma.*(spoiler)* -- Rocky Raccoon,
22:15:07 05/22/02 Wed
Introduction- Heya! My name's Evan and I'm sixteen, and new
to the board, but know enough about Buffy to last a
lifetime, so don't worry, I know what I'm talking
about.....Most of the time...heh heh
Anyways, I know that this has been touched on before, but I
thought about it and Spike HAD to have known what the demon
would do to him. When he said, "Give that b**** what she
deserves", what else could he have been talking about? He
already could hurt Buffy, in fact he could "give her what
she deserves", for eternity!
This whole season, the main insult that Xander was able to
lord over him was that he was just a "Thing". When Dawn
found out about Buffy and Spike, she said that Buffy went
out with Angel, and Buffy said that that was different
because HE had a SOUL.
To Spike, the only thing that Buffy deserves is a good man,
with a soul. He loves it when she ever even gave a hint that
he was more than just a vampire. "I know you think I'm a
monster, but you make me feel like a man"- (The Gift). Do
you think that it was just coincidence that he left after
looking at the pain he caused after his attempted rape? No,
it wasn't. He was looking for change, no matter what, and I
think he found it.
P.S. The whole Scarab-eating-the-chip-thingy seems pretty
far-fetched, however, I DO think that the scarabs
symbolized his "Rebirth" into humanity. Well, thanks!
-Evan
[>
Welcome ~ like your screen name! -- Tillow,
06:03:10 05/23/02 Thu
Good points. He did already have the ability to hurt HER
specifically. But the question is, did he want to become the
Big Bad, knowing that having to kill him would hurt her? If
he just went after her, she wouldn't kill him. She's proven
that again and again. But her friends? In essence,
reenacting the Angel plot, knowing how much that hurt her
before, would have been a way to truly hurt her. (on top of
attempted rape)
I'm playing devil's advocate. I think it's entirely possible
he knew what he was asking for. He was focussed on change
and the chip conversation with the demon could have been
thrown in to confuse us. (and give us something to debate
all summer).
[>
Re: Spike's Dilemma.*(spoiler)* -- Darius,
11:30:54 05/23/02 Thu
I got to disagree.
Spike wanted the chip removed. It's true that he was
physically able to hurt Buffy... however, because of his
feelings for her he was emotionally unable to do so. In
"Seeing Red" we saw that Spike was convinced that his loving
Buffy was unnatural and could only be a result of the chip.
He wanted the chip removed, believing that doing so would
reverse the "damage" done to him, removing his love for Buff
and allowing him to be the bad guy that he felt he should
be.
[> [>
Re: Spike's Dilemma.*(spoiler)* -- Nicneven,
15:05:26 05/23/02 Thu
Hi! I've been lurking for months and love this group! I
have watched Buffy from the beginning and think it is one of
the best written and most well-thought out television shows
ever.
I have followed the Buffy/Spike saga with interest and am
dying to see where Joss and company are going with it. My
son (AKA Rocky Raccoon) and I have had many discussions
about it and do not always agree. But whether Spike knew he
was going to get his soul back or not, I definitely do not
think he went all the way to Africa to get the chip out.
Maybe it's because I'm a nurse, but if I wanted to get a
microchip out of my brain I would find the best neurosurgeon
in the country and find a way to get him (or her) to remove
it. What does an obscure and ancient demon know about
delicate brain surgery? Adam is the only demon so far that
has been tech-friendly and he was put together that way.
My personal feeling is that Spike got exactly what he
asked for, even though it wasn't what he wanted. Which
brings up the subject of what kind of demon can give a soul
back? Surely only the TPTB are capable of actually returning
a soul. In which case, how could Spike NOT know that?
Just a few of many delicious questions to ponder over the
summer.
[> [> [>
Re: Interesting point -- Valhalla, 21:50:09
05/23/02 Thu
I was just watching 'I Will Remember You' (Buffy crossover
on Angel during season 1), and Doyle says he thought only
TPTB could make someone human again. But then Angel had
been made human when the blood of the Moray (sp?) demon
touched him, because the demon's blood had regenerative
powers.
On Buffy we saw that the gypsies could give Angel his soul.
So probably the Africa demon could be an actual demon who
had given Spike his soul back, without participation from
TPTB. Unless TPTB are behind everything that happens. TPTB
seems to mostly poke around in the affairs of 'lower
beings', though, rather than writing out the fate of
everyone beforehand. Of course, if you think ME = TPTB then
they are literally behind everything. But that's stepping
outside the storyline.... :)
Series
Inconsistencies -- AgnosticSorcerer, 23:17:31
05/22/02 Wed
Can you think of any series inconsistencies? I could think
of two off the top of my head and a possible third:
1. Spike claimed that Angelus was his sire, but last season
we saw that it was Drusilla.
2. Willow and Anya accidentally released Olaf the Troll God
from his magickal prison and this lead to the the troll
breaking Xander's hand when he refused to choose which one
of his women should die: Anya or Willow. Was Xander ever put
in a cast? I know it takes more than week for a broken bone
to heal.
3. Why didn't any of the Scoobies think to enjoin again to
fight Glory as they did with Adam?
[>
Re: Series Inconsistencies -- alcibiades,
23:53:47 05/22/02 Wed
"3. Why didn't any of the Scoobies think to enjoin again to
fight Glory as they did with Adam?"
Cause it's not cool to work the same mojo in the finale two
years in a row.
[> [>
Plus the First Slayer tried to kill them in their
dreams last time they tried it. -- Diana Michelle
Murray, 03:55:40 05/23/02 Thu
[> [> [>
Yeah, but Buffy made her go away. -- skeeve,
07:59:20 05/23/02 Thu
[> [>
Re: Series Inconsistencies -- AgnosticSorcerer,
06:13:49 05/23/02 Thu
"Cause it's not cool to work the same mojo in the finale two
years in a row."
-- Obviously, but it would have been nicer to have an in-the-
show answer to that such as the one provided by the previous
poster.
[>
Re: Series Inconsistencies -- Kitt, 06:24:27
05/23/02 Thu
2. Willow and Anya accidentally released Olaf the Troll God
from his magickal prison and this lead to the the troll
breaking Xander's hand when he refused to choose which one
of his women should die: Anya or Willow. Was Xander ever put
in a cast? I know it takes more than week for a broken bone
to heal.
Actually, if the bone was set surgically (pins and plates,
stuff like that), Xander might only have had a splint for 2-
3 weeks... and if he's like a lot of patients, he might not
even have worn it that long, weather the doctor told him to
or not.
[>
Re: Series Inconsistencies -- maddog, 07:12:32
05/23/02 Thu
We've discussed point 1 before and I'm not so sure that they
don't consider everyone in their lineage of vampire bitings
a sire.
As for question 2, Buffy, like other shows don't always go
week to week. This week's show could be October while next
week's could be December. There's only 22 episodes that
have to cover a certain amount of time. So who knows how
long it was between when Olaf beat up Xander and when the
next episode happened?
As for 3, while I agree that makes sense you also have to
remember that they needed a quiet place yet one near the
slayer to do the enjoining thing. You weren't going to find
that around the ritual site. Also, they payed a price for
what they did at the end of season 4. The finale proved
that. The dreams...the first slayer...it may have just been
that they didn't want to take that chance again.
[>
Re: Series Inconsistencies -- Darby, 07:14:22
05/23/02 Thu
1. The ME people now claim that anyone in your vampire
lineage can be referred to as a "sire," but JM in an
interview has said that it was just decided that Dru was
more interesting to use when they actually got around to
telling that story. Remember, Spike at his introductory
point was there temporarily, to set up Dru & Angel as the
Big Bad.
2. Injury repercussions tend to follow the convenience of
following storylines. I'm more concerned with how Anya's
little witchy spell made Olaf a god. He is never
called that in the Triangle script, except when
Willow refers in an off-hand way to his "godly hammer," but
it makes no sense for a) Anya the witch to be able to create
a god, troll or no, or b) for it to be a punishment
to be made into a god. Heck, people debase themselves all
the time just to be on television for a few minutes!
3. I guess they decided that it went without saying that
the spirit of the First Slayer was not something they wanted
to tap into again, especially after Buffy's vision-quest
encounter with her.
[>
Re: Series Inconsistencies -- KKC, 07:18:01
05/23/02 Thu
Well, just to numerate the responses:
1. See http://www.atpobtvs.com/21.html#203 where Whedon
states that to be sired means also that you are descended
from that vampire, and not necessarily directly made by that
vampire. So since Angelus made Drusilla who made Spike,
Angelus can be said to be Spike's sire.
2. Check out page one of the script for the episode
immediately following Olaf's appearance at
http://www.studiesinwords.de/shooting/checkpoint1.html where
Xander's hand is definitely said to be in a cast. Viewing of
the episode shows the same.
3. This idea was proposed by Xander, in fact. See the
shooting script at
http://www.studiesinwords.de/shooting/thegift1.html where
these lines are spoken:
XANDER: Should we join essences and become superslayer
again?
BUFFY: That worked against Frankenbot, but to kill a true
god... I don't think it's enough. And I need you guys
conscious ...
Be free in your suspension of disbelief. Or, spend all your
time watching the Garry Shandling show instead. :)
-KKC
[>
Re: Series Inconsistencies -- A.C.S., 07:51:43
05/23/02 Thu
Olaf the Troll God is a self-contained inconsistency.
Supposedly, it was his spurning of Anya that resulted her
becoming a vengeance demon and Olaf was her first victim.
So, then, how did he become a troll _god_?
[> [>
Re: Series Inconsistencies -- Yellowork,
10:11:46 05/23/02 Thu
Forget all this pissing about! Why did Glory need to
sacrifice Dawn and endanger the order of the whole universe
just to open a portal that would allow her to leave the
human world and go back to her Hell? What is especially odd
is that the Angel Investigations team manage this with a
little bit of magical jiggery pokey in episodes aired around
the same time. Not to mention the portal in Anne,
Belonging, and so on. None of these ever seemed to endanger
the cosmic order just by existing: the one in Anne looked
like it had been there for a while, too, and closed up of
its own accord. I am never exactly sure WHAT the Hellmouth
is, but I get the feeling it might have been useful here,
too. Weird that it never gets a mention unless as a way to
explain all the strangeness that goes down Sunnydale way.
Perhaps Glory did not know that there was another way, but
there are plenty of people who could have TOLD her - Doc
springs to mind. I think part of the problem is a confusion
between one draft in which Glory wanted the Key in her
possession because of its various powers, which were never
in the event specified, and a later version wherein it
becomes merely a convenient way for her to leave the human
world, threaten the universe with chaos and endanger Dawn.
OK, Glory is mad as a hatter, and being a mad god, insecure
about her own divinity, she might simply have PREFERRED a
drama-queen type of ritual with seriously dangerous
repurcussions, over something more banal. But they have to
give some indication about it to get out of this one! Also,
why did Buffy throwing herself into the portal close it?
The KEY opened the portal, and it was due to CLOSE when the
power of the key stopped flowing - in the form of Dawn's
blood. As simply taking Dawn away from the site was not
sufficient, the implication would seem to be that only when
her human body was dead and drained would the portal close.
The danger to the universe must occur during this critical
period, it would seem (although again this is unclear),
therefore the 'need' to close the portal BEFORE the time
when Dawn's blood would have stopped flowing. Surely if it
was somehow possible for Buffy to act as a surrogate for
Dawn, she would still have had to have given her life in the
same way - a ritual letting of blood? Of course, this would
have taken just as long as if it had been Dawn's blood
flowing, therefore leaving the universe in peril. So Buffy
had to find another way - and she throws herself INTO the
portal. Her body is lifeless when it reaches the ground,
which suggests that she did not 'die' in the usual sense,
with physical causes preceding metaphysical ones, but
directly gave up her life force when she hit the portal, a
metaphysical cause preceding a physical state of death. So
Buffy's life force somehow became equivalent to Dawn's
blood. OK, they are alike in that they both represent the
'elan vital' of a living being, but Dawn's blood originated
as a non-human energy, neither dead nor alive. Buffy's did
not: even if you want to raise the issue of her
'slayerness', Buffy is not kept alive by the power of the
slayer, but by the same things which sustain all the other
'natural' creatures in the show, such as Xander, Joyce and
Miss Kitty Fantastico. Could ANYONE have made this
sacrifice in this way? Why did throwing herself INTO
something called a 'portal' not result in her going, body
and soul, into another world, like Angel in Belonging?
Perhaps the portal is set up only to take the soul/essence,
which would mean Glory intended her divine soul to go into
the portal, leaving her, lifeless, human avatar Ben behind
in the human world. Would have been nice to have been told!
And if this is true, then it must have been the PORTAL which
led to Buffy ending up in a 'heavenly' realm as hinted in
the next season. Why didn't her soul / consciousness end up
in Glory's hell dimension? Perhaps they refurbished. Or
perhaps, Glory, being mad, set up the portal despite only
having one world in a million's chance of getting 'home';
OK, our world did have her pretty freaked out by the end of
Season Five, and it was not always clear what exactly her
plan was until pretty late on in the season.
The fact that the whole universe - by which I take it the
multiplicity of worlds - is under threat by the opening of a
portal suggests this is not a portal, but more of an
arbitrary crack, and that the Key is abit of a misnomer for
something which is more like a hammer, smashing through the
structure of time and space in a blind sort of fashion.
This would make a kind of sense I suppose.
The metaphysics of Glory's "prison" is another problem. She
is doubly trapped; one, in our world, and two, in our human
nature. If she went through the 'crack' and got to her
former home world, would she be freed from her human form
too? Why did killing the body not release her in some
'divine' form, instead suggesting that she had really died,
or at least dispersed. And what does 'death' mean to non-
human beings like Glory who are pretty much all spirit
anyhow? Perhaps, as in the Sandman comics, gods need
worshippers to sustain them, and without them they weaken
and die. So the idea was that instead of emerging after
twenty or so years of Ben's life, Glory's individuality
would have gradually melted away, sleeping inside Ben, who
would be sustained by Glory's life force until he eventually
died. Ben would then make sense as a way of keeping Glory
away from anything which could resurrect her as a
threat.
This raises the problem of Glory's minions. Are they of our
world, or hers? Were they thrown out with her? If they
were exiled, surely they were not sent here straight away,
if they have the power to feed the god with their praises.
Perhaps some powerful magician, say, Doc, discovered the
situation and somehow managed to awaken Glory by magic. The
minions were exiled separately, but somehow managed to find
their way back to their God, whereupon Doc arranged things
so that Glory would grow in strength, hoping for some sort
of reward from the god in the fulness of time.
The process which 'created' Ben as a 'vessel' for Glory
seems very similar to the one the monks used to make the Key
into Dawn. Are the Monks the devotees of one of the other
gods from the same triumvirate as Glory, and was it them who
bound her originally? Was this going to be stated and later
dropped? I presume placing Ben in the world meant going
through a process of changing memories and objects, as with
Dawn; although with time not of the essence, they could
simply have created a human foetus and implanted it in the
womb of a human woman trying to conceive, saving them the
bother. How long has Ben / Glory 'happened' to live in
Sunnydale, right on top of the Key (which she desires) but
also the Slayer (one of the few mortals who poses any kind
of a threat)? I presume the Monks begun their plan to make
the Key into Dawn as soon as they found out that the Beast
had begun to partially escape; but how long was their delay
in discovering, and how much longer did it take to achieve
their design?
[> [> [>
Re: Series Inconsistencies -- A.C.S., 10:51:44
05/23/02 Thu
Umm ...
Exactly!
(The only one of these questions I can come close to
answering is
> The KEY opened the portal, and it was due to CLOSE
when
> the power of the key stopped flowing - in the form of
> Dawn's blood. ... So Buffy's life force somehow became
> equivalent to Dawn's blood. OK, they are alike in that
> they both represent the 'elan vital' of a living
being,
> but Dawn's blood originated as a non-human energy,
> neither dead nor alive. Buffy's did not ... Could
ANYONE
> have made this sacrifice in this way?
According to what I remember from that episode, the
reason that Buffy could substitute for Dawn was that Dawn's
physical manifestation was created somehow using the
physical body of Buffy herself. Therefore, Dawn's blood, in
a physical sense, was very closely related to Buffy's
body.)
