May 2003 posts
Ain't We Got Fun (Spoilers to "Players",
but no further) -- KdS, 06:01:28 05/09/03 Fri
Players can only be considered as a breath of fresh air
after the claustrophobia of much of the previous run of episodes.
The Gunn plotline can best be described, I think, as "The
Zeppo for adults". We were very glad to see just how
explicitly Gunn's under-valuation of himself as unintelligent,
uneducated, and only good for muscle was challenged and dismissed.
Moreover, ME achieved a further milestone here. I will probably
be challenged by some people on the board who do believe that
sex outside a monogamous and deeply committed relationship is
always wrong. However, Gunn achieved a level of validation that
he's been slightly deprived of in the past, and Gwen managed to
achieve an elementary connection from which she had previously
been barred in a safe place with a considerate, perceptive and
gentlemanly partner, which not everyone does. And no-one got punished
by fate. (One slightly deeper thought - I would very much like
to know what Gunn was about to say when he said it was the most
fun he'd had since... Since what? Since the end of his relationship
with Fred, since Seidel's death, since the Apocalypse started?)
While one can feel unease over the way Cordelia's been treated
this season, I couldn't deny that the rest of AI were aware for
most of the ep of what was going on (Angel's rather over-demonstrative
speech about how dumb the Master was, Wes's deeply crude reference
to "poultry strangling") and that it was hilarious.
Props must also go to Lorne's rather Arabic-tinged vocalisation.
Was it improvised or written?
A final speculation about Cordelia's speech to Connor about how
everything that would come would be necessary. Do you imagine
that that might have been what Cordelia was told, before the power
totally took her over?
[> Re: Ain't We Got Fun
-- JCC, 07:29:22
05/09/03 Fri
It certainly was nice to see some element of an episode that doesn't
relate to the main arc. Both Buffy and Angel have, in my opinion,
suffered from being tied to closely to their main plot. I've missed
these one-off eps. Unfortunately it was some what diluted by AI's
adventures.
It was also refreshing to have an Episode focus on one character
in particular, rather than the group as a whole, as we've seen
all season. Both shows are beginning to suffer from having too
many characters. Let's hope for more of the same.
[> [> Agree and disagree.
-- Rob, 08:04:39 05/09/03 Fri
"I've missed these one-off eps. Unfortunately it was some
what diluted by AI's adventures."
I agree that it's nice that especially before the big arc-athon,
the show took an episode to take a breather and focus on a character.
I don't agree though that they shouldn't have had some arc elements
in the episode. That is what always makes BtVS and AtS so special
to me, that no episode could be placed anywhere in any order and
make sense. Even in the 2nd season BtVS standalones, there is
some element or line that ties it to the time period in which
it takes place. For example, I just went over "Killed by
Death" for my annotation site. While for the most part, it
is a standalone story, there is one thing that keeps being repeated
that makes sure you watch it in the correct order: Jenny's death.
And you can go back to just about every standalone episode and
find an important element. "The Pack," for example,
Principal Flutie is killed. "Ted" renews the Jenny/Giles
relationship. "Inca Mummy Girl" has the first time Oz
sees Willow. I like that there are connecting elements there that
keep the arc moving forward, even while the majority of the episode
is standalone. That's what I like most about "Killer in Me"--the
main plot was standalone, but it had been built on by past events,
and also contained important character arc elements, like Willow's
getting over Tara's death, and Spike's chip. "Players"
was a perfect example for me of a great standalone episode for
the same reasons: the major focus was on a self-contained story,
yet there was still some important forward movement in the season-long
arc. And, I might add, one of AtS's best episode closing shots.
Rob
[> [> [> Tasty cheese
-- Liam, 09:20:46 05/09/03 Fri
I liked 'Players' because it gave Gunn a chance to shine as a
character, and has vindicated my defence of him to other fans.
While the James Bond type story was cheesy, it was tasty cheese,
and he got the girl in the end. :)
Regarding JCC's comment about 'Angel' and 'Buffy' having 'too
many characters', while I would certainly agree regarding 'Buffy'
after the potentials were brought in, I feel that 'Angel' has
kept the numbers reasonable at seven: Angel, Cordelia, Wes, Gunn,
Fred, Connor, and Lorne. We also should remember that there were
eight main characters in season 3 of 'Buffy': Buffy, Giles, Willow,
Xander, Angel, Cordelia, Oz, and Faith.
[> Preserving thread untill
I get home in the AM -- yabyumpan, 12:12:20 05/09/03 Fri
Loved this episode but haven't got time to write my thoughts,
hope it's still here in the morning ;o)
[> [> If not... --
aliera, 21:26:26 05/09/03 Fri
...hoping you'll initiate a new one. :-)
[> [> [> Re: If not...
-- yabyumpan, 01:37:43 05/10/03 Sat
Thanks, I've just done a long post on LMPTM and I'm now knackered
and need to get to bed but if this thread disappears before I
get up, maybe I will start a new one. Loved this ep and lots to
say, esp on Gunn.
[> Metaphor as mistake
-- KdS, 05:28:30 05/10/03 Sat
Picked the title for this post of the top of my head, because
I remembered the tune from an old Warner Bros. cartoon. When I
checked the lyrics, turns out it's about sex as an escape from
your problems. Sort of appropriate.
The Best Lies
are Half Truths (spoilers for Home) -- Vash
the Stampede, 08:23:13 05/09/03 Fri
What if Angel didn't give Conner a new life; rather he gave him
someone else's life? What if the family Conner is now with (let's
call them McCoy) had a son (let's call him Jack) that bore a passing
resemblance to him, and for whatever reason (either natural or
supernatural) they lost him? Now, rather than create a new reality
where Conner has a different family, or alter the memories of
potentially hundreds or thousands of people, Wolfram and Hart
make it so Team Angel has forgotten him, and the McCoy's and their
community believe Conner is Jack. Not only is this more economical
power wise (after all, it's not like they are hiding a potentially
devastating power source), but it also makes things easier on
all involved. The McCoy's get their son back, and Conner remembers
Jack's life, so he loves his family and his girlfriend as naturally
as the original did. Also, if Conner still possesses his powers
(which I believe he does), it would explain why no one, including
Conner himself, realizes he is different, because they all remember
him as Jack, and Jack never displayed abilities like that before.
Vash
[> Reminds me of what they
did to Tefe in the last Swamp Thing series -- A. Lurker, 11:26:13
05/09/03 Fri
A Rant on
Spike, the soul quest, ME, and avoiding philosophical questions
(minor season 7 spoilers) -- ECH, 08:51:38 05/09/03 Fri
It is hard to say exactly what major change the soul has brought
to Spike. It has allowed him to have a wider sense of morality
that isn't just based on what Buffy thinks is right or wrong,
but not much wider. And, that is really all I can think of.
The only explanation that I can come up with despite it going
against canon it that Spike with out a soul was a mix of William
and the demon having by far having the most influence. This season
the demon still retains control, but there is more of Williams
positive attributes mixed in. Perhaps, what we saw of insane Spike
in Lessons and a bit in STSP and Help was William bleeding through
before the demon reasserted itself.
I mean if you took at unspoiled person at random that never watched
the show and you got rid of the references to the soul and Spike
being different now from Storyteller thru Touched and you also
had that person watch Bargaining thru TR last season and asked
them to try to pick out which episodes Spike has a soul and which
ones that he doesn't I would bet that person would 9 times out
of 10 pick more of those season 7 episodes as having Spike without
a soul then those season 6 episodes.
The problem is ME decided (for whatever reason) to give Spike
a soul. But, they had no clue how he should be portrayed. I have
heard from some pretty decent sources that ME was playing with
changing Spike's name to William this year, but it was shot down
by Fox for many reason related to merchandising. And, in Lessons
and the original script of BY you can very much see that ME was
originally planning a Spike that would have been much closer to
William, but my guess is in spite of that the ratings and the
popularity of Spike but the big kibosh on that.
So ME had no clue what to do with Spike, I don't believe Marti
when she said in her little recent interview that they forgot
Spike in the basement, they aren't that stupid. They simply did
not know what to do with him or how he should act or be portrayed.
They had no personality that would in anyway be as popular as
the one they already had for Spike. So, they simply kept him insane
or tortured for the entire first half of the season until the
ratings drop to the point where they realize that they need to
bring back the Spike the audience loves. Thus, they bring back
the snark, the love of violence, the duster, the romantic side
of him, the I don't give a s**t street fighter attitude, and the
impulsivity.
Yes, it is more entertaining, and I enjoy watching this Spike
much more, but part of me still feels that ME is telling not showing
Spike is a totally different entity (as Fury has Buffy state in
the end of LMPTM).
In the three eps from STSP thru Selfless Spike's soul was brought
up once on the show, because they were showing he was changed,
viewers could see and understand he is different now.
In the two episodes LMPTM and Dirty Girls there were at least
a dozen references to the soul, Spike being changed, not that
person anymore, or different. That is because ME is now showing
us pretty much the same Spike as last year and has to rely on
hammering it over our heads that he is totally different and not
that person anymore because we can't see the difference.
It sort of reminds me one of the reasons ME failed in season 6,
they said over and over again that Buffy's behavior was justifiable
and that he is evil he doesn't have a soul, but they were attacking
Spike (in what was IMHO a racist or spiciest way) that he is not
trust worthy he is soulless and he deserves any abuse he gets.
Now if ME had Buffy and the gang use the evil things he has done
like try to kill them or sell out to Adam as reasons why he was
evil and untrustworthy I might think differently. But instead
it was only that he doesn't have a soul, it was about what he
is, not how he acts or what he does. And, this season Buffy doesn't
defend Spike based on how he acts either, she simply says he has
a soul now he is different, again she is judging Spike not on
his actions, but by what he is.
And, the final thing that has been pissing me off, is that ME
violated their own canon by having Spike get a soul intentionally.
Having a soulless vampire go out to get his or her soul back for
any reason is against canon, because vampires are supposed to
be irredeemably evil. Which means they can't change or want to
change, for any reason, except through outside forces making them
IE Angel's curse.
IMHO, ME knows exactly how they messed up, and IMHO that is the
reason why no one has ever brought up the soul or the significance
of Spike's soul quest. Or, even asked any questions about it.
All ME has done is have Spike tell Buffy that he got his soul
back for her, and have her say he has a soul now he is different.
I find it totally implausible that Giles would have no interest
whatsoever in finding out the story behind a soulless vampire
going out to change his nature.
ME should not have had Spike get his own soul back if they were
simply going to ignore this incredible happenstance and limit
it to how it affects Buffy. And, even then they haven't shown
that Spike getting his soul back has really changed Buffy's opinion
of him and made her question their relationship. All ME has shown
me is that having a soul has allowed Buffy to treat Spike in a
way that she might have wanted to last year, but refused to because
of his nature.
If she wanted to simply cuddle with soulless Spike last year,
he would have been just as willing. Instead she hit him, berated
him, and then screwed him. Buffy showed him that she didn't want
emotional warmth or intimacy, she wanted violence and sex. Now
I am sure Spike would have much rather had warmth and intimacy,
but sort of like Dru liking to be tortured, if that is what the
girl want in Spike's mind that is what he is going to give the
girl.
It wouldn't mind if the show would have simply brought up the
issue and left the question open if the spiciest behavior of Buffy
and the Scooby's was right or wrong (IE treating someone for what
they are not how they act). Instead they tried to justify it last
season with the AR and Xander saying that he never forgot what
he really was. But, they had Spike prove them wrong by going out
to get his soul back, and thus showing that he wasn't just a rabid
caged animal to use and abuse, and that he was capable of making
himself trustworthy and changing. Instead they totally ignored
the ramifications of Spike's actions, and they have had no one
(except for a little line from Buffy in NLM asking him how he
got his soul back, in which the topic was quickly changed) has
wondered or asked any questions about the soul quest. And, the
only question that has really been asked about the soul itself
was by Dawn being incredulous that the soul would really make
Spike better.
It seems to me that the soul and soul quest that many people expected
would be a big part of this season ended up in spite of its moral
and philosophical implications to be the major storyline that
the writers ignored like the plague.
And, I know a lot of people say that the soul quest meant nothing
because he didn't want to become a better man just for himself
he wanted to become a better man for someone else, or to avoid
hurting that person, or to get back in the good grace of that
person. But, if a soulless evil demon can change for something
abstract like love or to be a more trustworthy partner, what does
that say about good and evil and the nature of the soulless in
the Buffyverse.
Even if the writers were to try to say that Spike's soul quest
didn't mean anything because he didn't go on it for the right
reasons (IE to become a moral and proper individual because he
personally wanted to be that kind or person and not because Buffy
wanted that kind of person from him), it would have been better
then the writers ignoring the issue and its implications like
the plague and simply saying he has a soul now he is different.
That is called IMHO was taking the easy way out and avoiding a
rich moral and philosophical quandary, because it is too sticky
a subject and may or may not violate certain principles of the
established canon of the show. Whether it did or it didn't violate
the shows canon, I would have liked it questioned. It makes me
feel like Giles had a lobotomy that doesn't seem to care at all
that Spike has a soul and he went out to get one.
[> Re: A Rant on Spike,
(minor season 7 spoilers) -- CW, 09:18:51 05/09/03 Fri
While I don't exactly agree with everything, you've said I think
you're justified in your opinions. Marti Noxon is sometimes careless
about the things she says concerning the show, so it's difficult
to know when she's telling the truth , being dishonest (as Joss
sometimes is) to keep up interest, or just plain doesn't care
to say anything other than what she thinks people want to hear.
Frankly I don't think William the bloody awful vampire-poet would
be a particularly popular character. Maybe Andrew is filling the
role Marti envisioned for him. Since its clear a lot of fans love
Spike as is, it would have been be nearly suicidal to change
the character that much on a permanent basis.
ME is changing the rules all the time. It's more noticeable on
Angel, where I think, they've pretty much given up on keeping
it in the vicinity of believable fantasy, if there can be such
a thing. Die hard fans tend to accept it one way or the other.
The particulars of Spike's soul and resouling are just one of
those things you have to accept as is or reject. ME will do as
it pleases.
[> Re: A Rant on Spike
-- Rina, 09:22:06 05/09/03 Fri
The first thing you must remember about the show and all of the
characers is that everything revolves around Buffy. After all,
the show is called BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER. Not only does Buffy's
experiences affect her development, but so do the experiences
of the supporting characters - including Spike.
Spike finally getting his soul was not just about how it affected
him. Most importantly, it was about how it affected Buffy. For
years, Buffy had judged him based on the fact that he was soulless.
Angel was good, because he had a soul. Spike was an evil thing,
because he didn't.
After Buffy discovered that Spike had a soul in Season 7, you
will noticed that she treated him differently. At first, one could
argue that yeah, now Spike is more acceptable and worthy of her
friendship, because he he has a soul. Even more importantly, Spike
sought to regain his soul - unlike Angel. But the most important
change in Buffy's moral outlook happened in "Get It Done".
The audience saw that Buffy has finally dropped that rigid moral
outlook that has tainted her relationship with Spike. When she
was ranting at him, she was telling him that she no longer want
a souled vampire who hung around crying over his past deeds and
acting like some second-rate Dudley Do Right. She wanted a little
of the old Spike back - the snarky vampire who could kill with
great skill. What Buffy was really saying that she wanted both
the light and the dark in Spike . . . the same light and dark
she has finally accepted that she also possessed. She doesn't
want Spike to be an outright killer, but she also does not need
him holding back his dark side . . . especially when that dark
side is needed.
[> [> Agree with Rina,
some additional points -- s'kat, 11:06:26 05/09/03 Fri
I think Rina put if very well above:
The first thing you must remember about the show and all of
the characers is that everything revolves around Buffy. After
all, the show is called BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER. Not only does
Buffy's experiences affect her development, but so do the experiences
of the supporting characters - including Spike.
Exactly. While in Angel, we get to explore the ramifications of
what a soul means - we don't as much on Buffy. Remember when Angel
was on Buffy - we got very little on his character - outside of
what was absolutely necessary regarding her journey. We didn't
know he was rejected by his Dad or his relationship with Spike
or anything else. All we got was what would metaphorically relate
to what Buffy was going through. Same thing with Spike, we get
what metaphorically relates to Buffy.
I remember when fans were clamoring for more information on Angel
way back in S2 and S3 online. They were ranting that we got nothing
on what hell was like for him or how he'd changed outside of Amends.
