May 2001 posts
Alone (spiral spoilers) -- June,
21:30:56 05/12/01 Sat
Spoiler space
Dawn has learned that there is nothing, and no one to count on.
She depended on the reality of her own existence. Her memories,
her diaries (something we all take for granted). Nope. All lies.
She relied heavily on her mom. But she is dead.
When it came right down to it the last thing she could rely upon
is Buffy as her protector. Now Buffy has failed her (Not Buffy's
fault but then again it wasn't Joyce's fault either).
So everyone and everything she has ever relied on has failed Dawn.
She has nothing left. Nothing but herself.
In the end she is alone, like the rest of us.
Poor Dawn.
It is all up to Dawn now. Can she rise to the challenge? I think
she is a lot stronger than others and even herself gives her credit
for.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Alone (spiral spoilers) -- Rufus, 23:27:46 05/12/01
Sat
Consider this, the Knights may call Glory the beast but they are
more afraid of the Key. We know that gods have limitations and
can be defeated, but, Gregor said that the keys power is absolute.
Is the key more powerful than a god? We know that Glorys power
has limits and she could be slowed down by Willow, but what bag
of built in tricks may Dawn have that she is unaware of? Gregor
also called the Key and instrument of destruction, here we are
with instuments again. The CoW considered Buffy the instrument
of the council and she all of the sudden went independent of them.
So is the key more than an instrument, can Dawn use power independent
of a user such as Glory?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dawn and possible powers of the Key -- FanMan,
03:31:26 05/13/01 Sun
I posted below my general theories about Dawn in the next two
seasons. I believe that in The Gift Buffy will be more powerfull,
pain makes her stronger. Buffy has had a lot of pain in this season.
I think she will remain about the same power after The Gift and
all next season. The Buffy stories will be more about her taking
on adult reponsibilities aside from slaying. She will still be
power girl though when needed.
Willow & Tara will have some issues to deal with. Willow will
have some form of negative consequences of her new power.
RE: Rufus post, here is my speculation about Dawn. Dawn will get
magical training with or without aproval. I believe she will start
studying on her own or get coaching from the Doc( no Dawn! )....:)
After she has done a few spells, Dawn will cast something that
causes serious problems. Buffy will find out; big confrontation,
then eventually Dawn will get official training, IE without sneaking
around. Dawn & Spike, I like the big brother feel. Dawn is headstrong
and rebellious, Spike will help her in any way he can; lots of
possibilities there. Hope Spike will be around next season, otherwise
Dawn won't have anyone who talks to her impartially, plus Spike
is interesting!
Dawns magic will be more powerfull than most wiches because of
the Key. Using mental powers requires using more of your brain/subconcious,
Dawns subconcouis should be able to access the Key. My reasoning
is this: either the Key is part of Dawn(equivilant to Dawn being
part of the Key via manifestation), or Dawn can exist independantly
of the Key and she is storing it in some metaphisical sense. In
either situation, the key is always where Dawn is, so it will
influence her if only indirectly. An analogy, exposure to magic
will change you magically, exposure to radiation will change your
genetics via mutations of cellular dna(not good,go with comic
book mutations for this analogy :). So Dawns magic will be unusuall
for the Buffyverse: Hmmmm....I don't know about that, Buffyverse
magic has a lot of variety!
In season seven Dawn will start to gain concious control of the
Key part of herself. This will be similar to Buffy and her discovery
of the First Slayer and general self discovery of this season.
I don't Know how Joss can top a God as a villian, wait and see
I guess! Dawn will do something Godlike for the season finaly
of season seven, unless there is a season eight...there were comments
below about "Dawn of a new age",maby Dawn banishing
all demons, or closing the Hellmouth.
I think the Key is like a ring of wishes, as many wishes as you
want!...Naaa....Seriously I think it can alter reality like Willows
spell in Something Blue or Jonathans spell. I think the monks
used that power to create Dawn, not a seperate spell. The Key
is probably more powerfull than Glory is now, but she is a crippled
God. Poor Glory is such a victim!...Ha!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Alone (spiral spoilers) -- Phil HV, 18:48:59 05/13/01
Sun
~~~~"So everyone and everything she has ever relied on has
failed Dawn. She has nothing left. Nothing but herself.
In the end she is alone, like the rest of us."~~~~
Reminds me of B2. The whole parallelism between what whistler
says before and what Angels says during the final battle.
::::::::::::::: BUFFY: "I can deal." (Looks at the sword,
at Whistler) "I got nothing left to lose."
She exits. He watches her go, genuine sadness suffusing his gaze.
WHISTLER:" Wrong, kid. You got one more thing." ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Then later the foreshadowing is validated. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ANGEL: "That's everything, huh? No weapons, no friends. No
hope. Take all that away and what's left?"
Tense moment... Attempted murder...
BUFFY:"Me."
:::::::::::::::::
Greatness always resurfaces. Seems to also bring reference to
what April said as she died.
"It's always darkest before...."
Triumph just wouldn't be the same without despair.
Maybe Ben will suprise us -- Jack_McCoy,
09:30:23 05/13/01 Sun
From the rumors and discussions I have read on the internet, I
find this doubtful, but I am kind of hoping that Ben will sacrifice
himself to save Dawn. That he realizes that just because he in
an innocent, that doesn't necessarily mean he is entitled to a
happy ending. Sometimes bad things happen to good people.
On the other hand, having one of the Scoobies or Buffy kill him
might be more dramatic and have far reaching results. What do
you all think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Maybe Ben will suprise us -- FanMan, 13:13:57 05/13/01
Sun
Spoilers mention Ben having a battle with Glory and dieing. Unknown
how that would work considering Glory would have gotten rid of
him long ago if she could. Ben is in a situation similar to Angel
vs Angelus. Think of how skitso Angel would be if he had to fight
a battle of wills weekly with Angelus. If Angel were taken over
weekly by Angelus for the last century his personality would be
different. Hmmmm...this is not what I started writing about, but
how would Angel Deal? Suicide? Become cicical and selfish like
Ben? Insanity? It is a whole scenerio that could have happened
if the curse were phrased differently....:) It seems that Glorys
curse is to be trapped in a mortal subconcious like Angelus.....Hmmm!
Well I did not answer the question, but analogies can provide
insight.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Buffy, Dawn and Ben -- Unsung Hero, 13:15:45 05/13/01 Sun
I think there is a good possibility that Ben will sacrafice himself.
He spoke of bad things happening to good people, and he likes
Buffy and Dawn a lot. I don't think he has what it takes to be
a killer, but to stop Glory and the world from ending.......perhaps
Ben could be a hero yet. But, one must remember: Buffy is the
hero of the story. Dawn and Ben might have what it takes, but
it's Buffy who solves the problems. Always has, always will. I
doubt either will commit suicide, because Buffy needs to be the
hero. She'll kill Ben, or Dawn, simply so she can add it to her
list of sacrafices.
Buffy has always been the hero. It is her show. Realisitically,
folks, we have to expect the same. Buffy's current morals may
seem like she doesn't have what it takes.....but Buffy has always
done what she had to. Killing Dawn may be a lousy thing to do,
and it may not make sense that Buffy would do it.....but she will
solve the problem, she will save the day. The show is called Buffy:The
Vampire Slayer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy, Dawn and Ben -- VanMoodySenior, 20:23:19
05/13/01 Sun
I see the self sacrifice to save the world as a very good possibility.
Or he might ask Buffy to do it for him if he doesn't have the
chance. This is a lot like the Christ symbolism that is depicted
in a lot of literary works. It would be touching for one person
to die for all of humanity in Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Maybe Ben will suprise us -- Ramo, 15:21:57 05/14/01
Mon
Ben became a doctor in order to help and save people. Well, hummm...
maybe if he want's to save tons of people, he should kill himself.
I know it's not that simple, but Ben said that he's been in a
prison all his life. If Dawn were killed and the key was destroyed,
he'd be stuck with Glory for the rest of his life anyway. I just
hope he'll have the courage to do something right.
Ramblings on the Key, the Monks
and Buffy's moral dilemma -- katy, 09:50:13 05/13/01 Sun
I have read several comments regarding the nature of the key,
the "flaw" in making the key human, and the moral dilemma
Buffy has to face (kill Ben or Dawn). So I thought I would address
some aspects of these topics here...
I think the monks knew exactly what they were doing when they
transformed the key into human form and sent it to Buffy. However,
the full extent of their reasoning for doing so may not have been
revealed yet. First, the General claims the monks were fools for
believing they could harness the power of the key for the forces
of light. How do we know the monks failed? Should we accept what
the general says as truth? Here is a guy who doesn't even know
why or how the key was created. All he knows is that the key has
the power to tear down dimensional walls, perhaps only one possible
function of the key. What if the key is actually serving a function
right now? For some reason, I believe the key could be the source
of Buffy's power (I do not know how that would logistically work
out though). Or in a previous post, someone posted a theory about
how the key's potential to do good could only be unlocked under
the guide of a human. Anyway, back on topic...Why did the monks
make the key human (albeit Buffy's sister) and send it to the
Slayer? Perhaps the answer is very simple and straight-forward.
Buffy will protect Dawn at all costs simply because she is her
sister. We have already seen the devastation caused by Glory in
her search for the key. And now the entire universe is apparently
at risk. And yet Buffy never considers destroying Dawn and the
key. For her, it is not even an option. Buffy will protect Dawn
with her life. So, I would say the monks were extremely clever
for transforming the key into Buffy's sister. It was their best
and perhaps only option to ensure protection for the key (hopefully).
How could Buffy destroy her own sister? If the key was some inanimate
object like a bicylce pump, Buffy would have no qualms about destroying
it. Although I do believe the key has potential to serve the forces
of good (perhaps it is even extremely instrumental), Buffy does
not yet know this and would therefore have no reservations with
destroying a bicycle pump to save the universe. As some people
have mentioned, making the key human leads to some inherent "flaws."
However, maybe the monks perceived these to be a trade-off to
ensure the best possible protection for the key.
Interestingly, the transformation of the key into a conscious
living entity has begun to spur a moral debate with the revelation
that Ben, like Dawn, may be too be an innocent in all of this.
Buffy is currently faced with 2 options: 1) Kill Ben and Glory
dies 2) Kill Dawn and the key is destroyed (and the monks have
failed) Buffy's probable choice: Kill Ben (the key is preserved)
If the monks transformed the key into an inanimate object (or
anything she had no emotional attachement to), Buffy would have
the following options: 1) Kill Ben and Glory dies 2) Kill the
bicycle pump... (and the key is destroyed) Buffy's probable choice:
Kill the pump (and the monks would have failed to protect the
key)
I know this was drawn-out discussion but my point is that I don't
think the monks are given enough credit. I do not think they overlooked
the "flaw" in their design to transform the key into
a human being. They merely accepted the fact that as a human,
Dawn would have free will. Perhaps the monks knew Buffy may be
faced with the decision to either destroy the key or kill an innocent
(Ben). I am assuming here that the monks, like the knights, knew
of the existence of the newborn-male created to imprison Glory.
Anyway, Buffy is now faced with a moral dilemma. Should Buffy
kill Dawn? Or Ben? Both are innocents. ahhhh....those sneaky little
monks
(then again, i think I remember reading something months ago that
mentioned how at the end of the season Buffy would have to make
a decision between two options, but then at the last second she
realizes there is another option)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Only Drawback... -- Solitude1056, 14:38:24 05/13/01 Sun
It seems to me that if a God, once trapped in mortal flesh, cannot
escape (except by some arcane once-in-a-lifetime ritual) and thus
will die when the body dies... it'd be the same for the Key. Putting
the Key into flesh was a huge risk of the part of the Monks, but
it's possibly also the only way the Monks could have assured the
Key's destruction, if it came to that. You can't hide something
forever, they might've figured, and they can't find a way to destroy
it (and the Knights haven't claimed otherwise, just that they've
been trying to find it), but I'm not sure on those last two parts.
I just wonder: the Monks may have gambled that Buffy would protect
the Key ably, and might also provide a means to discover a positive
use for the Key. But hedging their bets wouldn't be unexpected,
if the chance was that great that Glory could track the Key down
(which she did, or at least the general location). Could it be
that the Monks are the ones who somehow alerted the Knights of
the Key's general location, as a back-up plan? If Glory got the
Key, Buffy alone might not be enough, and the Knights would have
to do the deed instead.
Just a thought, since it's seemed odd to me that the Knights have
popped up unexpectedly each time. Just how in the hell did they
know to look for an RV on a dirt road in California, anyway? ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> They were monitoring the CB! :) -- rowan, 18:47:00
05/13/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Only Drawback... -- freshwater, 08:39:20 05/14/01
Mon
Someone, in a post further down, mentioned something to the effect
that there was a purpose to the monks' making the key a self-aware
human, not just for the Buffy-sister protection factor. I thought
that was a good point.
We've been talking a lot about what Buffy should do, who should
she kill given very few options. But maybe Buffy (or even Glory)
is not the powerful one here, the one who will make the big decisions,
save the day. The monks "gave the key form, made it human."
They didn't put the key in Dawn, they made the key into Dawn.
I think this is a significant difference. Glory is "in"
Ben, they aren't the same "spiritual" substance, they
don't share a common will. Dawn is the Key. What do we know about
the Key's substance? It's energy, it has power. In many systems
of belief this could be a good description of the soul. Now the
monks have formed this energy into a human, which almost by definition,
has free will. Again, many belief systems would equate free will
with the most definitive aspect of the human soul. How connected
is the Key Energy and Dawn's free will if both can be said to
be her soul? I would think that the two powers would be as close
as other faculties of the soul (I know, I know, again, "There
will be no St. Thomas Aquinas at this table..." but, hey,
if we've got medieval knights, I can bring up medieval philosophy
;) !), like memory or understanding. So, just as the will has
power over these in regular, everyday people, in Dawn's case her
will should have power over the energy of the Key.
My point is that Dawn may be the one with the power to solve all
of this. If the Key can be used by a sentient being, like Glory,
to end the Universe, or perhaps by some other being to bring about
some ultimate good, why shouldn't Dawn be able to access that
power herself, since, if any will could have power over the Key,
it would be hers? Maybe this is the root of her very strong interest
in magick, she might sense that her will has access to some incredible
power. Again, I think this is why the monks made the key human,
and a human raised in a loving family. Dawn has a conscience,
and Dawn has unbelievable power. I think it will be interesting
to see if she is able to use it.
My thought: Dawn realizes the good power of the key, casts Glory
back into hell, releases Ben from his torment, no innocent dies.
Just a thought.
-freshwater
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Aquinas -- Masquerade, 14:35:39 05/15/01 Tue
Hey, I'm just waiting for someone to give Aquinas a Buffyverse
spin so I don't have togive Tom the brush-off anymore. Any suggestions,
comments, or treatises are welcome!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Aquinas -- freshwater, 11:25:18 05/16/01
Wed
If ever there existed someone as crazy and mixed up as to be able
to feel a deep connection between Augustinian Platonic mysiticism,
medieval Scholasticism, and the Buffyverse, that fool would probably
be me ;)
If you're at all interested, I'll see if I can put together some
type of treatise or summary or something for the site or your
amusement :)
I won't make any time promises, but I'll drop you a note when
I have something.