[> [> [> [>
Re: Series Inconsistencies -- Yellowork,
11:03:06 05/24/02 Fri
Thanks, A.C.S.. I am not sure if that gets them out of it
though! DAWN was created from Buffy's physical body in some
way, and so if the ritual required DAWN, the person, then it
would make sense that Buffy could act as a surrogate: it's a
fair cop! But the ritual required the KEY energy, which
existed before Dawn and had been moulded into human form
using Buffy as a template. Dawn's external form, and I
would guess her 'soul' are the product of the monks and
their meddling, but the key inside her always remained in
some way, allowing the ritual to occur at all. So Buffy is
NOT linked to the KEY energy; the only person linked to this
is Dawn herself. In other words, Dawn is connected to Buffy
in one direction, and the Key in another, but the Key and
Buffy are not directly connected. (Perhaps a Venn diagram
might help ;-) ).
[>
Re: Series Inconsistencies -- LittleBit,
10:06:30 05/23/02 Thu
Also the combining of the scoobies was accomplished by
Giles, Xander and Willow. It was Willow's power that
allowed them to be successful. Willow was spirit. Even if it
could be argued that with the borrowed powers of the coven
Giles could act as spirit who then would stand in his stead.
I think the idea of joining together wasn't brought up
because the key player in the risky spell was the one
they would need to defeat.
[>
Olaf not a god... -- Scroll, 14:22:50 05/23/02
Thu
I'm not sure which myth it is, possibly Norse, but there's a
god whose strength lies in his hammer. Take away the hammer,
and this god can be defeated. When Willow magicked away
Olaf's hammer he lost some of his strength and Buffy could
beat him up. So it stands to reason that maybe the hammer is
what makes Olaf a 'god', just not a god like Glory (whose
powers seem inherent).
[> [>
Re: Olaf not a god... -- AgnosticSorcerer,
18:53:17 05/23/02 Thu
"I'm not sure which myth it is, possibly Norse, but there's
a god whose strength lies in his hammer."
Thor, the Viking storm god of the Norse, with his magick
hammer Mjollnir:
"'My third treasure,' said Brokk, 'is for you, Thor. This is
the hammer Mjollnir. You can use it against anything, and
use it with all your strength. Nothing can ever break it.'
The Storm God eagerly grasped the hammer and listened. 'Even
if you hurl it, you'll never lose it. No matter how far you
fling it, it will always return to your hand.'"
"[...] Mjollnir was the most valuable because it alone could
guard the gods against the giants."
Though Mjollnir was a very powerful weapon indeed there is
no reason to suspect that Thor was powerless without his
hammer:
"Thor, son of Odin and Earth, was second in the pantheon and
it is clear from the terms in which he is described by the
eddaic poets, Snorri Sturluson and the saga writers, and
from the large numbers of place names embodying his name,
that he was the most loved and respected of the gods. With
his hammer Mjollnir, he kept the giants at bay and was
physically strong enough to grapple with the world serpent,
Jormungand."
Olaf seems to be indeed a Buffyverse conception of Thor as
even without his hammer Buffy was strewn about like a twig
by Olaf in "Triangles".
Even Anya, in "The Gift" refers to Olaf as a god:
"ANYA: When Buffy first met Glory, she found that magical
... (gestures) glowy sphere that was meant to repel Glory.
We've got it in the basement. (everyone looks surprised) It
might drive her away or hurt her. Ooh!
Anya hurries over to a display case, gestures like a game-
show hostess.
ANYA: And *Olaf the troll god's* enchanted hammer.
We see the hammer (episode "Triangle") on a shelf.
ANYA: You wanna fight a god, *use the weapon of a god*."
**Mythological quotes from "The Norse Myths" by Kevin
Crossley-Holland.
Season 7?? --
Donna,
07:25:19 05/23/02 Thu
Apologies if this has already been asked before, but is it
true that Britney Spears has been signed for 6 episodes in
the next season?
[>
Get out! That's impossible. I've heard no such
horror. -- Tillow, 07:28:12 05/23/02 Thu
[> [>
Re: Brittany -- Brian, 07:31:54 05/23/02 Thu
Perhaps she'll appear as Buffy's evil clone!
[> [>
Re: Get out! That's impossible. I've heard no such
horror. -- Donna, 07:32:48 05/23/02 Thu
Thats what I was thinking! But it's in one of our daily
papers over here in England.
[> [> [>
Re: Get out! That's impossible. I've heard no such
horror. -- maddog, 08:03:47 05/23/02 Thu
That's been rumored forever over here. It'll never
happen.
[> [> [>
The Daily Star? That's a paper. Not a 'News'Paper -
- Rahael, 14:41:49 05/23/02 Thu
[> [>
Speculation: Spike's new GF? -- LeeAnn, 10:51:03
05/23/02 Thu
Spike/Vamp!Brittany, think of the possibilities!!! Think of
the navel comparisons.
She couldn't be anyworse that Gellar was some of this season
and JM can carry the acting chores in their scenes.
A little junk food is good for the soul sometimes. Or at
least the appetite. Think of Vamp!Brittany as the equivalent
of a Krystal or White Castle. Not good or good for you but
sometimes you just want it anyway.
[>
Re: Season 7?? -- Darby, 07:56:24 05/23/02
Thu
She was supposed to play the April-bot but pulled out, so
the connection is there, so it could be possible. That's a
huge time commitment from the Spears megacorporate machine,
though, so I'd doubt the details.
It would be stunt-casting, but it could help the show's
ratings (maybe UPN is floating this as a suggestion, and
that's where the info has come from) and I'd assume that it
wouldn't overwhelm the spirit of the show...maybe...
[> [>
Link to Sky News story below..... -- Sebastian,
07:59:55 05/23/02 Thu
Click here.
Although this doesn't make it official, however.
Currently snackin' on a grain o' salt,
Sebastian
[> [> [>
Re: Link to Sky News story below..... -- maddog,
08:17:17 05/23/02 Thu
I'll believe it when I see it. Buffy has intelligent
viewers. Not ones that want to see Britney on screen.
[> [> [> [>
Don't be so sure... -- Direwolf, 08:38:53
05/23/02 Thu
Yes, Buffy has lots of intelligent viewers. Thats much is
not in question. It's an intelligent show, so it stands to
reason.
Unfortunately, it also has loads of very sad people with no
life, taste or IQ of their own as fans. They're attracted to
the show because they are told by others it's "cool" and
thus become fashionable (the very thing BtVS stands
against). Possibly they are attracted to the stars, or the
action, or simply like chick-fights (just read the quote
about Buffy and Brittany fighting with skin-tight clothes in
the link provided to see what I mean).
Such people, indeed, LOVE Brittany, for understandable
reasons. Since they consist a significant portion of the
show's audience, it's completely reasonable as a "rating
trick" by the network.
[> [> [> [>
I second that "I'll believe it when I see it"
and I really don't want to... -- Rob, 09:16:03
05/23/02 Thu
...because it would mark the first time ever in the history
of my Buffy-watching that I would truly question a decision
by the creators of the show. Britney cannot act...Heck,
Britney can't even sing, and that's what she's paid to do.
Or is that show off her huge, fake breasts?
"Buffy" has always meant high quality to me, and having
Britney on the show would severly tarnish the show's track
record of brilliance. I would only be happy with a Britney
appearance if she played a vamp and was staked before the
opening credits.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [>
Britney can't act? -- Dochawk, 09:49:29 05/23/02
Thu
I am far from a Britney Spears fan, but the elitist nature
involving this kinda funny (and Rob I am not picking on you
at all its just that I hit respond at your email). My
question is have you ever seen her act? She has been in a
total of one movie (for which she got good reviews). Are we
denigrating her because of her pop icon status? And as long
as it doesn't hur the quality of the show, bringing more
viewers in seems to be worthwhile. And as Buffy herself
would remind us, don't judge a Britney by her cover.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Britney can't act? -- Rob, 10:01:22 05/23/02
Thu
I saw "Crossroads," unfortunately, and if Britney were in a
paper bag, she would be unable to act her way out of it.
I don't think it's a question of elitism...I'm totally
unelitist. I used to be a "Xena" fan, for God's sake! I'm
not insisting that everybody on "Buffy" be royally-trained
Shakespearean actors. Nick Brendon never even acted before
winning the role of Xander, and he is wonderful. Britney, on
the other hand, is just not good. And further, her (IMO,
totally undeserved) superstar status would draw attention
away from the characters and plots on "Buffy." She could not
help but stick out like a sore thumb.
That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [>
That's not elitism, it's quality control --
Direwolf, 10:11:54 05/23/02 Thu
Asking for some taste and intelligence from your television
services doesn't seem that much to ask for me. After all, we
PAY them, and get trash in return. When a quality show like
Buffy finally, by some weird, unpredictable constellation of
neurons in the brains of the netwrok execs, makes it's way
to our homes and our hearts, they try to mess with it, to
make it more like what they think it should be. After all,
they tried to cut out the kissing scene in Joss Whedon's
masterpiece "The Body" and I don't even want to get into the
Babylon5/Crusade discussion.
So, no, I would prefer not to see a bleached, talentless (in
every sense of the word) knucklehead stomp her way into one
of my favorite shows and tries to be funny, cute and teasing
to the hordes of hormonically challenged gits and little
girls with dreams of latex glory.
If it's all the same to the suits, of course. Obviously they
get to decide what's cool and what's not.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: That's not elitism, it's quality control --
Dochawk, 10:38:42 05/23/02 Thu
First off, the kissing scene was WB not UPN. Joss has said
repeatedly that UPN has not interfered at all. And in fact,
I would be suprised if this was UPNs decision too. Nothin
in the article (I must say the source is weird, you'd expect
this announcement in variety or hollywood reporter not a
british online source)says who made the decision either.
And not having seen Crossroads I will defer to your
judgement. I may add though, it would be tough for her to
be worse than David Boreanz during his Buffy run. (I think
he has gotten better on Angel).
[> [> [> [> [>
LOL! I agree! -- Dichotomy, 13:39:22 05/23/02
Thu
I'd LOVE to see her get staked in the opening credits. Kind
of like in the Scream movies where the big guest star gets
killed right off the bat. I just can't help it--she bugs me
on so many levels I can't even begin to separate them all
into coherent thought (although I'm willing to admit to a
bit of jealousy).
Now if she does appear in more than one ep and is actually
good, I'll be willing to reevaluate my feelings about her.
But man, that'll take some doing!
[>
I'm not stupid and I like Britney --
ProudBritneyFan, 14:17:59 05/23/02 Thu
Her acting is not as terrible as it would seem, and liking
her is not a sign of stupidity or shalowness or being a pop-
culture ho. She is fun and very entertaining, if not an
amazingly deep-meaning artist. She just makes me happy, and
isn't that enough?
[> [>
Hmmmmmm....... -- O'Cailleagh, 18:16:17 05/23/02
Thu
This just doesn't seem too likely. Britney in Buffy.....the
only way they could pull it off IMO, would be to have her
all monstered up so that she wouldn't be so recognisable and
I can't imagine Britney would want to cover her body in
latex or wear fake body parts......
Willow: Getting
reacqainted, crossing lines, etc. (spoilers up to
finale) -- yez, 08:12:20 05/23/02 Thu
I've been thinking about how the SG are going to have the
summer to work through recent developments with Willow, but
we, the audience, aren't. I'm conflicted about this.
I'm all for tortured characters, but I don't really want to
re-experience SG depression and directionlessness for yet
another season.
Yet, I really *do* want to hear what these characters have
to say to each other. What was done and what was said was
very serious shit. Those characters are neck-deep in things
to work out between themselves.
I mean, you can look at the fight between Willow and Buffy
as something that was a long time coming. Really. What
friends don't fight? Get on each other's nerves? Hurt each
other's feelings? And then look at Willow, little Miss
intellectualize my feelings and use "I" statements and avoid
confrontation. When she said "Oh, Buffy, you need every inch
of your ass kicked," it was like all the stuff that's she's
kept inside, all her frustrations with Buffy as a friend
(not being there for her, not confiding in her, etc.) just
came to the surface finally.
Rambling... but my thing is that I need to see how they work
it out with Willow because *I* don't know how to work it out
with Willow. Yeah, I'm a sheep, I need cues. For starters, I
just don't really understand how this whole magic-addiction
thing works.
So, what? We treat Willow like a recovering alcoholic and
say, "Yeah, she did awful things when she was drunk, but
that isn't the *real* Willow -- it was drug-induced"? Like,
she has to deal with the issues that leave her vulnerable to
addiction/abuse, but she's more or less emotionally off the
hook for what she did under the influence?
Or do we treat her like someone who *chose* to wield new-
found power in very negative ways? Was Willow's behavior the
*real* Willow -- what she is when she doesn't have her
normal inhibitions? Is this indicative of Willow's true
nature?
It seems there are 2 different things going on: 1) dark
magics can change you, and 2) magic can be addictive for
some people. But maybe also 3: you get a physical rush by
performing spells. Some spells? All spells? It's just
confusing...
I've also been thinking about who Willow tried to kill and
who she didn't, and why. Even though Willow was the new "Big
Bad," she's very specific about who she's going after:
OK, Warren. As gruesome as that was, I think many of us can
understand where that came from on some level.
Rak. Now, did she kill him? Is/was he human? Where does this
fall on "lines" to cross? But she was never good with her
relationship with him (she cries in the shower after the
"first time") so you can see why she doesn't have any
affection for him.
Jonathan and Andrew. Yes, we know they didn't help Warren
pull the trigger, but they were involved with him, they
helped him get where he got, and they have been involved
with trying to frame and kill Buffy. They also were
responsible for the demon that almost got Buffy to kill the
SG.
The police. These guys were "in her way," but she doesn't
try to hurt them, even though she very easily could
have.
Dawn. Willow tries to "change [her] back." That would've
effectively killed the Dawn we all know and love. Well...
know. This wowed me. She's looked after Dawn and treated her
like a sister/child for a while now.
Giles. This was the one that really knocked the wind out of
me. She tries to kill *Giles* -- and not just once. The
flying weaponry, the collapsed ceiling, sucking the
magic/life out of him. And she lets loose all this anger at
him, frustration that we didn't even really know was there.
This was a *big* line to cross, in my book. This was like
her trying to kill her "daddy," after all -- a father-
figure, mentor, etc.
Anya. Now Willow had *ample* opportunity to kill her. But
she doesn't even try -- she just keeps putting her to sleep.
Unless you can't kill a vengeance demon...
Xander. Willow lashes out at him to move him out of the way,
but she doesn't try to kill him.
Buffy. While Willow certainly tries to "kick every inch of
[her] ass" -- she really just tries to move her out of the
way -- she doesn't seriously try to kill her. And when she
sics the root lobster monsters on her, she seems to be
trying to honor her -- to let her go down fighting, like a
warrior should, instead of having her just be incinerated
along with the rest of them. Of course, there is a fair
amount of emotional torture she piles on Buffy, what with
all the "try saving them now, you know you can't help
yourself" business.
Now, you could argue that by flaming the world, Willow is
trying to technically kill them all. But I think that she
believes, at that point, that she's doing the world a favor.
And she appears to be out of her mind, here. She's not
trying to "end the world as we know it" to allow the hell
dimension to take over. She's trying to just end everything
to bring peace for herself and every whose pain she can
feel.
I don't know... just having a hard time working through how
I feel about what's happened. Would appreciate hearing other
people's takes on this if you feel like sharing.
yez
[>
Re: Willow: Getting reacqainted, crossing lines, etc.
(spoilers up to finale) -- maddog, 10:35:36 05/23/02
Thu
While I know Joss has said that next season will be light
hearted I can see it taking a full season for Willow to
finally redeem herself. If she does it fast then it won't
be believable. Cause they all love her...but she's done
some horrible things and needs to be punished in some way.
I think the people she went after harder were those she was
most frustrated with. Giles and Buffy. Giles challenged
her authority and skills on more than one occasion causing
her to lash out. And Buffy, well if you had a friend that
seemed perfect at everything you'd snap on occasion too.
As for Dawn...that I can't explain except for the general
rage. The need to destroy everything in site. That could
also be Buffy related to though.