Angel the Series solved some of that desire - heck it was the
writers answer to the fans.
Whedon has stated in numerous interviews that BTVS is about a
girl coming of age, he is to some extent hindered in his story-telling
by those pre-established boundaries. So as a result we see Spike's
journey filtered through Buffy's eyes, just as we see Dawn, Xander,
Willow, and Giles. What we see and know to some extent is only
what Buffy knows, or if it is information outside of Buffy - such
as Anya in Selfless or Spike in LMPTM - it in some way metaphorically
relates to her. In Selfless - Anya is dealing with her female
identity, her personal power and choices relating to it - this
relates to Buffy who is also struggling with power and her identity.
In LMPTM - Spike is similarily struggling with his identity, personal
power, and his choices - just as Buffy does. What we see is directly
related in some way to what Buffy needs to learn and her journey
to adult hood. Whatever happens to Spike in the finale must in
some way be a comment on that.
It's important to remember that while watching Buffy - we have
six regular supporting characters and one lead. It's not an ensemble
show like Law and Order, The Practice, or ER, or even Firefly
was - it's a narrative focused on a lead character with several
supporting ones whose stories support the leads. I know that enrages
some people, because many fans prefer the supporting characters
to the lead, but
hey we knew coming into the show it was all about the lead - so
it's not like they mislead us. It's up to us how to view it.
Personally I like how Spike has been portrayed in the series.
I have no problems that Spike can be snarky with a soul. Angel
is snarky with one. Nor do I see him as the same character he
was last year. He seems more mature this year and in the last
few episodes? More together. I see the differences. They are subtle
sure, but I think they are there. It would annoy me if they were
too drastic, because that's not very realistic.
Examples: His speech to Buffy in Touched was not at all like the
speeches he's made in past seasons. He made clear that he wanted
nothing from her. And he made no excuses.
His comment to Buffy at the end of LMPTM was very different than
what he'd have said in prior seasons. He makes no excuses for
his actions. He doesn't beg. And he leaves.
Nor did I find his behavior in LMPTM the least bit repellent.
I would have said exactly the same things to PRW, PRW deserved
it. I think it's expecting a bit much for someone to feel sorry
for a)killing a mortal enemy who was powerful like he was and
b) someone who is trying to kill him. The fact he didn't kill
him - is telling. But enuf on that we've argued LMPTM into the
ground.
His reactions to Faith, Xander, Willow and Giles are also far
more subdued than previous seasons. He hasn't attacked them, he
goes out of his way to save Xander and is horrified by what happens
to him in DG, he is careful with Giles and it takes a lot to get
him to yell at him. He actually holds his tongue a great deal
more - very little snark. Just here and there.
No, I'd say ME's depiction of Spike with a soul within the limited
time they've had and considering the boundaries of the show, has
been well done.
Why hasn't Giles reacted? Well, you are assuming Buffy told him
everything that happened. Or that she had an opportunity to or
that Giles would have listened. Giles doesn't appear to hear much
of anything Buffy says of late. Also Giles did not go out and
research Angel coming back from hell until he was prodded into
it by Buffy in Amends - what prodded him? "Angel is making
appearences in my dreams and I'm making appearences in his -I
won't be able to get past him til it's solved." That is what
motivates Giles in S3, not any concern for Angel. In S7 - Giles
may not believe Spike got a soul. Why should he? Watcher.
At any rate... running out of steam. Hope that made some lick
of sense. For what it's worth? I agree with Rina on this one.
SK
[> [> [> Re: Agree
with Rina, some additional points -- ECH, 11:23:19 05/09/03
Fri
I never said I had real problems with showing Spike as not too
different then how Spike was before. My problem was that ME is
trying to tell me that the soul means everything and that Buffy
and the gangs treatment of Spike before the soul was justifiable
because all he could be was a monster.
If they wanted me to believe Spike couldn't become a better man
last year then they should have had Buffy believe in him instead
of abuse him and call him a evil thing that can't change and then
him break her belief in him. They never allowed her to show that
she believed he could be good at all last year.
Hell, it is Buffy's belief in Spike this season that argueably
kept him from breaking under the torture of the first and perhaps
kept him from giving in to his demon.
Even if they addressed this topic I would have been happy, but
they didn't they ignored it like the implications of the soul
quest as if it was on fire.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Agree with Rina, some additional points -- s'kat, 11:44:56
05/09/03 Fri
If they wanted me to believe Spike couldn't become a better
man last year then they should have had Buffy believe in him instead
of abuse him and call him a evil thing that can't change and then
him break her belief in him. They never allowed her to show that
she believed he could be good at all last year.
Hell, it is Buffy's belief in Spike this season that argueably
kept him from breaking under the torture of the first and perhaps
kept him from giving in to his demon.
Even if they addressed this topic I would have been happy, but
they didn't they ignored it like the implications of the soul
quest as if it was on fire.
Actually, I don't think they have ignored it. I think they did
address it. Remember Buffy's whole conversation with Holden Webster
in CWDP? She talks at length about how she abused Spike and what
that said about her. She even repeats a little of that in her
discussion with Spike in Touched. We also have them discuss it
in again in Never Leave Me - where he tells her she just used
him and he understands why - it was self-hatred. That the soul
is about self-loathing, as wretched and evil as he was back then,
he never really hated himself until now. She acknowledges this
but at the same time says that's over now, she no longer feels
that way. She similarly acknowledges that she saw him change.
They go out of their way to show that change and how he is different
from S6 Spike in Sleeper - where he is disgusted and wants her
to kill him. "I can't cry the soul out of me Buffy it won't
come, please I need that.." he says about the stake. Something
that would never have happened in S6.
So I still disagree with you. I see them addressing it, across
numerous episodes and in numerous ways - including Anya's comments
to Spike and her attempts to hit on him. "Soulless Spike
would have me upside down and half-way to happy right now."
Or "have you become a wimp-ire now?" Or "apparently
spike gets a get-out of free card...but no we need to forgive...blah
blah.."
In fact some viewers have complained they've been addressing it
so much it's become the Spike/Buffy show.
It's subtle but there, in almost every single episode. And the
writers tried to make it clear to us last year that Spike was
evil without a soul. They did it with the demon eggs. The sex
with Anya. The attempted rape. The biting the girl - which yes
he talked himself into but he did it - or the chip wouldn't have
fired. And the scenes in Dead Things.
He had no choice but to be evil without that compass.
Choosing the compass - provided him with a choice. I found this
decision on the writers part to be interesting, still do. Have
yet to see what they'll continue to do with it. Spike's story
is after all far from over. But to say they haven't addressed
it at all? Or ignored it? Sorry, in the show I've been watching
and analyzing they have. Quite a bit.
[> [> [> [> Souls
and their value on BTVS... -- Kate, 12:31:11 05/09/03 Fri
I never said I had real problems with showing Spike as not
too different then how Spike was before. My problem was that ME
is trying to tell me that the soul means everything and that Buffy
and the gangs treatment of Spike before the soul was justifiable
because all he could be was a monster.
ECH - I understand what you are saying, but I think ME does this
on purpose. I've always thought there was a double-standard with
regards to how say Angel and Anya were treated as compared to
chippedSpike (esp during season 5 and 6) and I think this is done
with intent (for the most part) and not just to annoy the heck
out of me. lol
One of the first things Giles tells Buffy, Willow, and Xander
in season one is that a vampire is soulless, evil creature whose
human counter-part has been replaced by the demon and that it
is incapable of human emotions - love, compassion, caring, etc.
So from the start we have this black and white paradigm set up:
Humans - Good, Demons - Bad. And this school of thought continues
throughout the high school years and on past so that we can still
see its prominance today (especially in Xander). However...there
has been a slow shift as the characters have grown up and as the
show has evolved (as well as its audience) to a greater understanding
of the "shades of gray" school of thought. As we have
characters like Warren, Willow, Clem, the Initiative, and Maggie
Walsh appear the picture becomes a bit murkier, forcing our characters
to question the rhetoric spouted out by Giles as a mouthpiece
for the CoW during season 1. What they begin to see is life isn't
as black & white or clear cut as it might have been when they
were younger because look - Humans can be bad - Warren, Maggie,
Willow and Demons can be good - Spike, Clem. So I think this has
just been another lesson for characters, especially Buffy, to
learn and Spike has been a way of demonstrating this lesson -
which is: life becomes a lot more confusing as you grown up and
often times it's hard to tell the good guys from the bad.
If they wanted me to believe Spike couldn't become a better
man last year then they should have had Buffy believe in him instead
of abuse him and call him a evil thing that can't change and then
him break her belief in him. They never allowed her to show that
she believed he could be good at all last year.
Following along in line with SK's point about this show being
all about Buffy and her view of the world, then ME couldn't have
shown us Spike trying to become a better man last year because
Buffy couldn't and wouldn't allow herself to believe that even
as a possibility. She was so consumed by her own self-hatred,
anger, and pain and needing Spike to be a convienent and justifiable
outlet for releasing those emotions instead of directing them
where they should have gone (her friends) that there was no way
she could look beyond what he is (a vampire) to who he is (a cognizant
being with valid emotions). Before Buffy could see Spike as anything
other than a soulless vampire, she had to see herself for who
she was and to take the time to confront the emotions and feelings
she had been previously exorcising out on Spike. Because if Buffy
was forced to believe that Giles was wrong and that (some) vampires
(and by extension demons) do have the capability to feel then
she would have been forced to take a really good look at herself
and wonder about the type of person she was if she could abuse
someone who loves her, so easily. (This isn't to say that only
Buffy was at fault last year. I think it was a mutually abusive
relationship, but that doesn't completely detract from the fact
that Spike has been changing over the years and the gang definitely
refused to see it because of the reasons I mentioned above.)
The reason Buffy has been able to "see" Spike this year
and believe that he has worked to become a better man isn't because
of the soul (although that plays a large part), it's because Buffy's
own way of thinking has changed. It is hard to refute the possibility
that a creature of "evil" can become good, under given
circumstances, when a creature of "good" (Willow and
Buffy herself) can become evil, given the right circumstances.
I absolutely agree that there are numerous contradictions and
double-standards within the Buffyverse (sometimes even more so
than on "Angel"), but that is because the show is about
the human condition and in particular the point of view of one
particular young, female character. So those contradictions in
thought are her contradictions in thought and as she grows-up
and begins to figure things out about herself, her life and the
people around her then these ideas on the show change as she does.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Souls and their value on BTVS... (spoiler Home) --
lunasea, 13:41:11 05/09/03 Fri
It is hard to refute the possibility that a creature of "evil"
can become good, under given circumstances, when a creature of
"good" (Willow and Buffy herself) can become evil, given
the right circumstances.
Actually this could be an interesting discussion. A souled creature
has their moral compass that directs them to good. That allows
them to override their evil sides. What other reason do they have
to do good? Being good is completely illogical. Souled creatures
can all do evil, but even Willow had a spark of humanity left
that could be reached. Souled beings *do* evil, they don't *become*
it.
Examples of redemption are everywhere. No one is irredeemable,
if s/he has a soul (with the exception of Connor, but that was
different). It even looks like Wesley was getting through to Lilah
(which could be an interesting story. A creature who lives in
Hell being redeemed in a way).
The show really did set a precedent with Angel that had to be
followed. I would like to see them explore why the soul orients
a creature to good, but they have in some ways. They really leave
it up to the audience to decide this. It is also what fuels the
Spike debates.
The writers were completely brilliant in how they got around this
with Spike. Rather than change where his moral compass pointed,
first they took away his freedom and then he developed a new moral
compass (Buffy), so at least he could still fight. It was interesting
why Spike had that dream in OOMM. They worked with all the limitations
they had previously set to explain Angel/Angelus. It allowed him
to do good actions. He didn't *become* good, he just *did* good.
Doing good even made him feel guilty. Given the opportunity, he
would do evil. When push came to shove, his new moral compass
wasn't strong enough.
Can an evil creature become good? Why would it want to? What logical
reason is there for something lacking a soul to want to do good
for no other reason than because it is good? Good makes no sense.
Why go through the burden of being good?
Evil creatures can do good and good creatures can do evil.
My own view on vampires is that when they are vamped they do lose
their humanity. They can redevelop that though. It isn't quite
what they had as a human, but it does mimic it well. Angelus was
free of humanity when he lost his soul, but his feelings for Buffy
were still there and as the season went on, these effected him
more and more. We even saw him be tender while he was sneaking
in Buffy's bedroom in "Passion." The passions remain,
vamped or souled. What changes is how the creature views them
and acts on them. Oriented to good, Angelus' feelings for Buffy
were sort of fine. Oriented to evil, he can't stand them and is
willing to end the world in order to be free. He lashes out at
Buffy through her friends because of this.
Spike fits with this. Once he decides that he loves Buffy, because
of the dream in OOMM, since he is a willing fool for love, he
views it as something beyond his control and acts accordingly.
The difference between Angelus and Spike is how they view themselves.
That is what causes the different actions they have.
I really hope that doesn't reopen the Spike debates.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Agree with Rina, some additional points -- lunasea, 13:04:31
05/09/03 Fri
How is Buffy supposed to believe in Spike when she doesn't even
believe in herself? There is nothing to sing about, the world
sucks, I came back broken, but HEY Spike, You da man!!!
Spike will be an interesting character, when they get around to
actually exploring him. Maybe next season, maybe not. Maybe it
isn't something ME/Joss wants to explore too much. Has nothing
to do with fear. It has to do with they can only tell so much
in 42 minutes a week. Buffy's faith and Angel's redemption seems
to be what enthralls him. Without Buffy's faith, I would venture
that they would take Spike into Redemption through faith alone.
They seem to be going there with "she believes in me."
That contrasts sharply with Angel needing to make "Amends."
They explored the themes they did and it was interesting to see
Spike's perspective and roll in this. They don't really explore
characters or plot devices, like the soul. They had him get his
soul for Buffy. That allows him to have more of a story later.
It wasn't about the soul. It is about the redemption it now makes
possible. NOW his story can really begin.
[> [> [> Well said
SK... -- Kate, 11:38:06 05/09/03 Fri
I was trying to gather my own thoughts on how I see and feel about
Spike and you just nailed it for me. I agree with all of your
points and I think they are well supported. Thanks for reading
my mind. lol
[> One really big change
(spoilers to 7.19)... -- Dariel, 09:48:22 05/09/03 Fri
Although ME hasn't spent a lot of time waiving it in our faces,
there is one HUGE difference between the Spike we saw in S6 Spike
and the one we see in S7. That is the fact that Spike no longer
has a chip to restrain him. Spike is choosing not to feed
on humans, not to kill them (as he did with Wood). The soul has
made this possible. In S6, when he thought the chip didn't work,
Spike lost no time in seeking out a victim to feed on.
What we're seeing is a Spike who has changed in the ways that
matter. He doesn't feed on or hurt humans, he shows kindness to
people, such as Faith, and the monk in ES, he's appalled by what
Caleb did to Xander.
As for Spike's persona, ME has shown us a couple of times, as
in Storyteller, GID, and in Empty Spaces, that part of that persona
is just posturing. (His scenes with Andrew, in particular, such
as the whole blooming onion thing in ES and the Big Bad video
image in Storyteller illustrate this.)
[> [> Re: One really
big change (spoilers to 7.19)... -- ECH, 09:57:45 05/09/03
Fri
Yes, but you are forgetting that Buffy told him that Spike was
an killer and an evil thing right before that in Smashed, and
I have to ask myself if Buffy told Spike he could be more then
that and supported him as she has this season at the time he found
out his chip wasn't working on her for some reason would he still
have gone out to try to feed? This is a question very few people
have asked. And, if Buffy didn't believe in Spike this season
would he have given in to the will of the First and his demonic
blood lust and become a killer again?
It is impossible to say. All I know is that Buffy not believeing
Spike could be better then a monster last season contributed to
his acting like a monster. If no one believes in you it can be
very hard to believe in yourself.
[> Why seek a soul?
-- Caroline, 13:44:01 05/09/03 Fri
The persona of Spike appears to be quite similar in S6 and 7 but
there are significant differences in the underlying character.
The main one that I would bring up is the effect that the soul
has had on Spike. He feels such an incredible level of guilt and
remorse for what he has done, not just to Buffy but to all his
victims and he wants to atone. I'll give a few examples:
In Lessons, he says that he is 'sure to be caned'. He tried to
cut out his soul.