-freshwater
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Much coolness...let me know! --
Masquerade, 16:08:30 05/16/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> There will be no Thomas Aquinas
at this table ;) -- Wiccagrrl, 01:08:33 05/19/01 Sat
Sorry, couldn't resist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Ramblings on the Key, the Monks and Buffy's moral dilemma
-- LoriAnn, 04:22:57 05/14/01 Mon
katy, you're doing the same thing Buffy did in Spiral: creating
a forced choice, either/or, Dawn/Ben, Run/Die, with no possibility
of any other options. It was wrong for her and is usually wrong,
a logical fallacy. Neither we nor she knows what Buffy's options
are. Granted, what you say seems to be the case, but don't count
on it. If it does become necessary to kill either Dawn or Ben
AND if Ben is truly an innocent in all this, which I doubt, the
morality of the issue is clear: Dawn dies, Ben survives. Dawn's
nature is the cause of the problem; killing an innocent to keep
the key from being used is murder and, as I think we'll see, wouldn't
keep the key from being used by someone else anyway. Yet you're
right, Buffy would not kill her sister, except perhaps as she
did Angel, at the last second when there was no possibility of
any other action.
Did Gunn Make the right Choice?
-- Kurt, 09:51:41 05/13/01 Sun
By going with the Angel Investigation crowd to save Cordy was
he abandoning the friends he grew up with?
I can understand him wanting to help in saving Cordy, after all
she came to rescue him with no concern of her own welfare once.
There is a bond that has grown there.
But if he dies (or can't get back), who will protect his friends
back in the neighborhood?
This decision on Gunn's part was kind of glossed over, but I think
it significant. What do others think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Did Gunn Make the right Choice? -- katy, 10:16:02 05/13/01
Sun
I have always wondered why he initially abandoned his friends
in the first place. He started out helping Angel Investigations
occasionally and then all of a sudden he is working with them
full-time. Sure, he gets paid there but he does not strike me
as character who would be motivated by money (if you can call
it that). So perhaps, Gunn feels as though he would be more useful
working with a vampire with a soul and a girl who receives visions
from TPTB. Maybe he feels like he is fighting the "war"
on a larger scale with Angel and Co. rather than killing average
street vamps day in and day out with his friends. However, I think
the show never really addresses his motivations for switching
groups. And like you said, the writers also glossed-over his decision
for helping to save Cordy. Obviously he would want to help her
and he was torn over the decision. But the second he made up his
mind, he was completely fine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Gunn- The man, the myth....the something else that
starts with M -- Unsung Hero, 13:04:52 05/13/01 Sun
While it seemed glossed over, it doesn't mean it always will be.
There will be consequences for it, I'm sure. Gun chose to fight
Angel Investigations because he believed in Angel, hence his share
of the devistation when Angel fired them.
Gunn was motivated more by his Sister dying, and then Angel comes
with his crew: a group of people willing to sacrafice it all not
only for the world but for the individuals. Angel Investigations
fought to prevent things like the death of his sister- they care
for the individual, they help people. World saving comes second
to the saving of a persons soul- including his own.
Cordelia's actions spoke a lot to him in "First Impressions"-
she was willing to risk her own life for his own, for his soul.
That proved to him that while his crew was important, the mission
of Angel Investigations was even more important.
As for his going to save Cordelia and the choice being glossed
over, I think it was supposed to be a no brainer. His crew may
need him, but Cordelia needed him much more. Angel Investigations
had proven themselves to him, they were worth his time, and even
his life. And he has faith in the team to get his ass home.
Of course, this is my opinion. I could be wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> would that last M be "mutha..."? --
Solitude1056, 14:32:18 05/13/01 Sun
Gunn is a character - from what I've seen - who makes his decisions
carefully. And once he's done so, he doesn't regret them or stop
until he's reached the next decision point. This past episode
was out of character for him, because it made him stop & recognize
that maybe his decisions weren't as clear-cut or as settled as
he'd thought. He had obligations. Recognizing that, the next question
is: who is my greatest obligation to? I'm not surprised it's Cordy,
since she went out on a limb for him in the past. He seems like
the kind to return that, like he has with Wesley post gunshot.
But Gunn's also got a streak of devil-may-care & in it for the
adventure, and he seems to realize innately that Angel's crew
can be inventive when necessary, and has gotten out of close scrapes
in the past & probably will manage to do it again, somehow!
suicide? -- Morgane, 12:45:29
05/13/01 Sun
Had anyone ever think about Dawn suicide? I mean, maybe Buffy
wouldn't be able to kill Dawn even to save the world but what
about Dawn? I believe she really has the guts to kill herself
for that matter. She keeps saying that everything that happened
is her fault, and she doesn't get over that idea even though Spike,
Buffy and Ben had tried to convince her. Guilt is a good motivation
for suicide, isn't it? Beside, it's mostly the only character
I can see dying this year (maybe Anya but her death wouldn't apperetenly
made a major difference)! Dawn had appeared in the Buffyverse
this year in relation with the big bad of the season. As we have
seen before, the big bad is always for one season only, so we
can reasonnably think that Glory won't be there next year! So,it's
not impossible that Dawn, Glory's motivation, won't be part of
the show next year either! Plus I don't really see Buffy as a
mother! I mean, she has never been number one with daily responsibilities
and I don't think that's this kind of show, I like to watch the
vampire slayer every week, but the super-mom, I don't know!
We have established that Buffy probably won't kill Dawn, but I
really believe that Dawn would be ready to sacrifice herself!
And the show must go on!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: suicide? spoilers for Weight of the World -- Rufus,
14:31:53 05/13/01 Sun
In the spoilers there is mention of Buffy sacrificing herself
for Dawn...but question...if Dawns blood is what opens the portal
to chaos, how will Buffys blood be what closes it? At the end
the WotW Giles finds out that to stop the chaos Dawn has to be
killed....so is Buffys gift one she gives to the world, or to
herself?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re:Neither -- darrenK, 14:35:02 05/14/01 Mon
In Spiral, Buffy says "It just keeps coming--Glory, Mom,
Riley, [etc]."
Death will be the Gift that eventually stops it and brings her
peace. Until that time, she is the Slayer and has to endure whatever
it takes to meet her responsibility.
It's my opinion that the death of Dawn will not be necessary.
It's also my opinion that the death of Buffy will not be necessary.
Everyone else could be fair game.
dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: suicide? -- FanMan, 14:32:23 05/13/01 Sun
Yes Dawn has the guts to kill herself. If she did it would be
suicide in the form of a nobil sacrifice. Dawn is not a coward,
guilt would not be the reason. Dawn could kill herself for moral
reasons. Loyalty to Buffy. The whole world.
Joss planned to have Joyce die way back in season three. Dawn
was mentioned in season three also. I think it would not be a
good idea to kill a major character after only one season. Joss
has several reasons to keep Dawn around: teen audiance having
someone to empathise with, the other characters are adults so
they will not make childish mistakes. As I have mentioned in several
other posts the Key is an open ended plot device...an innocent
with godlike power that villains will try to kidnap or corupt.
In realife big sisters do act like mothers in some ways. This
is realistic. The show follows Buffy progressing through hardships
of life and maturing. Personally I would miss any character if
they were killed. Joss plots way ahead though: he had probably
chosen who would die in the Gift a year and a half ago. Joss is
evil, he can sacrifice the character he chooses regardless of
fan preferences. Joss is a genius, that is why us fans love the
characters of the show. For the real fans it is more than couch
potato entertainment: we love the characters and cry when they
cry!
I APPRECIATE YOUR ENTHUSIASM!, HOWEVER TOO MANY EXPLANATATION
POINTS IS LIKE SHOUTING! IT IS ALMOST AS BAD AS ALL CAPITALS!....:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> LOL (OT) -- Solitude1056, 15:23:53 05/13/01 Sun
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ack*cough*sputter
- dammit. I think I just used up my quota for this decade. *grumble*
(hehe)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: suicide? -- rowan, 18:47:00 05/14/01 Mon
I guess the reason I think a Buffy sacrifice is coming is because
if they need to stop the apocalypse by ending Dawn's life, and
the essence of Dawn's keyness is distilled through her blood,
and the apocalypse is stopped when her blood flow is stopped,
the only person who shares her blood is Buffy. Therefore, when
the monks made the Key with the Summers blood, they also (in a
sense) made Buffy the Key as well (as well as Joyce, too).
So unless Hank Summers shows up...
My thoughts on Buffy's decisions
in "Spiral" -- Unsung Hero, 13:40:43 05/13/01 Sun
Ok...so here I go posting unpopular opinions. Oi.
The Scooby Gang are not Buffy's lackies. They're allowed to question
decisions, especially if they're wrongly made. The Scooby Gang
are a team, and while Buffy may be the leader in the long run,
the SG has always been about democracy, making plans and decisions
as a group. It's when Buffy orders people around that things DON'T
go right. Always has been that way.
Buffy only has the pressure she puts upon herself. SHE decided
to take them all along, SHE chose to run instead of stay and fight
and SHE chose to angrily shrug off all suggestions to the point
where they were all being shouted at instead of being worked with.
They're a team, not an army. People keep refering to Buffy as
a general. She's not. She may lead the SG, but they're all equal.
And the SG are college kids, NOT soldiers. Buffy can act like
a general all she wants, but they're not soliders, they're kids.
They volunteer for this, remember? Buffy is thier friend, not
thier general. And how were they supposed to support her? They
didn't know what the plan was, where they were going or what they
were going to do. And as for specifics:
Xander: He was sick in the RV. How was he supposed to help her?
And as far as his providing an alternative, he did: They don't
run. And he's not a soldier, he forgot the training he recieved
in "Halloween" in "The Initiative"
Giles: Giles suggested they stay and think about this. Not run
blindly into the desert.
Willow: They DO need Buffy. If Buffy was a general, she wouldn't
go catatonic. She would have been thinking again. Willow tried
to be the voice of reason, and was treated like the sidekick.
Again.
Tara: Not her fault. SHE sacraficed for the good of the SG.
Spike: He's evil.
Anya: What does she know? All she knows is that Buffy is the one
to go to.
Buffy didn't need to do what she did, and she didn't need to take
them along. She demanded to be obeyed, yet she didn't tell them
what they were doing. Of course they would question her- she was
acting like a crazy woman, and not only that, but a frightened
crazy woman. She's the leader- she acts scatterbrained, they act
scatterbrained.
I agree Buffy's gone through a lot- but that's her problem, not
thiers. Thier lives are on the line, just like hers, and they
are swamped with responsibilites,too. Buffy's not special, she
feels the same as all the others. They're scared, and she's the
chosen one, the only one who's supposed to have a grip on everything.
I don't have sympathy for Buffy. She should be dealing with this
better, because it's her job. She's the slayer, she's the leader,
welcome to the real world. Everyone's not going to do everything
you want in a crisis, especially your scared group of friends
who are trying to be supportive but you're dragging them through
the desert running away from a God and you've never run away before
and you're not telling them the plan or where they're going, and
then you collapse and go catatonic while they(who are not superheros)
are still staying on top of it. So Buffy has a lot of responsibility
and pressure. She needs to deal with it, not expect everyone to
blindly follow orders and take it easy on her. So I don't agree
that the SG were wrong in thier attitudes and questions, I think
Buffy was wrong in expecting them to be soldiers in a war when
they're frightened people with a few spells and a weapon or two
and they're facing down a small army of Knights and a God. She
should trust them and rely on them to back her up and she should
listen to them and organise them as a TEAM. That was the whole
theme of last season, and I believe the theme of the episode when
the Knight mentioned "Dissention in the ranks". If she
played straight with them, she wouldn't be in the same mess. They're
keeping it together, and they're the ones who shouldn't have to.
They volunteer. She HAS to.
Sorry I sound really confrontational and assholish......I wasn't
trying to, but the post just kind of sounded that way. :-) Don't
flame and hate me, please? *whimper*
Of course that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My thoughts on Buffy's decisions in "Spiral"
-- Leah, 13:50:55 05/13/01 Sun
Buffy was trying to do her best to protect her friends. She did
not have the choice of leaving them behind because that would
put them in danger. While yes she is the slayer, there is only
so much she can handle. She was pushed to the breaking point and
that's not her fault. It was the SG, not Buffy, who pushed themselves
into the role of soldiers by constantly asking Buffy what to do,
and while its not their fault, you can't blame Buffy either. She
had to think quickly as her world fell apart. She tried her best
to coap but ther's a limit to what even the strongest person can
handle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: My thoughts on Buffy's decisions in "Spiral"
-- DEN, 14:36:55 05/13/01 Sun
UNSUNG HERO: Glad to see SOMEONE make and support the point that
the Scoobs are a team.And even in armies, elites like the British
SAS or our Special Forces do discuss plans among themselves before
implementing them--especially when the "plan" consists
of driving a decrepit RV into the wastelands, without any explanation
of what is supposed to happen next. I'd ask too,if I were in that
kind of spot. If anything, the Scoobs were too trusting and too
supportive, unwilling to see that Buffy was not thinking anywhere
near straight and draw some consequences. Where was the "intervention"
when it was needed?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: My thoughts on Buffy's decisions in "Spiral"
-- Sue, 17:03:11 05/13/01 Sun
Buffy's plan was sound. To flee was the only recourse.
Unfortunately those Knights got in the way.
There was no need for "intervention". Buffy was doing
a great job. I was quite proud of her. I can't think of how she
could have done any better.
But sometimes even when you do everything right, put all your
energy into something, try as hard as you ever have, give it your
all, things still do not turn out well.
Buffy did everything right, yet it still wasn't enough. That is
why she broke down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: My thoughts on Buffy's decisions in
"Spiral" -- celticross, 08:21:37 05/14/01 Mon
"Buffy did everything right, yet it still wasn't enough.
That is why she broke down."
I don't know if I would say she did everything right...I'll agree
that running away was the only good plan at the moment, because
she was right...Glory would pick them off one by one if they stayed
in Sunnydale. However, driving a battered RV into the desert isn't
the brightest idea she's had. There are greener, more hospitable,
and equally remote areas of California. The Scoobies ARE a group
of friends, not an army, but they knew Buffy was under a huge
amount of stress, and they still allowed her to make all the decisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> DEN -- Unsung Hero, 19:17:24 05/13/01 Sun
Thanks for the support, Mate. I'm glad I didn't have to support
this end of the discussion alone. It sucks to have to do that,
I did it for a long time at BAPS when I was the only one who felt
that Spike needed to earn redemption....it was horrible. So, cheers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Decisions -- Scott L., 14:39:01 05/13/01 Sun
Don't worry, I'm not going to flame you, but I am going to use
what you say against your other words.
Unsung Hero, you show clearly that Buffy is the leader of this
group, yet you don't want to call her a general. A general is
a leader who gets his or her troops to follow orders despite their
objections. That's what Buffy has done. She made a decision. She
weighed the risks and she made a decision. Her troops followed
her.
Could she have handled it better? Yep. But she's not perfect,
she's our Buffy.
You are upset with Buffy for caving in at the end of the episode.
Things didn't go her way and she appears dazed by it.
Let's try a real life comparison. You made made a decision to
post strong statements that you knew might be unpopular. You thought
it was in your best interest and (presumably) the best interest
of others to present your opinions. In the end, you ask us not
to attack you for stating your opinions. Think about how you might
have responded if your decision to post had not gone as you wanted?
Would you fight back at the flamers? Would you flee from the board?
Or would you be struck with a time of indecision about what to
do?
Granted, the decision of posting, or not posting -- being insulted
or leaving the board for a time, aren't the high drama of Buff
and the gang. Buffy makes life and death decisions. Her fight
or flee instinct is proportionately dramatic. So should her moment
of indecision. If it is all easy, it isn't heroic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Decisions -- FanMan, 15:03:07 05/13/01 Sun
None of the SG has had to actually leave town because of a villian.
If the Scoobies have a problem with demons they get Buffy. The
SG is good at planning when the plans include Buffy fighting the
bad guy. Buffy running is completely outside of their assumptions
of her behavior.