[>
Crossing lines and moral responsibility -- Sophist,
10:43:05 05/23/02 Thu
I think we have to face it: the finale created more
questions than it answered when it comes to Willow.
We have to begin with the lingering magic/drugs problem.
This metaphor never did work, as has been repeatedly
discussed here. The finale both undercuts the metaphor
(again) and fails to resolve the issues it raised. Not a
good combination.
The problem is that magic is not inherently evil. We saw
that with Tara. Hell, we saw it with all the good Willow did
with her power before S6. In Grave, Giles expressly said
some magic was good (not in those exact words, but close
enough). Using magic, then, is not necessarily wrong, and it
can't be addictive since Giles and Tara never were addicted.
To say nothing of Jonathan or lots of others.
Well, ok, maybe the rest of the season was meant to show how
Willow misinterpreted her problem as one of addiction rather
than power (which we all know was the real issue). That
doesn't work now either -- they played magic=drugs in at
least 2 scenes (with Rack and when Willow asked Giles "Who's
your supplier?"). Worse yet, at no time did anyone
articulate that Willow's real problem was not addiction, but
power (even though Tara expressly said this in TR).
They also seem to want to use the addiction line to help
solve the problem of Willow's moral responsibility for her
actions. Treating her behavior as "drug induced" could be
seen as a way to mitigate her conduct. This wasn't "really"
Willow, that was magic that took control of her. IRL, of
course, this doesn't work: if I take PCP and go on a
rampage, I'm responsible both morally and legally for what
I've done.
Then there were the references to how Willow would "cross
the line" if she killed Jonathan and Andrew. Well, Warren
and Rack were creeps whose demise will be unmourned by
anyone, but let's not kid ourselves: Willow took a running
leap over the line with both of them (assuming Rack is human
and subject to human justice under the theory Buffy
articulated to Xander and Dawn).
If Willow's problem was magic addiction, the contradictions
in the story line are numerous. If Willow's problem was
power, then the magic/addiction scenes are incoherent. As an
abuser of power, Willow is fully responsible for her
behavior. You can't have it both ways. In fact, you can't
really have either. They have a long way to go to get
themselvew out of the hole they created for themselves with
this character.
[> [>
why not both? -- dream of the consortium,
11:31:57 05/23/02 Thu
I volunteered a while back at a shelter for battered women.
When the women first come in, they often make excuses for
the men that hit them. (Why they want to excuse them is
another issue, too complex to get into now). One of the
most common excuses was "he only hits me when he's
drunk/high." The volunteers were told to ask the women if
maybe he got drunk/high to have an excuse to hit them. After
all, he doesn't get drunk and hit his boss - he hits his
wife, the person (he thinks) he can get away with hitting.
So is he responsible - of course, yes. But would treating
his alcoholism help as well - maybe yes there, too. Take the
excuse away, force them to clean up their act int erms of
chemicals, absolutely. Because you won't get very far
without doing that, though it's the tiniest baby step in
getting to the heart of the matter.
Willow did horrible things. She wanted to do just a few
horrible things, perhaps, and then stop (after all, she
saved Buffy for the bullet wound). But she got pulled into
the addiction. That doesn't men she didn't make choices -
many of them, all bad. She is responsible for everything
she did, every step of the way. She is responsible for her
addiction. That doesn't mean that the "substance" didn't
take her further than she wanted to go. If you've ever
known someone with addictive problems, you know that the
addiction does eat away at their personality. The worst
parts of the personality come to the forefront, the best
parts wither. Did the magic do it? Yes. And so did
Willow.
I think ME understands this. The "source of the power," the
other talk of power ("It isn't the violence, it's the
power"), the fact that DarkWillow attacks each person in
proportion to the feelings that RegularWillow would feel
(resentment and jealousy toward Buffy, fury toward Warren,
less anger at Xander and Anya), and so on. There are only a
few places where I thought that there may be a misuse of the
addiction as a mitigating factor - when Buffy mentions that
Willow has an addictive personality ("and now she's tasted
blood" is blood addictive? I guess on a vampire show, that
makes a sort of weird sense) and when Buffy talks about
Willow crossing the line with Jonathon and Andrew. She
hasn't crossed the line already? Anyway, I have had little
faith in Buffy's statements as the mouthpiece of ME - if
Tara says something, I believe it to reflect the attitudes
of the writers, but not Buffy, not all the time. Maybe next
season Buffy will be the one who has the hardest time
accepting Willow's responsibilty for her own behavior.
Sure, it's supposed to be a lighter year, but Buffy will
still have her flaws, no? And martyrdom, her tendency to
take on other's choices as her responsibility, may still be
one of them. Xander, who despite some of his behavior this
year still seems the most mature of the group, may serve a
role of balance. I am not too worried about it yet, we'll
have to see where they take it all. After all, there were
people who worried that Buffy's resurrection would be
handled too casually, and look how long it took to get us
here.
[> [> [>
Interesting, thanks. -- yez, 11:40:01 05/23/02
Thu
Good points, analogies.
I get that this is likely a combination of things --
complex, like IRL. However, I still keep getting tripped up
with the portrayal of magic, linking it so closely to
physical depedency. I guess THAT's actually the thing -- I
can understand it as an emotional dependency, but not so
much as a physical dependency. It starts breaking down for
me there.
For example, we see Willow and Rak's other regulars tripping
out on the spells he works *on* them. But before this
season, we never really saw Giles, Willow, Tara, etc.,
getting "high" on what they were doing, at least not the way
I remember it.
yez
[> [> [> [>
Re: Interesting, thanks. -- maddog, 15:47:40
05/23/02 Thu
But addiction doesn't have to be physical. Why can't it be
a mental addiction?
I don't think the others that were doing magic before this
season were doing such evil and powerful magic. So now
getting high scenes like at Rak's.
[> [> [> [> [>
I think symptoms of physical addiction were
presented. -- yez, 05:42:08 05/24/02 Fri
There was the tripping euphoria, but more telling is the
physical withdrawal that Willow seems to go through when
she's trying to give it up. At least that's what I
understood was going on. It seems that, this season, we're
seeing that practicing magick has an effect on the body.
Actually, even last season, Willow was getting nosebleeds
sometimes, wasn't she?
And when we get "Willow-cam" in the finale, when she "shoots
up" with Giles' power, we see the euphoria again, and the
momentary physical incapacitation.
I guess you could argue that it's only the heavy dark
magicks that do this, but Rak's place seemed more like an
opium den, where people went, loaded up on Rak's spells
(that he would do to them), and then just tripped out.
When Willow tries to leave with Dawn that one time, we see
again the physical incapacitation where she loses control of
the car.
yez
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Well, if you look at her "spells" (and
without quotation marks) with Tara... -- belle,
12:50:26 05/24/02 Fri
Those are also having a physical effect, no? The difference
is, in that case, the magic she was using was tapping from a
different source--eros, not rage.
It's really not that inconsistent to say that magic can have
druglike effects on the mind and body as well as the soul
(although I did have problems with such elements as Amy the
Sage Junkie...) Magic is about channeling, directing, and
transforming energies. Some of the energies come from
outside sources--forces of nature, the various demons,
spirits, and other supernatural inhabitants of the
Buffyverse. The most important ones for the magician,
though, come from within herself--and the emotions are
primary. Emotions certainly have a physical effect on the
body; in fact, as we're learning these days, they're
actually stored in the body. Eros (what she experienced
with Tara) can be harnessed; so can rage. And so, too,
apparently, can unselfish love (agape), viz Xander and Giles
at the end of the ep.
[> [> [> [>
Rank Amateurs and Jocks -- Malandanza, 08:08:05
05/24/02 Fri
"For example, we see Willow and Rak's other regulars
tripping out on the spells he works *on* them. But before
this season, we never really saw Giles, Willow, Tara, etc.,
getting "high" on what they were doing, at least not the way
I remember it."
Way back in Season Two Giles talked about his demon
summoning days:
GILES: Studying history at Oxford and of course the
occult by night. I hated it. The boring grind of school, the
pressure of my "destiny". So I dropped out. I went to
London, fell in with the worst crowd that would have me. We
practiced magicks. Small stuff, for pleasure or gain. And
then Ethan and I discovered something a little bigger.
BUFFY: Eyghon.
GILES: Yes. We put one of us into a deep sleep and the
others would summon
him. It was an extraordinary high.God, we were fools.
The Dark Age -- psyche's shooting scripts
So we had evidence that magic has an addictive quality long
before Willow went to Rack -- at least the dark stuff does.
I think part of the problem with Willow is her "suppliers" -
- she went to the darkest magicks -- back in the Glory days
she got a taste of it and she continued in Season Six.
There seems to be a difference in the magic Giles was using
-- magic from a good source rather than evil.
Another part of the equation is Willow's lack of moderation.
By analogy, Tara drinks a glass of wine with her Sunday
dinner -- not much change in her personality from alcohol --
while Willow downs a pint of brandy every night before going
to bed, starts off her day with a drink, has a couple of
martinis with lunch and goes out binge drinking in the
evening. Of course there's a change in her behavior.
There seems to be a fairly long-term residual effect in
using dark magic. In OaFA Anya comments to Willow
that "If you hadn't gotten so much of it in your system
in the first place - -. Willow has used some
very dark magic and she sucked up the knowledge of
all those evil books that the WC wanted Giles to burn -- she
ought to be a walking time bomb next season -- unless...
The magic Giles had seemed to be of a very different nature.
Good magic, or natural magic -- the kind Tara used. It
infused every fiber of Willow's body -- if it purged all the
bad old black magic, Willow may have an easier time
recovering. In fact, the residual effects of the white
magic might make her recovery possible where it otherwise
might not have been.
One thing Willow definitely showed this episode is that she
really is a "Rank Amateur" when it comes to magic. All that
power and what did she accomplish? The girl just has no
finesse. Jonathan knows more about the responsible use of
magic than does Willow -- he knew she would run out of power
when she was chasing them in the semi. And Willow doesn't
just run out of power once, but three times. The scene
where Buffy and Dawn were fighting the root monsters
reminded me of Waiting in the Wings the Angel episode
where the magician loses his control because too much of his
energy is being poured into making monsters for the AI team
to fight. Willow took time out of her world destruction
plan to inflict a little poetic justice on Buffy and that
helped drain her power. When it come right down to it,
Willow doesn't seem to know much about the nature of magic
(or care about the consequences). All her knowledge is
Engineer knowledge -- how to make things work -- who cares
why they work? Or who provides the power?
There seems to be a measure of sympathy for Willow because
she never lost the feeling of not belonging -- she still
thinks of herself as the nerd that Cordelia Chase used to
abuse for sport. From her self-image in Restless to
her third-person diatribe against Willow in TTG/G she
has never forgotten how SHS made her feel. Like Warren:
WARREN: It's Warren, remember? Gym class, fifth period?
(still jolly) Oh man, you and your jock buddies used
to give me such a hard time. That thing with the underwear?
God, I thought I'd never stop crying.
Seeing Red
Warren goes on to say "This ain't high school" but it seems
clear that both Warren and Willow are still living (well,
not still living, in Warren's case) in the past,
trying to right wrongs they suffered when they were
children. Other parallels, Warren's fight for survival
against Willow -- he used brute force first (as Willow does)
and when that fails, he tries a few tricks. Warren and
Willow both had issues with Buffy and both wanted to defeat
her to prove that they were better. When captured by
Willow, he suddenly becomes reasonable and tries to use
persuasion to get free -- much as Willow persuades Anya to
free her. Even Warren's unthinking rage which brought him
to Buffy's house is mirrored by Willow's frequent outbursts
of rage -- she foolishly drains her powers out of anger.
The parallels between Warren and Willow are too close to
ignore -- granted, Warren's murders were accidents and he
never tortured a helpless captive, but I think that if we
are to forgive Willow, we must first examine why she
deserves better treatment than Warren received at her
hands.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Rank Amateurs and Jocks -- yez, 10:35:56
05/24/02 Fri
Good points -- lots to think about for me.
A couple of things, though:
I'm confused by the whole power depletion thing. I thought
it was that 1) practicing magick, like any exercise,
fatigues you, so how long you can go depends no exertion and
stamina, and 2) learning spells was like stocking up on
ammunition, but they aren't propulsion or detonation in and
of themselves -- in other words, you have to have both
ammunition and energy, but ammunition isn't the same as
energy.
So I thought that when Willow sucks the books dry, it's like
she just found a quick way of "uploading" their information.
Ooh, a thought! ... There was an ep. in the first season
where a demon was trapped into a book as words. It's also
Willow in that ep. who releases the demon by scanning the
words into her computer. So is it possible that when she
uploads all those books, she uploaded some malevolent
creatures as well?
Anyway, I was initially going to say that she uploads the
books' information, but tires from lack of stamina -- and
also because humans aren't supposed to have that kind power,
and she's really having to carry a lot at the same time.
Don't forget that it takes a coven's collective powers to
stop her even just momentarily.
yez
[> [> [>
Re: why not both? -- Rahael, 15:30:53 05/23/02
Thu
Great points, Dream.
For me, the most interesting point was when Buffy said
"she's still Willow". As long as she was still Willow, they
had a chance of reaching her. As long as she was still
Willow, she must take full responsibility for everything she
did.
[> [>
Re: Crossing lines and moral responsibility --
maddog, 15:33:24 05/23/02 Thu
I was agreeing with the magic explaination until this
point...just because a few people don't get addicted doesn't
mean it can't be addictive. Look at alcohol, many people
drink...only a percentage of them become alcoholics.
ok, here's a novel idea. Why can't her problem be
both...why couldn't her thirst for power have driven her to
a dependency on magic?
And we don't know what consequences Willow will have to
face...morally or legally. That's part of your well pointed
out vagueness of her situation in the finale.
I think the comment about crossing the line meant in how
many she would kill...if she could kill the two who did
nothing to Tara then she could kill anyone.
Why can't it be both? I'm actually curious about this so if
you could explain it I'd appreciate it.
[> [> [>
Re: Crossing lines and moral responsibility --
Sophist, 21:08:09 05/23/02 Thu
My bad. I meant to say magic=drugs. Don't know why I said
addiction instead.
[>
Re: Willow: Getting reacqainted, crossing lines, etc.
(spoilers up to finale) -- Belladonna, 10:51:03
05/23/02 Thu
Disclaimer: I've only watched the Season Finale once, thus
far, so I may change my opinion on further viewing.
But...
I am in the same boat. I'm not really sure how to look at
her behavior either, and I really wish we could see the SG's
immediate reaction. My impression was that she almost seemed
to behave like a multiple personality, or a possession. I'm
not saying she was possessed, but her behavior reminded me
of it. She often referred to herself in the third person.
"Willow was a loser, Willow was weak," etc. I'm not sure if
she actually used present or past tense, though. Also, I
think at some point (I don't remember exactly when) someone
called her Willow and she said, "Don't call me that!"
Again, I'm not saying she was possessed in the typical
sense, or anything. However, Willow does get her magic from
dark forces. Other people have discussed the difference
between Willow and Tara's magic; for example, often in the
series, Tara's magic was shown in light colors, as opposed
to the dark colors of Willow's. Also, Buffy at one point
says something about how magic completely changes Willow. I
suppose you could say it changes her the way alcohol can
turn someone into a mean drunk, which brings us back to
addiction. But, perhaps the dark magic she tapped into,
and the magic she absorbed from the books and Rack took her
over.
Aaargh...I'm not explaining this very well. This is why I
mostly lurk, and rarely post! :)
What I'm trying to say is, what if the dark magicks created
some sort of split personality, separating the light and
dark aspects of her personality? Everyone has darkness
inside them. Just as there's the potential to do good,
there's a potential for evil. I looked at it as Willow
separating the two sides, with evil coming out on top.
After all, Giles said that the magic she took from him
allowed her access to her humanity. That's why Xander could
reach her. Maybe using magic too much throws the natural
balance of good and evil in each person out of wack.
Giles's magick and Xander's persistence, in reaching her
humanity, was able to reset that balance, thus bringing nice
red-haired Willow back.
As for how that affects the is-she-off-the-hook-or-is-she-
responsible-for-her-actions debate, I don't know. I
personally think she's responsible for her actions, but not
completely, not in the same way someone like Warren is. I
look at it the same way as someone who get's off for murder
due to insanity.