In BY, he shows that he has no expectations of a relationship
with Buffy, he just wants to help. He feels incredible remorse
for his actions not just towards Buffy but to all his victims.
In STSP, Spike realizes that just getting the soul is not enough:
SPIKE
You go off and try to wall up the bad
spots, put your heart back in where
it fell out, and you call yourself
finished, but you're not. You're
worse than ever, you are.
SPIKE
William's a good boy. Carries the
water, carries the sin. It's
supposed to yet easier, in'it? It's
s'posed to help to help. 'Cept it
doesn't. And it's still so heavy...
It's what you do with it that counts. There is more work to be
done.
In Help, he's tormented by 'hurting the girl'. Is this Buffy or
is it the victims that we later learn he has been triggered to
kill? Later, he helps Buffy to save Cassie, to stop anyone from
'huring the girl'.
In Sleeper, Spike tells us how things are different:
SPIKE
And everything I felt, feel - it only
cuts deeper now....
He is horrified that he may have hurt someone and goes out to
investigate. Once he learns the truth, he confesses immediately
to Buffy and then asks her to kill him. When Buffy refuses to
stake him he says:
SPIKE
No, please... I need it. I can't cry
this soul out of me. It won't come.
And I... killed... And I feel it...
I feel every one of them...
In Bring on the Night, he asks to be tied up so that he can't
be triggered. In NLM, he reveals the depths of his self-loathing
and connects it directly to his soul.
I could go on. But I think the point has been made. The impact
the soul has on Spike's moral perspective, his judgment of his
own behaviour and character as well the emotional toll this has
taken on him distinguishes Spike in S7 from S6. In S6 he tried
incredibly hard to be good for Buffy but we did see behaviour
that stemmed from lack of a soul - trying to bite the girl after
he discovered he could hit Buffy, hiding Katrina's body, the demon
eggs, sex with Anya, the attempted rape. He felt remorse for the
AR, and had to psych himself up for the biting but most of his
behaviour is a sign of lack of moral compass. It puts into stark
relief the agonies that he goes through in S7. These agonies are
not just associated with Buffy or things linked to Buffy - he
has a broader, deeper notion of morality, something that the conditioning
of the chip could not give to him. In S6 he had the moral understanding
of a child, in S7 he has the understanding of an adult. And that's
not only because he acquired a soul, it's because he's learning
what to do with it. I don't think that the question should be
why isn't Spike very different after he acquired his soul - I
think the question should be why a vampire would go out and seek
a soul in the first place.
[> [> That was intriguing.
(vague Spike/soul spoilers S6/S7) -- WickedBufffy, 14:16:38
05/09/03 Fri
"but we did see behaviour that stemmed from lack of a soul
- trying to bite the girl after he discovered he could hit Buffy,
hiding Katrina's body, the demon eggs, sex with Anya, the attempted
rape."
There are people with souls who have no moral compass, either.
It seems difficult to use those behaviour references in these
discussions since humans with souls do horrendous acts also.
Other than that disagreement, what a great question.
"....why a vampire would go out and seek a soul in the first
place."
Most vampires don't seem to seek a soul. Even Angel didn't, his
was a curse. (Though he does fight hard to keep it now that he
has it.) I'm unclear if any other vampires have sought one out?
It appeared his initial motivation to get one was to be able to
be what he thought Buffy wanted. He started working on "being
good" in S6. Frustrated nothing was working, he went for
the soul option. Which seems to be pretty rare for a vamp, if
not completely unique.
I felt like Spike had already begun his journey in S6 and the
soul addition was like a jetpack on his back in his learning curve.
(Maybe it cut 200 years off his journey, who knows?) As time and
experience went on, he greew from the morality of a child to that
of an adult - muc as we do... with time and experience. He just
started with a handicap we didn't have from the beginning - no
soul.
[> [> [> Re: That
was intriguing. (vague Spike/soul spoilers S6/S7) -- Caroline,
14:39:05 05/09/03 Fri
'There are people with souls who have no moral compass, either.
It seems difficult to use those behaviour references in these
discussions since humans with souls do horrendous acts also.'
We're not actually disagreeing. You misinterpreted me. Just because
I said that these actions stemmed from Spike's lack of soul does
not mean that I believe that those with a soul are not capable
of committing these acts. In fact, if you look elsewhere in my
post, you will see that I say that the soul is just a starting
point, it's how you use it that matters.
As far as we are aware in the Buffyverse, Spike is the only vampire
who has sought a soul. While I don't think that he was aware of
all the consequences that a soul would bring him, he was certainly
aware that there would be a change. I was trying to point out
to ECH that Spike's behaviour prior to ensoulment is the really
weird thing for a vamp, not the behaviour of soulled Spike in
S7. I'd love to know if all vampires would respond to a chip in
the same manner as Spike or if there is something about him that
made the conditioning possible (and thus the choice to acquire
a soul, which I don't think would have been made sans chip).
[> [> [> [> ...
and then I said (vague Spike/soul spoilers S6/S7) -- WickedBuffy,
16:14:25 05/09/03 Fri
ahhhh ... I think I understand now what you were saying.
For some reason I thought you meant that Spikes positive actions
presoul weren't as valid as Spikes actions post-soul (S6 to 7),
simply because having a soul made it count. And that, presoul
he had a childs morality and post soul (automatically), it was
an adults morality.
Sorry to jump to that - I've just read some of those quotes before
being used to validate that point.
::standing on my head::
" ...that Spike's behaviour prior to ensoulment is the really
weird thing for a vamp, not the behaviour of soulled Spike in
S7" I get it now. Sorry, Caroline, and thanks for clarifying
it for me.
I always speculate about what kind of vampires the humans would
be if they were turned. Like Andrew - would he continue to be
a funny nerd with evil, but incompetent plans, similar to Harmony?
Or would that incredibly deep (thin) streak of evil that seems
to surface from time to time fully evolve when he was vamped and
make him a very dangerous adversary?
[> [> Re: Why seek a
soul? -- Dochawk, 15:37:31 05/09/03 Fri
I agree that Spike does not want to commit future atrocities and
the evidence supports it (I would argue with most of you on the
itnerpetation of Spike letting Wood live though), but he does
not feel guilt over what he did as a vampire. He makes that clear
in LMPTM when he tells Wood that he is not sorry for killing Wood's
mother. he does not have the guilt complex that Angel still carries
for his conduct.
[> [> [> Re: Why seek
a soul? -- leslie, 17:23:51 05/09/03 Fri
"but he does not feel guilt over what he did as a vampire.
He makes that clear in LMPTM when he tells Wood that he is not
sorry for killing Wood's mother."
I think it's a little more complex than that, actually. The torment
he feels at the beginning of the season he attributes to general
guilt over his acts as a vampire--I don't think you can argue
that it's over whatever people he may have killed under the influence
of the First after acquiring the soul because he isn't even aware
of those yet--yet he says that he isn't sorry for killing Nikki.
Putting aside the fine semantic distinctions between "feeling
guilty" and "feeling sorry," he seems to be making
a distinction between innocent people who had no chance against
him and people--such as Slayers--who are his equals as warriors.
He reeeeeaaaaaally thinks of himself as a warrior; that's how
he presents himself from his first appearance in Sunnydale. He
seems to feel that there is a distinction between killing an enemy
in battle and murdering a civilian during peacetime--he feels
guilty for the latter, but not the former. Which is, let's face
it, the general attitude of Western society toward killing people.
[> [> [> [> Exactly...some
additional support (Spoilers to Touched) -- s'kat, 19:53:33
05/09/03 Fri
He seems to feel that there is a distinction between killing
an enemy in battle and murdering a civilian during peacetime--he
feels guilty for the latter, but not the former. Which is, let's
face it, the general attitude of Western society toward killing
people.
Spike has a line in Touched that really supports this:
"There are always casualities in a war."
All the way through the series he sees slayers as something other
than human - he sees them as equals, warriors. That's how Buffy,
Faith, Kendra, and Nikki have been portrayed in his pov as warriors,
soliders.
In Villains, the cave demon tells Spike: "You were a legendary
warrior"
The irony of Spike falling for Buffy is he is forced to see her
as something more than just a warrior. And when she dies he is
forced to deal with it on a personal level.
That would be meaningless if he didn't separate the slayers from
the human population - as something else in his head.
Also it would make no sense for Spike to fall for Buffy if he
hadn't separated her into that other category.
Add to this that in Spike's head he didn't kill Nikki - so much
as beat her in a battle to the death - the old two men enter,
one man leaves. And on top of that "I was
a vampire, she was a slayer" line. This is incredibly important.
It's how soliders feel in battle. They may feel remorse, but they
don't feel sorry - it was either them or us pov.
What annoys me most about this debate is everyone is so wrapped
up with the words and is ignoring the action - Spike did NOT kill
Wood - he would have last year in a second. He just scares him
- which makes sense - since Wood did attempt to murder him. Not
fight him equally like Spike did with Nikki. Murder him. Trap
him in a room with crosses and kill him while his soul was incapicitated.
And Wood felt no remorse or guilt. Of the two, Spike's fight with
Nikki was in some ways ironically enough more honorable than Wood's
with Spike. But Spike shows Wood sympathy in two ways: he does
not kill him AND he tells Buffy the truth, not sticking around
to see what she does. That is more sympathy than Wood has really
shown anyone in the show without getting something out of it for
himself.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Exactly...some additional support (Spoilers to Touched)
-- Rufus, 19:44:22 05/10/03 Sat
What annoys me most about this debate is everyone is so wrapped
up with the words and is ignoring the action - Spike did NOT kill
Wood - he would have last year in a second. He just scares him
- which makes sense - since Wood did attempt to murder him. Not
fight him equally like Spike did with Nikki. Murder him. Trap
him in a room with crosses and kill him while his soul was incapicitated.
And Wood felt no remorse or guilt. Of the two, Spike's fight with
Nikki was in some ways ironically enough more honorable than Wood's
with Spike. But Spike shows Wood sympathy in two ways: he does
not kill him AND he tells Buffy the truth, not sticking around
to see what she does. That is more sympathy than Wood has really
shown anyone in the show without getting something out of it for
himself.
I have to add in a few things here.....Spike went to that garage
to help out Wood in respect to being part of a team. He may not
have totally trusted Wood but he went. Wood has a legitimate beef
against soulless Spike but I don't think he was fair in
trying to get the Spike with a soul. I understand the logic used
by Giles and Wood in that Spike did pose a danger if that trigger
could be used by the first again....but, they both had agendas
that went beyond public safety. Giles sees Spike as a hinderance
to Buffy, and Wood wants to avenge his mother.
To come up with the idea that because Spike was mean to Wood by
saying his mother didn't love him means that he doesn't regret
his actions as a soulless vampire goes against what we have seen.
Spike showed great remorse over his actions but he also wanted
to help out the Scoobies. Wood trapped him and beat him up. Spike
may have been a bit of a bastard to compare the mothers love....but
he wanted to hurt Wood in some way. He also told Wood why he hadn't
been honest about his mother issues. So, if the situation were
different and Wood hadn't just tried to kill Spike, maybe Spike
wouldn't have said what he did in the way he did about Nikki's
love for her son.
[> [> [> Calvin-Luther
-- lunasea, 07:18:42 05/10/03 Sat
they had to do something to contrast with Angel. We don't want
to see Angel 2 (even JM worried that is where Spike would go when
he found out about the resouling). Instead they could explore
an interesting area IF Spike makes it over to AtS next season.
People have commented on how Angel is going to have feelings about
Spike actually going to get his soul. I would think that Angel
would just blow that off as Spike being willing to do anything
for a girl, something Angel knows about Spike and isn't going
to consider all that admirable. Angel will blow off all Spike's
good actions this way. What Angel will be upset about it how easily
Spike has moved beyond everything. "She believes in me"
and Spike is fine? Why can't Angel do that?
Another area they can explore is how the unsouled vampire relates
to the souled one. When Angel finds out about "Seeing Red,"
he is going to have feelings, strong ones that hopefully involve
smashing of some sort. If Angel dismisses everything he did as
Angelus, he is going to have to dismiss what Spike did unsouled.
Can Angel do this? I doubt it. If Angel can see how unsouled and
souled Spike relate, he will see how Angelus and Angel relate.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Calvin-Luther -- leslie, 09:27:23 05/10/03 Sat
Actually, should there be a next season of Angel with Spike involved
in some way, what I'm really looking forward to is Mr. Antiestablishment
Make-My-Own-Rules Rebel doing his snarky act with Corporate Vampiredom.
I mean, you really don't think the Speaker of Uncomfortable Truths
is going to let that one just lie there, do you?
[> Re: Spike -- Dochawk,
14:00:13 05/09/03 Fri
I think most people here (well the one's who aren't skipping this
post because it is me talking about Spike) know I am not the leader
of the Spike (or more accurately Spuffy) fan club.
But I think Spike has made dramatic changes. In Empty Places,
he went at Giles request to investigate the monastary in Gilroy.
This is something he might have done in Season 6 to make Buffy
happy, but never at Giles urging. In fact, his last dealing with
Giles resulted on an attempt on Spike's life and yet he is willing
to go without checking with Buffy first. He does this because
he thinks the information is important in the battle to save the
world. I think its a major step in his development.
[> I still stand by the
explanation of vampires using the Osiris Complex.........
-- Rufus, 22:21:23 05/09/03 Fri
To explain why a personality can fragment and exist in one mind.
http://www.rossinst.com/osiris.htm
Why have I chosen The Osiris Complex as the title of this book?
I coined the term in my previous book, Multiple Personality Disorder:
Diagnosis, Clinical Features, and Treatment. The Osiris complex
designates what I believe is the most important motif in psychopathology:
the fragmentation of the self in response to external trauma.
In the Isis-Osiris myth from ancient Egypt, Osiris is murdered
by his jealous brother Set, who cuts him into pieces and scatters
them far and wide. Isis then gathers her brother Osiris's fragments
together, reintegrates them, and resurrects Osiris in a
new form: this healing of the traumatized self is my task
as a therapist. Fathered by Ra, Isis and Osiris were siblings
who married and begot a son Horus, who in turn defeated his uncle
Set in battle. The idea communicated by the phrase 'the Osiris
complex' is that incest and other psychosocial trauma are at the
root of much psychopathology, and can be a direct and overwhelming
cause of serious mental illness.
Institutional, social, and economic barriers stand in the way
of traumatized children and their recovery, in our society and
throughout the world. Like many forms of inflammation, MPD
is a normal human response to trauma that has become self destructive.
MPD is an autoimmune disorder in which the psyche has become confused
about the distinction between self and non-self, and has learned
to turn its destructive mechanisms on the self, mistaking it for
a foreign invader. Fortunately, over the last thirty years,
a specific and effective method for treating this condition has
been created through the joint effort of many clinicians.
I see the the infection of the vampire as an element that removes
the constraints of the conscience and resets the moral compass
towards evil....but the person is who they once were. The mind
of the person contains the personality and memories with the soul/conscience
gone.
Contrary to prevalent opinion, MPD patients do not have
more than one personality; the so-called different personalities
are fragmented components of a single personality, abnormally
personified and dissociated from each other. Adult
patients exhibit core symptoms: voices in the head and ongoing
blank spells or periods of missing time. The voices are the
different parts of the personality talking to one another and
to the main, presenting part of the person who comes for treatment.
Periods of missing time occur when aspects of the personality
take turns being in control of the body and memory barriers are
erected between them.
What happened with Angel and Spike is not a totally new entity
setting up in shop but a supplement to what would be the dead
person allowing them to live on....but without the conscience
having no moral compass. What is Spike and Angel as vampires is
the result of their mind becoming fragmented and the components
of each single personality, becoming abnormally personified and
dissociated from the other. This way Angel is Liam is Angelus,
Spike is William but can decide to retain the name Spike.
[> [> That Complex almost
seems to fit Connor, in some ways. -- WickedBuffy, 23:44:43
05/09/03 Fri
[> [> One of the best
explanations of a vampire -- lunasea, 07:06:28 05/10/03
Sat
It seemed for a while they were really going to get into this
when they brought back Angelus this season, but then they completely
side-stepped the issue when he was resouled. Angel isn't quite
ready to deal with this and it will merit its own season (which
to be honest was where I thought this season was going). That
will probably be what Angel has to deal with when they get to
his final season.
They showed Dissociative Identity Disorder rather well this season.
They had Angel talking about Angelus as if he was a separate entity,
something he hadn't done before. They gave Angel memory blackouts.