Buffy is not a general with superiors to get backup and orders
from. A military general reports to someone else. The presidant
has authority over the armed forces, but he doesn't make all the
decions and carry all of the responsiblity like Buffy. She is
a leader, but she does not have training in tactics and leadership.
A military person with tactical training could make a plan on
autopilot; not saying it would be the best plan. Regardless of
Rilys flaws he knows military tactics: he could have given Buffy
valid options and advice on methods of tactical retreat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My thoughts on Buffy's decisions in "Spiral"
-- OnM, 14:56:48 05/13/01 Sun
Your points are well taken, but I think your basic error comes
in assuming that in the 'real' world, generals always have a plan,
and a backup for that plan, etc. etc. Or, that they always have
great instincts, always know what to do, or that their troops
always follow them unquestioningly because they have supreme confindence
in their leadership.
One only has to look at any real war, fought anytime throughout
history, to see that this is nonsense. Soldiers, whether they
are leaders or followers, are humans, and human make mistakes,
sometimes really serious ones.
Also, no one can survive endlessly under increasing pressure,
every person has a breaking point. Again, to think otherwise is
fantasy. From what I've read spoiler-wise, next week's ep will
see Buffy pull out of her brainlocked state (with Willow's help)
and go on to eventually save the day in ep 100.
This too makes sense. If your troops are loyal to you, and to
their cause, they will help their leaders in times of stress,
not just sit there waiting for instructions-- Semper Fi, right?
Finally, even if you voluteer to join the army, you are there
to do your job, just like if you were drafted. It has always been
clear that the Scoobies support Buffy's calling, and that they
do so willingly. They understand the danger, and accept it.
As you can see from the responses so far, it is pretty rare to
get flamed at this board-- so fire away if you have something
to say. Your post wasn't rude, it was just a contrary opinion
to many, which is perfectly acceptable.
OT-- you mentioned in one of your previous posts that you are
a film critic. Professionally? Just curious. Feel free to answer,
or not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My thoughts on Buffy's decisions in "Spiral"
-- June, 16:45:27 05/13/01 Sun
"People keep refering to Buffy as a general. She's not."
Yes she is. She is the Slayer. She is the leader. Now when it
comes to non slayer stuff fine. But there are times when you follow
your leader without question. Because she says so. And that should
be explaination enough.
"She may lead the SG, but they're all equal. "
They are all equal but she is the LEADER. There is time for discussion,
and there is time for decision making. Discusion time is over.
"I agree Buffy's gone through a lot- but that's her problem,
not theirs."
They are friends. Close friends. So close they can practically
be called family. Friends share problems as well as joy. Her problems
are their problems and vice-versa.
"She didn't need to take them along."
No, I guess she could have taken Dawn and left the rest letting
Glory kill them one by one.
"I don't have sympathy for Buffy. "
Oh, I do. Sure I feel let down, but then I realize that Buffy
did the best she could. She didn't mean to go catatonic just like
Giles didn't mean to get hit by that spear. She has given all
that she has, yet it just still wasn't enough. I have a world
of sympathy for Buffy. It is really sad.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My thoughts on Buffy's decisions in "Spiral"
-- Rufus, 16:53:28 05/13/01 Sun
The Scooby Gang aren't anyones lackies. What you have here with
these young adults is family. The whole theme of this year has
been family no matter what form that family takes. You have Xander
from a less than nuturing home, Willow who has raised herself,
Anya who is newly mortal, and Tara who had to make a new family
with the Scoobies. Add the patient father figure in Giles. The
thing holding them together isn't the fact that they are an army,
but the fact that they love each other. They have joined together
this time for Dawn, to protect someone they know wasn't real before
a few months ago. The final addition is Spike who has been separated
from vampire society by the chip in his head and his love for
Buffy....he has found a reluctant home with the SG. In Spiral
I found it most interesting how carefully they set up the situation
to look like a war situation with Knights and Generals....with
a contrast to the SG who seemed to have no weapons. In fact Buffy
finished off the Knights with their own weapons of war. The SG
isn't an army, they were never meant to be an army. They look
to Buffy not because she is the highest ranking officer but because
they know she is the most powerful and has the best instincts.
What binds them so closely together isn't military skill...but
love. Xanders references to the army come from the faint memories
from Halloween and the comic book "Sgt. Rock". The difference
between the army of Knights and the SG is that with all the men
and horses they couldn't defeat the slayer and her family. They
aren't fighting a war over turf, but a little girl who may be
an instrument of Chaos. The power the SG have that is the strongest
isn't magic or slayer power but the love they have for each other.
Buffy is no General, but she didn't get captured either. Buffy
may not always have the answer, but how many Generals that young
with no battle experience would have all the answers? If Buffy
has gone catatonic it's because she never volunteered for anything
she does what she does as a slayer because it is right. If the
Knights never attacked the RV the ten men would be alive, they
attacked unarmed people with the purpose of destroying a little
girl not for what she had done but because of what she has the
potential to do. They have declared war on Buffys family and she
will do anything to protect them. She has the weight of the world
on her shoulders and won't always do what she should, but her
heart is in the right place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My thoughts on Buffy's decisions in "Spiral"
-- LoriAnn, 17:30:54 05/13/01 Sun
It seems odd that you "welcome [Buffy] to the real world"
when, from what you wrote, you seem to be living in some perfect
place full of perfect people that certainly isn't the real world.
People are not perfect, not even the chosen one, and nothing is
black or white except piano keys.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Buffy, the world of posting and film critic-being
-- Unsung Hero, 19:13:41 05/13/01 Sun
I feel that the theme and tone of the episode was that Buffy wasn't
doing things right. I'm usually pretty good at figuring out the
intent of a scene from my time spent in acting classes and watching
and studying a LOT of movies, and I detected the intent that we,too,were
supposed to question Buffy and her decisions. I think we're supposed
to see her scared.
I saw Buffy acting rashly, and making those rash actions because
of fear. Giles and the others were prepared to make a stand, but
she was not. She was stressing HERSELF out. And that's what I
was meaning to say. I never claimed she was perfect, I never claimed
anyone was perfect, or that the world was perfect.
I've always seen Buffy as a flawed character. She's constantly
changed by different writers takes on the character from flightly
girl to dark superhero quite often. And I see Buffy as a whiner.
She was forced into a job, and rather than reacting heroically,
she complains and reminds everyone of all the sacrafices she has
made, but ignores what the others risk. Xander's broken quite
a few bones. Willow has lost two lovers to the supernatural world
she was involved in, as well as losing much of her innocence in
the process. Spike was tortured. Giles,too. But these aren't mentioned.
She just expects them to take it because they volunteered for
it, yet she complains left and right about her life and duties.
In the episode I saw that all repeated. No matter the soundness
of Buffy's plan, she still didn't tell them anything. And before
people say she didn't have time, they were on the road for a while
before the Knights attacked. She could have explained, she could
have let them in on everything instead of leaving them to worry
on the sanity of thier "General". Buffy was not acting
right, and THAT is why they question. And I support them. Because
I would,too.
If I had been flamed, as someone asked me, I would have responded
polietly and added more evidence to support my POV. If no one
listened, then fine. However, I only added the statement not for
my own gain, but rather to keep this civil and prevent people
from being offended or upset. I like it here and like the people.
:-)
Buffy's catatonia: Things fall apart, strong people can break.
I can see that. I know that, I've seen it a many times. But I
still think Buffy should have gone after them right away, and
held it together. But I'm willing to concede that point, because
I think it might be from my personal Bias.
And I'm not a professional film critic, no. I did it for several
years in high school for the paper and have self taught myself
a lot about film and television. Not exactly a credible source,
true, but......better than nothing, as I see it.
Of course that's just my opinion- I could be bias.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy, the world of posting and film critic-being
-- Lynn, 19:48:42 05/13/01 Sun
We all would have liked to react the way you say Buffy should
have, but the fact of the matter is that none of us know how we
would react until we are in that particular situation.
I feel for Buffy very much, always have. I cut her a lot of slack,
for she has lost as much as her friends have since she became
a slayer, and she has had to repeatedly sacrifice her own happiness
to save the world. She may whine some, but she does it. She's
held it together for 4 1/2 years, but she finally cracked. And
no wonder, finding out her sister really isn't her sister, but
she loves her just as she really was, her mother becoming very
sick, getting better, but then dying anyway, and now Glory has
taken her sister from her, and she doesn't have much time left
to save her. All this, and she's barely 20 years old. That's what
helps me keep it all in perspective.
Lynn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy, the world of posting and film critic-being
-- Robert, 20:37:31 05/13/01 Sun
I just want to comment on how you said you don't see Buffy as
heroic and that you think of her as whiney. My take on Buffy is
quite the opposite I see her as very heroic because she chooses
to go through with her calling when she can walk away. I don't
see her as a whiner I see her as a strong women who has decided
to give her all to protect the world and especially the ones she
loves. The reason Buffy made all the decisions in Spiral was that
everyone was going to her asking what they should do when she
clearly did not know. The only other character giving options
was Spike who's decisions would have ended up getting most of
them killed. The decision to run was a sound one and if she would
have left any of the SG in Sunnydale they might have been killed
off by Glory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy, the world of posting and film critic-being
-- Boxdman, 23:35:16 05/13/01 Sun
I don't see the theme and tone of the episode as Buffy not doing
things right. I definitely felt the fear, that was part of it.
The other part was not Buffy not doing things right but Buffy
not thinking she was doing things right. Hence the scene with
Dawn where Dawn says she is doing the right things and Buffy questions
herself, and then again with Giles when he tells her how proud
he is of her. The questioning by the rest of the SG is just a
way of showing their fear.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My thoughts on Buffy's decisions in "Spiral"
-- change, 04:07:29 05/14/01 Mon
I don't mean to flame you, but I did want to respond to a couple
of points in your post.
> Buffy only has the pressure she puts upon herself. How about
the pressure caused by having her mother die, repeatedly having
the shit kicked out of her by a god, knowing that if you lose
the world is destroyed, and knowing that you don't have a chance?
> Buffy didn't need to do what she did, and she didn't need
to take them along.
I think the decision to run was the correct one. Glory has beaten
Buffy at every encounter. Glory knows where the SG lives. Glory
has a small army of minions to search through Sunnydale to find
the SG. Glory can raise snake creatures, and probably other things,
to help in the search. The SG couldn't stay in Sunnydale. Running
was the only reasonable decision.
I have to agree that Buffy didn't need to take the rest of the
SG along. She could have sent them out of town in different directions.
However, she needs Willow. Willow is the only other member of
the SG that was ever able phase Glory. Also, it would have been
possible that Glory could track one group down. For example, suppose
Glory tacked down Xander and Anya. Without Buffy and Willow to
help, Glory would have killed them easily.
> I agree Buffy's gone through a lot- but that's her problem,
not thiers.
I disagree. Buffy's state is their problem. Buffy and Willow are
the only two members of the SG that have any chance against Glory.
Anything that prevents them from fighting Glory leads to the destruction
of the World. So Buffy's problems are everyone's problems.
> I don't have sympathy for Buffy. She should be dealing with
this better, because it's her job.
Huh? Buffy is suppose to deal with losing her mother, her lover,
and her sister. She's suppose to deal with waging an impossible
fight against an opponent that can crush her like an insect knowing
that if she loses the world is destroyed. She's suppose to deal
with finding out her sister is some sort of imposter and that
all of her memories of her are fake. I don't think so....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> thinkin' -- Unsung Hero, 15:35:26 05/14/01 Mon
I still think we were supposed to question Buffy, like the scooby
gang did. I saw the script moving her to act rashly and in a state
of panic, hence the scooby gang's state of unrest with her decisions.
I don't see Buffy as heroic. Buffy never just does the job, deals
with the issues she needs to- she whines and moans and talks about
all the sacrafices she makes, not including her Mother which had
nothing to do with being the slayer. Buffy has always been a teenage
who just happens to have the world revolve around her and instead
of heroicly doing the job, fighting the evil and then letting
it go, she decides to dwell in it, and use it as an alibi to get
away from her own flaws. Angel is heroic- he choses to do his
job, choses to risk his life nightly, and he keeps it to himself,
he rolls with the punches and forges on. Same with comic characters-
Spider-Man realised that with great power came great responsibility,
but he doesn't go to his friends and family and always bring up
how he has to risk his life and fight evil. He doesn't say "I'm
sorry I was late getting home but I had a fight with Doc Ock while
saving the world and all....." Buffy likes to play the martyr,
and that is not heroic.
I don't mean to upset anyone, I'm just sticking to my interpretation
of a ficitional character, and I hope that I haven't made any
enemies. I find the discussion stimulating. :-) Thanks for debating
with me and not flaming. I appreciate it. I still disagree with
most of you on this matter, but I love the show, I love the characters
and the setting, and I can't wait for the season finale. Thanks
for not crucifying me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy moans and bitches, Angel broods and
obsesses.. same diff! -- OnM, 19:55:46 05/14/01 Mon
It may bug you that Buffy kvetches about her obligations, but
that is pretty much the way Joss wants it. I clearly recall reading
in an interview that it was always his intent to have Buffy exhibit
personality flaws, and that in his opinion this didn't make her
any less heroic, just more human, and therefore more approachable.
I'm not sure of your age, Unsung, but in the Spidey comics I read
as a kid back in the 60's, Peter seemed pretty whiney to me, not
to mention all the troubles with his girlfriend all the time.
I haven't read any for at least the last few decades, so of course
things may have changed. Then there was the Silver Surfer, who
was pretty broody, like some other fictional guy we all know.
Finally, I think that I do my own (very ordinary, extremely non-heroic)
job pretty well, but if I didn't moan and bitch about it all the
time, I'd go nuts. Classic stress outlet, being a professional
I do it only among my collegues, never among customers or the
general public.
Buffy got drafted into Slayerdom, she didn't choose it. I think
we owe her some slack bitching-wise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Depends on your perspective... -- Solitude1056,
20:42:12 05/14/01 Mon
...I guess. I recall Faith always read Buffy as the whiney type,
bitching about how she (Buffy) had it so hard. From Faith's perspective,
Buffy didn't have much to cry about. She had a crew of close friends,
a capable and loving mother, and a watcher who was still alive.
When you're standing in Faith's shoes, I suppose any complaints
from Buffy were pretty hard to take, given that Buffy had it pretty
good in the rest of her life. For Faith, slaying - and doing it
well, by her own standards - was all she had, so she took pride
in it. For Buffy, it seems to be the reverse: she takes pride
and happiness from the rest of her life, but the slayage part
gets to her sometimes.
Perhaps this sort of two-sides issue makes sense to me, since
my sister's a starving artist yet loves doing art like nothing
else. And she positively can't stand to hear me complain about
my job. Something about the fact that I own a house, have a (sort
of) new car, and make twice as much as her &
think nothing of buying what I want, because I have the money...
to her, I've got no room to complain, because I've got everything
she wants. But in my own life, a mortgage is a burden, the car
still needs a tune-up, and dot-coms aren't the best for yobsecurity
right now! Life goes on; no matter where we are or what we have,
it's human nature to want either more, or just something else.
I envy her single-mindedness and her (scheduling) freedom, she
envies my checkbook and my (financial) freedom. So when I look
at Buffy, and the times her whineyness has shown up, that's what
I think of. If you read her as venting to close friends, and put
her in the category of someone who got pregnant & had to get married,
only to discover that she adores her kid - you can still understand
that sometimes she may wish she's still single & able to stay
out all night without a second thought.