Again, sorry this post was rambly and not very clear.
Hope it made a bit of sense.
[> [>
separating light and dark of personality -- the magic
issue -- yez, 11:33:54 05/23/02 Thu
Belladonna, I understood what you were trying to say, I
think, about dark magic possibly bringing darker elements of
a person to the forefront, while "good" magic does the
opposite. That would fit really nicely, IMHO, with what
we've seen throughout the series and in Willow's recent
behavior.
EXCEPT for all the junkie/addiction talk that have been
inserted into things since about "Tabula Rasa" I think.
And then in the finale, we get all the drug references: "I'm
so wired," "who's your supplier?" "Willow's a junkie." And
suddenly now, "Willow's got an addictive personality" from
Buffy.
I wish they would've kept it simple to the light/dark thing.
Not for the sake of simplicity -- mostly for the sake of
coherency. It would've still allowed them a lot of room to
explore the issue, because you could still add in the
corruption of power, which I think is where they went off
track, IMHO.
Regarding Sophist's (I think) comment that magic can't be
addictive because Giles and Tara didn't get addicted, I have
to disagree. If you look at chemical dependency IRL, it's
apparent that dependecy varies by person. Especially if you
look at alcohol. MOST people are able to use alcohol without
negative consequences. However, there are some who
can't.
I don't know... I get back to having to pull out the various
message we've been given about magic and what it does.
Though I still can't make very good sense of it.
1) There is some kind of fundamental difference between dark
and "good" or "light" magicks.
2) Dark magicks can open doors to things you can't control,
even if you're using it for "good."
3) Magick always carries a price. (All magicks? Or just dark
magicks?)
4) Some people perform "spells" (or have spells performed on
them, i.e., Rak) for the "high" it gives them; these are
people who abuse magick.
5) Some people become addicted to the high they get from
magic (i.e., Willow and her support group members).
6) The "essence" of magick can be a healing thing?
Argh. Complicated...
yez
[> [>
Re: Willow: Getting reacqainted, crossing lines, etc.
(spoilers up to finale) -- Lonesome Sundown, 12:12:26
05/23/02 Thu
Good point about the multiple personality, Belladonna. Her
whole demeanor while magicked out reminded me very strongly
of VampWill. In particular the 'bored now' scene with Warren
and also the 'Willow was a loser' speech. Compare that with
Willow pretending to be VampWillow in Doppelgangland
(courtesy Psyche's transcripts):
"She bothered me. She's so weak, and accommodating. It's
pathetic -- she lets everyone walk all over her and then she
gets cranky at her friends for no reason. I just couldn't
let her live."
I think the similarities between the VampWIl and DarthWill
suggest that WIllow is indeed responsible for her actions.
VampWIll was not a different entity from Willow, but a
natural development of Willow's personality under a
different set of circumstances. Again from the transcripts
of Doppelgangland:
BUFFY: Just remember, a vampire's personality has nothing
to
do with the person it was.
ANGEL: Well, actually --
So VampWIll's cruelty and amorality, as much as her bisexual
nature, are latent in WIllow. The black magicks just brought
that part of her personality out into the open in DarthWill,
they didn't give rise to those traits. Willow has to face
up to the fact that she herself is capable of the violence
and destruction she wreaked in the last 3 episodes. After
all, the whole season has been about the distress caused by
the Scoobies not recognising/coming to terms with their
weaknesses. While the rest of the gang seems to be well on
their way to conquering their inner demons, Willow's journey
is just beginning.
[> [>
Re: Don't call me Willow (spoilers up to finale) --
verdantheart, 06:56:26 05/24/02 Fri
I took the insistance that "Willow doesn't live here
anymore" to reflect Willow's view that she's basically a
loser. She's practically omnipotent, so how could she be
Willow, the nerd who was kicked around in high school? Why
be just plain Willow when you can be super Willow? Or better
yet, don't be Willow at all. Be something powerful that
doesn't have to listen to Willow's pesky conscience or act
like the "good girl" that everyone takes Willow to be. I
don't think that the division was pathological as much as
convenient.
[>
Thanks to those who have responded -- it's helped.
-- yez, 16:00:04 05/23/02 Thu
I guess where I am now is that you deal with Willow like
you'd deal with any beloved friend who was going through a
really, really hard time and completely flipped out and let
the worst parts of her- or himself take over and did things
that he or she will regret forever. You try to be there for
them, and you try to figure out how you can be. If you can
be.
So I guess I can still love this character. I just don't
feel like I can be quite as easy with her as I once was, so
quick to smile or laugh with her cutesy ways.
I think the days of pink fuzzy sweaters are over,
paraphrasing how another poster put it recently.
I don't think I'll ever be able to see that wide-eyed
innocence again in her.
And maybe that's the point after all. Growth, change. And
this is the sign of good storytelling that it makes me feel
so sad for her, that I care, that I feel, that I'm
uncertain.
yez
Redemption and
Judaism: Some Questions -- LeeAnn, 08:37:53 05/23/02
Thu
So Spike gets a soul and many fans, even redemptionists, now
believe he has been redeemed. I don't see how he can be
because there was no indication that a soul was what he was
after. He wanted the chip out so he could kill the Slayer
and pick his teeth with her bones and instead he gets a
soul? Changed his mind during a passport scene I guess. I
thought most redemptionist thought that Spike would be
redeemed through his love for Buffy, by doing good, by
feeling remorse, not by tests of strength and suffering,
tests he could have passed just as well without being
motivated by anything good.
I've been thinking about redemption and religion, more
accurately redemption and Judaism. Someone once pointed out
to me how many of the people associated with the show are
Jewish. Redemption isn't a part of Judaism, is it? Don't
Jews consider themselves Jewish because they are born of a
Jewish mother, not because they choose Judaism as their
religion? They are Jews because they are born Jewish, born
chosen and there is nothing they can do to change that. They
cannot be redeemed because there is no such concept in
Judaism. (Is there?) So Buffy is the Chosen One and she
cannot change that even though being chosen is frequently no
fun. Spike has been chosen in another way. He has been
chosen for evil and he cannot be redeemed because there is
no such thing as redemption, not for the good and not the
evil. So when Spike gets his soul it's not as a result of a
quest for redemption. He doesn't get redeemed (if that was
what happened to him) as a result of his love or for doing
good or feeling remorse, he gets it as a kind of monkey's
paw boobie prize. It's almost like Job's story because Job
is punished arbitrarily and rewarded arbitrarily rather than
being punished or rewarded as he deserves.
I've been told that Joss is an atheist but was his original
heritage Jewish? Is that why the idea of redemption rings no
bells with him? Is it just not part of the cultural mindset
he was raised in? Or part of the culture of many of the
writers and producers on Buffy?
Just some questions. Not ones I have any answers to.
What do you think?
[>
Spoilers for Grave above... -- LeeAnn, 08:41:54
05/23/02 Thu
[>
I'm Jewish, so I'll try anwering a few of your
questions: -- Direwolf, 09:09:26 05/23/02 Thu
First of all I'm having problems associating between the
"redeemed" notion and being Jewish. You're not "redeemed"
into Judaism or out it, you're just born one. You're also
never chosen, except by directly by God, whether for good or
evil. Yes, some Jews consider themselves "the Chosen
People", chosen by God to be the light to the non-Jews. This
concept is not typical to all Jews but mostly the more
religious ones, which are a minority. Personally I don't
agree with it since I believe all humans are the same.
Still, even you hold that concept to be true, it refers to
the WHOLE people, not one specific individual. Again, on
your own, you're never chosen for any greater good unless
God Himself taps you on the shoulder.
Some of your misunderstandings, I think, stem from the
confusion about whether Jews are a nation or a religion.
It's a question which has been baffling scholars for
centuries now. The most modern point of view, which I happen
to hold, states that it's both, yet not exactly either: It's
a people with a unique relgion. So, you are Jewish if you're
born to a Jewish mother, that's true; but you're also Jewish
if you embrace either the Jewish religion (which isn't
easy), or a non-religious way of life combined with the
cultural or national aspects of Judaism, which is usually
distict from the religious ones. You can also stop being
Jewish, in a way, simply by ceasing to identify yourself
with the Jewish people and their religion. Since Jews think
of themselves as a people, not a religion, this is also
harder to do than it sounds. You will always be Jewish to
some people in some ways (your family, for instance) and
most likely to yourself. That is the culture you were raised
in, after all.
If you mean redemption for sins past (and you probably do),
you CAN be forgiven for what you've done by God, but it's
not in your hands to decide. Sure, you can and should do
good things to balance the evil you've caused (and just do
good in general), but the final decision if those acts are
enough for your soul to be redeemed lies only with God.
There is also a Jewish holiday called Yom Kippur. During
that day you fast, pray (if you're religious) and meditate
on the wrongs you have committed to others this past year.
If possible, you're encouraged to rectify these wrongs or at
least ask forgiveness from those harmed. The very point of
it is to be redeemed, sort of (I assume I'm getting it
right) like a confession for the whole year.
Hope I've helped.
[> [>
And about Whedon -- Direwolf, 09:34:30 05/23/02
Thu
I very much doubt that he's Jewish, even partially. The
whole show, espescially in the first few seasons, was very
much christian in its point of view. Crosses and holy water
(blessed by priests) hurt vampires because, as Joss himself
said "the Christian God hurt the demon inside them".
Correspondently, Jewish symbols, like the Star of David,
were never used against them, most likely since they won't
work. In fact, Willow herself places a cross in above her
bed to scare vampires away without even trying to use a
Jewish symbol first. Furthermore, she hides it, in a scene
which slightly disturbed me and probably other Jewish
viewers too, so that her father won't find it out. The
allusion to the forsaking your of own religion for a real
one (it WORKS, after all) under your parents' nose made that
scene uncomfortable for me to watch.
To be fair, though, no other symbols (except Wiccan ones)
were ever seen to work either.
Also, I would point out that Willow, although a positive
charachter, is very stereotypically Jewish: she's a
intelligent and good with computers, but also a nerd and
completely lacking in self assurance. The only other
charachter with a Jewish name, Snyder, was even worse as a
stereotype, although it was never made clear whether he was
Jewish or not (judging by the actor's name, he probably
is).
Other names in the show definately sound Jewish: David
Greenwalt, Rebecca Rand Kirshner, Drew Z. Greenberg and
others. How much influece they have over Joss I have no
idea.
One last question to anyone who may have an idea: Gellar,
Trachtenberg, and Nick Brandon's original name, Schultz, all
sound a little Jewish, although obviously I may be WAY off
my mark. Anyone know if they have any Jewish origins? Just
my personal curiosity.
[> [> [>
Gellar, Trachtenberg and Landau -- Dochawk,
10:13:38 05/23/02 Thu
I'll go back and answer the jewish questions at lunch (if
noone else does it) because I disagree with some of what you
said (how suprisingly for a bunch of Jews). I definitely
agree with the botehrsome part of Willow's caricature and
her Jewishness.
But as to the Jewishness of the actors:
Sarah Michele Gellar's father was Jewish. Sarah totally
disassociated herself from her father, to the point that she
would not even go to his funeral. she claims she has
explored Judaism as well as other religions, but wears a
cross and is engaged to a Christian man.
My best understanding is that Michele Trachtenberg was bat
mitzvahed. I've never heard confirmation of this.
Juliet Landau (Dru) is definitely Jewish and active in the
Los Angeles Jewish community.
I have never heard Joss' name come up when discussing Jewish
writers in LA and I am extremely involved with the LA Jewish
Community and their outreach to the entertainment community.
The above writers you named are all Jewish. I believe Fury
may be also (not sure).
[> [> [> [>
Historical perspective -- Rattletrap, 14:18:48
05/23/02 Thu
A quick sidenote to add a historical perspective to this
discussion: Jews have had, since the very beginning, a very
strong presence in Hollywood--Carl Laemmle (founder of
Universal), Adolf Zukor (Paramount), William Fox (Fox),
Samuel Goldwyn and Louis Meyer (MGM), Benjamin Warner and
his sons (WB) were all Ashkenazi Jews and recent immigrants
during the early 20th century. Movies were, at that time, a
relatively new industry and one that offered some
opportunities for both independence and upward mobility
unavailable in most of the traditional performing arts,
therefore Eastern European Jews carved themselves a strong
presence there and continued to hire other Jewish
immigrants. Hollywood still bears this stamp today to some
degree--BtVS is not alone in having large numbers of
writers, directors, and performers of Jewish ethnicity
(whether or not they actively practice the faith).
Hope this helps,
'trap
P. S. If anyone is interested, one of the definitive books
on the above subject (and the source for the info in this
post) is Neal Gabler's An Empire of Their Own
(1988).
[> [> [>
Re: And about Whedon -- mucifer, 10:46:20
05/23/02 Thu
You forgot Seth Green, he definately is. He even played a
young Woody Allen in "Radio Days." A really fun website is
www.jewhoo.com tells you who is and who isnt.
[> [> [>
Re: And about Whedon -- DEN, 12:33:45 05/23/02
Thu
In a fair number of story lines, an evil cannot be harmed by
artifacts and rituals of another religion. In other words,
it's not that Christianity "works" and Judaism doesn't, but
rather that Sunnydale seems to have only gentile Christian
vamps! (There are some bad jokes where the hero pulls out a
cross and the response is "oy vey, boychick, have YOU got
the wrong vampire!")
More interesting to me is Willow's strong Jewish
identification--so strong that it survived the physical
appearance of the actress eventually cast in the role.
Another stereotype she fits is of the "Jew as rationalist:"
the scientist, the secularist, who believes the universe can
ultimately be understood and controlled by human minds and
wills. Certainly that aspect of her personality was a major
element of her "Wiccan/magick" story arc, and one frequently
mentioned by posters who said Willow treated magic as though
it were a lab exercise.
[> [> [> [>
Heh, and Willow could be... -- Solitude1056,
13:47:40 05/23/02 Thu
Episcopalian and we'd be talking about how she's a
stereotype of the Yuppie Holiday-Christian Episcopalian who
believes the intellectual will always save the day, and
likes to party it up as a way to forget her pain. Or
something.
[> [> [> [>
Re: And about Whedon -- Rattletrap, 14:26:01
05/23/02 Thu
"More interesting to me is Willow's strong Jewish
identification--so strong that it survived the physical
appearance of the actress eventually cast in the role."
I've noticed this too. Alyson Hannigan couldn't be any more
obviously Irish in both name and appearance.
"Another stereotype she fits is of the "Jew as
rationalist:"
Another place where ME has very subtly used this stereotype
is in "Real Me" where Willow makes a reference to playing
chess with Dawn, chess being a heavily intellectual game
extremely popular in Jewish communities for centuries. Not
essentially Jewish, of course, but very fitting to the
character and a very nice writing touch.
[> [> [> [>
Not really -- Direwolf, 15:11:09 05/23/02
Thu
Crosses worked on VampWillow in "The Wish". Ans as I said,
Joss Whedon himself said it was the Christian God. His
wrods, not mine.
As for Alyson Hannigan's appearance, there is no "look" for
Jews. They come in all shapes and sizes. I'm Israeli. In the
highschool I went to everybody was Jewish, and yet it looked
a lot like Sunnydale High. You had brunnettes, redhead and
blondes, right along darker-skinned students from Arab
background and blacks from Ethiopia. That was were the show
got it RIGHT, in not portraying Willow as many people seem
to think Jews should look: black/brown hair, brown eyes and
a big nose... After all, do Seth Green and Michelle
Trachtenberg "look" Jewish? Nope. I was commenting on the
stereotype of her personality, not her appearance.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Not really -- DEN, 19:34:39 05/23/02 Thu
I clean forgot about VampWillow--which was stupid. As for
the physical appearance, of course Jews "look like" any
community where they've lived long enough for people to mix.
All I intended to do with that was reinforce your point
about the personality--in terms of convention it "fits"
Willow Rosenberg better than Willow O'Reilly. And in that
sense it's interesting that Joss, who so enjoys bending
stereotypes, let this one ride. So no offense meant and I
hope, to you and everyone else, none taken.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
None taken -- Direwolf, 04:22:27 05/24/02
Fri
[>
Anom might answer this better, but... --
Solitude1056, 09:12:36 05/23/02 Thu
I live with someone of Jewish heritage (who doesn't
practice, but his father does, so I've attended various
events) plus I studied it as part of a comparative religions
degree. Your best bet will probably be someone raised in
judaism, but even then you'll get different answers between
reformed and orthodox. That disclaimer said...