They had Angel and Angelus both denigrate the other and actually
fight for control. It really hit me sometimes, but didn't cause
me quite the pain I thought it would. If I met anyone from ME,
I would thank them for two things--Season 6 of BtVS and the middle
of Season 4 of AtS.
Redemption. First, what does it mean. Second, what does it take
to get someone to that point. For me, redemption is the reintegration
of personality that is illustrated by Osiris. The party that needs
redemption is caught up in the mistake and cannot see the other
parts of himself. Angel first did this by seeing himself as only
a monster. Now he doesn't see the monster. He still needs redemption.
What does it take to get someone to this point? For me it was
feeling safe. When I felt that I was around people that wouldn't
judge that dark side of me and would physically control her if
necessary, I was able to let her out and explore what drove her.
That is the purpose of a therapist, to create a safe environment
where the person can explore and therefore reintergrate these
personas.
Cordelia was beginning to fill this role nicely Season 3. That
was why Angel started to develop strong feelings with her. It
was the Florence Nightengale syndrome in some ways. Jasmine/Cordelius
completely undid that. The writers couldn't have Angel at a place
where Angel would actually resolve his main issue, so they had
to find a way to throw him back. It was painful to watch. It was
painful for him to experience.
I think the writers won't set up another female in this role.
I think Wesley is being set up for it, instead. Angel needs to
explore this without the sexual tension.
[> [> [> Thank-you,
thank-you, Lunasea! -- WickedBuffy, 08:45:12 05/10/03 Sat
I'd never been able to get a good grasp on "redemption"
until your post. Especially as people have been using it in regards
to BtVS. (my lack, completely)
I appreciated your post - it helped me get a better handle on
the whole issue.
(Maybe I should translate those other vague terms into DSM language.
Might help the muddle.)
[> [> [> [> You're
Welcome, but... -- lunasea, 10:02:12 05/10/03 Sat
I am not saying what I said is canon or where the writers are
going or if they are even aware of it. It is pretty much THE story
I see everywhere in everything. I tried to show how the underlying
philosophy of the Buffyverse and Christianity were basically the
same. I laugh at the angry atheist posts (no offense to the writers.
I am sure people laugh at mine all the time)
Mind-body-spirit are just three ways of looking at the same thing,
human existance. Spirit allows us to transcend the limits of human
ego. I can't forgive myself. I am a monster. I am unloveable.
God can forgive me. God tells me I am his daughter. God loves
me very much. Does it really matter whether there is an actual
God that does this? What matters is that I can function optimally.
My name on the net used to be "Carla-Sophia." I still
use it in Wiccan and Pagan sites, since that is what I am known
as. Carla was for Carl Jung. Sophia was for that inner wisdom
that we all have and gets projected outwards as God/dess. It was
to remind me to always come back to the wisdom and realize everything
around me was just the transcendent function's way of speaking.
It is so easy to get lost in symbols. I easily lose the forest
for the trees.
I don't think a theist could write Buffy. Joss is exploring some
fundamental questions that would be answered other ways. It is
the way his Sophia is communicating using his transcendent function.
His answers remarkably match up with the answers that have already
been given by other things. I could do a similar post heavily
relying on the sutras for Buffyverse and Buddhism. I am sure people
could do Judaism or Islam. I would love to see people do these.
We have seen how it lines up with more ancient mythology. Why
restrict ourselves to just the common metaphors. We can move onto
see why there are all these commonalities. We can see what is
behind EVERYTHING.
[> [> [> [> [>
of course, of course, of course... -- WIckedBuffy, 10:26:08
05/10/03 Sat
I know your words aren't canon - I'm arguing with you in another
section! :>
But just the more defining examples of those words that let the
dead horses out of the corral - like redemption - get me a step
closer to understanding more, which I appreciate.
... and my other internet name is "Kea" after a Godddess
of Chaos.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Rosetta stone -- lunasea, 11:14:51 05/10/03 Sat
I used to want to put together some sort of Rosetta Stone for
mind-body-spirit. They are like three different languages. Mind-body
is being done by Cognitive Neuroscience among other fields. Mind-Spirit
was done wonderfully by Dr. Jung, though there are some other
new age movements that address it. Nothing much on body-spirit
other than things like the God spot.
A lot of times it does help to take spirtual topics and convert
them into psych terms. If you want any others done, let me know.
And You're Welcome.
[> [> [> The thing
that made it the best explanation happened in s1 Angel --
Rufus, 16:34:36 05/10/03 Sat
In "I will Remember You" Angel was restored to a totally
mortal state and he was just Angel, but still had all the memories
of Angelus. For any of the things Angel is confronted with from
his human and vampire self, the only thing that makes sense of
his father issues, and his personality quirks would be the fact
that the vampire is an infection that changes behavior in a way
that could be compared to a meek person who turns into a nasty
(homicidal in a vampires case) drunk.
[> [> [> [> Re:
The thing that made it the best explanation happened in s1 Angel
-- lunasea, 17:31:16 05/10/03 Sat
In "I will Remember You" Angel was restored to a
totally mortal state and he was just Angel, but still had all
the memories of Angelus.
Actually he wasn't quite Angel, which is what makes this the thing
that made it the best explanation. He was Angel, but he could
feel more. As Doyle told him "More real, now that you're
real?" He hurts more, he can taste food better, the dead
bodies make him ill. He allows himself to feel for Buffy. Even
when they were dating, we didn't get to see him express himself
like he does this episode.
He really does show how different the personality is once the
personas have all been reintegrated. It makes us more real and
stronger emotionally. It allows us to do things that we may have
been afraid to do. It makes us more expressive.
The curse is handled as if Angel is a drunk, who if he gets happy
will not just fall off the wagon, but run his friends over with
it.
I think in that episode we got what Angel's central issue is.
His father stuff is just part of it, much as Buffy's abandonment
issues and superiority-inferiority complex is part of something.
"And I'm not sure what I am now. I don't know what my purpose
is." (then they cut a great line about him working with Xander)
Who am I? It is *the* fundamental question. When it comes to his
father, he was trying so hard to prove that he isn't what his
father said he was, a disappointment and a sinner. Even when that
is dealt with, he still doesn't know what he is. The father issues
are just a part of Angel, part of a much larger picture.
All the vamps we have seen in detail were vamped in early adulthood
(with the possible exception of the Master), when they are finding
out who they are, often in a moment where they are trying to find
this out (Liam had just broken away from his father and wanted
to see the world, Dru had run away to a convent and wanted to
be pure in His sight, William had just admited his feelings for
Cecily and been rejected) Darla is the only one that remotely
knew who she was and was comfortable with it. She is vamped on
her death bed. It shows in the vampire she becomes. Darla is a
bit different when she is vamped the second time.
This would be a great angle to explore Spike with. I hope they
do.
[> [> [> [> [>
Darla -- Rufus, 18:15:43 05/10/03 Sat
Darla seemed to have a basic understanding of human nature but
it was tainted by her cynical nature. When Darla was brought back
as a human she was revolted by her beating heart...it was a reminder
of things she tried to repress as a vampire. Her past as a prostitute
coloured her world view.
As a new human, but one with a past as a woman she can't even
remember the name of....and a vampire who set about punishing
the world for her inner pain. At first Darla is all about getting
Angel back to being Angelus, be then she slowly finds out that
some of her current pain is being caused by feelings of attachment
that go beyond sex. She wasn't a human for long but it did change
the vampire she became in a small way. Darla became the same killing
machine she was before but she never forgot that Angel had almost
died to save her. The rest of the time as a pre-pregnant vampire
Darla tried to wash away any positive feelings she had as a human
who was ready to die but knew that someone loved her for more
than the rental of her body. Opportunity is a strange thing, we
never know when it will crop up. Darla found her redemption in
the feelings she had while sharing a soul with her son. She may
have been a cold blooded killer, but one who was saved by sharing
a soul with her unborn son. I always go back to the quote from
Marie Louise VonFranz on Redemption in Fairy Tales......
The word redemption should not be associated with the Christian
dogma and theology, where it is a concept with so many connotations.
In fairytales, redemption refers specifically to a condition
where someone has been cursed or bewitched and through
certain happenings or events in the story is redeemed.
This is a very different condition from that in the Christian
idea.
Both shows (Angel and Buffy) bring us stories in which relationships
with romantic partners, friends, family, and even chance encounters
can affect a persons life. Redemption is something that can result
from one moment or a lifetime or many lifetimes of interactions
with others. Redemption may happen to those we think of as monsters,
but if a monster can be redeemed, the curse removed, the curse
of hate, fear, and isolation in the real world becomes a possibility.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Darla -- lunasea, 18:42:57 05/10/03 Sat
I love Darla. I was hoping after "Inside Out" there
would be more discussions about her. She has been the only character
we have seen fully redeemed and how they then see things.
Darla was saved before she was revamped, by Angel's love. That
is why she was able to sacrifice herself for Connor. If Darla
hadn't been saved, she wouldn't have done it. She did for Connor
what Angel had done for her. Angel showed her not only the feelings,
but what those feelings cause us to do.
Love seems to be the redeeming force in the Buffyverse. Even Lindsey
was saved by his feelings for Darla. Angel is being saved by caring/loving
others, whether that is the helpless or his friends. It isn't
the penance he is doing, but having a means to express his feelings,
turning pain into strength.
The word redemption should not be associated with the Christian
dogma and theology, where it is a concept with so many connotations.
In fairytales, redemption refers specifically to a condition where
someone has been cursed or bewitched and through certain happenings
or events in the story is redeemed. This is a very different condition
from that in the Christian idea.
And this is different from the Christian idea how? Redemption
refers to a condition where Man has been cursed by the Fall and
through the death and resurrection of Jesus (and reconciliation:
contrition, confession and penance) Man has been redeemed.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Darla -- Rufus, 18:55:09 05/10/03 Sat
I think one of the differences is in the idea that good works
is the only way to be redeemed where VonFranz leaves redemption
as a result of interactions with others. The curse can be something
that is lifted not because the person deserves it but because
the person happens to enter into a set of interactions with others.
This could mean that there is no contrition, confession or penance,
involved. This makes the ensoulment of Angelus make sense. He
didn't deserve a soul, it was originally a curse...but this curse
was in fact an opportunity that Angel eventually realized through
his interactions with others.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> you leave out grace -- lunasea, 20:23:19
05/10/03 Sat
Man doesn't deserve or merit Grace. It just happens. That would
be the same thing as the curse. Without grace there are no theological
virtues.
Most saints are redeemed by a vision, such as Paul. It is them
interacting with God
Still no real difference.
And good works are the only way to be redeemed. It is one of the
big debates that the Council of Trent was called to address.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: you leave out grace -- Rufus,
20:47:43 05/10/03 Sat
You see the show in relation to your religious beliefs, where
Joss uses more than just Christian symbolism to get his story
across. Joss is at the least an agnostic, so he and his writers
may write situations that speak to you in a Christian way but
I don't think that is their only intention. This is why you see
numerous situations were a redemption happens, so how you interpret
the information seen can speak to you in Christian terms but isn't
intended to be restricted to Christianity.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> I'm not Christian -- lunasea,
21:05:36 05/10/03 Sat
And Joss is not agnostic. He is an angry atheist existentialist.
Will readily admit it.
They aren't speaking to me in a Christian way. They are all just
saying the same story. There is no difference between fairy tales
and religion. THAT is what I am trying to say. At their core,
all these things are the same. They are telling a universal story.
My disagreement was with the idea that fairy tale redemption is
different than Christian redemption. When you get into them, this
can be seen. Then THE story starts to emerge.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm not Christian
-- Rufus, 01:18:18 05/11/03 Sun
Joss and wife just had a kid.....I just wonder how angry he will
remain. I said agnostic because at the very least he is agnostic.
There is no difference between fairy tales and religion. THAT
is what I am trying to say. At their core, all these things are
the same. They are telling a universal story.
What I'm saying is that limiting the analysis of the show in one
religions writings makes the stories less than universal. I never
said you were a Christian, I gave you a quote that I agree with.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm not Christian
-- lunsea, 07:32:31 05/11/03 Sun
Joss and wife just had a kid.....I just wonder how angry he
will remain.
Not sure about angry, but tired is probably a good description.
What I'm saying is that limiting the analysis of the show in
one religions writings makes the stories less than universal.
I never said you were a Christian, I gave you a quote that I agree
with.
I just disagreed with part of the quote. I agreed on what she
said redemption is. I just disagreed that this is any different
in Christianity. I wasn't even looking at the show, but that universal
story that underlies the Buffyverse, fairy tales and religion,
among other things. I was just pointing out a commonality. The
question then becomes why this is a commonality.
Your quote was trying to get beyond Christianity. I was saying
there really is no need to. There are a lot of misconceptions
about Christianity. That is what I was addressing. Much damage
has been done to the religion by taking a deconstructionist approach
to it. Intent is key to healing the divine spirit.
Buffy is NOT
alone (spoilers Touched and Home, WKCS 7.21) -- lunasea, 09:00:27
05/09/03 Fri
There it was, in full Glory. What is refereed to as The Scythe.
It is the weapon of the Slayer. We haven't seen Buffy wield it,
yet. Why "Scythe" (especially if it doesn't look like
one)? Death is her gift. What does Death wield?
This is yet one more thing the Slayer is supposed to get that
Buffy didn't. The first we found out about in "What's My
Line, Part 2." Buffy never got the Slayer's Handbook because
Giles "realized that, uh, the handbook would be of no use
in your case." Buffy is a bit unconventional and Giles adapts
the methods he was taught to fit her. We see this as a good thing,
but it did have its cons, too. It hurt Buffy's feelings when she
found out and the book is more than just a list of rules and procedures.
It is a link back to the other Slayers.
In "Get it Done," we find out that Buffy didn't get
another thing she was supposed to, the emergency kit. Buffy traveled
through the portal not remotely knowing what she was getting herself
into. She must have felt some sort of mystical pull, because Alice
isn't one for jumping down the rabbit hole without cause.
Buffy didn't know about the source of her power. She didn't know
the story the shadow casters told. In "Buffy v Dracula"
Buffy admits that she needs to learn "About where I come
from, about the other slayers." The conjoining spell and
Dracula both taped into something primal in Buffy. Buffy now has
questions.
Thing is as Giles tells Joyce, "She lives very much in the
'now', um, and, uh, history, of course, is, is very much about
the, uh... the 'then'." ("Angel") Buffy is constantly
having trouble with history while she is in high school. She also
has trouble with math and French. It isn't that Buffy is stupid
(does fairly well on her SATs). She just isn't interested in certain
areas.
Math is pure logic. Buffy isn't so much with the logic. Neither
is Xander. When we meet him he is asking Willow to be his tutor.
In "The Pack" Willow is helping him and he throws his
book in the trash (and gives over to his inner hyena).
French is another culture. In "Checkpoint" we learn
that the Slayer is supposed to learn the fighting terms in Japanese.
This seems to be a ridiculous exercise and Giles was right to
just speak to Buffy in her terms. Latin used to be the language
spoken in educated Europe. This gave people a common tongue to
communicate in. Language can link us to people. I like learning
the Pali and Sanskrit terms for Buddhism. It ties me to the great
patriarchs and the Buddha himself. I used to refer to God as Abba
when I was still Catholic. Words are just words, but they can
be so much more than that.
History is the important one. In FFL, Buffy's death wish kicks
in. She goes to Giles and starts to learn about the earlier Slayers.
She goes with a purpose, to learn about their deaths. Her attitude
is "Same as all the others. Slayer called... blah, blah...
great protector... blah, blah... scary battles... blah, blah...
oops! She's dead. Where are the details?" Buffy isn't remotely
interested in their lives. She just wants the info that she thinks
is pertinent to her situation.
In "Restless" we get to see the spirit of the First
Slayer. Where do you think that spirit is? It is inside of Buffy.
Buffy treats it like it is something foreign to her. "Why
do you follow me?" Tara responds "I don't." That
Spirit was inside ALL Slayers. It links all Slayers. Buffy has
dreamed of these girls. Buffy is linked with the Potentials. She
has dreamed of their deaths.
I'm drowning in "Restless" again, so I will continue.
The final part of the dream is in the desert. Buffy says "I'm
never gonna find them here." Tara responds "Of course
not. That's the reason you came." Buffy is trying to lose
her friends. She needs to find the Slayer spirit inside of her.