Nothing wrong with being human, and I personally really appreciate
that Joss had no qualms about creating such a flawed, falliable
human as a hero/role-model.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Very well put, Sol, as is your
usual modal operandi! :) -- OnM, 21:09:03 05/14/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> awww, shucks :) -- Solitude1056,
06:54:04 05/15/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: My thoughts on Buffy's decisions in "Spiral"
-- rowan, 18:41:11 05/14/01 Mon
Boy, this thread made me think alot. There's been alot of military
metaphors floating around since the whole Initiative storyline
(Buffy referring to Xander as part of the unit to the WC, etc.),
but I think a very valid point was made that the SG is a team
and it's a team bound by the chains of love...in other words,
a family.
But Buffy has a special role in this family. She is the Slayer.
She fills a predestined role. Everyone else can stop participating
in the work part of the family (slaying) and still participate
in the personal part of the family (friendship and love) but Buffy.
She will always be the Slayer until she dies.
The SG deserve some credit too. They take on a risk of physical,
mental, and spiritual danger that they are less capable (as mortals
like us) of bouncing back from. Buffy and Spike, let's face it,
can take more punishment because of their different status.
But even so, Buffy's slayerness still, frankly, gives her special
status. She may have to give up the normal lifestyle of regular
job, husband, kids, etc.
I see her as the Team Leader. The SG looks to her for leadership
and she provides it. She looks to them for collaborative input.
Sometimes her decisions aren't right, but in any high performing
team, decision-making models swing from highly directive to highly
collaborative or consensus driven, based on the situation.
In Spiral, Buffy veered more towards the directive. Why? First,
she is emotionally invested in the outcome in a way she hasn't
been since the whole Angelus arc. Second, she feels quite strongly
that she can't beat Glory. She's gotten her butt kicked every
time. The SG don't quite seem to realize the depth of her fear
that she doesn't have a chance and they'll all be slaughtered.
They want to continue to try to fight, but Buffy's out of ideas,
and frankly, nobody in the SG had any either. They were all tapped
out. Third, they didn't have enought facts to make a really intelligent
plan. So Buffy took the lead and came up with the run plan.
Well, the plan had flaws, it's true. Dawn was taken, Giles was
injured. But the plan did achieve some major things. First, the
SG now knows what Glory's one weakness is. They have learned the
whole story of Glory's history. They know Dawn's purpose. There
is no saying whether they could have discovered any of this by
staying in Sunnydale, even if the KofB had attacked them there.
Also, the plan helped incorporate Spike into the group. He saved
Buffy's life twice in the encounter with the KofB. He's added
an extra pair of hands to lend to the fight. Buffy had to overrule
the objections of at least the male side of the SG to include
him.
So all in all, considering she has every reason to be on the verge
of a nervous breakdown, Buffy's doing okay. With a little help
from her friends.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Thoughts on this thread (was: My thoughts on Buffy's decisions
in "Spiral") -- verdantheart, 14:12:34 05/17/01 Thu
Thanks for a most interesting discussion.
It was pointed out that Buffy was meant to have character flaws.
I agree. I don't agree that because Buffy goes "from flightly
girl to dark superhero" the writing is poor or inconsistent.
These are traits that given to the character by design and are
not (IMO) necessarily incompatible. "What if there were a
young girl who were suddenly called to be a vampire-slaying superhero?
What conflicts would that set up?" Conflicts fuel drama.
Is Buffy self-involved at times? Yes, she said so herself. Does
she sometimes overlook the suffering or contributions of others?
Sometimes. Does she overreact or react overly harshly at times?
Sometimes. Has she taken on "The Weight of the World"
this season? Yes--and she's been reluctant to share the responsibility,
whether it be looking out for her mother, Dawn, or just slaying
vampires. She didn't even want to allow Riley or Spike in on the
action, and they can handle themselves. That's probably a factor
to why she's been short and pre-emptive.
Another note: On the decision to flee. It was probably a better
decision than Buffy realized, because of Glory's timetable. Of
course, Glory might still have come out for vengeance if the deadline
was missed. As to the choice of vehicle, Spike's idea of a fast
car might have helped them avoid the KofB and get a good start.
Of course Glory might go after the Scoobies in vengeance, but
in the short term, she might be too busy pursuing Dawn to worry
about them. On the other hand, by not bringing them along, Buffy
misses out on the contributions of the Scoobies, particularly
Willow. There are good arguments on both sides of this question,
as on the fight/flee decision.
Buffy brought them because she relies on them and because she
feels a certain responsibility for them. She doesn't want to feel
that she left them unprotected. The problem is that the opposing
force is so formidible that it's unrealistic to think that you
can pull everyone through OK. Buffy thinks that if she can't do
that, she's failed. She can't realize that she's only failed if
she doesn't try at all (as Willow pointed out: "Dawn. Not
dead yet.").
Just my 2 cents.
- vh
ANGELS TRUE REFLECTION -- ALLFORBUFFY,
16:34:05 05/13/01 Sun
IN THE NEXT EPISODE HIS HUMANITY IS MORE THERE IN THE HOSTS DIMENSION.
DOES THE DEMON PART EXIST MORE THERE? IS THAT INNER DEMON WHAT
A VAMPIRE WOULD LOOK LIKE WITHOUT HUMAN BODY?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: ANGELS TRUE REFLECTION -- Rufus, 17:00:43 05/13/01 Sun
I don't see it as a reflection based upon reality but how Angel
sees himself. With his conscience he realizes the enormity of
his acts. His problems aren't that of humanity not wanting him,
as much as his inner fears about his true nature. What we may
see in the next ep. may be Angels inner feelings about who and
what his is, manifesting themselves on the outside.
"The Wizard Of Oz" and
Angel's true reflection -- Leah, 13:45:33 05/13/01 Sun
At the end of "The Wizard Of Oz" each character realizes
that what they were searching for had been in them the whole time.
I think that this will be true of Angel, in that he will realize
that his humanity has always been part of him and that it is not
his reflection in a mirror but his actions that make him human.
In a past episode, I can't remember which, Angel was talking to
a man pretending to be a psychic who told Angel he had a reflection
because he is reflected in the people around him. Angel is human
because of the way he treats other people, he doesn't need a mirror
because he is percieved that way by his friends.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: "The Wizard Of Oz" and Angel's true reflection
-- Halcyon, 06:37:37 05/15/01 Tue
The esp you are referring to is Guises Will Be Guise.
Speculation/Wishlist on Season
3 of Angel -- Halcyon, 11:10:28 05/14/01 Mon
Just to get the ball rolling here's 12 items on my Speculation/Wishlist.
1: More of Faith
2: Resolution to the Darla storyline.
3: Buffy apologising to Angel about the way she acted in Sanctuary
- a real apology not some half assed one like we got in The Yoko
Factor.
4: More on Wesley and his family.
5: The Kalderash Gypsies - it does not make sense that they have
been watching Angel for the last 100 or so years and not show
up in his life since the deaths of Enyos and Janna/Jenny Calendar
- they have even more reason to hate Angel now.
6: Xander appearing on Angel and him realizing how hippocrytical
he is in the way he acts towards Angel particularly when he is
dating someone who was a killer for over 1000 years.
7: CoW - an other enemy for Angel & Wesley hopefully we will see
a reason for the CoW sending an inexperienced Watcher into the
field and then blaming Wesley when everything goes wrong.
8: More on the Senior Partners of Wolfram & Hart.
9: Some of the Scooby Gang showing up on Angel not just Buffy
or Spike.
10: Spike, Riley and the Lack of Initiative Squad showing up in
LA. It would be amusing to see Angel kick the crap out of all
them particularly after seeing Riley getting his arse handed to
him in The Yoko Factor.
11: Reasons for why Gunn abandoned his crew.
12: Stories that employ all the cast equally - not like Blood
Money, Happy Aniversary or Redifinition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Speculation/Wishlist on Season 3 of Angel -- Robert,
13:15:24 05/14/01 Mon
I don't really see a reason for Buffy to apologize yes she was
out of line but she had some good reason's for being upset. I
would not hold your breath if your waiting for Xander to start
treating Angel better. After killing Jenny and draining Buffy
I don't think Xander will ever think that Angel deserves any sort
of apology even though there were good reasons for Angel doing
the things he did. Your other story lines I would like to see
like Faith and Wesley's past family life would be a good story
line and bringing in another Gypsy to take Jenny's place would
be interesting. I would also like to see more of Gunn and what
his life was like before Angel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Speculation/Wishlist on Season 3 of Angel -- Halcyon,
06:42:48 05/15/01 Tue
Even if Xander does not apologise to Angel, just him realizing
how two faced he is with the whole Angel situation particularly
when Anya has not displayed any remorse for her past, would go
a long way to making me like him again after his bloody Riley
ode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Speculation/Wishlist and some complaints -- darren K,
13:30:17 05/14/01 Mon
Good suggestions. I agree.
Especially 1,2,4,5,7 and 9
Angel and Co. may say that they're a "detective agency,"
but they aren't. They're soldiers in the same war that the scoobies
and the CoW are fighting. There should be communication and more
coordination, especially since things seem to be getting worse.
In the last episode, "Over the Rainbow," Angel leaves
all the info about where they're going and what to do if they
don't return on Gunn's voice mail, all the while hoping that Gunn
would join them. This made no sense. I figured he was leaving
the info on Buffy's voicemail, or Gile's, or Willow's. Someone
that could actually do something if they disappear.
Doesn't he owe it to Buffy and the Scoobies to tell them that
Cordie, an original Scoob is missing in a Hell dimension?
The original rumor about the Buffy season-ender was that it would
be a 2 hour crossover with plenty of cameos by former characters.
Now, they do crossovers on inconsequential stories, so doesn't
it make sense that of all the times Buffy and co. would request
backup from the LA Scoobies would be when they were facing a GOD
with Dawn and the universe on the line? Sheesh.
But, if nothing else we should see Faith.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Speculation/Wishlist and some complaints -- Halcyon,
04:16:21 05/17/01 Thu
Regarding Angel and the CoW working together, I do not see that
happening any time soon, after all the CoW were willing to let
Angel die in GD pt 1 and if Weatherby's view towards Angel in
Sanctuary is at all typical of the CoW.
It would be interesting for Xander and Weatherby to meet, Xander
might not like the fact that he thinks like Weatherby in regards
to Vampires, seeing someone else so rigid when it comes to Vampires
might force Xander to analyze his own attitude towards Angel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Speculation/Wishlist on Season 3 of Angel -- VanMoodyGrad,
15:01:48 05/14/01 Mon
I suppose the idea of the gypsies is pretty cool, but why would
they have to watch Angel now? He knows what it takes to revert
to Angelus. Yes he did sleep with Darla, but that seemed to be
an anomoly. And I am sure they or anyone else would have thought
he would go through with it. I guess I am grasping for the reason
they would need to watch him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Speculation/Wishlist on Season 3 of Angel -- Halcyon,
00:59:12 05/15/01 Tue
The reason for Enyos showing up in Sunnydale was that Angel pain's
was lessening, does it make sense that a vendetta that has gone
on for over a hundred years has simply been forgotten?
They now have even more reason to hate Angel - he has killed two
members of their clan in recent years.
As to Xander, eugh do not even get me started on him, I can not
take him seriously after his bloody ode to Riley. It just make
me so mad that he does not seem to n realize how two faced he
is towards Angel, when he is dating someone who killed far more
people in her time. Let's look at a purely maths perspective.
Angelus was a killer for 145 years, whereas Anyanka killed for
1120 years, her body count is probably in excess of 1120 people.
Buffy does has to apologise to Angel, both Cordelia and Wesley
disagreed with his actions with Faith but they did not stoop to
insults. Buffy made a deliberate attempt to hurt Angel because
Angel would not bow down to the Almighty Buffy's thirst for vengenance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Speculation/Wishlist on Season 3 of Angel
-- Brian, 06:49:48 05/15/01 Tue
We needed to cut Buffy some slack on her hatred of Faith. She
had her reasons:
Faith tried to seduce Angel into Angelus, then tried to kill him.
Faith switch bodies with Buffy and slept with her boyfriend, beat
up her mother, and tried to get Buffy killed in Faith's body.
I'd say Buffy has issues.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Speculation/Wishlist on Season 3 of
Angel -- Halcyon, 00:46:41 05/16/01 Wed
Did Faith know that the CoW team would try to kill BiF? No she
did not, that seems a hell of an assumption on your part? The
bottom line is from the moment Buffy saw Faith in Angel arms,
she surrended to Blood lust. To use another example of why it
was wrong for her to behave the way she did, let's consider Delenn's
actions in B5 after Dukhat was killed by the crew of the Prometheus,
she eventually recognized that what she did was wrong. When are
we going to see Buffy realize that what she did in Sanctuary was
the act of a spoilt child? Angel would not give in her, so she
deliberately try to hurt him anyway she could, first physically
and then by hurting him emotionally.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> extremes -- Brian, 06:21:25 05/16/01
Wed
You appear to be looking at the Buffyverse in black and white
terms when that world is really shades of grey. The power and
appeal of all the major characters is that they are all too human.
They have flaws in their characters, but this does not stop them
from being heroic, nor us from being concerned and involved with
their lives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Buffy and Xander had good reasons for their
actions -- Robert, 16:36:28 05/15/01 Tue
Yes Buffy hurt Angel but the thing is Angel also hurt Buffy and
what Buffy did was not right but it is understandable. Plus Faith
did not deserve any sympathy from Buffy after all the things she
put Buffy through. There are big differences in Angel's and Anya's
situations one being that Anya is human while Angel is a vampire
and Xander still considers Angel to be extremly dangerous because
of the curse. And the biggest difference between Angel and Anya
is that Anya never hurt anyone one Xander knew while Angel terrorized
the SG and killed their friends for several months.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Xander had good reasons
for their actions -- Halcyon, 00:39:38 05/16/01 Wed
Oh so it is perfectly acceptable in Xander's viewpoint, that Anya
ONLY HURT PEOPLE HE DID NOT KNOW. The bottom line is Xander is
a scumbag, Buffy does not give him any of the grief he dealt to
her while she was dating Angel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Xander had good reasons
for their actions -- Halcyon, 08:31:12 05/16/01 Wed
Even before Angel lost his soul, Xander was a sod towards him,
particularly in Prophecy Girl, School Hard and the way he behaved
toward Buffy when she found the disk containing the restoration
ritual, if we thought in Xander logic and just killed Angelus/Angel,
Bethany Chaulk would be an assassin for Wolfram & Hart, the three
blind kids from Blind Date would have been killed, Faith would
have self destructed, Cordelia would have died at Russell Winter's
hands, Rachel would have been murdered by her boyfriend, Melissa
Burns would have been killed by Dr Meltzer and Doyle would not
have been inspired to sacrifice himself to save the Lister half
breeds as well as thousands of human lives from the Scourge's
beacon. Xander is most respects a good man but he allows his hatred
of Angel to cloud his judgement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Xander had good reasons
for their actions -- Robert, 09:13:37 05/16/01 Wed
I agree that in Becoming he was extremly harsh and insensitive
towards Buffy and Giles and that he tended to not care about what
Buffy felt about Angel. Xander is not amoung my favorite Buffy
characters but I can understand his viewpoint when it came to
Angel and calling Xander a scumbag is a little harsh. Ever since
Xander had to kill Jessie he has had an extreme hatred towards
any vampire but before Angel lost his soul he had started to come
around and went so far as to defend Angel when Kendra came to
town in What's My Line.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Xander had good
reasons for their actions -- Halcyon, 11:38:18 05/16/01 Wed
There is never a good reason for revenge, Buffy was willing to
act as Judge, Jury & Executioner to Faith. Did she learn nothing
about vengeance from Hus or The Kalderash Gypsies?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Xander
had good reasons for their actions -- Halcyon, 04:01:59 05/17/01
Thu
Regarding Anya & Angel/Liam, if we assume that the way Willow
was approached by D'hoffryn is SOP for recruitment of Vengeance
Demons, Anya clearly made the choice to become a demon. Liam did
not, he had no idea what Darla was going to do to him, all he
expected to happen was a tryst with a pretty woman, he had no
knowledge about Demons/Vampires at that time, as Angel himself
said the price he paid for his minor flaws/sins was not commiserate
with the offence, being a drunkard and whoring did not merit what
happened to him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Xander had good
reasons for their actions -- Halcyon, 08:03:21 05/17/01 Thu
But Xander did not try to kill Jesse, someone running past Jesse
knocked Vamp Jesse onto Xander's stake.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Xander had good
reasons for their actions -- Halcyon, 08:08:38 05/17/01 Thu
When it comes to Angel, Xander let's his hatred of Vampires blind
him to what a good man Angel is. (Most of the time), so in that
respect he is a scumbag, he is incapable of seeing anything good
in Angel, what happened to Angel in Innocence was not his fault,
it was a combination of numerous factors including the fact that
Darla, Drusilla and Spike massacred the Kalderash tribe who had
Angel cursed as a result Angel knew nothing about the Happiness
clause for over a hundred years.