Redemption isn't a part of Judaism, is it?
Depends on what you mean by "redemption" - because there are
instances in the Pentateuch of folks done wrong who go right
after getting the message.
Don't Jews consider themselves Jewish because they are
born of a Jewish mother, not because they choose Judaism as
their religion?
That whole Jewish-mother thing was started as a result of
the Spanish Inquisition, when so many Jewish women were
raped by soldiers that there was some doubt as to who the
father might be. But since you always know who the mother
is, a Jewish mother signified definite heritage. Most
American Jews in the Reformed school of thought feel that if
either parent is Jewish-heritage, then the child is also
part-Jewish. Keep in mind, though, that Judiasm, is not just
a religion, but a significant and complex culture. My
housemate, for instance, is part-Jewish by his father, but
does not consider himself Jewish except as part of his
heritage - he wasn't raised in the faith, nor the culture
(at the time, his father was non-practicing).
They are Jews because they are born Jewish, born chosen
and there is nothing they can do to change that.
Yes and no. I've known a few Jewish-heritage Episcopalians,
so they're "not-Jewish" in the sense of not practicing the
religion, but they're "Jewish" in the sense of being raised
in that culture and shaped by it.
They cannot be redeemed because there is no such concept
in Judaism. (Is there?)
See first statement.
So Buffy is the Chosen One and she cannot change that
even though being chosen is frequently no fun. Spike has
been chosen in another way. He has been chosen for evil and
he cannot be redeemed because there is no such thing as
redemption, not for the good and not the evil.
This isn't redemption, though, it's purpose. I'd
classify that as a bit different. Say, up to about 50 years
ago, a person's gender was pretty much chosen at birth and
not too much a person could do except fake it,
unfortunately, if they felt their gender wasn't right. Not
the best analogy, but hopefully you get the idea. We can dye
our hair, wear colored contact lenses, but at the bottom
line, can we be someone other than who we are, a result of
our family, our heritage, our culture, our community, our
appearance, our education, our relationships? Probably not
without a great deal of difficulty. Key isn't whether it can
be changed but what you do with it. Yeah, Buffy was "chosen"
but she's taken a completely different route than the other
slayers we've seen. Same goes for Spike, both due to his own
personality and experiences, and those inflicted on him.
So when Spike gets his soul it's not as a result of a
quest for redemption. He doesn't get redeemed (if that was
what happened to him) as a result of his love or for doing
good or feeling remorse, he gets it as a kind of monkey's
paw boobie prize.
What's the worst that could happen? That's what Joss will
give us. Keep in mind, when thinking of Joss' plans for BtVS
or AtS, that if you can conceive of the hardest possible
path to victory, that's what we'll probably get, for each
character. Joss always says, "I give people not what they
want, but what they need." Perhaps what he's saying here is
that we do need to hear that even the worst amongst
us can be redeemed - what was that about forgiveness and
redemption aren't always because you deserve it, or even
want it, but are given it anyway?
It's almost like Job's story because Job is punished
arbitrarily and rewarded arbitrarily rather than being
punished or rewarded as he deserves.
Taken out of context, one might agree - and within context
(Job's plight being the result of a bet between God &
Lucifer concerning Job's ability to cling to righteousness
despite the worst of all events hitting him at once) - one
might say that we are Job, and ME is both God & Lucifer,
betting to see how much we'll take before turning off the
TV!
I've been told that Joss is an atheist but was his
original heritage Jewish?
Again, it depends on whether you mean his heritage is
religious, cultural, both, or neither. There are a lot of
folks being raised in the past century who have minimal
cultural interaction with their heritage and next to no
religious interaction. I prefer to go with how he defines
himself, which is as an atheist.
Is that why the idea of redemption rings no bells with
him?
I wouldn't go that far. Willow got redeemed, and so did
Spike. So has just about every other character, all been
given second, third, fourth chances. Did Willow deserve
Xander's love, despite the fact that she'd killed Warren
(and Rack), and had no qualms about almost killing Xander
and Dawn merely because they were standing next to Jonathan
and Andrew? I wouldn't say she deserved it... but she got
it.
Is it just not part of the cultural mindset he was raised
in? Or part of the culture of many of the writers and
producers on Buffy?
I'd call that a radical interpretation of the text.
[> [>
Completely wrong on one point... -- alcibiades,
12:32:50 05/23/02 Thu
"Don't Jews consider themselves Jewish because they are born
of a Jewish mother, not because they choose Judaism as their
religion?"
Solitude wrote:
"That whole Jewish-mother thing was started as a result of
the Spanish Inquisition, when so many Jewish women were
raped by soldiers that there was some doubt as to who the
father might be. But since you always know who the mother
is, a Jewish mother signified definite heritage. "
Sorry Solitude but this is just completely wrong on its
face.
The whole Jewish-mother thing started probably in the late
first first to second century. By the time the first set of
Jewish legal templates and precedents is published in the
mid second century, called the Mishnah, a minority opinion
holds that Jewishness is inherited through the mother.
Before that, Jewishness normatively was inherited through
the father.
Scholars are unsure why this changed at this point --
answers are in the realm of speculation and hypothesis --
there are parallels to other cases of mixed inheritance in
Judaism. But the strongest rationale for the change
occurring at this time to my mind seems to be that in Roman
law the child of a mixed couple always inherits the mother's
status -- whether the mother is a Roman citizen or whether
she is not a citizen. And of course, Roman law prevailed
around the Empire during the time that this change from
inheritance of a mixed couple through the mother in Judaism
became accepted.
For more information on this topic, there is a section about
it in Shaye Cohen's, "The Beginnings of Jewishness:
Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Hellenistic Culture
and Society)"
BTW, I was given to understand by someone whose opinion I
trust in the matter of researching all things Buffy related
that Joss was raised as a Catholic.
[> [> [>
As I understand it, this is a point up for debate.
-- Solitude1056, 13:36:43 05/23/02 Thu
I have several Rabbinical texts that quote the Spanish
Inquisition as the reason for the majority of Jews
switching to the mother-only basis. I suspect that it's
possible we're both right, as it sounds like possibly that
some percentage of Jews already held that mother-heritage
could be reasonably identified where father-heritage was
sometimes questionable - and perhaps the Inquisition and
exodus from Spain was the catharsis behind this rule-of-
thumb becoming true for the majority of Jews. Either way,
the point is that now-a-days there is again a division
(mostly between Reformed & Orthodox, although some Reformed
folks still go by mother-only) as to "what makes a person
Jewish". The Rabbis I've known (all reformed) take the
stance that a person who falls under any of the following
categories may reasonably consider him/herself a Jew:
1. was raised in the Jewish faith
2. was raised in the Jewish culture
3. has at least one religiously-practicing parent
4. has at least one culturally-practicing parent
5. has at least one religiously-practicing converted
parent
or any combination of several of the above (like, for
instance, one culturally-practicing parent while the other
parent converted to the religion) also suffices.
Judiasm has been around too long, and is too rich and
complex, to really be satisfied by any of our discussions,
since my experience has been that for every statement you or
I could find (on anything relating to Judiasm, including
history, sociology, culture, language, religion)... we'll
probably find three Jews who agree, three who don't, and
fifty-seven who want to argue the finer points. ;-)
[> [>
oy. guess that means i better weigh in... -- anom,
15:59:42 05/23/02 Thu
Not sure where to start on this. Many Xtians seem to have
this idea that concepts like redemption, salvation, & grace
don't exist outside of Xtianity. (I once heard Marianne
Williamson say in an interview that she converted because
Judaism didn't have salvation, but I don't have time to go
into my rant on that right now....) Anyone familiar with
Jewish prayerbooks knows better; these words appear on the
English side (as opposed to the Hebrew side) very
frequently. But they're understood differently in the 2
religions, & probably in others. (I once suggested a
discussion of the differences to a Conservative Jewish group
that gives a series of talks on Jewish topics 2x/year; the
director sounded interested, but I haven't heard anything
since.) My own take on it is that these concepts tend to be
more literal (maybe "pragmatic" is a better word) in
Judaism. I'd guess Xtianity took them in from Judaism & gave
them a messianic interpretation.
For example, the Hebrew word for "redemption" is
g'ulah; it's discussed in the Torah in the context of
redeeming a relative who has sold him/herself into
servitude, redeeming land sold to a member of another tribe
(this may apply just to Levites; it's complicated & I don't
have time to look it up right now), & blood vengeance by a
member of a murder victim's family (called go'el ha-
dam, redeemer of blood); in the book of Ruth (just read
on Shavuos), a member of Ruth's dead husband's family who
can perpetuate his (the husband's) name & inheritance by
marrying her is called a "redeeming kinsman." The uniting
concept seems to be payback of one kind or another, which
also exists in the English word (that's why coupons can be
redeemed as well as people).
In the theological sense of the word, God redeemed the
entire people from slavery in Egypt & from exile in Babylon.
I'm trying to remember if that's the word used in speaking
of every 1st-born's belonging to God in payment for the 1st-
born of the Egyptians killed in the last plague; God takes
the Levites instead, but observant Jews still make a payment
for a 1st-born son (called pidyon ha-ben, but that
expression uses a different verb, usually translated as
"deliver"). In any case, it has little if anything that I
know of (or at least that I can think of right now) to do
w/souls, or even w/repentance.
As for some of the other stuff, in several of the posts in
this thread...there's more than 1 take on what it means to
be "chosen." Mine is that the Jews, as a people, were chosen
to receive the Torah & live by it (subject to some
interpretation & modification through time). It seems pretty
clear that it applies on a people-wide rather than an
individual basis. God may have chosen other peoples for
other purposes.
Transmission of Jewishness through the mother dates back
before the Inquisition...unfortunately, rape by conquering
peoples has a much longer history than that, & I'm sure it
happened to Jewish/Israelite women as far back as the
Babylonian exile. There's also something in the Torah about
not letting your sons marry Cana'anite women because then
they'd follow the Cana'anite gods...but no equivalent about
your daughters; I've heard (don't know for sure) the
rabbinical ruling on matrilineal descent is derived from
that. As far as not being able to leave, well, if you
actually convert to a different religion, you pretty much
have left.
Sophist asks why restoration of the soul requires dark
magics. I'm not sure it requires them; they may be
just one way it can be accomplished. Was it dark magic when
the Gypsy woman restored Angel's soul? What about when Jenny
tried to, or when Willow actually did? (I'm not saying this
in a mocking way; I'm really wondering about it.)
Have to say, LeeAnn, I really don't get your thought process
on getting a soul = redemption. In the real-world concept of
Xtianity, doesn't every person have a soul? But they still
need redemption, right? In the Buffyverse, Angel got a soul
but still sought redemption. So it's not the same thing. I
know a lot of fans want Spike to be redeemed, but I'm not
sure that's what he wanted--did he ever say so? And I
have no idea who you think "chose" Spike for evil.
Oh, BTW, it's "Reform" Judaism. But there is a
"Reformed" Dutch Xtian church. Just to make things a
little more confusing....
Please take all this w/a grain (not a pillar...) of salt--my
knowledge is somewhat spotty. Maybe someone w/more time than
I have could Google "Judaism redemption" & tell us the
results. Or ask a rabbi! Meanwhile, I'm enjoying the
discussion.
[> [> [>
Everyone says it's complicated. So it must be true.
-- LeeAnn, 17:28:50 05/23/02 Thu
Have to say, LeeAnn, I really don't get your thought
process on getting a soul = redemption.
At least some redemptionist on some forums believe that
Spike's loving Buffy, doing good, feeling remorse and now
fighting to have his soul restored means he is now
redeemed...and therefore...in the Christians sense, forgiven
for his sins and able to start over fresh.
In the real-world concept of Xtianity, doesn't every
person have a soul? But they still need redemption, right?
In the Buffyverse, Angel got a soul but still sought
redemption.
It does seem that Spike might still need to be redeemed. If
it is Spike that returns to us in the fall. I tend to think
it will be William since I don't believe a word that comes
out of the mouths of ME writers and since Spike asked to be
restored to what he was and the last time he had a soul he
was William. I don't think William would need much
redeeming.
Even if Spike does still need redemption he will not need
it was much as Angel. Before Angel's soul was restored, he
didn't love anyone, he did no good, felt no remorse and was
completely evil and without any humanity. Angel's soul was a
curse. Spike's soul is a prize. A boobie prize maybe but it
is something Spike wanted, sought out, and fought for
despite knowing what its restoration would mean, having seen
what it meant to Angel.
And I have no idea who you think "chose" Spike for
evil.
God, Joss, TBTB, fate, bad luck. One of those. Whoever
picked Buffy as the Chosen One, also picked William, let him
be at the wrong place at the wrong time. If you believe in
predestination, and without predestination how do you get a
"Chosen One," then everyone must be on a predestined path,
more or less. If you believe in prophecies then you must
believe that things are already predeterminted or how could
a prophecy come true. TBTB or fate did not protect William
and this lack of protection for a vulnerable creature
tempted by evil led to his being turned.
There we get into what Richard Dawkins called "The illusion
of free will, brought to you courtesy of evolution." But
that is a different conversation.
[> [> [> [>
my orthodox friend says the answer to every question
about judaism starts w/the same 3 words: -- anom,
17:01:12 05/24/02 Fri
"Well, it depends...."
[> [> [>
On matriliny -- alcibiades, 08:44:36 05/24/02
Fri
Anom wrote:
"Transmission of Jewishness through the mother dates back
before the Inquisition...unfortunately, rape by conquering
peoples has a much longer history than that, & I'm sure it
happened to Jewish/Israelite women as far back as the
Babylonian exile. There's also something in the Torah
about
not letting your sons marry Cana'anite women because then
they'd follow the Cana'anite gods...but no equivalent about
your daughters; I've heard (don't know for sure) the
rabbinical ruling on matrilineal descent is derived from
that."
That case has been made, but it is historically disputable.
Went back and looked at Shaye Cohen's argument in The
Beginning of Jewishness.
I'm paraphrasing here from Shaye Cohen, because of a time
crunch thingy:
"The matrilineal principle is never attested in second
temple literature and it is sometimes contradicted. In the
first century, Philo, Paul, and Josephus are all unfamiliar
with the idea of matrilineal descent. Philo refers to
descendents of mixed marriages on both sides, J man/non J
woman, J woman/non J man as bastards.
None of the works of the apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, the
Qumran scrolls knows, asumes, mentions or applies the
rabbinic matrilineal principle. Philo, Paul, Josephus and
Acts makes statements and assumptions that cannot be squared
with the rabbinic matrilineal principle. It may have been
normative in some pre-rabbinic circles of the late 2nd
temple period but there is no documentation of it.
The matrilineal principle is first attested in the Mishnah."
And the majority opinion in the Mishnah is that the result
of a union between a Jewish woman and a non Jewish man is
that the child is a mamzer -- a kind of technical bastard
usually associated with the children of forbidden incestuous
relationships.
This status of being a mamzer changes over the next hundred
years.
OTOH, in all likelihood the rabbis do base their
argumentation on the text in Ezra you were referring to
Anom. The fact that the rabbis project the existential
reality of the current state of their law back into their
history is pretty commonplace as far as the rabbinic notion
of history goes.
[>
Dark Knight of the Soul -- Sophist, 09:18:40
05/23/02 Thu
I was going to post some similar thoughts in a separate
thread. Might as well follow you.
As far as I know, there is no concept of redemption, per se,
in Judaism. However, the doctrine has such Christian
overtones that this may be too simple an answer. Judaism
certainly believes that people have the capacity to reform
and conduct their lives justly. Most of the Old Testament
calls for "repentance" can be seen as analogous to calls for
"redemption".
I'm not sure you've interpreted Spike's behavior or
motivations correctly. I'm not sure any of us have; after
all, they've left it for resolution next year. A couple of
thoughts though.