She needs to connect with this primal force that connects her
to all the past Slayers. The only words spoken by the spirit of
the First Slayer is "No ... friends! Just the kill. We ...
are ... alone!" Interesting choice of words. We, first person
PLURAL. Plural is alone.
Buffy's friends are great. Friends are great, in general. I highly
recommend everyone get some. Buffy's friends have their limitations,
though, as they showed in "Empty Places." Buffy is unique.
The Slayer line may now run through Faith, but Buffy is THE Slayer.
Perhaps that is where the change is. After Buffy climbs out of
the "Grave," the Slayer spirit is more attracted to
her, so the line is weakened.
Buffy's friends cannot understand her or make her feel not alone.
I mentioned on another thread that Angel had to leave so that
Buffy could deal with an issue. That issue, played out in her
abandonment complex and inferiority-superiority complex, is feeling
alone. There is a great shot in "What's My Line" where
Angel is talking to Buffy on her bed and then they cut to show
how it looks in the mirror to show how even with Angel she is
really alone. With Angel (and this season Spike), another supernatural
creature who did understand her, she didn't feel so alone. Buffy
needed that feeling to get her to where she is as we wrap up this
season/series.
Angel is coming *back* to give her information she will need to
defeat the First. The First is the bad this season that represents
what Buffy is going through. I have written on the First before.
What is the source of all evil is a metaphor for is fairly easy
to figure out, especially when it first appears in "Amends."
The First is an ignorance that we are separate from others. In
"Amends," Faith and Buffy reconnect, Willow and Oz reconnect,
Xander and Buffy reconnect, Buffy and Angel reconnect, Angel goes
to Giles for help, Xander is unable to reconnect because Cordy
is a bitch so he is left alone in the snow at the end of the episode
to contrast all the coupling going on. Everything the First is
promotes disconnection. It sets one creature apart from another
and bad things, what is known as evil, results. When we view others
as ourselves we don't generally hurt them.
Buffy feels this disconnection. Her Slayerness does set her apart
from the rest of Man. It also connects her to all the previous
Slayers. Buffy saw the Scythe and her eyes lit up. It was much
more than just a pretty weapon. She felt something for it. That
weapon has been wielded by the previous Slayers.
Angel has been tormented by his past, both the guilt about the
horrible things he had done pre-soul and things like Darla or
Holtz coming back to mess with his present. A big theme with Angel
is the consequences of our action and that we can never escape
our past. Who better to deliver the necessary information that
will probably be about Buffy's Slayer legacy? Buffy shut herself
off from her Slayer heritage, running away from it. She met the
spirit of the First Slayer and said " It's over, okay? I'm
going to ignore you, and you're going to go away. You're really
gonna have to get over the whole ... primal power thing. You're
*not* the source of me." She can't escape this, no matter
how hard she tries, just like Angel can't. Angel has accepted
his past is going to have serious consequences. Buffy has to learn
that being Slayer has a legacy as well.
Back to "Restless." Tara tells Buffy "You lost
them" in regards to Buffy's friends. Buffy, in denial says
"No. I think they need me to find them." Buffy looks
at a regular clock to see what time is. Tara tells her that is
wrong and hands her the tarot cards. The Slayer is timeless and
outside our conception of time. The tarot cards represent something
more mythic. Buffy rejects the mythic and tries to go back to
the mundane. That is the dream that Buffy has. Her answers lie
in the mythic, not the regular life she has been trying so hard
to maintain with her friends. Angel was the one freaky thing in
her freaky world that made sense because she saw him as a Man,
as a boyfriend. She wasn't understanding the primal connection
those two have that allows her to even feel him when he is around
and gives him his perfect moment of happiness.
Joyce, Buffy's family, is walled up. Buffy could free her, but
walks off instead. Buffy longs for normalcy, but something inside
of her is always pulling her somewhere she doesn't want to go.
With the conjoining spell, Buffy has called on the source of her
power. Because of that she is walled off from others.
Riley and Adam have a lot of good stuff in them. It is the first
time we are really shown that Buffy's power may be demonic. The
normalcy v slayer is highlighted nicely with Riley v Adam. She
asks Adam his name and he doesn't know. "Not a man among
us can remember." Then the demons escape. Buffy doesn't know
what she is and not a man among them can remember what she is.
Because of this, Buffy has been unable to handle her Slayerness
(not like Faith, in a different way). Riley is going to build
a fort, something to protect them, much like the wall that Joyce
is in. Adam is going to get pillows, thus the fort is ineffective.
Then Buffy says she has weapons. What is that weapon? Mud. She
smears it on her face, like a primitive. As Gwen tells Gunn in
"Players" she is the weapon. Taping into that primal
force is her weapon. Buffy get absorbed by the mud when Riley
(her normal self) reminds her that she is supposed to be looking
for her friends. Buffy doesn't move. Riley says, "if that's
the way you want it. I guess you're on your own" and leaves
her. Buffy has left behind her normal life and enters the desert
of the primitive.
Buffy isn't ready for what she finds there. She asks the wrong
questions. As Tara says again at the end "You think you know
... what's to come ... what you are. You haven't even begun."
Buffy isn't ready to deal with her Slayer legacy. She still wants
to be as normal as possible. "I talk. I shop, I sneeze. I'm
gonna be a fireman when the floods roll back."
Now the time has come. She needs to learn how to turn love/pain
into strength. She needs to reconnect to all those Slayers. Who
better to bring her this info than Angel? Any plot contrivance
could have been designed to get him over so they can get one last
smoochie in. Whatever he is bringing could have been discovered
any number of ways.
The Watcher's Council has been blown up. Why? What do they have
this is so important? Nothing is really known about the First.
Giles got what little they had out before the explosion and that
hasn't been helpful. Why were the Watcher's going to set up shop
in Sunnydale? Besides just training the Slayer, they are the keepers
of the Slayer legacy. Andrew was taking down Buffy's story in
"Storyteller." The Watcher's did this with their diaries.
The First has been isolating Buffy from her friends. It both caused
Buffy to turn into Generalisimo Buffy and has cast doubt in her
friends. It wants Buffy to feel completely alone. Then it has
total power over her. It isn't just part of her. It is her. Buffy
can combat this by reconnecting with the previous Slayers. The
transfiguration gave Jesus tremendous strength. We are alone,
but because it is WE, we aren't.
That is what Buffy needs to learn.
(I was going to do a part about the importance of Kendra and Faith
to Buffy not feeling alone, but this is long enough. "What's
My Line" is great when viewed from the theme of isolation
and connection. Maybe I'll do an addendum later)
[> Thank you for a very
impressive essay! -- Robert, 14:30:15 05/09/03 Fri
[> Re: Buffy is NOT alone
(spoilers Touched and Home, WKCS 7.21) -- eloise519, 18:20:30
05/09/03 Fri
Illuminating. Looking forward to the addendum on Kendra and Faith.
Joss and Minear
at Bronze Beta -- Masq, 09:29:47 05/09/03 Fri
With contradictory stories. Although I choose to believe his Jossy-ness.
http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~hsiao/media/tv/buffy/bronze/20030508.html
[> Re: Joss and Minear at
Bronze Beta -- O'Cailleagh, 09:39:57 05/09/03 Fri
So how come they never come here to post/chat? I would have thought
that Joss would enjoy coming here, with the philosophy and all.
Or have they just not been invited/invoked?
[> [> Re: Joss and Minear
at Bronze Beta -- shambleau, 09:56:01 05/09/03 Fri
So, according to Tim, no more ME work. And Jane's moved on. And
Marti. Whimper.
Including the Firefly newbies, Joss had corralled the best set
of writers for his shows in, like, oh, EVER. It was a Renaissance
studio, only painting its masterpieces for the idiot box. There's
still AtS, probably, but what a blow emotionally affecting, serious
television has taken this year.
[> Tim and not-joss
-- Calvin, 10:04:18 05/09/03 Fri
Actually, they said that it was Tim, but not Joss. Someone posting
as Joss. However Tim posted for a long time at buffistas, starting
around here:
http://www.buffistas.org/showthread.php?thread_id=63&post_id=666
Calvin
[> [> It doesn't say
that anywhere on that page. -- Rob, 10:25:51 05/09/03 Fri
None of the posts on that page indicate that that wasn't really
Joss. Did you read that somewhere else?
Rob
[> [> [> Re: It doesn't
say that anywhere on that page. -- Calvin, 10:34:08 05/09/03
Fri
You might have to scroll back on the Bronze archived boards a
bit, but they say that it wasn't in color and the IP address matched
one from another poster. If I can find a link to that, I will
post it. Apparently, that board gets a whole lot of faux-Joss
posters, especially on episode nights. And if you read what he
wrote, it doesn't sound like him at all. Finally, I seriosly doubt
that he would leak that kind of news to the Bronze Beta. Just
a few thoughts.
Cavin
ps - If you have a few minutes, it is worth your while to scroll
through Tim Minear's comments on the Buffista board. Very interesting
stuff on "Home".
[> [> [> [> beware
of false Joss' -- Calvin, 10:42:11 05/09/03 Fri
Bawston says:
(Thu May 8 17:20:51 2003 165.123.139.187)
Edited: Thu May 8 17:22:19 2003
Was hoping it would be ignored but since not, let's nip this in
the bud. "Joss'" IP:
Search results for: 140.98.210.253
OrgName: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
OrgID: IEEE
Address: 445 Hoes Lane
City: Piscataway
StateProv: NJ
PostalCode: 08855
Country: US
So unless Joss is taking some sort of odd vacation...I'd say no.
ETA: Tiggy beat me to the punch. Sorry to be repetitious.
[> [> [> It does now.
They crossed out the whole post. -- s'kat, 11:14:15 05/09/03
Fri
Try Masq's link again. I just did it and the archivist did a cross
out of the whole post and included a ( ) quote stating this is
an impostor and if anyone knows who forged this to please give
him/her a name and address. The archivist sounded pissed.
Tim Minear's on leaving for Wonder Falls appears to be genuine.
No news on Angel Renewal yet. Dang it! Really am beginning to
hate WB. And the ratings. But staying good, won't go into another
ratings rant, I promise.
[> [> Interesting Tim
quotes (spoilers for Home) -- ponygirl, 11:11:48 05/09/03
Fri
Thanks for the link Calvin! I just had a nice scroll through the
Buffistas' thread and pulled some very cool Tim-bits on Home:
...the irony of the battle-for-free-will arc wasn't lost on
me when I wrote this. Or when I wrote Connor talking about how
all love is a lie and you "can't be saved by a lie."
I'm irony guy!
Angel killed Connor. With a big ol' knife. And, if I'm not mistaken,
fulfills a certain prophecy. The father no longer has a son.
[> [> [> That is so
cool!!!! So the prophecy did come true!!!!!! -- Rob, 11:15:03
05/09/03 Fri
I wasn't even thinking of that. Oh, Joss and Tim, you darn geniuses!
Rob
[> [> That was fake Joss.
Real Joss just said so at the bronzebeta nm -- abt, 11:45:05
05/09/03 Fri
nm
[> Story over at Bronze
Beta on Joss post -- s'kat, 16:23:02 05/09/03 Fri
Just come from Bronze Beta and here's the skinny:
Some nit pretended to be Joss and posted on Bronze Beta as Joss
and the real Joss got wind of it and posted this in response:
"joss says:
(Fri May 9 18:39:45 2003) [Edit/Delete]
OKAY! for the first time ever, someone pretended to be me with
some measure of success! Congratulations. Here's exactly what
came of it: the brass at the WB saw the post, thought it was me,
and got wicked pissed off. The fact is, they are still deciding
the schedule, and Angel's future is still in doubt. Making them
angry at this stage is, shall we say, unhelpful. Hopefully my
colorfulness will make it clear I'm me, I don't have time for
the usual funny."
Then he said that he still had hopes on Angel's renewal, but no
news yet. The fake poster was from IEEE in NJ. Also apparently
Nathan Fillion and another actor are doing commentary for the
DVD of War Stories. You can read it all over at Bronze Beta right
now. Not archived yet.
SK
Totally Off-Topic
- I finished my book! -- Darby, 10:46:55 05/09/03 Fri
Good thing, too. I decided when I couldn't get more copies of
the text I use for my Spring course that I'd write an online text
for the course. I started on January 3rd, and the course started
on January 29th, and I've been staying ahead of the class all
semester. My class has been my beta testers - heck, it's a free
book - and I'm surveying them for feedback now.
The book's available here
if anyone wants to take a look.
The course is a classic old-style plant & critter course for non-science
majors. I've tried to put something together that's readable at
about a high-school level, non-technical (or as close as can be
gotten), and full of illuminative links. If anyone wants to look
over some bit of it and tell me whether it succeeds or not, please
feel free. We will eventually be charging the poor students for
this, so it'd be nice if it were worth something.
Now I have to write an introductory text for Biology majors for
my fall class. That one will be much more bells-and-whistles oriented.
Should be a challenge.
[> Congrats! -- Caroline,
10:53:06 05/09/03 Fri
[> Re: Totally Off-Topic
- I finished my book! -- DEN, 11:11:46 05/09/03 Fri
I'm impressed! Congratulations!
[> Congratulations!!
-- ponygirl, 11:21:23 05/09/03 Fri
[> Wow! That's impressive!
Congrats! -- WickedBuffy, 11:25:49 05/09/03 Fri
I really liked that phylogenetic tree page. Did you do the design
and illustration?
I would have LOVED having this kind of resource when I went to
college. :>
[> [> No re-inventing
wheels for me. -- Darby, 12:01:33 05/09/03 Fri
Didn't do it - part of the process has been finding the right
links already available on the 'net - stuff with good graphics,
bunches of pictures, or simple alternative explanations of concepts.
Without pop-ups. If you hunt long enough, you can accesorize almost
anything, I'm finding.
The other book is going to have more dedicated extras...
[> [> [> Then extra
kudos for your fine hunting ability! -- WickedBuffy, 12:25:42
05/09/03 Fri
[> Re: Totally Off-Topic
- I finished my book! -- Cactus Watcher, 11:47:03 05/09/03
Fri
Looks good, Darby. Writing a textbook just ahead of the class
is better than some alternatives. Thanks to a nutty TA supervisor
I once had to teach the first term of Russian without a textbook
at all. One of my professors admitted to us that when he first
taught Russian, he was learning the language by reading the textbook
a week ahead of where the class was.
Oh, and when you write the book for the Biology majors be sure
to put emphasis on the topics they will want to know most about;
succulence, spines, areoles... ;o)
[> thanks, -- MsGiles,
11:58:19 05/09/03 Fri
I like the context bit, I think that's really useful, where the
ideas have come from. We missed that, when I did Biology (and
science generally), and looking back it seems a huge omission.
This is good.
[> Congratulations, Darby!
-- Arethusa, 14:38:08 05/09/03 Fri
It's very clear and enjoyable reading. I'm up to Chapter 4.
To bad about the naming of groups. I definitely would have gone
with Yogi bear.
Is there such a thing as fungi that move??
My God, the humanity. Those poor marshmallow peeps, subjected
to cruel lab testing. There should be a law.
[> Re: Congratulations Darby!
-- aliera, 15:50:55 05/09/03 Fri
Would you like me to ask Ben to read it? He's a freshman in high
school.
[> [> If he's interested...
-- Darby, 17:47:26 05/09/03 Fri
This Week's
Buffytvs & Angel Season Finale -- Spike Lover, 11:10:50
05/09/03 Fri
Howdy all. 1st, I apologize that I am just now posting my initial
thoughts. Hectic week and all. Have not had time to read the archives
of what anyone else said, so I am certain I will repeat what has
been posted. Sorry.
1) the Good
Loved the Angel season final. Please, oh, please, let Lilah be
a part of next season. I loved the scene w/ Wesley and her perpetuity
agreement. (I continue to hope for a romance between Wes & Lilah,
although it may be a bit awkward.)
small analysis: 1) The lawyers tempt Wesley with the past, Angel
w/ the present, Gunn with power.
I speculate that they were after Gunn, and they have tempted him
with real power. (Wesley & Angel have already been tempted with
power, and it failed to corrupt them. They might have figured
out that Gunn will subcomb.)
Interesting Choice about Conner. Did the actor want off the show
or do you think the writers were tired of that story line?
2) the bad
I thought the Buffy ep was horrible. Horrible, shallow, almost
plotless, hard to follow. There was barely any continuity in characters.