Will we see a more evil Lillah?
-- VanMoodyGrad, 14:57:15 05/14/01 Mon
It seems since she got promoted this might be her time to turn
it up a notch on the evilmeter. She has always seemed more cold
and callous to me. Even Dru said she liked her because she IS
evil. I don't believe Lindsey really was in his heart of hearts
evil. As Angel told him, "the more you get the more miserable
you are". We just might see a very vicious Lillah in the
future.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Will we see a more evil Lillah? -- Unsung Hero, 17:17:51
05/14/01 Mon
I hope Lilah becomes more evil, because she isn't very interesting.
Now that Lindsay can't carry her, she needs to up the ante, or
she'll just be boring.
I hope Lindsay returns, though. He's that shows' Spike- the villan
with likable qualities and a fully developed personality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Will we see a more evil Lillah? -- Rufus, 19:13:36
05/14/01 Mon
I can't garner much interest for a character whos best line of
the season was, "Stake the bitch!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Will we see a more evil Lillah? -- Solitude1056,
19:54:23 05/14/01 Mon
Naw, her best line of the season was definitely that aside to
herself about now she knew her mother was right that she should've
had children... evil, evil, but so self-obsessed & career-obsessed.
It's like some of the women I work with, just driven up a notch
or two. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Will we see a more evil Lillah? --
Halcyon, 01:02:30 05/15/01 Tue
Is it just me or did Lilah look terrified at the promotion? Now
she is head of the Special Projects division, she will be under
a massive amount of pressure. It would not surprise me if she
has a nervous breakdown.
humans!?! -- Morgane, 16:18:59
05/14/01 Mon
By the way, has anyone noticed that Buffy had killed her first
human? or maybe I'm wrong but tell me if so...
When I saw Spike in pain when he started to fight with the Knights
of Byzantium, it reminds me that they were humans. Ennemies, I
agree, but still humans. And they said that 10 of them have been
killed in the battle. I don't say it's necesserily wrong but still,
she killed humans. When Faith did so (and if I remember well,
the man she killed was ennemy either) it was really a big deal!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> There were differences... -- Jack_McCoy, 16:41:55 05/14/01
Mon
What made Faith's kill so bad was the fact that she denied responsibility
for her actions, which lead her to go bad and take pleasure in
killing others. Buffy, on the other hand, was in the middle of
a battle, where it was kill or be killed. She took no satisfaction
from their deaths; nor was it her intent to kill anyone. She was
protecting her friends and sister. The Knights were, after, trying
to kill all of them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: There were differences... -- Morgane, 17:02:46
05/14/01 Mon
I didn't mean she was wrong! I totally agree with her actions!
I'm not saying that she did it for pleasure either, but I just
wonder why she didn't appear to even notice it. For me, it's certainly
means that she can go pretty far to protect Dawn. How far? that
is the question. I any other situation I'm pretty sure she would
have think twice before starting that kind of battle. Well, it
also means that she really understand better the grey between
human=good=friends and demon=evil=ennemies. It could be okay to
kill human if they're evil and/or ennemies but it wouldn't be
okay to kill demon if they're not! that could change things later,
especially during daily patrol times.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Buffy's human body count -- Masquerade, 16:54:33 05/14/01
Mon
Humans who have died as a direct or indirect result of Buffy's
fight for the good guys:
* the Zoo Keeper in "The Pack" thrown in the hyena cage,
I believe * was the Tarakan assassin that Buffy killed in the
ice rink demon or human?
* Coach Marin fell into the sewer with the fish monsters ("Go
Fish") Buffy tried to keep him from falling, but he fell
in anyway and was gobbled. * Buffy threw her and Cordelia's corsages
with the tracers on them onto the terrorist Gruenstahler brothers
so they shot each other to death ("Homecoming"). * chopped
off Mrs. Post's hand so she could not control the lightning she
was harnessing and was vaporized * stabbing Faith will full pre-meditation
in order to offer her to Angel to feed on (Faith didn't die, but...)
* Students and parents at graduation who were killed because Buffy's
strategy was to include the students in her fight (with their
permission, but not the parents, one presumes)
One has to ask if the ten Knights of Byzantium who were killed
were "bad guys" in the same sense as some of the above,
which I don't think we can. They were good guys whose only option
to save the universe at that point was to kill the Key because
they didn't know who Glory's mortal vessel was.
Buffy put Dawn's life above theirs, so the question is--was that
justified?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy's human body count -- Unsung Hero, 17:15:11
05/14/01 Mon
No human loss is acceptable or justified. It happens, but it never
should have to. Justified, no. Neccesary, yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy's human body count -- Rufus, 17:16:53 05/14/01
Mon
Was the death of the Knight justified? Is killing Dawn or Ben
to save the world justified? Just how seriously do we take death
in the Buffyverse? Buffy has been a killer for five years now...no
questions asked because most of the deaths were of the dusty nature.
Then we got a taste of the reality of death in The Body. Have
we forgotten that lesson so soon? With the Knights I have to say
that Buffy was right in that they attacked unarmed people who
would have never harmed them, including Dawn. Buffy finished them
off with their own weapons as she had none. She was outnumbered.
Both parties fighing for something they felt was worth dying for.
The Knights want to rid the world of the key that is an instrument
of Chaos. Buffy wants to save family. Who is right. One thing
is that if the key has another purpose is it ethical to destroy
it before we know what that is? Was it ethical for Buffy to kill
those Knights...yes...they would have killed everyone to destroy
the key.It was made very clear that the RV had unarmed people
inside. The Kights would have killed for an ideal that may be
based upon incomplete information. Was the key created only to
destroy, the monks didn't think so. Both sides think they are
right. Are they?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy's human body count (The Gift speculation)
-- rowan, 18:21:09 05/14/01 Mon
It's not that I think Buffy was wrong (because after all, she
is trying to avert an apocalypse), but it has been made clear
earlier that in the Buffyverse, the Slayer doesn't kill humans
(Buffy and Giles had a conversation about this).
So, this leaves me wondering:
Are we learning more about the Buffyverse? Has the Buffyverse
changed? Will Buffy pay a karmic price for these killings?
This storyline has been fascinating in many ways, and this is
definitely one of them. Throughout this arc, Buffy (IMHO) has
been acting more from the (selfish?) motivation of wanting to
save Dawn (because she can't bear to lose her, because it's unjust
for Dawn to suffer when she's an innocent, et al.) than to avert
the apocalypse. After all, she could avert the apocalypse without
saving Dawn, but continuing to try to save Dawn could result in
the apocalypse being unstoppable if she doesn't act in time. In
some ways, more of Buffyside of her personality is dominating
her actions than the Slayerside.
Now, in order to save Dawn, she's killed humans (not just indirectly,
but by her direct actions) and not just any humans -- those who
were trying to avert the very same apocalypse (Buffy just disagreed
with their methods). She's also made nice with that which she
is sworn to kill (vampire = Spike). So Buffy is treading on some
very grey ground. Some basic Buffyverse concepts are being stood
on their heads.
That's why I'm thinking that in The Gift, when push comes to shove,
the karmic balance swings, and although there is a "rightness"
in the choices Buffy has made, she will still pay a price for
what she has done -- meaning, she will discover that to save Dawn
and humanity, she must sacrifice herself.
I'm reminded of Gore Vidal's Lincoln. Through the characters,
he makes a point that Lincoln's assasination was karmic payment
(so to speak: I know I'm grossly oversimplifying the concept)
for the bloodshed of the Civil War. He claims that the South had
ever right to secede and that Lincoln decided to take the burden
upon himself to say: 'the union must stand.'
Buffy seems to be making the statement through Dawn that 'the
one is as important as the many.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's human body count (The Gift
speculation) -- Rufus, 18:36:11 05/14/01 Mon
When Gregor said to Buffy that when the gods had seen what Glory
had become they trembled....I thought of Kierkegaards, Fear and
Trembling. Another book I thought of with this whole storyline
is Derridas, The Gift of Death.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's human body count (The
Gift speculation) -- rowan, 18:44:18 05/14/01 Mon
While I'm not a big Gregor fan, I had to say that his turn of
phrase there was very evocative.
Have we noticed that Buffy and Angel are struggling with some
of the same concepts this year? Angel has been wrestling with
whether anything really matters -- are there any PTB to provide
meaning and context, or are we all alone & therefore all is meaningless
(or totally meaningful, as he twists it to Kate after his epiphany).
Buffy's cry to Gregor "how can God demand the sacrifice of
an innocent!' seems along the same lines -- is anybody watching
out for all of us? etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's human body count
(The Gift speculation) -- Rufus, 19:12:14 05/14/01 Mon
I guess you could say that Buffys gift will bring her to her Epiphany.
Ask this what would make Buffy a more apt sacrifice than the Key?
If only the Key can open or close the portal why would Buffy be
able to?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's human body
count (The Gift speculation) -- rowan, 19:14:43 05/14/01 Mon
The thing I'm struggling with (and it's a very mundane point)
is that if bleeding Dawn dry opens the portals, why does only
her death close them? Why can't they just put a tourniquet on
her?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's human
body count (The Gift speculation) -- rowan, 19:17:16 05/14/01
Mon
Plus, the reason I think Buffy can substitute for Dawn is that
they share blood (Summers blood) so that Buffy is by extension
also the Key (those crafty monks!) That would also explain the
root of the weird spoiler floating around about Buffy really being
the Key and the monks having done an identity switch -- which
I don't believe, but if the blood/DNA sharing makes Buffy the
Key as well, you can see how the story got exaggerated).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's
human body count (The Gift speculation) -- Rufus, 19:27:10 05/14/01
Mon
You get a cookie for that. The DNA reference was too much to overlook
as a potential reason for Buffy to be able to save Dawn. Their
pact in Blood Ties had me thinking long term as soon as they did
it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Destiny's children? (Speculation at large...) -- OnM, 21:01:43
05/14/01 Mon
In the beginning, God created the universe, but while it was a
vast and splendid creation, it was also very lonely. So, God created
living things to keep herself company. The living creations were
in such awe of God, however, that she had not companionship, but
fealty.
To seek a solution to this dilemma, God endowed her creations
with free will, that they could accept her and her works, not
out of obligation but respect. Unfortunately, the gift of free
will allowed for the possibility of evil, which caused some creations
to follow the way of darkness and emptiness.
In despair, God decided to divest herself of awareness, and in
a transformation became just energy, soulless, neutral, uninvolved,
cast adrift in the vast, and still lonely, universe.
Eons later, a group of very wise creations accidentally made spiritual
contact with the entity, and realized its nature. They tried to
make it aware that all was not despair and that it could return
to it's rightful place as the creator, that many of it's creations
appreciated it's wonderful gift of the universe.
At the same time, however, the forces of darkness became aware
of it also, and sought to utilize it's latent power to bring further
chaos into being.
So the Key, as the once-God had become known, was made flesh by
the wise creations, and sent to the protection of a very special
being, a human woman whose youth had so far given her little understanding
of her true destiny, which was to allow the Key the chance to
become her God-self once again.
But as with all great gifts, a great sacrifice need be made.
(Just thinking...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank
you, I would like chocolate chip, please. :) -- rowan, 21:06:46
05/14/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy's human body count -- LoriAnn, 17:25:40
05/14/01 Mon
"Buffy put Dawn's life above theirs, so the question is--was
that justified?"
No, that's not the question. The question is if people can protect
themselves from being murdered by others who initiate the attack.
The motivation of the potential killers isn't germane. Buffy doesn't
have to let herself be killed or anyone else because someone else
decides they should die. Kant or Hume, some philosopher or other,
said that natural man's only inborn right is the right to defend
himself or herself. This, if you think about it, is very reasonable.
Buffy did not initiate the attack on the KofB; she just defended
herself and her friends and sister. Defending oneself against
deadly force is fully justified; it is the KofB who are attempting
murder regardless of their motivation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy's human body count -- DEN, 18:13:30
05/14/01 Mon
WORD! to LoriAnn! The right of self-defense (which even Hobbes
supported) seems obvious here. To pick up Masquerade's original
point, another close parallel to Buffy's situation comes in war.
Soldiers of both sides may well have morally defensible causes
to which they are consciously committed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's human body count -- Brian,
06:42:22 05/15/01 Tue
Hasn't Buffy already started to pay the price for her killing
humans. I had assumed that her catatonic collapse at the end of
Spiral was due to her realization that she too had killed these
Knights.
Certainly, this episode is a turning point for Buffy. She has
directly taken a human life even if it was in defending her sister
and the other Scoobies. There will be consequences.
Does Spike know that down has
feelings for him? Vice Versa? -- Brandy, 23:41:22 05/14/01 Mon
Just wondering if he knows how she feels or does she know that
he cares for her? What do you think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Oops! I mean Dawn -- Brandy, 23:43:13 05/14/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Oops! I mean Dawn -- FanMan, 16:50:25 05/15/01
Tue
In Forever Spike helped because he didn't like seeing the Summers
girls in pain. His pep talk in Intervention was revealing, then
his saying that he would give his life for someone he loves(he
was talking to Buffy, but Dawn was there). It is still unclear
if Spike cares about Buffy more than Dawn. Dawn knows he cares,
just not how much. Next ep we'll see more.
Buffy the God Slayer -- Malandanza,
23:45:23 05/14/01 Mon
I have a big pronlem with Glory being killable, even by Buffy.
Suppose you were one of the other two hell gods who had trapped
your enemy in mortal form and knew that to kill her, you would
simply have to kill the mortal... wouldn't you do so immediately?
I don't believe killing Ben is the answer to defeating Glory and
I think it would detract from the series to have Buffy able to
slay a god (after all, what's the point in being a god if lesser
beings can destroy you?)-- unless we find out that the First Slayer
is also a god. Otherwise, I cannot see where the show goes from
here -- will it be just a soap opera next season with Buffy the
Soccer Mom helping Dawn adjust to a post-key existence? What sort
of challenges could be left for her in the slaying arena?
It seems that time was always the way to defeat Glory -- she has
been obsessed with a deadline. Recently, her minions mentioned
that things were "in alignment" -- presumably stars
and planets, a rare enough occurrence that if Glory misses her
opportunity, she will have to wait a long time to have another
(perhaps the 800 years mentioned between Queller incidents).
My other concern is: what power did Glory possess that had the
other gods so worried (she obviously no longer has access to this
power since she ha been largely ineffective vs the Scoobies and
Buffy except by physically beating them)? I believe that Glory
had the ability to open all the gateways (when the stars were
in alignment) and this gift (the key) was stolen from her when
she was defeated and banished. This power was not originally hers
-- the KoB general mentioned that Glory had gained power that
made the other gods fear her, not that she had always possessed
this power -- so could be stripped from her and hidden away.