First, as several people have pointed out below, Spike
didn't need the chip removed to attack Buffy. He could have
done that before because the chip didn't work on her. What
he did need was an end to his confusion about whether he was
a monster or a man. Whether the solution he got was what he
asked for or what he "really" wanted, is hard to know
now.
Second, having a soul doesn't mean he is redeemed. It
just means (within the apparent canon of Buffydom, I guess)
that he can be redeemed. One way to see Spike's
journey over the last 2 seasons is to say that his love for
Buffy got him to this point; it got him a second chance. The
journey wasn't wasted, it was rewarded.
Now, I actually have problems with this scenario. The trials
he had to face don't make much sense if this is the case. On
the other hand, you could say he would never have reached
the point of preparation for the trials without his love for
Buffy. That fits Christian doctrine fairly well.
More serious are the same problems raised by Angel. As Buffy
says in TR: "A vampire with a soul? How lame is that!" Is
there really another way to deja this vu?
Another question involves how we are to treat Spike's
conduct as a vampire in connection with the question of
redemption. If getting a soul means he is redeemed (a
dubious point theologically), then I guess we just ignore
all the good and bad he did up to his point of
justification.
But suppose the soul acquisition is just a starting point
for redemption. Ok. But we still have to decide how to treat
Spike's conduct as a vampire. With Angel we were taught to
distinguish the two. Angel and Angelus were different; Angel
is not to blame for killing Jenny, that was the demon who
drove out Angel's soul. If we see William/Spike this way,
what does he have to atone for? He never did anything evil
as William. If we forget about evil Spike, William was a
good man (albeit a weak, effiminate fop). There is no
journey to take.
Then there is the flip side. What about the alley scene in
DT? Was that ok because it was Spike, not William? To whom
was the wrong done?
And consider the issue of redemption itself. Redemption of
souled entities is not an interesting problem. No one doubts
that it can be achieved. Redemption of an unsouled vampire?
Now that raised all kinds of interesting issues. All that is
lost if we now treat Spike as William.
One last puzzlement. Why does restoration of the soul --
presumably a good thing -- require dark magic to
accomplish?
OT footnote (to make dH happy): The subject line is a play
on the title of an obscure work of theology by St. John of
the Cross. The most famous dark night of the soul was that
of Blaise Pascal.
[> [>
Re: Dark Knight of the Soul -- Cactus Watcher,
09:38:39 05/23/02 Thu
St. John of the Cross' work was one of the things we read in
the only philosophy course I took in college, I believe as
an example of mysticism.
I, too, wonder about the intent, and possible affects, of a
demon restoring a soul. It's one reason I'm not sure it's
what Spike wanted. Either it wasn't what he wanted, or
Spike didn't know any way to get his soul back through
"good" channels.
[> [>
Re: Dark Knight of the Soul -- Malandanza,
10:14:25 05/23/02 Thu
My feeling is that Spike is coming back as human -- whether
it is human with vamp memories or human William with only
the memories from 120 years ago remains to be seen. My
reasoning is the wish that Spike made -- to be as he was.
Ok, typical Spike not to have thought through the things
that might go wrong with that wish. But no matter how much
leeway these wish-granting entities have with the spirit of
the wish, they do seem to have to abide by the letter.
Spike was never a vampire with a soul -- how is that being
made as he was? The Cave Demon can stretch, twist and
pervert the intent of Spike's wish, but he can't substitute
a wish of his own choosing.
Then there's the issue of why the demon would grant Spike's
request. If Spike "really" wanted a soul so he could fight
side by side with Buffy against the forces of darkness and
earn her love, why would an evil demon who lectured Spike
about having fallen from the path of darkness create a new
force for good? Chipped Spike was capable of doing some
good -- or at least eliminating some evil. William will be
useless in the battle for good -- by granting Spike's
literal wish, the demon removes a potential warrior for
good.
I agree with LeeAnn that Spike's journey for redemption (if
he was ever on one -- which I find unlikely) is now a moot
point. If Spike is human now, Spike is dead. If he's still
a vampire, Spike is buried just as surely as is Angelus and
William now walks the earth in Spike's body.
I don't think we're going to see a William/Buffy romance,
however. Dochawk said in another thread:
" There is nothing I want less than Spike back with
Buffy. Think of the message this sends: Girls (women) it ok
to stay with that bad boy cause if he loves you enough he'll
turn into a good guy. Perphluey!!!! it don't
happen."
And I doubt that ME would want to send this message. But
consider how little we know of William in his pre-vamp days:
people on the board frequently post that William was a good
man -- but we only have William's word for it. We don't
know what kind of person he would have been had he lived or
if he was really as creepy in life as he was in death. If
he retains Spike's memories, I can't see how he would be a
good man now -- he's too weak to fight against Spike the way
Angel fights against Angelus. The message may be: It
doesn't matter how good the bad boy tries to be -- he's
still bad. There may be a sensitive poet underneath the
misogynistic exterior, but go a little deeper and you find
that deep down, he really is bad.
I wish ME had left Spike out of the finale -- it would have
been a much more interesting cliffhanger to have left him in
the cave right after he said "Make me like I was" so we
could spend the summer chuckling about Spike's impetuosity
and wondering why he never read Macbeth. I'd rather have
had the final image of the season be Buffy crawling out of
the earth into life, or Willow and Xander embracing or even
Anya and Giles walking together out of the ruins of their
magic shop. The trial and soul restoration distracted from
the episode and broke up the action with a pointless
diversion that we could well have imagined by ourselves (or
they could have shown up a brief recap of Spike's adventures
in Africa at the start of the next season as they did with
Angel's stay in the demon temple).
[> [> [>
Re: Dark Knight of the Soul -- Sophist, 10:55:12
05/23/02 Thu
I agree with you about the last scene with Spike. One of my
criticisms of the finale was that they tried to do too much.
Over here we have to kill Rack. Over there, Giles is back.
Oops, need to deal with the nerds. Got to resolve Buffy and
Dawn. Mix it all up and stop Willow too.
Lots of the scenes were good individually, but the whole
didn't cohere because they left too many threads hanging
until the end.
I can't fault your logic at all when it comes to whether
Spike is human or a souled vampire. That doesn't mean ME
will abide by the logic of it. The consequences you and Doc
have pointed out make humanity unattractive on one level.
The other option has problems too, though.
The best argument I've seen that Spike really wanted the
soul is that he didn't need to have the chip out to hurt
Buffy. In that case, it makes more sense to solve his
identity confusion by asking to be a man; he could behave
vampire enough for her. I don't know if this is true,
though.
[> [> [>
mal - Great Post - I especially agree that pre-trial
Spike cliffhanger would have been better -- Dochawk,
10:59:06 05/23/02 Thu
[> [>
Re: Dark Knight of the Soul -- Solitude1056,
10:17:39 05/23/02 Thu
As far as I know, there is no concept of redemption, per
se, in Judaism. However, the doctrine has such Christian
overtones that this may be too simple an answer. Judaism
certainly believes that people have the capacity to reform
and conduct their lives justly. Most of the Old Testament
calls for "repentance" can be seen as analogous to calls for
"redemption".
The semantics are important here - "repentance" is internal
(IOW, the person repents of their own impetus), whereas
"redemption" is usually external. In Judeo-Xtian terms,
redemption is like grace, granted by the Divine. Repentance
is necessary (sometimes), but IMO/IME redemption appears to
given in correlation with forgiveness. In the athiestic
world of the Whedonverse, both appear to be granted by
family/friends/lovers or the PTB, and are sometimes
independent of the person's deserving this.
Second, having a soul doesn't mean he is redeemed. It
just means (within the apparent canon of Buffydom, I guess)
that he can be redeemed.
Excellent point!
Another question involves how we are to treat Spike's
conduct as a vampire in connection with the question of
redemption. If getting a soul means he is redeemed (a
dubious point theologically), then I guess we just ignore
all the good and bad he did up to his point of
justification.
Given that we are working within a non-religious framework
on the show, I'd suggest that we rephrase it to a different
analogy & see what we get: if someone commits a variety of
atrocious acts and is determined to be criminally insane...
what happens when the person is "cured" and is now sane?
Let's say a sociopath (which I seem to recall is someone who
appears to have no moral framework or conscience of any
sort) is "cured" and now tries to re-assimilate into a
community. What then? What steps are necessary? Is it
possible to say, "I was insane, now I am sane" and be done
with it? According to the AtS line of thinking, the answer
is No. But that's Angel; it remains to be seen how Spike
will handle this personality-schism-creating situation.
As for the issues of Spike/William, soul vs. unsouled, and
comparison to Angel - excellent points... and I have no
answers. ;-)
[> [> [>
Repentance and redemption -- Sophist, 11:01:05
05/23/02 Thu
Fearlessly delving ever further into murky theological
waters...........
You are right about the distinction between repentance and
redemption. The reason I phrased it that way was that in
Judaism (to my understanding), God will forgive you directly
if you do repent. In Christianity, the process must be
mediated through Jesus (at least in the indirect sense that
he died for "our" sins). I was trying to avoid the Christian
overtones of redemption.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Repentance and redemption -- Ronia, 11:13:11
05/23/02 Thu
I'll take a shot and bring up a minor point. According to
my understanding, in Judaism both repentance and atonement
were required. Generally in the form of a sacrifice. How
this relates to the spike/angel situation is anyones guess.
October is so far away....
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Repentance and redemption in Judaism --
alcibiades, 12:16:56 05/23/02 Thu
"According to my understanding, in Judaism both repentance
and atonement were required. Generally in the form of a
sacrifice."
Of course, sacrifice ended in the late first century, 70 CE,
with the destruction of the Second Temple.
Nowadays, redemption is accomplished through prayer, good
works to counter and atone specifically for the bad ones,
reform of character so that bad actions won't take place
again, turning to God, contemplation of God, study of holy
writings, keeping the law, charity, etc.
In Judiasm, redemption is understood as taking place both on
the personal level and on the national level. The Jewish
people is understood as one body. In fact, the word "goy",
which technically means nation, shares the same root as the
word for body. So that each "nation" is understood as
corporate in the sense of being one body.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Is there a heaven and hell? -- LeeAnn, 12:42:59
05/23/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Uh, not that I recall... I think H/H is a later
Hellenistic (Greek) concept. -- Solitude1056,
13:40:15 05/23/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Is there a heaven and hell? Very possibly more than
you wanted to know -- alcibiades, 16:52:20 05/23/02
Thu
Yes and no.
There is something known as Gehinnom -- which was once (and
still is) physically a place, literally the valley of Hinnom
where people passed their first born male children through
to the Moloch, that is sacrificed them in fire (yeah the
same dude that Willow deals with in Season 1).
2 Kings 23:10
The horror associated with this place of torment has been
mythologized into the Jewish version of hell -- in Hebrew
Gehinnom means hell more or less.
Before that, in the Hebrew Bible, there is also a place
called Sheol which means more or less the depths, the place
for the departed. This whole concept is pretty obscure, not
fleshed out much. It's kind of similar to the Homeric
notion of Hades, the underworld, although even less is known
about it since there are fewer literary references. It's
all lost in the past and the concept has little resonance
today.
It's probably comparable to other underworlds in Ancient
Near Eastern cultures -- Sumerian, Assyrian, Ugaritic, etc.
Don't know how much is known about those.
As for heaven, there is a concept known as the world to come
-- sometimes but not always conflated with the Messianic age
which is kind of Utopian in a happy theocratic sense --
happy and Utopian if you want to live in a theocracy -- the
entire world living in concord fulfilling God's laws and oh
yeah, the dead will be physically resurrected as well and
everyone will throng to Jerusalem sometime in the future.
This concept is sourced strongly in Isaiah. Can't remember
the chapter but it is one of the well known passages.
On top of that, there is also a notion that God will reward
you or punish you for the deeds you do in this life -- which
may equate better with the Christian notion of heaven. But
in Judaism, there is not a lot of focus on heavenly reward.
That is not supposed to be a consideration in keeping God's
laws. Doing good deeds is its own reward...
In fact, the proto-rabbinic party and the Sadduccees had a
sharp doctrinal difference on this exact issue in, I
believe, the first century CE. According to the Rabbinic
version of events, the Sadduccean party looked to their
future heavenly reward to motivate themselves to do good
deeds and follow the law and the proto-rabbinic party did
not.
The Sadducean position may have influenced the Essenes who
may in turn have influenced the early Christian movement.
Or not. It's a point of debate and speculation and no one
knows for sure - there are simply not enough texts extant to
be sure at this point in history.
On the other hand, in early Jewish mysticism, 2nd - 6th
century, there is certainly an idea of God's dwelling place,
his hall, his hekhal, where worthy souls, i.e. true mystics,
oh and other worthies too, and of course myriads of angel,
got to enter in order to dwell in the presence of God.
There are seven levels, each throne room closer and closer
to the true manifestation of God himself. The roots of this
tradition can be found in Isaiah and Daniel and Ezekiel --
some of it influenced directly from Babylonian and Persian
traditions. Mystics had to learn traditions and esoteric
knowledge and be pious in order to pierce the veil of heaven
while still alive. There are some middle Platonic
resonances here.
In the Middle Ages, with the influx of Platonic philosophy
into Islam then Judaism then Christianity and the
simultaneous flowering of Kabbalah, this tradition became
more Platonized than it was before -- the reward in the
world to come more or less meant being worthy of the
uninterrupted contemplation of God after death, something
you tried to attain as best you could in life.
In any case, the point is in Judaism you are supposed to do
good deeds and follow God's laws in this world in and of
themselves, not because you are considering future rewards.
So there is a concept of heaven and hell but it is less a
point of religious focus the way it is in Christianity. And
for streams of Judaism which are neither mystical nor
philosphical it is not all that important.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Very Interesting. -- LeeAnn, 17:33:23 05/23/02
Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Is there a heaven and hell? Very possibly more than
you wanted to know -- FriarTed,
05:50:52 05/24/02 Fri
I think Isaiah 60-66 is the passage you had in mind about
the World-to-Come/Messianic Age.
Also-in the dispute over Afterlife/Resurrection, the
Sadduccees (the Priestly class) generally viewed this life
as the setting for whatever rewards/punishments God meted
out for ones actions & thus denied or downplayed any future
life. The Pharisees (the proto-rabbinic party) & the Essenes
believed in Afterlife &/or Resurrection- with perhaps a bit
of reincarnation thrown in. The book of ACTS in the New
Testament shows Paul, a former Pharisee, getting the
Pharisees on a Jewish religious court on his side by
noting their shared agreement on a Future Life against the
Sadducees.
With the 70 CE destruction of the Temple & much of the
Priesthood, the Sadducean party became irrelevant and the
Rabbinic Pharisees who emphasized living by the Torah & the
Prophets became dominent in Judaism.
Finally, RE Gehinnom- those Pharisees who did hold to a
Hellish Afterlife differed as to whether that Hell would be
Eternal Punishment (which Christians have usually taught),
Ultimate Destruction (an ongoing view held by many tho not
most Christians) or Temporal Punishment followed by Final
Reconciliation with God (also an ongoing minority view among
Christians). I myself hold to the a combination of the
latter two. English translations of the New Testament
definitely indicate the first, but the original Greek texts
are not that clear, & give reason for the other options.
The Buffy/Angelverse definitely has a variety of Hells but
also hopes of eventual liberation from them (as do some
forms of Buddhism & Hinduism, btw).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Questions for alcibiades and Friar re: is there a
heaven and hell? -- redcat, 10:13:20 05/24/02 Fri
Wow, now I’m really confused. This is one of the
few mini-threads I can read until my local
station broadcasts the BtVS finale late Saturday night, so
I’ve been following the discussion
with interest. I’m no scholar of religion, and in
particular know very little about these types of
theological issues in Judaism. But as I sit here eating
homemade kugel (didn’t have any matzo
so had to use corn meal - it works!), I read the two
statements reprinted below, from alcibiades
and Friar Ted respectively, and they seem to contradict each
other. Hmmm...munch, munch...
(goes back for another piece of kugel).. munches some
more...
Can someone please clear this up? Are the differences here
a matter of historical
interpretation? Will I need to go back and research the
relationship of the Sadducces and
Pharisees, and their relationships to early Essenes and
Xtians in order to understand it?