(I was so upset, I avoided this board.) Rather than have any sort
of real story, they hid behind the sex. I have NEVER been so disappointed
by a Buffy ep. (I know y'all will attack now, possibly because
I have criticized the show without giving specific details and
examples to back up the parts I disliked. But I am short of time.)
Also, I am not against gay couples, but that does not meant I
want to watch them go down on each other on tv. I was 'ok' with
the implications with W & T. But the Kennedy/Willow thing was
pretty gross for me to watch. (The only time I laughed in the
ep was when I saw K's tongue jewelry.)
I do have a question. Is Giles evil? I watched that ep and wondered
what exactly he is doing. 1st he tries to get rid of Spike (via
Woods), and now, for some UNKNOWN reason, he slits the Bringers'
throat before he has finished talking. It seems that they should
have asked the Bringer what sort of 'arsenal' they had down there,
or what the plans were or whatever. Why in the world did he kill
the guy? Did that seem fishy to anyone else?
I continue to concur with 'Earl' last week who had the philosophy
that the writers simply do not care anymore.
1 good thing about the buffy ep: I liked how Andrew talked for
the guy.
[> Re: This Week's Buffytvs
& Angel Season Finale -- 110v3w1110w, 11:47:49 05/09/03
Fri
i thought that giles killed him to stop him from saying any more
to but i didn't say cause i thought it was just me. as for the
willow/kennedy sex scene not even lesbianism can make me get past
my dislike of kennedy
[> [> Re: This Week's
Buffytvs & Angel Season Finale -- Spike Lover, 12:35:14
05/09/03 Fri
The writing is so choppy and disjointed that I could not tell
if when she stood up and complained to Faith at the beginning-
and Faith told her to back off
And then when she was the 'bait' to catch the Bringer, she said
something like, 'My first role as "disgruntled" girl'
or something like that. It made me wonder if her speaking out
against Faith was part of a plan to catch a Bringer or if some
sort of slayer overthrow plan is underway or if it means nothing
and sloppy writing is to blame.
[> Troubled -- ponygirl,
12:42:16 05/09/03 Fri
Spike Lover, I realize you were in the midst of a rant about Touched,
and I completely respect your right to rant. Who doesn't love
a good venting? However you have to realize how offensive a statement
like the following can be taken:
Also, I am not against gay couples, but that does not meant
I want to watch them go down on each other on tv. I was 'ok' with
the implications with W & T. But the Kennedy/Willow thing was
pretty gross for me to watch. (The only time I laughed in the
ep was when I saw K's tongue jewelry.)
If the depiction of oral sex or any type of explicit sex on television
is offensive to you that's fine, but the way this reads is that
you are against seeing gay sex presented in the same degree of
explicitness as hetero sex. If this was not your intent I'd just
suggest re-reading a bit more carefully before you post. If it
was your intention, well, then I think you need to seriously question
some of the biases you might possess.
I hope I'm not coming across as horribly condescending, but we
saw a great deal of sex on BtVS last season, almost all of it
straight, it seems only fair that some effort is made for equal
representation of nookie. Also just imagine your statement if
it was about W/F and you had substitued "interracial couples"
for "gay couples" - it becomes pretty easy to see how
upsetting your paragraph is.
[> [> Well said.
-- Sophist, 13:50:29 05/09/03 Fri
[> [> ****standing ovation****
-- contumelious, 13:56:35 05/09/03 Fri
[> [> People are entitled
to their feelings -- lunasea, 07:34:14 05/10/03 Sat
There is a difference between someone ranting and saying they
don't want to see certain things or that it was gross and them
trying to get it pulled from the air.
I find lots of things disgusting and I don't watch them. Some
gays don't like to watch hetero sex and find it disgusting. Different
strokes for different folks.
Tolerance doesn't mean that I have to like or want to see everything.
It means I have to give those who want to see it a chance to.
What is upsetting is that people expect everyone to like whatever
they do and if they don't, there is something wrong with them.
He didn't call for the show to be pulled. I don't see a boycott
being called for. He was just expressing a view, an equally valid
view as anyone else's here.
I support Spike Lover's right to feel disgusted.
[> [> [> And I expressed
mine -- ponygirl, 08:06:23 05/10/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> Big
Diff -- lunasea, 08:31:19 05/10/03 Sat
SL worte about watching an action. Your's are about someone expressing
an opinion or idea. There is a difference
Jane Fonda was a traitor for giving aid and comfort to the enemy
(if you see it that way).
The Dixie Chicks are actually patriots. All she did was give her
opinion, showing us what this country stands for
Big Dif
Everyone go out and buy Dixie Chicks albums. Support Free Speech.
Actions are what matter. People can think and feel whatever they
want. To disguise intolerance as tolerance is no better than any
other form of intolerance. You are criticizing SL for disliking
something, but you are doing the exact same thing, though just
about an idea, not something that actually affects anyone else.
[> [> [> [> [>
False assertion -- Tchaikovsky, 09:00:53 05/10/03 Sat
You're muddying the waters here, lunasea. In the act of posting,
Spike Lover's private thoughts, feelings and emotions are deliberately
expressed in a public medium. Therefore, it is not that ponygirl
is being intolerant of Spike Lover's right to have whatever private
thoughts and reactions she wishes, but instead that in posting
to the forum, it has become part of a discussion. In expressing
a view to a public forum, there is a necessity in restraining
oneself from certain comments. For example, a stirring up of racial
hatred by a post is wrong, regardless of the person's right to
have racist thoughts which remain private and unexpressed.
In ponygirl's post, she very carefully allows for the possibility
that the suggestion that 'Homosexual sex is best not shown on
air', is accidental, before showing how it can be interpreted
as being offensive. It is not a vendetta, and it reacts legitimately
to a point only made by the action of posting to a public forum.
TCH
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: False assertion -- lunasea, 09:23:10 05/10/03
Sat
In expressing a view to a public forum, there is a necessity
in restraining oneself from certain comments. For example, a stirring
up of racial hatred by a post is wrong, regardless of the person's
right to have racist thoughts which remain private and unexpressed.
And why shouldn't such things be stirred? How are we ever going
to deal with them if they aren't stirred?
Hasn't Angel shown us what happens when we repress things and
keep them "private and unexpressed"? What about Ms Summers?
You are advocating one of the cardinal sins in the Buffyverse.
It is cardinal for a very good reason.
People can have thoughts AND express them. PC be damned. It is
damning this country. We suppressed everything for 8 years and
it exploded in the last Presidential election. Similar things
seem to be happening in Europe, though having a common ideological
foe in the US is keeping things at bay.
So what if the view was "Homosexual sex is best not shown
on air"? It is a view just as valid as anything. Conformity
to supposedly "tolerant" views is still conformity.
I think that homosexuals have a thick enough skin that they can
handle someone disliking seeing certain things. I find it incredibly
insulting to have to protect people's feelings like that.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the KKK can march in a predominately
Jewish neighborhood to spew their message of hate and discrimination.
THIS is what our country is all about, or at least it is supposed
to be.
Intolerance of intolerance is not tolerance.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> What? -- TCH- in disbelief, 10:57:43 05/10/03
Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> I think you're missing TCH's point -- Sophist,
14:45:50 05/10/03 Sat
Consider the following dialogue from The Freshman (quote from
Psyche):
FatVamp: (Now wearing the sweater.) ... Does this sweater make
me look fat?
Sunday: No, the fact that you're fat makes you look fat. That
sweater just makes you look purple.
I assume there's no dispute here about Sunday's legal right to
respond however she wants. I doubt, however, that vampire morality
provides any solid foundation for happiness IRL. I understand
TCH to be making the latter point, and I concur.
I'm afraid we disagree about cause-effect in the 2000 election
also.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Jasmine's sort of happiness isn't for me
-- lunasea, 17:47:51 05/10/03 Sat
That is what I find so amusing about this whole thing. Jasmine
made everyone be nice to each other. They didn't even want to
hurt each other. There were no other criminals as Wesley says.
I find Spuffy sex disgusting and wish it wasn't so integral to
the story so I didn't have to watch it. I must have offended someone
with that comment, so I will now immediately appologize. Only
comments that aren't offensive to anyone can be allowed, even
if I were to preface it that I don't have a problem if people
engage in such behavior in the privacy of their own home. I can
think whatever I want, but heaven forbid that I express it. Everyone
being shiny and happy is much more important than something that
could spark meaningful dialogue or even venting.
I apologize profusely to everyone for anything I have done to
remotely offend or upset you, including my position on this thread.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> hmm, probably going to regret this
in the morning -- ponygirl, 22:40:55 05/10/03 Sat
I once read a quote somewhere that suggested that the old-fashioned
term for political correctness is good manners. That's something
I can't help but wish more people would practice.
I had a fairly snarky response all ready to go, but then I changed
my mind. I left the first paragraph because snarky or no I still
agree with it. Lunasea you say you want a meaningful dialogue,
I believe for such a thing to take place you have to do more than
listen to another person's opinion you have to allow for the possibility
of it changing your own. Otherwise what's the point? You end up
speaking solely for the purpose of hearing yourself speak, and
that gets awfully lonely after a while. Note: I'm using "you"
in the general sense here, not trying to make assumptions about
your state of mind - see, polite. What the hey, let's take this
first person singular:
When I was much younger I held the opinion that there was nothing
wrong with being gay, but, like you seem to espouse, only as long
as any overly sexual expressions of such were kept to the privacy
of one's home. I was young, I lived in a conservative suburb,
I didn't know any gay people, or so I thought, there was no reason
to question these views. Then I went away to school in a large
city, and I made some very good friends who were in the midst
of coming out. This was far from an easy process for them, and
it was complicated by the fact that their whole lives they had
seen their desires depicted as wrong, dirty, or ridiculous. At
best they were told that their romantic and sexual impulses should
be hidden away from normal society. I think virtually everyone
has to deal with a certain amount of hang-ups and repression when
it comes to sex, but straight people take for granted the template
of behaviour that gets handed to us by popular culture.
Words have power, words can hurt, and like any weapon we have
to be careful how we wield them. So yes, freedom of speech rah-rah,
but at the same time why should we desire to hurt another person
needlessly? See, I can very clearly imagine a boy of 19 wanting
to tell one of his closest friends exactly who he was, but waiting
a whole year to do so, because he had heard her expressing opinions
that she had never thought to question. I can imagine it very
clearly, and more than ten years later I still burn with the shame
of it. Because I hurt my friend.
Ack! Now I'm definitely going to bed! Should not post after going
to bars, but I'm going to hit send and hope for the best.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: hmm, probably going to regret
this in the morning -- Alison, 23:14:08 05/10/03 Sat
Bravo. In my opinion, absolute dedication to any philosophy is
rarely a good thing- exceptions must be made, emotions taken into
account (and I am a BIG advocate of freedom speech as much as
possible). Thank you for your honesty.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Brilliantly expressed --
Tchaikovsky, 02:42:25 05/11/03 Sun
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Nothing to regret. Very Well
said. An addition. -- s'kat, 09:42:53 05/11/03 Sun
I liked this post quite a bit, ponygirl. Even though I haven't
read all the posts that inspired it.
I would like to add something, if you don't mind:
I remember a discussion with several friends who are gay, where
they said and rightly so: "Why can't there be gay sex on
television just like there is heterosexual sex? Can't we see something
representing our choices? You (and I mean you in the general sense
of the usage) may not like to watch two women have sex on TV,
but did it ever occur to you that a lesbian may not enjoy watching
a man and a woman having sex on TV? They may find that gross and
offensive?"
Television is a public medium which flows into billions of households,
not just one person's. IT's for everyone. And free speech is for
everyone. The writers of Btvs have been courageous in their desire
to represent numerous identity choices in life, not just one.
One of my pet peeves about censorship - is the hypocrisy of it.
A lesson I learned way back in the 6th grade. I find it fascinating
how people will push for their right to see something - ie. sex
between Buffy and Angel on Btvs. But
when it comes to something someone else wants to see and they
don't, they'll push for no sex at all - we don't want to see Willow/Tara
or Willow/Kennedy. Every time this happens I feel this overwhelming
desire to pull a Rod Sterling and thrust the person into the Twilight
Zone where they are faced with the fact that they are odd man
out and that what they want is considered sick or wrong or not
represented. How would you feel if the only sex considered correct
or possible was say homosexual liasons and to see a man and a
woman together - required breaking censors rules? What would it
feel like if Buffy and Angel's relationship was consider bizarr
and people posted on fanboards, how they just can't stand the
idea of seeing these two people kiss and wish sex like that would
just stay in the privacy of their homes? Or that when you kissed
your spouse or significant other in public, people looked at you
like you were an alien or considered it gross? Lots of people
prefer not to see hot sex on screen - we find it embarrasing or
inappropriate - we prefer it to be kept private. That's valid.
Not liking something. No problem with that. I'm not overly fond
of watching overt public displays of affection myself regardless
of who it is. OTOH - I think if Television or movies are going
to show sex - it should be able to show both homosexual and heterosexual
sex. And if you don't like it? You can always fast-forward or
just not watch. Same with - if a heterosexual couple can show
displays of affection in public, so should a homosexual one, without
fanfair and without derision.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> I have to wear clothes
in public -- lunasea, 15:09:04 05/11/03 Sun
I don't really think that people should have to wear clothes.
I would love a world where people are all comfortable with their
and each other's bodies. I would love a place where such a world
wouldn't result with the see-saw of aversion and craving, not
to mention jealousy and insecurity.
But I don't like in such a world. We have BIOLOGICAL preferances,
both in what gender we prefer and what we want that gender to
look like. This is something that can't be taught or cultured
out of us. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging this and
to admit that you feel this way in a forum like this (don't want
to say "tolerance Nazis", but I really do) takes courage.
No one called for the show to change. She just mentioned that
she didn't want to see certain things. It made the show less enjoyable.
Why is that any different than saying what made the show more
enjoyable?
On a tangent, the Succubus interview this week said that they
had trouble finding music for the sex montage. The original music
they had picked out was written by a Christian woman who didn't
want her music to overlay sex. Are people here going to say that
this woman was wrong to not allow ME to use her
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I have to wear
clothes in public -- s'kat, 15:47:18 05/11/03 Sun
That's a really lunatic analogy.
There's a difference between showing sex on tv and wearing clothes
in public. Clearly. And the Christian woman didn't want her music
used for ANY of the sex scenes, not just that one. So I don't
fault her. That's different. Nor did she tell the show that they
shouldn't do the scene or try to censor it in any. She just said
she didn't want her words or art associated with it. That's her
right. Absolutely no problem with that. But if she went on a campaign
to censor the show or get it off television or posted on boards
about how gay sex should not be shown but heterosexual should
be? I'd scream HYPOCRIT!
And pray for the day she finds herself on the other side of her
own words.
Again I ask you how would you feel if someone posted that seeing
a kiss between Angel and Buffy was gross and not worth seeing
on TV? By the way, in the 1950s - that would have been the case
- we would not have seen two characters kiss or have sex on TV
regardless of gender. Some of the hot sex scenes you mention loving
in BTVS? Would never be on screen during this period of time.
And the kiss if it happened would be fairly G-rated. There was
time that the sex scene between Wood and Faith - would have caused
an uproar. It would be censored. It would have been considered
sick and not because of anything other than the fact that Wood
is black and Faith is white. NOW that offends me. Because what
it is doing is saying its okay for this group but not that one.
Going back to your clothes in public analogy: the reason this
analogy doesn't work - is it is a crime for everyone to be nude
in public. Not just one group of people. EVERYONE should wear
clothes. How would you feel if only men were allowed to be nude
but not women, or only women but not men? Or say only white people
are permitted to wear clothes? There was a time in our history
where this was the case - slaves weren't allowed to wear clothing.
How would you feel if you alone were singled out for reasons such
as gender, color of skin, religious preference, or sexuality to
be prohibited from something everyone else got?
Again I think it's important we make a distinction. I'm not saying
not liking is a problem. I don't particularly like seeing anyone
lick anyone's neck on screen. But...I don't think the networks
should censor it. What I'm saying is what Wicked Buffy and Sophist
say far better below - censoring it or suggesting it be censored
is a problem. And that I find offensive. It's what I've worked
most of my life against - CENSORSHIP.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I have
to wear clothes in public -- contumelious, 16:31:28 05/11/03
Sun
"How would you feel if only men were allowed to be nude but
not women, or only women but not men?"
know what's weird? in america men can go shirtless many more places
than women can.
in other countries, it's not an issue.
america is ahead in some areas and far behind in others.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very
true...People are strange -- s'kat, 17:55:34 05/11/03 Sun
I remember going on a 4 day back-country trip in College, Bandiolere
National Monument in New Mexico. Several of the women and men
on that trip decided to take off their tops, it was hot and sweaty.