Anyway, I hope there's more to the Glory story than Ben's death/suicide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy the God Slayer -- VampRiley, 06:11:23 05/15/01
Tue
Hey y'all, college courses a huge pain in the neck this time of
year. My teachers either put a whole lot at the end or have a
big case load all year. But I digress. I got to agree with Mal.,
there has to be something more than the death/suicide scenario
or just a rather small act. It's like the same problem I have
with Xena. Now, I never really watched the show unless I was bored
or had nothing else to do. But here's a pantheon of Gods, many
of whom are taken out one by one by a mortal. How pathetic are
they if they get killed by a Human. I don't care how good she
is. If anyone has a LOGICAL explaination I really want to hear
it 'cause I REALLY want to know.
I too fear that Buffy will become just a soap next season. What
can she go against: The PTB's, the PTB's PTB - Joss. Yeah, I can
see it: Buffy vs. the Realverse
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy the God Slayer -- spotjon, 06:41:29 05/15/01 Tue
"Suppose you were one of the other two hell gods who had
trapped your enemy in mortal form and knew that to kill her, you
would simply have to kill the mortal... wouldn't you do so immediately?"
Perhaps the other two gods do not have the ability to kill Glory
in this plane without taking on mortal frailties as well. Glory's
pretty darn powerful, even in her mortal form, and she could probably
wipe out the other hellgods if they came here to kill her. Of
course, they could have killed her when Ben was a small child,
which was before she gained the ability to manifest herself. Perhaps
killing Ben does not necessarily kill Glory as well. Maybe that
would free her, contrary to what the Knights of Byzantium believe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy the God Slayer -- LURKER, 11:07:21 05/15/01
Tue
The fact that the hell-gods could have offed Glory and have chosen
not to proves that they either cannot or will not kill her (killing
one of your own is always bad-mojo). But your comments also speak
to something else.
Killing Glory/Ben does not solve the problem. Only destroying
the Key solves the problem. Whether or not Dawn has to die in
order to destroy the Key remains to be seen. But if she is killed
and doesn't comeback to life (ala Hope, Marlena, Roman, or the
entire cast of Days of our Lives at some point)perhaps the attachment
that the characters feel for her will go with her. Granted she
has actually been with them for a few months, I am not denying
that she is in human form. But the affection grown over 14 years
(which they all imagine is there) is really false memory.
Furthermore, the great good that the monks believe the Key to
be capable of is moot--their all dead. No one is left to uncover
the goodness and only the potential for chaos remains. On a real-world
practical note: you are right, Buffy the Soccer Mom sounds a little
dull. The kid has gotta go.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy the God Slayer -- LoriAnn, 11:09:46
05/17/01 Thu
Greek and Norse gods and vampires, all are immortal, but can all
die. Whether a god is literally immortal depends on what attributes
a particular culture places in its gods. The Greek gods were like
the Greeks only more so. They had the same failings and the same
appetites. They wouldn't die of old age or disease, but could
be killed if the proper, probably mystical, method could be discovered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy the God Slayer -- Cleanthes, 13:11:19 05/15/01
Tue
If killing Ben is all it takes, then why isn't Ben guarded EXCESSIVELY
closely by the minions? Heck, he could get killed in a traffic
accident or falling down the stairs.
Perhaps Glory does have some limited godlike powers of precognition
-- she can take over Ben's body whenever he's in mortal danger.
We've already seen evidence of this in the early episode this
season where he's threatened by a demon that Glory then recruits.
(`Family`, I think?) Conversely, Glory's hit by a truck and AFTER
the danger's past, Ben takes over. He may have been the one to
trudge the long walk home after Willow sent Glory on her high
fly in `Blood Ties`.
I concur that there's no point in calling Glory a "god"
unless something really special is needed to defeat her. Even
on Xena where gods are a dime-a-dozen, they set up a kind of hierarchy
of gods, so that only special juju from a higher/transcendant
reality could kill the lowest level gods, or, in a couple of cases,
their own power had to be turned against them. A high-level god
like Krishna continued on blissfully.
Do people think Dawn's "Key" status will end at the
end of the season? I doubt it, but, even so, she probably won't
take up soccer. [grin]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy the God Slayer -- FanMan, 17:02:27 05/15/01
Tue
Regarding killing Glory by killing Ben. The hellgods would only
need to give one of the Knights a vision of who the child is and
where. The knights would do the dirty work for there own holy
reasons.(reasons filled with holes....grin)
Dawn playing soccer? She is the cosmic blood clot! If the blood
clot is removed, armagedon. She will take up magic, probably without
aproval.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy the God Slayer -- Malandanza, 17:27:00 05/15/01
Tue
"If killing Ben is all it takes, then why isn't Ben guarded
EXCESSIVELY closely by the minions? Heck, he could get killed
in a traffic accident or falling down the stairs."
I agree. I think killing Ben will neither kill Glory nor set her
free (if the prison is destroyed, the prisoner might escape).
Too many creatures on both sides would want Ben dead in either
case (the minions would kill him if it meant freeing their goddess).
Instead, (IMO) Glory is trapped in a cycle of birth and rebirth
-- killing Ben means she gets a new body and the minions start
searching for her again. I believe that Glory has once chance
every 800 or so years to break the cycle -- when things are in
alignment -- and if she misses this window of opportunity, she
will have a long wait before she gets another chance. I am a great
deal happier with Glory as an undefeated evil than just another
notch on the slayer's stake.
If my theory is correct, there would be an interesting parallel
between the slayers (trapped in a cycle of rebirth) and Glory.
The original Buffy movie had a vampire that tracked down and slew
slayers -- might the same be true for Glory? Forces like the KoB
track her down and kill her while she is in mortal form -- perhaps
sometimes before the mortal is aware of Glory's existence (Glory
might not always be able to manifest herself -- it could be dependent
upon the strength of the subject's personality/soul).
As for destroying the key: I don't think killing Dawn solves anything
(unless you can destroy energy in the Buffyverse)-- it would just
return the key to its previous form (no longer bound to a human
being).
Perfect moment of happiness --
spotjon, 07:15:08 05/15/01 Tue
Something just occurred to me: didn't Angel come awfully close
to having a perfect moment of happiness after they landed in Pylea?
He seemed genuinely happy for the first time in a long time, tainted
only by the loss of Cordelia, perhaps. I know that it won't last
long, once his inner demons start expressing themselves tonight,
but still, wasn't anybody worried that his "perfect moment
of happiness" might give way to something not-so-happy? Maybe
the curse isn't in effect in this dimension, but even so....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Perfect moment of happiness -- Jazz, 08:30:41 05/15/01
Tue
It seems that only when Angel was linked, body and soul, so to
speak, with Buffy, could he experience this moment of true happiness;
ergo, while he may find moments of happiness to a degree, he hasn't
got Buffy, therefore his happiness is not truly complete, and
never really will be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Perfect moment of happiness -- Solitude1056, 11:52:54
05/15/01 Tue
I thought the "perfect moment of happiness" was defined
by "a moment where Angel forgets, for even a quick minute,
all that he is, was, and is forced to be, and can exist purely
in the moment without guilt or atonement." Long, but that's
the basic gist. So in that sense, Angel with Buffy is: "this
is truly who I love, and she's all I'm aware of in this minute"
- and for that reason, managing to forget his Self and himself
long enough to focus entirely on someone else, hence no guilt,
anguish, etc. But Angel on Pylea? Different case, but still happiness:
because when he's in the sun there, it's with an overtone of "I'm
a vampire, but I'm getting a tan!" He's happy in Pylea because
he's not being forced to deal with the usual limitations, but
he's cognizant that those limitations exist because of his vampiric
nature, hence he's not forgotten his vampiric nature. And forgetting
them, even momentarily, is what causes the moment of happiness.
When Angel did the drug back in season 1, I thought his reversion
to Angelus wasn't because of the happiness but because the drug
rendered Angel momentarily not-in-control. So that wasn't really
a moment of happiness, either, because once again the drug was
part of his awareness, which meant he was saying/thinking: "I'm
normally the broody vampire guy, but this drug makes me happy
anyway!"
In both instances you have an awareness of Self, and the limitations
of Self, and the temporary suspension of those limitations. It's
only with Buffy that so far Angel has completed the last step
in full happiness, which is to forget that Self even exists, that
limitations occur, and that this is even temporary.
Strangely, the Angel's moment of happiness debate makes me think
back to an article I read years ago while flying on SouthWest
Airlines (I kid you not). It had an interview with an author,
who writes about the Zen of dogs. His comment was that dogs don't
teach, they do, in things like the fact that being in the car
is just as much fun as the arrival - any creature who gets pure
joy from hanging their head out a car window for the breeze gets
points from me. And his other point, the one I'm referencing here,
was that "walking inthe woods with dogs can teach you that
you've had it backwards, in our limited human way. Dogs show you
that you may not have all the time in the world, but that instead
for this moment in time, you have all the world."
That's a pure moment of happiness, IMO.
The Hero's Journey -- Humanitas,
09:36:35 05/15/01 Tue
OK, I'm not sure where I'm going with this yet, so come along
with me for the ride...
We were talking at one point about the Hero's Journey as it is
expressed through Spike, Buffy, etc. As I understand it, the Journey
is (much simplified) thus:
1. Hero is called. 2. Hero goes to underworld. 3. Hero is either
destroyed or transformed by the experience.
This pattern appears in all cultures, so it's probably hard-wired
into the human consciousness somehow. Not all stories use this
pattern, but the ones that do are the ones that tend to become
"classics."
Buffy's current Hero Journey is pretty obvious. She's overwhelmed
by everything that's happened to her this season, both as The
Slayer and as a person, so now she's in the Underworld (known
locally as Catatonia). Whether she is transformed or destroyed
remains to be seen. Well, all right, we know she survives (there
is a Season Six on the way), so what remains to be seen is how
she survives, and what the nature of her transformation is.
There was some discussion below about wheter a Hero can be flawed
or not. I would argue that a Hero has to be flawed, so that the
audience can identify with her. In fact, often the transformation
involves rising above her flaws to achieve some goal.
Buffy gets accused of being whiny (and she is). That certainly
does not disqualify her for hero-dom, however. Look at Luke Skywalker.
(The Hero's Journey always leads me to Star Wars. Can't help it.)
Now, there's a whiner! Nevertheless, he goes through a transformative
process and emerges a more balanced individual, able to accomplish
the goal (defeat of the Emperor). The point is that the Hero's
Journey is an allegory for growing up. With Buffy, the growing
up is more literal, in keeping with the more "realistic"
style of the show. She's had some hard times, and how she deals
with them will determine the kind of woman she grows into.
As Spike said, "Doesn't seem to me it matters very much how
you start out."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Hero's Journey -- rowan, 19:46:59 05/15/01 Tue
Hmm...and if Buffy literally ends up in the underworld demon dimension
of the triple hellgods after The Gift...we all bow down and worship
you.
Cycles & Foreshadowing -- Solitude1056,
11:34:35 05/15/01 Tue
This is a silly note, for the most part, but I was thinking back
to how much I'm amused by the fact that both the shooting script
and Glory refer to her helpers as "minions." And I realized,
it's not an expression anyone else has used - no, wait a second.
Gee. Someone has.
Yeah, someone blonde, a little dense, who encouraged her minions
to do her dirty work for her with an emphasis on loving/worshipping
her as their motivation, who dressed like a mall rat's idea of
classy... could it be... Harmony? Yup. So the whole idea strikes
me as somewhat hilarious, and I'm wondering if Joss wasn't sort
of foreshadowing the whole "female skanky character with
worshipful minons" idea by sending in that strangely off-kilter
Harmony thread about being Buffy's arch-nemesis. At the time,
I couldn't figure out why Harmony thought Buffy was out to get
her - or maybe I just missed an earlier episode from season 4
that explained the motivation. But the similarities are definitely
there, and certainly amusing (at least to me, in my sleep-deprived
over-worked state)!
Anyone else notice this? And has Joss done this with any other
story arcs - that is, throw out a small version of it in the previous
season, one that comes back in a souped-up form with more punch
the next time around?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Cycles & Foreshadowing -- Rufus, 14:01:10 05/15/01 Tue
In the Shooting Script for Angel at the end of the episode Disharmony,
Harmony is seen in Mexico starting a cult of her own. It was never
shown in the finished product. That would be scary....the idea
of Harmony becoming a big bad.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Cycles & Foreshadowing -- Mav, 14:03:11 05/15/01 Tue
Maybe it just something blondes do? but seriously, it quite easily
could have been a joke in referense to what will happen. But,
when Harmony had Dawn,Buffy saved her, killed the minions, but
let Gorgeous harmony live. Somehow, I doubt that'll happen this
time round!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Cycles & Foreshadowing -- rowan, 19:43:11 05/15/01
Tue
I think this was a great pick up! It makes sense, doesn't it,
that Joss and the crew might be having a little fun with foreshadowing?
Notice that in Crush when Harmony leaves Spike she slaps her a**
and says he won't be gettin' it anymore; and the in Intervention
(which is the third of the big Spike trilogy of FFL, Crush, and
Intervention this season) Spike picks on Glory's lopsided posterior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Cycles & Foreshadowing -- darrenK, 20:18:29 05/15/01
Tue
Nice catch!
In fact, Harmony had Dawn tied up the same way Glory does in the
preview for next week.
It just shows the beauty of the tightly wrought order that is
the Buffyverse.
dK
Giving death & saving Dawn --
Solitude1056, 11:43:20 05/15/01 Tue
I've noticed a few posts in different threads remark that Buffy
& Dawn carry the same DNA, so Buffy may be able to save Dawn by
sacrificing herself. Uh, I dunno. Where does it say (other than
spoilers) that the only way to lock the Key is to kill it? We've
got the basic assumption from spoilers (mostly) that the only
way to open the Key is to bleed it. But I'd guess it requires
a ritual at the same time, or every 28 days we'd have a helluva
lotta chaos on this planet once the Key enters womanhood. Not
to be gross, but let's be pragmatic about the whole bleeding idea.
:)
Ok, so assuming the only way to shut down the portals is to kill
the Key - once the portals have been opened - seems to relate
more to B2 than to any specifics I've caught in the actual show.
In B2, Angelus opened it with his blood, and his blood had to
close it - but that would mean that when the Monks put Dawn into
human form, they did so knowing that her power could only be used
once, and then no more Dawn, no more Key. That seems short-sighted,
to me.
So let's say Dawn doesn't have to be killed to close the Portal,
but that someone with her DNA must. Alrighty, Buffy does the Hero
thing and offs herself. But Dawn's still around, and (for the
purposes of this argument) so might be Glory. We've got a Glory
who can't go anywhere since the moment has passed for her to get
home - but who's to say that's the only time you can use the Key?