Certainly hope not, as I already have a huge summer reading
list...
alcibiades said: “In fact, the proto-rabbinic party and the
Sadduccees had a sharp doctrinal
difference on this exact issue in, I believe, the first
century CE. According to the Rabbinic
version of events, the Sadduccean party looked to their
future heavenly reward to motivate
themselves to do good deeds and follow the law and the proto-
rabbinic party did not. “
Friar Ted replied:: “...in the dispute over
Afterlife/Resurrection, the Sadduccees (the Priestly
class) generally viewed this life as the setting for
whatever rewards/punishments God meted
out for ones actions & thus denied or downplayed any future
life. The Pharisees (the proto-
rabbinic party) & the Essenes believed in Afterlife &/or
Resurrection- with perhaps a bit of
reincarnation thrown in. The book of ACTS in the New
Testament shows Paul, a former
Pharisee, getting the Pharisees on a Jewish religious court
on his side by noting their shared
agreement on a Future Life against the Sadducees.”
Oh, and by the way, alcibiades, the underworld of Sumer is
exceptionally well-described in the
literature on Inanna’s descent. Caroline, Ixchel and I have
posted a bit about it, threads in the
archives now. That underworld certainly can have some
“hellish” aspects, but is perhaps more
similar to what Friar Ted describes as the third historical
type of conception of a Xtian hell,
“Temporal Punishment followed by Final Reconciliation.”
There certainly are links between
early Sumerian mythologies/epistemologies and early Semite
culture, as well as pre-Platonic
Greek notions of the geography of power. Some of those
early Sumerian themes, particularly
the hero/fool’s journey into the internalized underworld of
the dark self, and the notion that a
return from such a journey both requires subsequent duty to
the upperworld and that there are
always consequences of the journey for both the wanderer and
the world, are retained in the
contemporary Tarot, primarily as resonances of it’s early
Kabbalic influences.
Am very much enjoying this mini-discussion, BTW!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Questions for alcibiades and Friar re: is there a
heaven and hell? -- aliera, 18:03:07 05/24/02 Fri
Interesting post...mythologies are an interest of mine also
and the tarot.
One of the difficulties for me in the show is the sometimes
odd mix, a real jumble, of things they draw from. I wonder
who knows what, what's intentional and what is coming from
the subconscious, and what is simply made up because it
struck a writer or other person as interesting.
There are so many common themes running through different
religions and/or mythologies that's it's possible to draw
connections with ...well, almost anything. Rituals,
symbols, aspects of the god(dess) were assimilated or
sometimes reversed to meet the needs of the group or
society.
I wish I knew more about the intent of Joss in this area (if
there is any) or if he just drawing on whatever will
resonant with the viewer in a given instance.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Without wanting to sound arrogant *G*... -- FriarTed,
03:30:18 05/25/02 Sat
The Pharisees & Essenes definitely leaned to
Afterlife/Resurrection. The Sadducees to "This life is it".
Check Flavius Josephus ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS 18:1:2-5
and
the New Testament's Acts of the Apostles 23:6-10.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Repentance and redemption in Judaism --
Dochawk, 13:25:29 05/23/02 Thu
Alcaibedes and others have done an excellent job in
explaining these facets of Judaism, so I will add only afew
things. The concept of atonement in Judaism is a constant.
Our most holy day is Yom Kippur where we come before G*D (I
will add here that I am agnostic) and ask for forgiveness.
The 10 days before (starting with Rosh Hashanah) we are to
look inward and evaluate our behavior. On the Day Before
Yom Kippur we are to ask each individual against whom we
have sinned for their forgiveness. It is an important
concept that atonement begins with the personal then moves
to G*D. Willow of course would have a tough time asking
Warren for forgiveness.
[> [> [>
Re: Dark Knight of the Soul.....spoilers for Grave
-- Rufus, 20:41:51 05/23/02 Thu
Let's see what David Fury had to say about people who are
demons or who have become possessed....
DF: You have to consider the fact, will be more clear
when you see the last two episodes. This isn't Willow
anymore. She is something not of herself. The same thing
Willow did, Spike commited attrocities. Some people are
forgiving of that. You blame the demon.
DF: It's not a soul issue, is she the Willow that we know?
She has so much power now and so much in here. You will see
next week, it's not really her. She will have a lot to deal
with, and btw this is no paralell universe, no alternate
dimension. Willow will be paying for it and dealing with it
next season.
So how far does blaming the demon go? If Willow pays for
what she has done while under the control of primal forces,
how much culpability does she have in actions done while
possesed? Is she responsible for each and everything done,
or is she responsible for allowing herself to be seduced
into giving up her control to a force stronger than
herself?
With Spike, Jane Espenson says this
JE: Yeah, exactly. I think we have to be very careful
that we're not saying anything about humans. When we say
that Spike looked into his soul at that moment and saw the
demon in him, and that's what made him want to go get a
soul --
JE: Yes, in my mind, that's ... we did a big ole'
mislead on you all where we wanted you to think he was gonna
go get dechipped. We knew, the whole time, from the very
beginning, that he was going to go get a soul.
JE: And when he says "I want Buffy to have what she
deserves -- give the Slayer what she deserves -- he means a
lover with a soul."
JE: Right. Which is the area which is so very
dicey.
Because we know Spike; we love Spike; and we know he's in
a very special situation where he has this demon in him and
this lack of a soul that allowed him to try to rape her.
A human guy that says **I saw the badness in my heart when I
tried to do that; I have gone and fixed myself; I am
redeemed; you can trust me now, baby** -- might not be the
same thing. And we gotta be real careful that we're not
saying that.
JE: He's a vampire with a soul, not human, yeah.
So, if we blame the demon, how did Spike manage to find
something in himself to desire to go in search of a soul?
And now that he has one and is a second vampire with a soul,
what is he responsible for as he is still a demon? Angel has
been in a journey for redemption, does Spike and Willow
deserve any less an opportunity to do the same thing?
[> [> [> [>
Re: Dark Knight of the Soul.....spoilers for Grave
-- Arethusa, 08:17:49 05/24/02 Fri
I don't think Spike wanted a soul so much as he wanted Buffy
and thought if he had a soul Buffy could love him,
especially since she told him repeatedly that she could
never love an evil, souless monster, and justified her last
affair with a vampire by saying he had a soul.
We have plenty of precedent for accepting that we shouldn't
blame the person for what the demon does when a person is
vamped.
And who says Spike even wants redemption, or is on that
path? (Although the scarabs were probably a big hint...).
All we know is the writers don't like to do the same thing
twice-unless they are trying to lead us astray, or make an
ironic comment.
Maybe we should ask: What's the worst, the most painful,
the most ironic and drastic thing that could happen to
Spike, now that he has a soul? Because that's probably
where ME will go.
[> [> [> [>
My take on Angel's journey of redemption is... --
A8, 14:15:07 05/24/02 Fri
...that it has almost as much to do with making amends for
his sins as a human as it does for what he did as a vamp. In
"Amends" he says so much as to the effect that it is the man
in him that needs killing, not the demon. His vamp
viciousness was deeply informed by his despicable amoral pre-
vamped human persona. Willow and Spike would seem to have
more in common with each other than with Angel since their
evil personas were largely informed by the pain of
introversion and self-loathing rather than just being nasty
people. It may not make any difference in terms of the
destructive results of their actions, and what punishments
they deserve, but their vicious acts were borne out of human
existences that cried out for recognition and
understanding.
[> [> [> [> [>
Intriguing, insightful post, A8. -- Ixchel,
18:22:25 05/24/02 Fri
[> [>
Re: Dark Knight of the Soul -- JeniLynn,
11:11:03 05/23/02 Thu
Perhaps the restoration of Spikes soul did not require dark
magic; what if it was good magic? My husband and I both
thought that the cave demon looked a bit like Skip from AtS.
If it is Skip then it would mean that the PTB are looking
for a new warrior for good. What are the thoughts on
this....
[> [> [>
Re: Dark Knight of the Soul -- Sophist, 12:21:38
05/23/02 Thu
Could be, but then LeeAnn's question about why the trials
were needed becomes even more relevant. Either (1) the demon
was evil, in which case the trials alone should have gotten
him what he wanted and his changes over the past 2 years
were meaningless; or (2) the demon was good, in which case
it's hard to see why he needed the trials on top of the
changes. Maybe a neutral, wish-granting demon solves both
problems.
The demon seemed evil to me. At least judging by the
"fingerpainting" in the cave and the nature of the tests.
Plus the whole "Heart of Darkness-y" aspect of it. But you
could be right. October, you say?
[> [> [> [>
Re: Dark Knight of the Soul -- Rahael, 14:33:03
05/23/02 Thu
My point of view was that they were subverting the whole
'heart of darkness'. So the cave paintings were violent and
primal. Buffy's precise roots are in that cave. Her roots
are violent and primal (avoiding the 'dark' part!!)
Spike goes to the heart of darkness, the heart of Africa to
deliver death to the slayer (we are given to understand) but
we find that 'what she deserves' is very different. My
theory? that the cave and the demon are in some way
connected to the Primal beginnings of the Slayer. That the
scene exemplifies the encounters the whole season between
Spike and Buffy.
Why are we sure that the demon has to be 'good' or 'evil'?
This is after all the ep where the vengeance demon shows an
exemplary bravery, humanity and kindness we don't see in
many other 'humans'. The ep where Clem looks after Dawn.
I am still waiting for someone to tell me where in the show
we have heard the word 'redemption'. I think ME talks about
Life. Where in our lives is the concept of 'redemption'
meaningful. Can Willow ever be redeemed from her torture of
Warren? I say, no. She, as a human being can be redeemed by
Xander's love for her. Her actions cannot be. Redeemed from
herself. Redeemed from her hatred. Not redeemed in a
macrocosmic way where there is a God counting up the sinners
and the just.
I'm still sticking to my view that the Buffyverse is
inherently unfair, and uncontrollable. This isn't to take
away free will. It enhances it. Because all that really
matters anymore is what we do.
[> [> [> [> [>
Oh, and -- Rahael, 14:48:34 05/23/02 Thu
Rewards kind of take away from the nobility of a character
for me.
The very reason why Spike behaved so admirably in
'Intervention' was because he could have died helping Buffy
and Dawn, and they might never have known. His leaving of
flowers after Joyce's death was also meant to be anonymous
and therefore more meaningful.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Oh, and -- Sophist, 15:02:17 05/23/02
Thu
I mostly agree. In this case, I'm not saying Spike did
anything for the purpose of a reward, I'm saying he could be
seen as having been rewarded for what he did. The latter is
fine; the former may or may not be noble, depending on too
many other qualifications.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I agree (spoilers for AtS and BtVS season finale),
-- Rahael, 15:21:21 05/23/02 Thu
I didn't think you were saying that. That was mostly aimed
at disgruntled comments along the line of "How dare ME not
reward Spike!" This is after all the writing team that
consigns Angel to the bottom of the universe while he tells
his murderous son that he loves him.
As for Willow, I agree with your points in your post below.
The issue is exactly about human society, and it always has
been in the Buffyverse. THe question of Angel's 'redemption'
has always been about his anomalous position on the fringes
of society. The question of Spike has been his living on the
'other side of the door'. The question about Willow, about
Anya will always be about how they are reintegrated into
society. That's what I think redemption means in the
Buffyverse. In the season finale, we see Buffy choosing to
live in the world again. Anya chooses to stop Willow. It
makes sense, when connecting up with the big Buffyverse
theme of 'Otherness'
This is why I have such a problem with using such a loaded
word as 'redemption'.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Dark Knight of the Soul -- Sophist, 14:55:06
05/23/02 Thu
We're still in agreement about unpredictable and
uncontrollable. But whether you're Oedipus suffering for
acts he had no way of knowing were wrong, or an
existentialist faced with the pitiless universe, you remain
responsible for your own conduct.
If Willow is responsible for murder, and I believe she is,
then we have to decide how to deal with her. That raises the
issue of redemption (not necessarily in a Christian sense)
even if ME chooses to deal with it tacitly rather than
formally. Your description of how Willow can be redeemed is
pretty close to what I meant: how do we reintegrate her into
our social group? ME can't avoid this issue.
Your analysis of Spike and the cave is wonderful, the best
I've seen yet. Post it again; not everyone will read this
thread. You are terrific.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Thank you!! -- Rahael, 15:08:03 05/23/02 Thu
I am planning a longer post, 'Spike's Cruciamentum,' where
I'm going to rehearse this point. Of course, I have been
planning any number of posts, and there are emails to be
answered. I'm not getting anything done for some reason!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Always enjoying the brilliance of Rahael! --
ponygirl, 06:40:07 05/24/02 Fri
Lovely posts all around. I'm looking forward to the longer
post you mention -- no pressure!
[> [> [> [> [>
JANE Espenson SPOILERS//Dark Knight of the Soul//Free
Will -- alcibiades, 19:34:12 05/23/02 Thu
Damn I really wish I hadn't read that interview last night.
Didn't realize it would be all spoilery for next year.
I have been really annoyed ever since.
Rahael wrote: "This isn't to take away free will. It
enhances it. Because all that really matters anymore is what
we do."
See this is my problem. I think if Spike has the chip, even
though he has the soul he doesn't have free will. Which
makes him of a lesser order than the other Scoobies even
with the soul -- I just hate this. Because he has
transitioned so much further than any of the rest of them --
defying gravity the whole way up.
I really, really wish I hadn't found it out until next
year.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Disagree on "free will" -- Dyna,
19:55:33 05/23/02 Thu
I hear this comment a lot, that Spike doesn't have "free
will" because he has the chip--but why is that so? The chip
only prevents Spike from taking certain, very specific
actions. It does not erase his personality or turn him into
a mindless automaton. To say that absence of choice in one
area of life is tantamount to absence of choice in all areas
doesn't make sense to me. Spike makes choices, and he's
responsible for his choices. I think this season did a very
good job of making that clear.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I really appreciated the interview, because... --
Ixchel, 21:09:11 05/23/02 Thu
I was getting a headache trying to figure out what Spike is
now and if it was his choice (it was quite confusing). I
think that he chose to get a soul is an expression of free
will in itself. If he had been tricked or if it had been a
mistake, either would have been extremely disappointing to
me (so I think I understand how you feel about the chip, I
would have preferred it gone also). Though Dyna does have a
good point below about the chip being limiting only in a
very defined area. Actually my first thought about the chip
was that once his souledness is proven perhaps Willow could
figure out how to deactivate it so that he wouldn't be
defenseless against "evil" humans (just a thought).
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Dark Knight of the Soul -- alcibiades,
20:02:03 05/23/02 Thu
Rahael wrote:
"Why are we sure that the demon has to be 'good' or 'evil'?
This is after all the ep where the vengeance demon shows an
exemplary bravery, humanity and kindness we don't see in
many other 'humans'. The ep where Clem looks after
Dawn.."
I think of the cave as a sort of anvil of the soul.
Spike is the big bad who has always postured, he postures in
the dream in Restless, selling himself to Hollywood.
Furthermore, he postures again as he walks into the cave.
The Shooting Script says that after the demon speaks:
"Spike actually looks a bit unnerved. But he covers with his
usual bravado.."
So he's posturing even as he enters the cave.
It seems to me that the "shadows on the wall" are the
essence of posturing, the kind of thing that would turn
anyone away. But it doesn't speak to the truth of the
creature within. Just as Spike's posturing in general and
at the brink of his trial, doesn't speak to the truth of his
being -- it just shows that he's trying to cover something
up.
At the end of the trial, he is left denuded, empty of
gestures and anger. There is only himself over and over.
And what he really wants, what lay behind the anger, is his
desire to give Buffy what she deserves. That is why his
voice is totally different in the scene than when he spoke
earlier -- the externalities are all gone.
I guess that is why he has to fight the fire guy -- fire =
cleansing or purifying or something like that.
Plus the demon has green glowy eyes -- and in the
Buffyverse, green and glowy means not evil but an inter-
dimensional key:
From Blood Ties:
DAWN
So this Key thing. It's been around for a long time.
GLORY
Not as long as me, but yeah. Just this side of forever.
Dawn absorbs that. Forever?
DAWN
Is it… evil?
GLORY
Totally. Well, no, not really.
(shrugs)
I guess it depends on your point of view.