We were fine until we entered civilization where the Park Ranger
admonished the "women" to put on their tops and left
the "men" alone.
Which by itself isn't so odd - unless you compare it to Europe.
When I visited France for two months in a high school exchange
program, the female friends I stayed with went topless on the
beach, along with the men. They kept their bottoms on but took
off the top to get even tans.
It was a public beach, not nudist, family oriented. No one cared.
OTOH - according to articles I've read, BBC America censors sexual
content from Buffy that the US doesn't. I don't know about other
countries. Or whether this is an English Culture thing. But it
is interesting the things we have troubles with. Some of the violence
we see on Buffy very few people yell and scream about. Heck, ironically
enough some of the posters who are squicked by Kennedy and Willow
making love - enjoyed and where turned on by the scenes where
Spike bit (a "gentleman vampire's kiss" one poster stated)
and killed women in CwDP or the Bronze Beta scene where he took
Buffy from behind or the scene where Faith attempted to rape and
kill Xander in Consequences - but they find the W/K scene offensive?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> yes.
it's very odd that violence is more acceptable than nonviolence.
killing vs kissing. -- contumelious, 19:27:58 05/11/03
Sun
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: False assertion -- Miriel, 22:27:59
05/10/03 Sat
The Supreme Court has ruled that the KKK can march in a predominately
Jewish neighborhood to spew their message of hate and discrimination.
THIS is what our country is all about, or at least it is supposed
to be.
Intolerance of intolerance is not tolerance.
On the other hand, tolerance of intolerance only leads to more
intolerance. To tolerate intolerance is to risk the spread of
intolerance at the expense of tolerance. One of the world's many
paradoxes.
;) Miriel
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: False assertion -- Miriel, 22:29:25
05/10/03 Sat
The Supreme Court has ruled that the KKK can march in a predominately
Jewish neighborhood to spew their message of hate and discrimination.
THIS is what our country is all about, or at least it is supposed
to be.
Intolerance of intolerance is not tolerance.
On the other hand, tolerance of intolerance only leads to more
intolerance. To tolerate intolerance is to risk the spread of
intolerance at the expense of tolerance. One of the world's many
paradoxes.
;) Miriel
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Oops. Double post. Sigh. -- Miriel,
22:31:42 05/10/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Lines in the sand -- lunasea, 14:55:13
05/11/03 Sun
We all have to decide where to draw them. I didn't find someone
expressing a preferance about what they see on a fictional TV
show to be one of those lines, especially when prefaced by I have
nothing against X. Also, especially when this opinion was just
a rant and not calling for censorship.
When we get to censorship, then we have a major line. When we
have someone addressing an actual person, then we have a blurry
line, but still a line.
That is what is so great about fictional products. They give us
the freedom to explore these things without getting personal.
I can say I hate when X fictional character does Y and evaluate
that action or express feelings without actually getting into
a flesh and blood human being.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> weren't "X" and "Y"
representing believable human beings? -- contumelious, 16:37:13
05/11/03 Sun
[> [> [> [> [>
::inviting you to step into a bigger picture:: -- WickedTired,
09:40:00 05/10/03 Sat
What bothered me was this part of the paragraph:
"Also, I am not against gay couples, but that does not meant
I want to watch them go down on each other on tv. "
The "disclaimer" at the front set the tone for the rest
of the statement. I have no idea if SpikeLover even realized that
was offensive to some people on a very deep level. But people
here are trying to point out how it was, explaining it in different
ways.
The problem now isn't so much SpikeLovers original words, (I have
no idea where you're at now, SL), but that other people are saying
that it doesn't matter, it was freedom of speech... and not something
that actually affected anyone else on more than a television show
board level.
It obviously does. If you are unable to step into their /our shoes
for a moment to understand this and learn how it is hurtful -
that is your freedom of choice, of course. It is representative
of what you are willing to learn about others. Keep arguing.
But whatever you say, it doesn't invalidate how it felt.
Maybe it just hasn't been explained in a way you can grasp it,
yet.
When I first came on this board (not too long ago ::koff::) I
was blown out of the water for describing Gunn as animalistic.
It was taken as a racial slur by some people. I absolutely didn't
meant it that way. They explained why it was... all new to me...
at first I was angry and offended it was even taken that way.
Then I finally saw the "bigger picture" going on.
So in addition to clarifyng what I had said - which was *my* freedom
of speech - I apologized. Sincerely. And I'm thankful for the
lesson - I don't want to do that in my life, consciously OR unconsciously.
Or be mistaken in my words or any other form of communication.
Though I didn't mean to, I did. And they were the people most
affected by it in various ways. Rather than argue semantics, which
I could have, I realized it had become about communication. And
respecting something that affected someone (faceless strangers,
at that!) deeply.
I'm the worst at being able to explain this, I know. I almost
asked one of my friends to ghostwrite it. But, here it is. If
it's my writing that doesn't make it clearer to you, then I will
ask her to write it. If it's that you choose not to see what's
going on here, then there's probably nothing more I could do anyway.
And I totally realize that that is your choice.
namaste
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: ::inviting you to step into a bigger picture::
-- lunasea, 11:09:26 05/10/03 Sat
I understand what you are saying and I find it insulting to think
that we have to watch what we say so carefully because it might
hurt someone's feelings. There is a lot of shit in this world.
Gays probably take on more than their fair share of it. They should
be able to blow off an admitted rant.
I don't watch what I say. I don't play nice. When I do, I don't
say much of anything worth saying (though some may argue that
what I say isn't worth anything to begin with). I find it incredibly
disrespectful and selfish to treat people that way.
I think an interpretation of Gunn as animalistic is interesting
(now I will have to search the archives for it). People are so
ready to see demons in everything that sometimes they do.
You apologized for you inadvertant hurt, but did they? I doubt
it. The wounded party is never in the wrong. In the bigger picture
we all are.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: ::inviting you to step into a bigger picture::
-- Calamus, 11:55:44 05/10/03 Sat
"I understand what you are saying and I find it insulting
to think that we have to watch what we say so carefully because
it might hurt someone's feelings. There is a lot of shit in this
world. Gays probably take on more than their fair share of it.
They should be able to blow off an admitted rant.
I don't watch what I say. I don't play nice. When I do, I don't
say much of anything worth saying (though some may argue that
what I say isn't worth anything to begin with). I find it incredibly
disrespectful and selfish to treat people that way."
Funny, I really don't care much when people say they don't wanna
see gays on TV, and I gotta be one of the few people who seem
to enjoy lunasea's posts about the show, but this particular line
of argument always sounds like such a cop out to me, and piques.
I, I, I, I, I. That's so easy, and makes the speaker sound so
independent, bemevolent, and all-knowing. My gut reaction is always
"Bully for you."
For me the bottom line is that majority likes and opinions keep
minority desires off TV, or off TV in any fashion that might actually
prove interesting, and have other wonderful real world effects
like the loss of jobs, or health insurance benefits in one fell
legislative coup, etc. IMO, the whole "I shouldn't ever have
to think about anyone else's feelings" thing is what makes
the world, esp. the cyberworld, so damn boring sometimes. (I know,
flipside.) It's boring to hear that nothing should ever change,
that we should never endeavor to be our better selves in public,
except if people some day kinda feel like it, on a whim, when
they have a moment, and always subject to recall. It's so utterly
boring that the only reason anyone'd ever think to watch what
they say is to please other people, not to rethink their drink.
Yo, say what you want, get in and get out, but spare your "victims"
the rote recitation of justifications, please. Wicked tired, yeah.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Sorry if this got out of hands -- lunasea,
12:32:06 05/10/03 Sat
Everyone has their own vision of paradise. My own is a world where
people feel free to say what they want. When I see someone jumped
on for their feelings (whether I share them or not), I tend to
defend the idea of free speech. I think it took a lot of courage
to say what she did. She probably prefaced it with nothing against
gay couples because she knew the reaction it would evoke. That
wasn't enough.
Let's try another example. I have nothing against any religion.
Doesn't mean that I want to go to a service for X.
If you do, more power to you. I statements allow us to own our
feelings. They take personal responsibility for our thoughts.
I use them all over the place. I admit that that is how I feel.
SL was making an admission with I statements. *I* don't want to
see. She was not making an accusation.
Don't hold me accountable for decisions that network executives
make. It is one thing to go after actions. Go after the network
executives who make a difference. If you don't like their decisions,
tell them. There are a lot of people out there that feel like
you do. If we band together, things can change. How many shows
have been saved by write-in campaigns? Did you send WB a postcard
so they wouldn't cancel Angel? We will see next week if it worked.
Don't let da Man win. WE the People still have the power. Government
can only do what we let them. Greedy Corporate types will only
do what gets them more money. Let them know that there is a majority
that doesn't approve of their actions. Don't settle for the pabulum
that they use to pacify us with. If that fails that is what Indy
films, books and the net are for. We don't have to play their
game. Enough of us do that and they will get the message.
It is amazing how far the pendulum has swung. Once upon a time,
women had no choices. Now we have a choice, go to work. Staying
at home is viewed various ways, but most are not that favorable.
The majority view used to be the only acceptable one. Now only
views that accept everything are acceptable. Neither side of the
pendulum is good.
At least not in my paradise.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Thank you for clarifying your choice. -- WickedBuffy,
12:43:15 05/10/03 Sat
You chose to stay within the confines of your own photograph,
of course. Free Choice.
There's a huge world of people out here learning how to speak
their hearts, fully, with compassion and respect. From reading
posts just on this board, there seem to be many people who already
know how to do that.
It's your choice to be unable to express yourself freely without
having to hurt people. Or that you even care if you do. Free will,
free speech, free choice and all that.
( btw - I'm grateful for the lesson I learned and an "apology"
from them is irrelevant when put into the perpective of things.)
You've made your stand on life very clear. It's very different
from mine.
I'd like to be part of a world where we don't need to keep growing
thicker skins. And I believe it's possible.
Or else I wouldn't give a damn about what you are saying.
My words seem to only be encouraging your posts about this, so
I'm stopping.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Sorry if we are parting badly -- lunasea,
13:12:13 05/10/03 Sat
Maybe just like Buffy, I need a nap :-)
I hate duty days. I won't see hubby until tomorrow afternoon.
I don't even get to sleep in tomorrow and it's Mother's Day :-(
The ultimate thick skin is no skin at all. When we really see
people as ourselves, we don't assume that they meant to hurt us.
When someone hurts me, I try to figure out why. If she actually
meant to hurt me, I am not going to let her. The terrorists NEVER
get to win. If she didn't mean it, I see where my perception came
from and learn something about myself.
I am not so uncaring as I come off. Now for that nap.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> I'm 5x5! ...and not parting at all.
:D -- WickedBuffy :;just moving over there abit::, 20:35:37
05/10/03 Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> WB, you are a big hearted person! --
Rahael, 09:53:21 05/11/03 Sun
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> awww ... thank you R. And I ditto that,
right back! -- WickedBlushing, 17:19:09 05/11/03 Sun
[> I thought the W/K love
scene was a bit gratuitous -- Vash the Stampede, 13:37:30
05/09/03 Fri
I thought that the love scenes between Willow and Tara were always
very tender and romantic. You got the feeling that Alyson and
Amber were really comfortable with each other (as actors, not
lovers). With Kennedy and Willow, well, I'll be honest, it was
kinda like watching on of those late night shows on Cinemax. Plus,
they stayed to long on them; they should have given each couple
an equal time frame, exp. Xander and Anya, cause we all want to
see those too back together.
[> [> I say, bring it
on! (Sex, sex, sex talk inside.) -- Arethusa, 14:13:27
05/09/03 Fri
Tender Sarah McLaughlin love is great, but it's not the only kind.
I liked the tenderness of B/A and the hotness of Wes/Lilah and
both should be permissable. Love comes in many guises. There are
tons of shows on tv that never show anything considered remotely
different, so we all can watch what we want. And Skinimax, as
Manny puts it, doesn't often show people we've grown to love like
Willow in caring relationships. I thought W/K was much hotter
than Faith/Wood, who didn't care about each other.
Since this is the only time we've seen W/K make love, it didn't
bug me that it was longer than the X/A pairing, which we've seen
many times.
I don't think I've heard any complaints about the hot heterosexual
sex going on between consenting young adults for the past seven
years. Spike had very kinky sex with Drusilla, hot but passionless
sex with Harmony, violent sex with Buffy, and drunken sex with
Anya. And who knows about sex with Angel? Although I never see
slash where others see it (it didn't even occur to me that Faith
could be bi until I went online), vampires have few, if any inhibitions.
Just ask the slimy demons with antlers that Drusilla left Spike
for.
[> [> [> Actually
what I meant was... -- Vash the Stampede, 14:38:05 05/09/03
Fri
I didn't really buy them as a couple having sex. I don't know,
maybe its because I never really got the whole Kennedy/Willow
pairing. It just seemed, I don't know, artifical. It just seemed
like they were having sex for sex sake. It lacked the love of
Willow and Tara, or the passion of Wesley and Lilah.
I don't know, does this make any sense?
[> [> [> [> Re:
Actually what I meant was... -- 110v3w1110w, 14:53:12 05/09/03
Fri
i totaly agree with Vash the Stampede willow and tara seemed a
lot more natural maybe thats because it wasn't so graphic and
didn't make the actors so uncomfortable but the whole willow/kennedy
thing has just seemed awkward from the start.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Actually what I meant was... -- Malathustra, 15:39:45 05/09/03
Fri
Could be just my reading, but I think I hear what you're saying
here. I mean, face it. The Faith/Wood pairing was MUCH MORE artificial
than the Kennedy/Willow pairing... but we're accustomed to that
from Faith. It is in character for her to have sex at intense
times with the nearest warm body.
It seems a bit OUT of character for contemporary Willow to jump
at that opportunity. She did so in Graduation Day with Oz, yes,
four years ago, but it was pretty clearly out of a more desperate
place. The Kennedy/Willow deal this week was partly desperation,
too, but was foisted on us as though it was just normal couple
sex. I didn't sense the desperation. I wanted to. I would have
felt better if I had. THAT's what didn't fly for me, with that
scene.
I was also very disturbed by Kennedy's insistence that they push
forward after Willow expressed her desire to NOT push forward.
I'd have preferred a sweet, cuddly, makeout session between the
two of them because even though Willow's fears are a bit over
the top, they are legitimate fears and they are HERS.
Don't be taking my fears away from me. Help me while I confront
their irrationality on my own.
So, yeah. That's what bugged me about the W/K sex scene this week.
(And I'm a lesbian!)
[> [> [> [> [>
It comes down to chemistry -- Vash the Stampede, 17:27:22
05/09/03 Fri
I've been thinking about this since my last post, and I realized
it comes down to chemistry. Willow and Kennedy just don't have
the kind of chemistry that Willow and Tara had, which is why the
whole thing seemed awkward and aritifical. Now this isn't either
actresses' fault, sometimes you just don't have chemistry with
someone. It is ME fault though, for not finding a better way of
working around this.
You make a great point about Faith and Robin, it was even more
artifical than Willow and Kennedy. However, since Faith has made
a habit of one night stands, the lack of chemistry is irrelevant.
Also, side note, I never thought that Reily and Buffy had the
same level of chemistry as Angel/Buffy or Angel/Spike did
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Theirs, yours, mine, ours ... -- WIckedBuffy, 23:25:21
05/09/03 Fri
I think it's even more about each viewers own chemistry with the
characters on the screen. That's why every opinion is true. (Of
course, it's just a one-sided kind of chemistry.)
Completely subjective.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re -- Laura, 17:32:01 05/09/03 Fri
I wrote something about that you can find it at:
http://www.voy.com/14567/1/101307.html
Frankly, I'm not buying the Willow-Kennedy relationship. It makes
me miss Tara quite severely.
[> [> [> [> Kennedy
is rebound chick -- lunasea, 07:48:52 05/10/03 Sat
I don't think it was so much the sex as I don't like seeing Willow
doing rebound sex. I didn't like seeing Buffy do "I hate
myself" sex either. It wasn't the sex so much as what it
was saying about my friends. I didn't want my buds to go through
that. I know they have to for the story, but it doesn't mean that
I am supposed to like that. The show shows us lots of things we
don't like to watch. We aren't supposed to like watching them.