In that case, the Key - at a cycle of 800 years, perhaps - is
a pretty long-term recharging battery. So Buffy's gone, and now
Glory might be able to use Dawn for other door openings. Or, Dawn
and Glory are both unable to use the Key, and Dawn'll be dead
by the time the next slot comes around anyway. In which case,
again it's short-sighted on the Monks' part - a single-use Key
doesn't seem to be worth the effort of human form, if the single-use
part is a necessity of shoving an eternal energy into a mortal
body. We would've been better off with the bike pump, which at
least could last 100 years if taken care of. Or something... ;)
I'm not positive Buffy's death - in the pure simple sense - would
necessarily stop anything, unless she could take Glory with her,
somehow. And as to other posts, I think the assessment is right-on
that if Glory can be offed with a simple one-two, then the whole
idea of "this is a god" seems a bit, well, anti-climactic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Giving death & saving Dawn -- Humanitas, 14:15:16 05/15/01
Tue
There's definitely more to unleashing the power of the kee than
simple bloodletting. After all, we've seen Dawn bleed before,
in "Blood Ties." No appocalypse there, nless you count
Dawn's emotional trauma!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Giving death & saving Dawn -- Rufus, 14:19:36 05/15/01
Tue
What you said makes sense except for the fact that Buffy may decide
to sacrifice herself after Glory is already dead. If the ceremony
had started, Buffy would have to figure out a way to stop the
portal from opening. This is where she would have to depend on
her belief that she and Dawn are truly sisters with the same DNA
and sacrifice herself. The reality plot has alot to do with belief.
Buffy knows that Dawn isn't her sister but the planted memories
of a loving relationship plus the time spent together has made
Buffy believe Dawn to be a part of her family. The facts don't
matter anymore it's the belief of a familial connection along
with love that will make the difference. Now to Glory as a God.
I noticed how upset she got when Spike mouthed her off. A certain
amount of power has to come from the belief of the person, so
to me power to a little g god like Glory would depend on others
worshiping her. Part of Buffy being able to defeat Glory will
depend on her believing she can. When the guide said that Buffys
love was brighter than the flame I thought that it could also
be taken as Buffys love is brighter than the flame or the light
from Glory. It doesn't matter how Buffy defeats Glory it will
be love that will bring them to the gift and the ability to defeat
Glory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Giving death & saving Dawn -- Leah, 15:06:41 05/15/01
Tue
This may be completely irrelevent but in "Blood Ties"
Buffy and Dawn mixed their blood. Maybe there is something to
Buffy having a bit of the key in her and Dawn having a bit of
the slayer in her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Giving death & saving Dawn -- Solitude1056,
09:59:50 05/16/01 Wed
But I've never gotten the impression that Slayership was genetically
linked, since it seems to jump to girls all over the planet without
concern for their familial background. A girl from the Boston
projects, a girl from Jamacian farmers, and a girl from middle
class Los Angeles? The Slayer's blood may be mutated as a result
of interaction with the Slayer Spirit, but that would mean Dawn
just has a few drops of mutated blood somewhere in her. It doesn't
mean (to me) that the Spirit of who-they-are has altered in anyway
the physical form of the other sister. It just means that perhaps
physically each could handle the other's spirit, but it doesn't
mean they do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Giving death & saving Dawn (WOTW & TG spoilers) -- rowan,
19:40:51 05/15/01 Tue
Yes, trying to puzzle this out is difficult. Here goes what my
confused mind can come up with.
1. A ritual bloodletting ceremony at a precise time opens the
portals. It appears that Glory and the minions have just figured
this out, based on Glory's remarks to Dawn that blood is the key
to the Key in WOTW. So regular old menses or a wound wouldn't
do it. Plus, when Glory freaks in WOTW and wants to go early,
the scabby minion cleric tells her she'll be trapped on earth
forever if she kills Dawn too early. I think I also picked up
that all Dawn's blood must be shed before the act is complete
and the portals are open.
2. The ritual texts that Spike & Xander rescued from Doc as interpreted
by Giles say that once the ritual has begun, only Dawn's death
can stop it. Now, this is the part I find hard to understand.
Why can't we just wrap a tourniquet on this girl? Is it because
her heart must stop beating? Someone suggested in another post
that Spike could vamp Dawn after she's been almost bled out, but
I'm thinking that MT and Dawn's age make that possibility unlikely...would
Joss go that far and do Interview with a Vampire?
3. I guess I'm thinking Buffy may have to do two things: defeat
Glory and stop the apocalypse. I'm guessing (based on Gregor's
speech in Spiral) that killing Ben will be the way Buffy deals
with getting rid of Glory, after whacking her with a troll hammer
(TG trailer plus spoilers). More on what happens with the Key
below.
4. In Blood Ties, a big deal is made of the fact that Dawn and
Buffy share Summers blood, and they ever clasp bloody hands to
mingle their blood. The ep name, the emphasis on blood now in
the last three eps, Doc's comment about strong DNA, 'death is
your gift', plus spoilers about Buffy figuring out she can sacrifice
someone else have led me (maybe like an innocent lamb to the slaughter)
to suppose that Buffy will have to sacrifice herself. Now, how
does she do that? Jump into the portal? Bleed herself dry? Jump
off the platform? Dunno. Jumping into the portal and ending up
in a demon dimension could lead to Spike & Angel (or Willow) fishing
her out next season. Bleeding herself could result in Spike vamping
her to save her. This is all just wild speculation. Enquiring
minds want to know, and all that.
5. Now, assuming Buffy's dead and Dawn's alive, what then? Yes,
Glory's gone and can't use the Key, but the Key is still the Key
and could be used by someone else. So, I figure at least season
6 and possibly season 7 might be about Dawn's identity. I'm thinking
that if Buffy is dead, Spike will have a significant role (beyond
what all the SG will do) to protect Dawn. After all, someone somewhere
will figure this all out, right? Is Doc still floating around
next season? (no sign of him in TG trailer). I guesssing on Spike's
role because of all the promises he's making to Buffy and the
friendship that has sprung up there (he looked sick when he heard
that Buffy might have to kill Dawn).
Just my crazy thoughts. Seven days until we know for sure.
The Gift -- Possible Spoilers
-- BuffyFan, 14:02:09 05/15/01 Tue
Just some rambling thoughts....
Buffy has been told that death is her gift. Does this mean that
to die is a gift for a slayer, releasing her from the pressures
and pains of slaying? It makes some sense in light of the 730
dream from "Graduation Part II." Faith tells Buffy that
she has "miles to go." The end of this line from a Robert
Frost poem is "until I sleep." Is this a perma-sleep
for Buffy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Gift -- Possible Spoilers -- jc, 16:55:57 05/15/01
Tue
Does this mean that to die is a gift for a slayer, releasing her
from the pressures and pains of slaying?
The Spirit Guide said that it's a slayer's nature to endure the
pain to risk feeling the "pressures and pains of slaying".
I think that it states that by being the slayer you are given
the GIFT to bring forth death. Rather then death of the slayer,
but death on to others by the hands of the slayer. Does that make
sense?
The Frost poem thingy. She (Buffy) has so much to learn to do
things that she has to deal with: Slaying, Family, School, Friends
etc. That she doesn't have time to just STOP and see it from the
outside. I'm thinking that in tonights ep. she will hopefully
realize that becuase she has momentarly stopped. Sorta like the
man on the horse in the poem staring into the woods. But eventually
he rides off to go back to what he must do.
The Desert (very mild spoiler
for "Spiral") -- Humanitas, 14:35:12 05/15/01 Tue
This is what happens when I have a slow day at work while eagerly
awaiting tonight's new episode: gratuitous posting!
I was just reading the shooting script for "Restless,"
looking at how things had played out over this season, and suddenly
I was struck by something: the Desert. It seems that Joss likes
the Idea of going into the desert for revelations this season.
The First Slayer confronted Buffy in the desert, and Buffy went
into the desert for her vision quest in "Intervention."
Now, as of "Spiral", we have returned to the desert
a third time, and Buffy is (in a sense) having visions again.
I guess the desert functions as a sort of "limnal space."
It's outside of normal civilization, and thus the boundaries of
percieved reality can get a little blurry. This is the same function
performed by a church during services, or by a sacred circle during
a Buffyverse witch's spell. If one accepts the notion that Truth
is often hidden in Reality (and I think that one has to accept
that notion for the Buffyverse), then creating a place outside
of Reality can sometimes reveal Truth. I wonder what Truths Buffy
will face tonight?
Questions (spoilers for WOtW)
-- Boxdman, 00:13:14 05/16/01 Wed
How can it be that all these people (and things that aren't people)
figured out that the key to the key is bloodletting? How can there
be old texts on the subject when even Glory didn't consider that
the key would be in human form? How do you bleed a bicycle pump?
Just some questions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Questions (spoilers for WOtW) -- Darrick, 04:48:04 05/16/01
Wed
My impression was that it was Doc who figured out some of these
details about the bloodletting. Didn't Spike and Xander bring
Giles the information they got from him? I suppose it may have
been the crucial bit he needed. He obviously remembered his first
exposure to Dawn. Maybe once he found out she was the key, he
was able to use his knowledge of her "DNA" to figure
out what to do about using the key.
As for the bloodletting, I suppose the Key is actually in Dawn's
blood. Or maybe it _is_ Dawn's blood. It's not so much a matter
of bleeding the key, as of getting the key out of Dawn. At least,
that's my take on it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Questions (spoilers for WOtW)..what Glory said...
-- Rufus, 17:02:07 05/16/01 Wed
I get close caption so I can tell you what Glory said about blood....
Glory: "Annoint this thing...Now!..you know what they're
all chanting for out there, Dawnie...Blood...We found out your
blood is the key to the key. All I've got to do is bleed you dry..the
portal opens up and I can go home...."
So I feel that they figured all this out from some old books...and
that is how Giles came to the conclusion that Dawn would have
to be killed. I still see another option to do with faith...Buffys
faith that Dawn is really her sister and the love that comes from
that belief. Buffy will show how far she is willing to go for
her belief that Dawn is her sister.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Questions (spoilers for WOtW)..what Glory
said... -- Boxdman, 00:33:05 05/17/01 Thu
So someone, somewhere, decided that sometime in the future the
key would be made human and Glory didn't consider this any more
of a possibility than a bicycle pump? In this book is there a
list of what you do to the key no matter what form it's in? What
if the key had been made into a bicycle pump? You can't get much
blood from that. Or a machine gun? Or a chocolate bar? Getting
ridiculous, I know, but there are an infinite amounts of possibilities.
Lindsey as the exponent of near-ultimate
evil -- Nuclear Saint, 06:25:46 05/16/01 Wed
How do you assess evil? I personally believe that evil is the
deliberate and conscious choice of wrongdoing. A sin is only such
if its perpetrator is aware before or during the act that he or
she is sinning. Therefore evil is very much a matter of personal
choice: awareness, at best, of the righteous road not taken.
Given this, wouldn't Lindsey qualify as the most malign character
in either Buffy or Angel? Consider, for a second, the degree to
which Lindsey reflects on his own immorality. Many of the other
evil characters, such as Lilah or the Mayor, have never experienced
the same type of moral doubt that seems to underpin Lindsey's
every action. Some people might suggest that this is proof of
Lindsey's [relative] moral superiority. Whereas malevolence is
so endemic in the nature of Lilah, for example, that she can dismiss
its perpetration without excessive deliberation, Lindsey isn't
so sure. He is more intimate with the idea of morality than either
Lilah or the Mayor.
In my opinion, this makes him worse. Lindesy reflects on his crimes
to a great degree, but he still commits them anyway. He contemplates
his acts more profoundly than any of the other characters, and
still he chooses evil over good. I personally believe that it
is the degree of consciousness in the choice of evil which serves
as the measure of evil's 'quality', so to speak.
What are your thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Lindsey as the exponent of near-ultimate evil -- Robert,
09:22:20 05/16/01 Wed
The thing that separates characters like Angel, Lindsey, and Faith
from characters like Lilah and the Mayor is that because of the
guilt they feel for what they have done they can change and actually
do some good while Lilah or the Mayor would never consider changing.
Ben the Hero or Ben the Fool --
Vulpes, 07:25:27 05/16/01 Wed
So Ben and Glory are merging. Well when they were arguing over
Dawn I thought Ben and Glory negotiated a deal, if Ben let's Glory
use Dawn to go home, Glory will make Ben immoral when they got
there. And I believe I saw Ben accept the agreement by dragging
Dawn back to the minions.
Considering what Ben represents to Glory he is a fool to think
she is going to make him immoral. Remember Glory was after her
greatest humiliation was cast down to earth and placed in Ben
(her prison of meat and bone). I don't know about gods, but humans
when placed in a tiny isolated cell develops sensory deprivation
and will go crazy. Glory does experience insanity, which she casts
off onto others. I believe being trapped in Ben is actually the
greatest causes for her mental illness and I believe she blames
him in someway for this. Remember when she experienced human guilt
she blamed Dawn for it.
Then if she does actually succeed in opening the portal and going
home, do you think she would really want an immortal reminder
around of the imprisonment and near death (Ben could have either
had an early death or died of old age) she would have experienced?
I believe as ruthless as Glory is, if she ever got home she would
crush Ben out of existence, not make a god out of him. He is a
fool to believe otherwise, I guess he is so desperate that he
is not thinking rationally or with his heart.
Does anyone have anything to say about this??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Ben the Hero or Ben the Fool -- Solitude1056, 08:18:26
05/16/01 Wed
More thoughts later, but I really like your freudian slip of Glory
promising to make Ben "immoral." He's halfway there,
what with giving Dawn up to the minions on the basis of Glory's
information... and not stopping to think that Buffy & crew might
have more information that contradicts Glory's claims.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Ben the Hero or Ben the Fool -- Masquerade, 10:28:27
05/16/01 Wed
Ben didn't drag Dawn back to the minions, he was taking Dawn out
of the alley so he could kill her before Glory re-emerged (before
Glory could bleed her). This is not of the good, to be sure, since
he's doing it to save himself as well as the universe. The minions
stopped him before he could kill Dawn, and now Dawn is back in
the hands of Glory against Ben's will.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ben the Hero or Ben the Fool Thanks Masquerade
-- Vulpes, 10:38:31 05/16/01 Wed
Thanks for correcting me! Do you think he would have a change
of heart about killing Dawn in The gift?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Ben the Hero or Ben the Fool Thanks Masquerade
-- Masquerade, 10:57:16 05/16/01 Wed
He was conflicted in WoTW, actually. He stood there one minute
and said "I can't kill her. I can't live with that",
and the next "It's either her or me." Right now, it
doesn't look like he has the option. As long as Dawn is secure
in the hands of Glory and her minions, he will have to fight them
to take Dawn again, and Dawn herself won't go willingly to her
death at the hands of Ben (one assumes).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Speaking of conflicted -- Traveler, 11:20:21
05/16/01 Wed
I would guess that Ben made a deal with Glory, since he could
have killed Dawn in the ally way. Ever since Ben and Glory started
"merging," they have taken on traits from each other.
Glory is starting to feel empathy and guilt. Ben is becoming more
ruthless and selfish (although he was always at least a little
selfish).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ben the Hero or Ben the Fool -- Solitude1056,
11:36:12 05/16/01 Wed
My impression was the opposite: that he took Dawn out of the alley
- knowing the minions were out on the street looking for them
both - and gave her to them. (And in doing so, chose to place
his game with Glory instead of freeing Dawn.) Hence the voiceover
of "Sorry kid, it's you or me," or something like that.
I suppose we'll all see for sure when Rayne posts the shooting
script later this week...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Ben the Hero or Ben the Fool -- Rufus, 13:22:23
05/16/01 Wed
I agree with Sol on this one. Look at the scene....when they leave
the alley you can see them go and meet the minions....Ben said
sorry it's either you or me. He chose himself. Not surprising
if you listen to most of his conversations about his "sister".
Glory is part of him and the cloak separating them is dissolving.
Their personalities are bleeding together. When Ben was talking
about the hundereds of men Glory killed he wasn't grieving the
death of the men he was pissed off that Glory was interrupting
with his life and job. He is very self centered. Even his conversation
with the female minion last week confirms this. When he spoke
about why he wanted to be a doctor, he spoke about humanity like
he was apart from it. I got the impression that he doesn't feel
connected with humanity at all, he just went through the motions.