And that's what I think is true of the demon with the Green
Glowy Eyes -- same color as Buffy's dress.
He really transcends good and evil -- but if you approach
him, he's going to posture he is the big bad to keep you
away until you are ready to deal with the anvil.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Very interesting point -- Sophist, 20:49:16
05/23/02 Thu
So the trials served to strip away Spike's facade and allow
the demon to ascertain what he "really" wanted? Nice
idea.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Much agreement! -- ponygirl, 06:37:05 05/24/02
Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Completely agree!!! -- Caroline, 06:39:53
05/24/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Totally agree-and said so below -- Arethusa,
08:25:49 05/24/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Joining the chorus of agreement. Wonderful post,
alcibiades. -- Ixchel, 10:37:53 05/24/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
Brilliant as always, Rahael. I couldn't agree
more. -- Ixchel, 20:24:57 05/23/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
Brilliant stuff! -- Caroline, 06:43:12 05/24/02
Fri
[> [> [> [>
Re: Dark Knight of the Soul -- Arethusa,
14:52:52 05/23/02 Thu
The figures I saw on the cave wall seemed to be:
a.)a demon with razor nails
b.)a person with his mouth sewn shut
c.)a person who has been eviscerated
It struck me that Willow had sewn a man's mouth shut, and
had flayed, if not eviscerated, a man, but I "know" Willow's
not eeevil. So maybe we don't know if the demon in the cave
is evil or not. After all, the episode went to great
legnths to show us evil humans and good demons.
[> [>
Re: Dark Knight of the Soul -- rose, 16:31:05
05/23/02 Thu
Spike will not be william but he can't (probably) continue
to act exactly like his old self.
after all angeleus did not revert to liam when given a soul
he finally grew up .
but the scoobies will have to give him slack for previous
crimes or their living in sever double standered zones he
cant be new slate exempt because they met him evil and
became good (not a garenntee) instred of visa versa.
also i have a fealing he spends the summer with a bottle
trying to decide what to do about the old guilt and the new.
what he'll decide is up to joss
[>
Re: Redemption and Judaism: Some Questions --
maddog, 14:59:35 05/23/02 Thu
Prove to me by what Spike said that he wanted the chip out?
Cause the truth of the matter is, he acted angry...he acted
outraged....but what he said was, I wanna give Buffy was she
deserves. That's what he said. Now that's vague and it's
done on purpose so we all assume he wanted the chip out.
I'd like to say I was one of the few(though I know there
were probably many) who could see this coming. That no
matter how mad Spike got at Buffy, he still cared for her.
Remember, the theme of the year was Oh Grow Up. Well Spike
did that...for once he thought not of himself(aka getting
the chip back) but of others(truly wanting a soul for
Buffy's sake).
[>
Judiasm and magick -- Dochawk, 16:04:49 05/23/02
Thu
one other intersting concept about Judaism is that Judaism
believes in magic (at least one major strain does). The
chassidim tell of very powerful magics and have a
prohibition against practicing them, because many of them
are thought to be dark. The kabbalah traditionally is not
to be read until you are mature (some say 40) because the
powerful magicks contained can corrupt you (much the way the
black magic books consume willow, in fact). The most famous
story is that of the Golem and a great Czech rabbi who
raised it from the dead.
[>
ok, time to turn this around... -- anom,
23:14:28 05/23/02 Thu
...& ask a q. or 2 about Xtianity.
Starting w/the X. "Christ." The Greek equivalent of
"messiah," or moshiach in Hebrew. It doesn't mean
"savior," it means "anointed." As in "Thou anointest my head
with oil" (23rd Psalm, except that's actually a different
verb). I know Jesus of Nazareth was baptized, but was he
anointed? When/where/etc.?
The birth/appearance/life? of Jesus was supposed to fulfill
prophecies from the "Old Testament" (or as we prefer to call
it, the Hebrew Scriptures). I know the idea of a messiah
existed in Judaism, but is there any evidence before 1 "AD"
(or as we prefer to call it, BCE) that the messiah was
supposed to be killed & have to come back again? My
understanding was always that the appearance of the messiah
was supposed to usher in the World to Come/a messianic age
(lion w/lamb, folks sitting under vines & fig trees); I
don't know of any preexisting prophecies of the messiah's
role being martyrdom to save souls or atone for sin. In
fact, human sacrifice as a sin-offering or any kind of
offering is forbidden in Judaism. So is there anything in
Jewish writings that's cited as what the crucifixion
fulfilled?
Thanks--I've wondered about these things for a while
now.
[> [>
Re: ok, time to turn this around... -- O'Cailleagh,
23:30:50 05/23/02 Thu
Well, I'm no expert on Judaism, but I don't think the Torah
mentions anything about a crucifixion/messiah connection. I
was under the impression that all that stuff was just
grafted onto the Jesus myth to make it more accessible to
the Pagans. That and all the other Pagan themes in the Jesus
myth. Now that I think of it, everything except the names
and places.....
[> [>
Judaism and the Messiah -- Dochawk, 23:34:14
05/23/02 Thu
From one of my online studies:
The Messianic Idea in Judaism
Belief in the eventual coming of the moshiach is a basic and
fundamental part of traditional Judaism. It is part of
Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith, the minimum requirements of
Jewish belief. In the Shemoneh Esrei prayer, recited three
times daily, we pray for all of the elements of the coming
of the moshiach: ingathering of the exiles; restoration of
the religious courts of justice; an end of wickedness, sin
and heresy; reward to the righteous; rebuilding of
Jerusalem; restoration of the line of King David; and
restoration of Temple service.
Modern scholars suggest that the messianic concept was
introduced later in the history of Judaism, during the age
of the prophets. They note that the messianic concept is not
mentioned anywhere in the Torah (the first five books of the
Bible).
However, traditional Judaism maintains that the messianic
idea has always been a part of Judaism. The moshiach is not
mentioned explicitly in the Torah, because the Torah was
written in terms that all people could understand, and the
abstract concept of a distant, spiritual, future reward was
beyond the comprehension of some people. However, the Torah
contains several references to "the End of Days" (achareet
ha-yameem), which is the time of the moshiach; thus, the
concept of moshiach was known in the most ancient times.
The term "moshiach" literally means "the anointed one," and
refers to the ancient practice of anointing kings with oil
when they took the throne. The moshiach is the one who will
be anointed as king in the End of Days.
The word "moshiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an
innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice
himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is
a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish
thought. Unfortunately, this Christian concept has become so
deeply ingrained in the English word "messiah" that this
English word can no longer be used to refer to the Jewish
concept. The word "moshiach" will be used throughout this
page.
The Moshiach
The moshiach will be a great political leader descended from
King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The moshiach is often referred
to as "moshiach ben David" (moshiach, son of David). He will
be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its
commandments. (Isaiah 11:2-5) He will be a charismatic
leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a
great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He
will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions
(Jeremiah 33:15). But above all, he will be a human being,
not a god, demi-god or other supernatural being.
It has been said that in every generation, a person is born
with the potential to be the moshiach. If the time is right
for the messianic age within that person's lifetime, then
that person will be the moshiach. But if that person dies
before he completes the mission of the moshiach, then that
person is not the moshiach.
When Will the Moshiach Come?
There are a wide variety of opinions on the subject of when
the moshiach will come. Some of Judaism's greatest minds
have cursed those who try to predict the time of the
moshiach's coming, because errors in such predictions could
cause people to lose faith in the messianic idea or in
Judaism itself. This actually happened in the 17th century,
when Shabbatai Tzvi claimed to be the moshiach. When Tzvi
converted to Islam under threat of death, many Jews
converted with him. Nevertheless, this prohibition has not
stopped anyone from speculating about the time when the
moshiach will come.
Although some scholars believed that G-d has set aside a
specific date for the coming of the moshiach, most authority
suggests that the conduct of mankind will determine the time
of the moshiach's coming. In general, it is believed that
the moshiach will come in a time when he is most needed
(because the world is so sinful), or in a time when he is
most deserved (because the world is so good). For example,
each of the following has been suggested as the time when
the moshiach will come:
* if Israel repented a single day;
* if Israel observed a single Shabbat properly;
* if Israel observed two Shabbats in a row properly;
* in a generation that is totally innocent or totally
guilty;
* in a generation that loses hope;
* in a generation where children are totally
disrespectful towards their parents and elders;
What Will the Moshiach Do?
Before the time of the moshiach, there shall be war and
suffering (Ezekiel 38:16)
The moshiach will bring about the political and spiritual
redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to
Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah
23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in
Israel that will be the center of all world government, both
for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will
rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah
33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel
and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah
33:15).
Olam Ha-Ba: The Messianic Age
The world after the messiah comes is often referred to in
Jewish literature as Olam Ha-Ba (oh-LAHM hah-BAH), the World
to Come. This term can cause some confusion, because it is
also used to refer to a spiritual afterlife. In English, we
commonly use the term "messianic age" to refer specifically
to the time of the messiah.
Olam Ha-Ba will be characterized by the peaceful co-
existence of all people. (Isaiah 2:4) Hatred, intolerance
and war will cease to exist. Some authorities suggest that
the laws of nature will change, so that predatory beasts
will no longer seek prey and agriculture will bring forth
supernatural abundance (Isaiah 11:6-11:9). Others, however,
say that these statements are merely an allegory for peace
and prosperity.
All of the Jewish people will return from their exile among
the nations to their home in Israel (Isaiah 11:11-12;
Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). The law of the Jubilee
will be reinstated.
In the Olam Ha-Ba, the whole world will recognize the Jewish
G-d as the only true G-d, and the Jewish religion as the
only true religion (Isaiah 2:3; 11:10; Micah 4:2-3;
Zechariah 14:9). There will be no murder, robbery,
competition or jealousy. There will be no sin (Zephaniah
3:13). Sacrifices will continue to be brought in the Temple,
but these will be limited to thanksgiving offerings, because
there will be no further need for expiatory offerings.
[> [>
Re: ok, time to turn this around... -- FriarTed,
06:26:43 05/24/02 Fri
Jesus/Yeshua was Jewish as were his disciples. They did not
just make up the concept of a dying/rising Messiah. Passages
of the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate a Messiah-ben-Joseph would
die in battle against Gog & Magog (Gentile invaders) while
Messiah-ben-David would vanquish them.
Raphael Patai in THE MESSIAH SCROLLS has written on such
passages.
However, the Jewish Scriptures-the Tanakh has the strongest
indications in Daniel 9:25-27 (the Anointed/Messiah Prince
is killed 69x7=483 years after the Persia decree to rebuild
Jerusalem, which was issued around 450 BCE) and in Isaiah 53
(God's Servant suffers & is slain for the iniquities of his
people & in the end emerges victorious- compare also David's
lament in Psalm 22.)
One may legitimately disagree with the Christian view, but
it does have precedent in Jewish Scripture & thought before
the Rabbis ruled it out.
When was Jesus anointed? That IS difficult. Possible
"anointings" include-
His physical birth by Mary (in which Divine Spirit is made
flesh & emerges in an oily substance).
His ceremonial washing (mikvah/baptism) by John the priestly
heir.
His public endowment with Holy Breath/Spirit after which he
began to teach & heal bodily, emotional & spiritual
ills.
His perfumed greasing by Mary of Bethany a week before his
death.
The second perfumed greasing of his corpse at burial.
His being raised to immortal life by God.
If one is looking for a priest/prophet who pours oil upon
Jesus & declares him the Davidic King/Son of God (see Psalm
2 for that as a legit title for the Davidic King), one will
not find an exact match. If one is willing to stretch the
meaning of "anointed" to mean "chosen & empowered for Divine
service", then there are plenty of anointing incidents.
Heck, I have no problem with Buffy as a Messiah-
figure.*G*
[> [> [>
partial response -- anom, 17:13:33 05/24/02
Fri
I'm rushing through this now in an attempt to keep this
thread going through Shabbes so I can address the rest
afterwards!
"Jesus/Yeshua was Jewish as were his disciples. They did not
just make up the concept of a dying/rising Messiah. Passages
of the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate a Messiah-ben-Joseph would
die in battle against Gog & Magog (Gentile invaders) while
Messiah-ben-David would vanquish them."
This doesn't sound like the life of Jesus--did he take part
in any battles? In any case, that's not how he died, & it
says nothing about his coming back. So I'm not sure how it
applies.
"However, the Jewish Scriptures-the Tanakh has the strongest
indications in Daniel 9:25-27 (the Anointed/Messiah Prince
is killed 69x7=483 years after the Persia decree to rebuild
Jerusalem, which was issued around 450 BCE)..."
I looked this up--the Hebrew (& my JPS translation) has
weeks, not years, & refers to an, not the, anointed one.
Gotta go--the rest will have to wait!
[> [> [> [>
Re: partial response -- Sophist, 18:50:22
05/24/02 Fri
anom, there are 2000 years of Christian exegesis of the Old
Testament to find verses prefiguring Jesus. You really don't
want to deal with this topic in a few posts. And I'm not
sure you'd gain much if you mastered the whole history of
the subject. :)
[> [> [> [>
Weeks="sevens". -- FriarTed,
04:15:17 05/25/02 Sat
The DSS mention was just to show the idea of a dying Messiah
was not unknown in Judaic thought of that time- not to say
that was a prophecy of Jesus. It would be REALLY stretching
to say he was in spiritual battle against Roman imperialism
& thus slain by Rome which filled the role of Gog. *L*
RE the "seventy weeks"-
New Jewish Publication Society translation (1985)-
Daniel 7:24-27-
Seventy weeks (ftn "of years") have been decreed for your
people and your holy city until the measure of transgression
is filled and that of sin complete, until iniquity is
expiated, and eternal righteousness ushered in; and
prophetic vision ratified (ftn "sealed"), and the Holy of
Holies anointed. You must know & understand: From the
issuance of the word to restore & rebuild Jerusalem until
the [time of the] anointed leader is seven weeks; and for
sixty-two weeks it will be rebuilt, square & moat, but in a
time of distress. And after those sixty-two weeks, the
anointed leader will disappear and vanish (ftn "meaning of
Heb. uncertain). The army of a leader who is to come will
destroy the city & the sanctuary, but its end will come
through a flood. Desolation is decreed until the end of war.
During one week he will make firm covenant with many. For
half a week he will put a stop to the sacrifice & the meal
offering. At the corner (ftn "meaning of Heb. uncertain")
[of the altar] will be an appalling abomination until the
decreed destruction will be poured out upon the appalling
thing.
Yes, I had to type all that out- WHEW! *G*
Christian view- Word to rebuild Jerusalem around 450 BCE to
Jesus around 33 CE was "sixty-nine weeks/seven, thus 483
years" (there are several views of if the years were solar
or lunar & if those were the precise dates). Some see the
last (70th) week as being fulfilled in the Apostles ministry
to Israel & then the Gentiles, some in the Roman war against
Jerusalen (66-73 CE), some in a future "Tribulation" in
which AntiChrist deceives Israel & then betrays it by
defiling the Temple.
A non-Christian view is that the 70 sevens were a figurative
number indicating "fulness of time" starting with the Medo-
Persian conquest of Babylon & the M-P sponsorship of the
restoration of the Jews to their land (about 538 BCE)
to the Maccebean war against the Temple-defiling Greek-
Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The "anointed leader"
refers to the line of Godly kings & priests who
led Israel, were persecuted & sometimes martyred, & finally
defeated Antiochus. Btw, many more liberal Christian
scholars tend toward this view also.
I think both views can equally apply.
The time of Jesus actually saw many Messianic-claimants
based on the 70 weeks prophecy (hence the plethora of Zealot-
led rebellions against Rome), to the point that the Talmud
actually forbids the use of that prophecy to try to
calculate Messiah's coming (Sanhedrin, Tractate 976, Nezikim
Vol 3, Rabbi Samuel B. Nahmami speaking in the name of Rabbi
Jonathan, cited on James BeauSiegneur's 1997 novel IN HIS
IMAGE: The Christ Clone Trilogy Vol 1, p 293).
[>
Just want to thank everyone above, this type of
discussion is what hooked me... -- A8, 13:25:09
05/24/02 Fri
on this board in the first place. Sorry, the 108 character
limitation forced me into the box.
Current
board
| More May 2002