That is what makes the show so good. They have no problems showing
us painful things if it is necessary for the story.
Wes and Lilah really had some heart and teeth to it. It wasn't
just the hot bods that made that interesting to watch. It was
an incredibly complex relationship. W/K aren't. Just simple dominant
Kennedy and Willow trying to move on.
It depends on how you see W/K. Is it something nice because Willow
is getting on with her life, or is it something yucky because
you wish Willow would get on with her life with someone who isn't
such a (insert your prefered insult for Kennedy)?
I don't think it is so much people can't get beyond Tara. I was
determined to hate Riley. I fell in love with him right along
with Buffy. What was there not to love? Kennedy has nothing for
me to want her to be with my friend. Yeah Willow for being able
to move on (though wouldn't the real test be if Kennedy dies and
Willow doesn't go postal? Please, pretty please). Just find someone
else.
[> [> [> [> [>
Somebody had to be. Think of it as a blessing! -- WickedPollyanna,
08:30:53 05/10/03 Sat
It's a fact - it's happening. Can't change the script that's been
shot. On the bright side of it , Willow will be able to move on
after she gets thru this "step".
So, if you don't like Kennedy, perhaps be grateful to her for
being part of Willows healing process to move on.
*Disclaimer: I like the W/T thing fine, just trying to support
the people who don't.
It's National "Help Anti-Kennedy Fans Have Some Peace"
Day, y'know.
[> [> [> How about
an all-naked, all-shagging Buffy ep? -- Caroline (chat is
a bad, bad influence), 19:08:17 05/09/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> Lol.
But what about Andrew? -- Arethusa, 20:18:02 05/09/03 Fri
[> [> [> [> Yeah,
I know. -- Doug, Fenris42 in Chat, 20:49:08 05/09/03 Fri
[> Best laugh of the day...
-- Sofdog, 13:42:08 05/09/03 Fri
"Also, I am not against gay couples, but that does not meant
I want to watch them go down on each other on tv."
LOL!!! I was checking the clock to see if Buffy had switched to
10pm. That was some explicit sexual imagery. And they wonder why
children are jaded and cynical in grade school. They've seen too
much.
[> [> amusing --
WickedBuffy, 13:53:45 05/09/03 Fri
...
Also, I am not against hetrosexual couples, but that does not
mean I want to watch several of them having face-to-face sex on
tv.
just as amusing, eh?
[> Re: in response to the
responses -- Rendyl, 14:48:28 05/09/03 Fri
Er...if girl on girl sex squicks Spike Lover then it does.
Not everything in the world is as simple as "hey, think I'll
feel a certain way today and never have an opinion (right or wrong)
again."
Personally, the Buffy-Riley sexathon of season 4 got
on my nerves in a big way. I am allowed my opinion as is SL. Why
should he/she have to -conform- to anyone else's beliefs?
There is nothing wrong with SL not wanting to watch..or with someone
wanting to watch. No big ugly bigotry, just a personal choice.
Ren
[> [> Re: in response
to the responses -- Sophist, 16:43:44 05/09/03 Fri
I agree that we can't choose our emotional reactions to events.
Sometimes, however, expressing those reactions, no matter how
"legitimate" they are, can be hurtful to others. If
I have an irrational hatred of Jews, I may not be able to control
that hatred. I can, however, avoid expressing it in a way that
hurts others.
Moreover, I understood ponygirl's post to question SL's expression
on the ground that it implied such acts should not be shown on
TV in contrast to heterosexual acts, which would be "ok".
That suggests a double standard resulting in censorship.
ponygirl was very careful to leave open the possibility that she
misunderstood. SL can clarify; if she didn't mean that, it's a
non-issue.
[> [> [> Re: in response
to the responses -- Rendyl, 20:38:55 05/09/03 Fri
Maybe I misunderstood. I never saw where Spike Lover made that
distinction.
I also disagree that not wanting to view intimate sexual acts
(of any pairing) is the same as a racial hatred. What race most
of us are is pretty much out there with little choice in being
dealt with. Sexually is a tad more private.
To be honest, I was uncomfortable with Willow and Kennedy. I don't
really have anything against Kennedy but I felt like it was too
soon for Willow. It bothers me that sex and intimacy are so easily
continued on the show after a death or breakup. Maybe in ME's
world it is nothing to get over the loss of a loved one. In my
world it seems to take longer and be more painful. (Or -sigh-
maybe I just really miss Tara)
As for SL, I don't understand why the responses were not as much
a censorship of her viewpoints as her original post was supposed
to have been? Free speech is only free if all viewpoints are allowed.
Ren
[> [> [> [> Re:
in response to the responses -- Sophist, 07:50:38 05/10/03
Sat
Well, I read the passage the same way ponygirl and WickedBuffy
did, but it's ambiguous enough that we may have misinterpreted
it. One reason I liked ponygirl's post was that she was not dogmatic
about it -- she left open the possibility that she had misconstrued
it.
I agree that people are perfectly free to express discomfort with
watching sex on TV (though I oppose any censorship of scenes).
As I said, if that's all SL meant, it's a non-issue.
I deliberately chose my example as one of religious bigotry, not
racial, in order to avoid the point you mentioned. I would say,
though, that sexual identity is so intimate that IMHO it warrants
the same treatment as race or gender when it comes to questions
of discrimination.
I don't understand your last point. ponygirl's post was making
a moral point, not a legal one. She wasn't suggesting censorship,
she was suggesting flaws in SL's expression that might warrant
re-evaluation. Merely criticizing another's views isn't an attack
on freedom of speech; if it were, we could never have much discussion
at all.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: in response to the responses -- Rendyl, 08:14:33
05/10/03 Sat
Aghhh...okay, having gone back and reread your message I am now
off to Wal-Mart to pick up the handy dandy post-prevent-a-misunderstander
for myself. (only $19.95 after rebate) I see where you were referring
specifically to the show, I just read it wrong.
I also misunderstood your Jewish example since it could represent
race or religion.
Sigh, I apologize too if I sounded abrasive or grumpy. I am in
the middle of the project that won't die and it has made me a
little testy. It has also (it seems) eaten away a chunk of my
brain.
Ren - ponders a day off at the beach
[> [> [> [> [>
[> You owe me no apologies -- Sophist, 08:59:09 05/10/03
Sat
There was nothing wrong with your posts. And I probably should
have used Catholicism or Islam instead of Judaism to avoid the
ambiguity.
[> [> [> I felt the
same way as you did about it, Sophist. -- WickedBuffy, 23:36:46
05/09/03 Fri
and still do. You worded it better than I ever could.
(All I could do was point out the irony of it.)
[> I spend that (those)
scene(s) wondering where Andrew and Dawn were now everyone was
getting all sexy -- pellenaka. I love Andrew, 11:19:59
05/10/03 Sat
[> [> I pretended they
were in the basement, doing each others hair. -- WickedBuffy,
11:53:10 05/10/03 Sat
In defense
of Angel and the taking of free will (spoilers for "Home")
-- heather galaxy, 11:52:42 05/09/03 Fri
Forgive me if someone else has already posted something like this.
Angel Inc. saved the day deciding that an imperfect world with
free will was more worthwhile than a perfect world with out it.
So why would he, in the final episode, take away Connor's free
will if it is so important?
It's because Connor didn't really have free will.
Sure it existed with in him (although that is up for debate as
well as I will discuss futhur down), but looking at the facts:
he was born as a tool for Jasmine's existance. Growing up Holtz
made and taught him one thing: vengence, without any thought of
his own. When he finally came back into this world, it was clear
that this boy does not know anything but fight and kill.
Basically, he does not know how to choose. We see this throughout
the season: he does what he is told without even thinking of it
(trying to destroy Angel, falling with Cordelia, doing whatever
Cordelia asks of him, following as a Jasmine soldier). The only
time he ever really gets to make his own mind up (whether to kill
the girl or let her go) he can't. He does not know how to exercise
his free will, nor would he ever. In truth, he does not really
have free will because he can never be his own agent.
When he realizes this he goes mad.
Maybe none of us have free will, but most of us at least think
we do. We believe we are random happenings and while circumstances
apply, many times we have a choice. Even if every little bit is
set up (as Skip suggested), it seems as if we have to believe
that we have agency or else we become crazed like Connor. Jasmine
made everyone believe that they had free will, even when they
didn't, and this kept them happy.
Connor truly had a life built that was never about him, but as
a means to an end. It was never his life. After realizing this
and trying to find someone to make all the decisions for him,
Connor gave up and freaked out. It was similar to the Jasmine
followers when they were given their free will back after having
things be so easy without it. Connor could never accept Angel,
his love and guidance, because Angel wanted him to have a choice.
This is something that the boy without a will of his own could
never accept. He could not choose this or any path.
Angel did what he had to do. What Connor needed. He made a choice.
He exercised his free will. Things Connor was never capable of
doing. Connor didn't really have the free will everyone claims
was taken away from him. How can you take something that wasn't
even really there?
Now what this does for the memories up through this season, and
what damage that causes, I do not know. I imagine a signficant
amount. Did Angel make the right choice? I don't know. Either
it was take the offer or kill his son (plus who knows if he would
have gotten to Connor in time had he not taken the offer, I highly
doubt it). All I know is, I'm glad to see such a tortured soul
as Connor to have the only bit of peace he's ever had.
[> Re: In defense of Angel
and the taking of free will (spoilers for "Home")
-- eloise519, 19:05:12 05/09/03 Fri
I have a different take on Connor's choices. Even when everyone
else was under Jasmine's spell, Connor always saw her for the
demon she was. He chose to believe in her. Perhaps he liked her
style. Then he chose not to believe and to kill her.
Granted he's still an adolescent. I wonder at what age your free
will kicks in and when you're responsible for your choices. Perhaps
it's a phased process. If your mental health is compromised to
the point of madness, that's a different story. But I don't think
you can take a pass on free will based upon how much you've suffered
or who your parents were.
[> [> What Connor said
-- mamcu, 17:46:27 05/11/03 Sun
What Connnor said he wanted, at every possible opportunity, was
to be a part of a family. He made that ultimate choice. Perhaps
Angel took away Connor's choices in some of the intermediary steps,
but the goal was one Connor had already chosen.
[> Re: In defense of Angel
and the taking of free will (spoilers for "Home")
-- Rufus, 00:21:49 05/10/03 Sat
I think that Connor had free will of a sort...a sort compromised
by his growing up in a Hell dimension (Angel didn't come out of
hell feeling great)...and the fact that he couldn't tell what
in his life was a lie or the truth. He can't reference the type
of information needed to make an informed choice partly because
of his age and because of his chaotic upbringing. What Angel did
may seem wrong to some but I see it as an opportunity. Even if
at some point if Angel broke the deal with W&H and Connors memories
are returned to him....he just may have been around a loving family
enough to change how he things about his situation..even if the
perfect family memories weren't real....it didn't hurt Dawn to
be brought up in a family.
[> Someone corrected me
on this a few weeks ago... and I don't believe it's a question
of agency -- Malathustra, 06:23:30 05/10/03 Sat
Before we got confirmation that Connor could see Jasmine's true
face all along, I sensed it coming. I assumed that one of the
reasons he had knowingly chosen "maggot-face" was that
he wanted to kill Angel and so I was posting something about him
having wanted to kill Angel since the moment he dropped into this
dimension.
Someone, and now I can't remember whom, corrected me by pointing
out that every time Connor has had a genuine opportunity to bond
with his dad, he has taken it. The only time this bonding wasn't
interrupted by external or internal forces was in "Awakening."
In that episode, one of the factors contributing to Angel's moment
of happiness is that he and Connor make amends. That they sort
of pal around like buddies. The person responding to my post suggested
that there was evidence that Connor wished for this, too.
There were several instances along the line, though, in which
Connor says things like, "Dad you always have to go and screw
it up right when things get good." There are times where
the screwed-up thing he is talking about includes a resolution
and relaxation between the two of them.
I guess this is the long way of saying that I no longer believe
it was Connor's agency or lack of agency that he could not escape.
It wasn't that his inability to "make choices" couldn't
be undone through mortal means. It was his abandoment issues.
There was quite a lot of talk about his desperation and exhaustion
in that sporting-goods-store scene, but the line that really chilled
me was, "You let him take me, dad.
"You let him get me."
In other words, Connor realizes that Angel's screw-ups and mistakes
can be forgiven and that they could theoretically move past those
(as loving families often do when their children pass adolescence),
but that he can't forgive his father for allowing Holtz to kidnap
him and raise him in a hell dimension. That he wishes (as desperately
as Angel wished last season, just after Connor was born) that
he could have grown up with his cool dad. Learned fighting techniques
by sparring and training rather than screaming and running. That
he could have had Angel as a father rather than Holtz.
He wishes that Angel had saved him and he could not forgive Angel
for that.
It wasn't Connor's agency that was restored at the end of "Home."
It was his innocence and belief that the world was not out to
get him. It was his solid footing and a healthy father-son relationship.
It was his trust that the world was not out to get him, or that
if it was, his family would fight on his side until all was made
right again.
It was Connor's abandonment issues that could not be resolved
without Angel's sacrifice. Connor had agency all along, and this
season's many references to the importance of "choices"
point that fact out. We all have agency, regardless of the circumstances
of our birth, childhood, and adolescence.
THAT was why Angel's sacrifice was so poignant to me. If Connor
had been able to forgive, he could have saved himself.
[> [> Re: Someone corrected
me on this a few weeks ago... and I don't believe it's a question
of agency -- Wizard, 16:42:58 05/10/03 Sat
I tend to agree- Connor has been manipulated all his life, and
by all the major people in it with the exception of Real!Cordelia
in late S3. Despite all this, as the visitation of Darla showed,
he did have free will. He didn't know how to make constructive
choices, he didn't know how to forgive, and he had been burned
far, far too often to be able to truly love. Despite all this,
he did have free will.
My difficulties with Angel's 'sacrifice' is that it's a patch.
It doesn't solve the real problem. Connor's situation is not like
Dawn's. Barring a major plot twist, unlikely with only two eps
to go, the Key didn't have a consciousness before the Monks of
Dagon turned it into Dawn. Connor does- or rather, did- and ME
experience (with a healthy amount of skepticism-bordering-on-cynicism)
tell me that the patch will eventually wear through, and all hell
will break loose when that occurs. Perhaps Happy!Connor (for lack
of a new name- and wouldn't it be a kick if his new name is Steven)
will have nightmares of his old life, like Slayers have dreams
of past lives. Perhaps Sahjian will be released, and go looking
for the Miracle Child- because unless I'm very wrong, Jasmine
only co-opted the Miracle Child's destiny. She didn't change it
completely. He still has to kill Sahjian. Or maybe Cordy is unaffected
by the mind-mojo, and when she returns, kicks off the "Quest
for Connor." Maybe a combo of all three- Cordy leads AI to
find Connor before Sahjian does, and they find a boy who knows
them from his nightmares, but doesn't quite know why.
As I've said before, and will continue to say until I'm proven
right or wrong, what happens when the spell ends will depend mostly
on the new family- if they can accept Connor, all is well. If
not... Well, think of the events of "Home" multiplied
by, oh, say, at least ten, because then connor will have had a
real taste of everything he always wanted, only to have it snatched
away.
[> [> [> i'm hoping
something like that happens (spoilers for "home")
-- anom, 22:43:39 05/11/03 Sun
I tried to post this in the "copout" thread, but it
was archived. Let's see if I can shoehorn it in here.
---------------------
Haven't had much time to jump in on this issue, but I didn't like
Angel's "solution." It certainly looked like a copout
to me; whether it's Angel's or ME's copout depends on what happens
next. I'm hoping that next season the new reality starts to develop
some cracks & the truth ends up coming out. Angel sidestepped
dealing w/the issues, & I think they'll come back to bite him
even harder.
---------------------
(I kept that original post vague to avoid spoilers, but what the
hell--this time I'm labeling 'em.)
I like the possibilities you outline, Wizard. While Dawn's situation
isn't quite parallel, the false reality part still is, & the truth
came out in her case. Of course, people around her found out & she
eventually learned it from the stolen Watcher Diary. But the "new"
Connor doesn't even know such things exist, & apparently neither
does anyone around him. We'll have to see how they & his "old"
(AI) family deal w/the consequences in the next season (which
there will be, RIGHT?!).
Current board
| More May 2003