In the end the Ben has decided to cast his lot with the only family
he has known...Glory. She promised to take all that guilt away
with immortality....but will Bens residual guilt get to Glory?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Ben's Guilt -- Vulpes, 16:22:35 05/16/01
Wed
That's a good point about Ben thinking his separated from the
rest of humanity. I don't think he's going to care much about
saveing it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Equivocation -- Malandanza, 23:30:04 05/16/01
Wed
There is speculation on what effect a conscience will have on
Glory -- but remember it is BEN's conscience that is bleeding
into her thoughts. I doubt Glory will have a problem bleeding
Dawn white. On the other hand, Glory's indifference to humanity
is further corrupting Ben -- he was pretty self involved before
he began sharing personality traits with his alter-ego. Don't
count on any last-minute heroics from him.
As for Glory's promise of immortality: I wonder if Ben ever read
Macbeth...
I'm sure Glory will keep her literal promise to him and make him
immortal -- but immortality isn't particularly great if you're
spending your eternal life being tortured (just ask Prometheus).
Anyway, my vote is for Ben as the village idiot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Equivocation -- Rufus, 23:56:12
05/16/01 Wed
When I listened to his whining about Glory taking his time and
interfering with his job it became clear that he is the village
idiot. He sure forgot about all the blood on his hands when he
was complaining about listening to her all the time. I see alot
of the stuff Glory seemed to say to nothing as an ongoing dialogue
with Ben. And she did admit that she was nuts. Would you believe
an insane person when they promise to make you immortal? She also
did promise to take his feelings(conscience)away too. He may not
be a hands on killer, but that won't stop him from letting someone
else do the job.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Bleeding personalities... -- OnM,
18:55:53 05/17/01 Thu
...as a precursor to bleeding dimensional walls? Wonder if Dawn
'the platelet' will have any further effect on this aspect also?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Oh no....more clotting jokes...:):)
-- Rufus, 22:44:26 05/17/01 Thu
The Dance Of Joy (TtLG Spoilers)
-- Solitude1056, 08:25:23 05/16/01 Wed
After such an intense Buffy episode... it was great to see the
Angel episode on such a different track. And Joss must've been
thinking, "hm, everyone's so wrought up about Buffy and The
End Of The World, I need a little something in here..." hence
that Dance of Joy.
I haven't laughed so hard in ages!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hmmm... mixed feelings. "Angel" goes Monty Python...
-- Masquerade, 08:55:13 05/16/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> oh come on... :) -- Solitude1056, 09:56:02 05/16/01
Wed
I really think the humorous relief was a necessary element, or
else the whole "we're in another dimension" would be
just too much to believably stomach, especially after the intensity
of the last few Buffy episodes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: oh come on... :) -- Masquerade, 10:24:52
05/16/01 Wed
Hmmm, that may be the problem. This season of Angel has been very
intense, and seemed to be heading on a certain track, and this
"we're in another dimension" was a sudden 90 degree
left turn into... well, silliness. Such a sharp contrast to the
earlier eps of the Season and the intensity on Buffy. I'm holding
my breath waiting for some profound point to the Pylea story line,
some important revelations. Otherwise, it's just marking time
until Season 3 and I don't see the point of that.
*Faith in Joss et al*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Speaking of sudden mood changes (spoilery)
-- Traveler, 11:26:05 05/16/01 Wed
The light elements of the last episode really contrasted with
the dark elements. We have the dance of joy. Then we have Angel
turning into a demon and ripping a man limb from limb. We have
Cordelia and the mating ritual. Then we have the host's head on
a platter. I can't see the message/theme of these episodes (beyond
the obvious), but they certainly keep my attention.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Speaking of sudden mood changes
(spoilery) -- Solitude1056, 11:29:17 05/16/01 Wed
That last part - the host's head - really bummed me out. Yeah,
I'd count that as a radical 180 in mood, since I was really starting
to like his character. And rather hoping they'd just "faked"
the Host's death, I checked the shooting script. No, it clearly
states that it's the Host's decapitated head.
(That and some of the gore in this episode wasn't, uh, censored
as politely as usual - the AngelBeast ripping the guy's leg off
was fast but still. Yikes.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Doing the Dance of Mourning
for Kevlornswath :( (NT) -- Humanitas, 12:43:00 05/16/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I second that! *sob*...
and... *shudder* -- Masquerade, 12:52:37 05/16/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spoilers for the
Angel finale.... -- Rufus, 13:24:17 05/16/01 Wed
On the Angel board AngelX said that Lorne isn't gone...think talking
heads.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spoilers
for the Angel finale.... -- Masq, 13:50:03 05/16/01 Wed
Well, as long as it's done in a way that doesn't make me go, "Oh,
brother!" or "ewww!" which was my reaction to that
beefcake mate-guy's (Googalag?) personality or lack thereof.
If Lorne doesn't have a body, who's gonna hold his mike when he
sings??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That
is sooooooo sick......spoilers????? -- Rufus, 13:57:08 05/16/01
Wed
From what I heard they will have a search for the rest of Lorne
next ep. As for the mike I would think that is Angelcakes job.:):):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
you guys did know that it was joss himself doing the dance of
joy??? -- heather galaxy, 18:31:10 05/16/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Totally disguised with green makeup yellow hair and red
horns! -- Masq, 09:11:24 05/17/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: oh come on... :) -- bess, 13:02:34
05/17/01 Thu
I'm halfway grateful for the change of tone... although, I think
it hasn't strayed far, considering Angel got to see his inner,
uh, nasty, yesterday... because it's almost like a reprieve from
the big-heavy-bad-Angel's-gonna-go-evil mood that dominated the
beginning of this season. I mean, give the guy's facial muscles
a rest. You can only brood so much... hee hee. and the dance of
joy ? made my week.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Hmmm... mixed feelings. "Angel" goes
Monty Python... -- Malandanza, 23:37:14 05/16/01 Wed
I also had mixed feeling -- although less for the dancers than
the singing to save Angel (I hope AtS doesn't end up as a musical).
A few positive points: we did get confirmation that the vampire-demon
infecting the human host is unreasoning -- a creature of pure
id. TPTB are active on this other plane of existence, so they
are not merely local deities. The old speculation of the significance
of WolfRam & Hart turned out to be true. With the Host dead, AI
could take over Caritas as their base of operations (since W&H will
be taking away the hotel -- or maybe Cordelia will be able to
smuggle enough jewels out of Pylea to buy the hotel).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Hmmm... mixed feelings. "Angel"
goes Monty Python... -- Solitude1056, 05:58:36 05/17/01 Thu
The old speculation of the significance of WolfRam & Hart turned
out to be true.
Uh... what was that? That W&H's "senior partners"
aren't from Hell, just another human-hating dimension? So far
I've not seen anything on Pylea that's particularly frightening
other than the fact that it polarizes everything into extreme
examples of good and bad. Well, no gods in floozy getup walking
around, and that right now is pretty scary. An inner demon? Pshaw.
That's nuttink.
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Hmmm... mixed feelings. "Angel"
goes Monty Python... -- Wiccagrrl, 23:16:16 05/17/01 Thu
Uh... what was that? That W&H's "senior partners"
aren't from Hell, just another human-hating dimension?
I think it was more sinister than that- that W&H are present in
*every* dimension. But it certainly was freaky.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: BTW, congrats to everyone who
correctly guessed the Wolf, Ram, Hart idea. :) -- OnM, 18:25:45
05/19/01 Sat
I too assumed that the presence of the books in Pylea were an
indication that W&H are in fact pretty much everywhere in the
universe, or at least in a number of different dimensions. In
Pylea, they certainly aren't going to have a big downtown office
building, wouldn't fit in to well with the surroundings, so the
presence of the books with the pictures on the cover were the
equivalent.
I'm wondering whether the PTB as referred to in TtLG are the same
PTB as in our normal Buffyverse. Perhaps the 'clerics' are interested
in the 'cursed one' so they can try to outmanuever the powers
of light by using the visions for their own purposes? 'Power behind
the throne', as it were?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> "power" behind the
throne -- purplegrrl, 07:15:46 05/21/01 Mon
It appears that the cult o' priests serves the basically the same
function in Pylea as the W&H lawyers do here -- they are knowledgable,
powerful, evil, and will go to any means to get the results they
want.
In Pylea the priests are willing to put Cordelia on the throne,
thinking she is little more than a silly "cow" that
they can manipulate. When they realize she is more than that,
they attempt blackmail and threaten death.
In L.A. the lawyers want Angel to become a dark puppet for the
side of Evil. Failing that, they are willing to make him unsuitable
to fight for the side of Good.
Okay, this is a *very* simplified version of Wolfram & Hart's
intent and actions. But it seems they work in a similar manner
no matter which dimension they are operating in. Could this be
the key to defeating them?? Is this why Angel Investigations went
to Pylea, to gain more knowledge about how to fight W&H and the
big Evil?? (Otherwise, as fun as these episodes are, I'm not sure
I see the point of dragging everybody to another dimension.)
Will Wesley be able to use the Wolf, Ram, and Hart books they
found? I'm hoping he will bring them back to this dimension where
he'll have more time and resources to study them. And, hopefully,
they will give the gang the key to returning to this dimension.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: "Angel" goes Monty Python... (spoilers)
-- OnM, 06:39:56 05/17/01 Thu
You didn't like the singing bit? ('Mowin' 'em down with Motown'
as the shooting script states). That was one of the high points
of the season for me! (Especially when Lorne's mother goes 'It
burns!! It burns!!!-- ROFLMAO...)
I had heard it rumored that Joss would appear in a bit part--
doing the dance of Joy, eh? Perfectly great casting. methinks,
considering his new contract. ;)
The host isn't gone yet-- think of the demon in the first part
of 'The Trial'. Lorne apparently shares some demon DNA with this
critter, from spoiler info I've seen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: "Angel" goes Monty Python...
(spoilers) -- Rufus, 12:53:06 05/17/01 Thu
Hey....funny but how about they make Joss wear the same type of
getup that Cordy had to wear as Queen.:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: "Angel" goes Monty
Python... (spoilers) -- FanMan, 20:37:54 05/17/01 Thu
Cordy is a babe! She looked good, but it was a bit sexist. The
outfit was perfect for highlighting Cordy moving beyond her prom
queen dreams. She is beutifull, but her personality is cool to
me too!
I do not want to see JOSS/BuffyGod in drag:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Dance Of Joy (TtLG Spoilers) -- change, 17:28:30
05/16/01 Wed
Hey! That was Joss Whedon's cameo you know. You should be thankful
that the great master has blessed us with his appearance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Dance Of Joy (TtLG Spoilers) -- Solitude1056,
11:07:48 05/17/01 Thu
Anyone know where I can find screenshots of the Dance of Joy?
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Dance Of Joy (TtLG Spoilers) -- Masquerade,
15:41:50 05/17/01 Thu
Well, hopefully, they'll have them at the SlayerShow soon;
http://www.theslayershow.com/showpics_angel.html
OK, I'm *snerking* now. Will definitely have to stick one of those
on my site.
MOTHER: Numfar, do the Dance Of Joy!
A GREEN HOST-LIKE DEMON does a jig behind mom in the b.g.
MOTHER: No longer do the Dance Of Joy, Numfar!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I'm a little gender confused now.... --
Rufus, 16:00:06 05/17/01 Thu
If that was the Hosts mother....what gender is the Host???
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> You never heard of a bearded lady?
-- Masquerade, 16:57:03 05/17/01 Thu
Besides, it's a universe with different metaphysical laws... why
not different biological factoids?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You never heard of a bearded
lady? -- Rufus, 17:11:51 05/17/01 Thu
I ignored the dance in favor of thinking....hmmmmm does that make
Lorne a he or a she? Or is a he a she in that dimension...if he
grows a beard we will know for sure I guess..:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Lorne a boy -- verdantheart,
06:43:42 05/18/01 Fri
Lorne's mother clearly says "Each morning before I feed,
I go out into the hills where the ground is thorny and parched,
beat my breast and curse the loins that gave birth to such a cretinous
boy-child!" (from the script, I didn't remember all of that,
just the boy part). I'd say he's a boy.
- vh
Thoughts on the Host and Wesley
-- Halcyon, 08:37:57 05/16/01 Wed
Is it just me or do Wesley and the Host both bear similiar crosses,
both viewed by a disapproving parent as being useless. Is that
one reason why the Host had to return to Pylea so as well as dealing
with his own personal demons that Wesley would learn from the
Host that just because Wes is following a different path than
the one his father wanted he is not a failure? This might help
Wesley lose his inferority complex. I assume that Wes's father
had something to do with the CoW perhaps even sitting on the Board
Of Directors and that is how Wes's dad knew about Wes being fired
in Belonging.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Thoughts on the Host and Wesley -- Joann, 19:14:32 05/16/01
Wed
I get the impression that The Host's family hates him hopelessly
but that Wesley's family just disproves of him because they feel
he has not lived up to their expectations. And their rejection
is devastating to Wesley to such a degree that I think it is over
emphasized. The Host manages to keep a sense of humor about it
but Wesley is too one note about it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Thoughts on the Host and Wesley -- Humanitas,
08:32:14 05/17/01 Thu
Sometimes it's easier to be cast out entirely than to be diapproved
of. Lorne has no hope whatsoever, so he can afford to be flip
about the whole thing. Wesley still hopes to regain his father's
approval, and that makes him take it more seriously.
Two Buffys -- Terri, 13:23:13
05/16/01 Wed
What do you think the significance of having two Buffys in the
final scene was?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Two Buffys -- Solitude1056, 14:13:35 05/16/01 Wed
Two Buffys? Where? I watched the trailer practically frame by
frame - where did you see two in the same frame at once?
(hey, it could be me, I've been known to be clueless.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Two Buffys -- Terri, 14:23:48 05/16/01 Wed
No-I meant in the end of the episode not the trailer. When Willow's
in Buffy's mind there are two Buffy's talking to Will-just wondering
the significance of that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Two Buffys How about bringing the BuffyBot
back reprogrammed? -- Vulpes, 16:18:33 05/16/01 Wed
Buffy and the gang are going to need all the help they can get,
what about bring the BuffyBOt back to possibility fool Glory somehow
in order to escape with Dawn?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Two Buffys How about bringing the
BuffyBot back reprogrammed? -- Terri, 16:27:23 05/16/01 Wed
That's not what I meant-I was really saying like was it a metaphore
for anything
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Two Buffys How about bringing
the BuffyBot back reprogrammed? -- FanMan, 19:20:56 05/16/01 Wed
Three Buffys: Buffy at about six when Dawn was born. Buffy at
the moment she felt overwhelmed and gave up temperarily. Buffy
going to Joyces grave, then deliberately killing Dawn. So the
progression is big sister will take care of Dawn, big sister gives
up on protecting Dawn, big sister actively kills Dawn. Guilt is
not logical, but you do rationalize your guilt in the form of
what you could have done. In Buffys case it was that she did not
know what to do. Guilt is generally excessive to a situation:
Buffy remembered wanting the pain of resonsibility to end, her
guilt added on that Dawn being kidnaped was her fault. Metaphore?
The mind uses metaphores all the time, Buffys catatonic state
was like a waking dream. We will have to see if there is more
signifigance than Buffy-guilt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> 2 Buffy Metaphor -- Solitude1056,
20:12:20 05/16/01 Wed
The Slayer half (in black) and the Buffy half (in tan). Notice
the Buffy-in-fighting-garb was the one killing her sister repeatedly,
while the other Buffy was the pensive one, with the human fears.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: 2 Buffy Metaphor -- Rufus,
20:40:05 05/16/01 Wed
To carry that thought on further....beige Buffy has loose flowing
feminine hair, looks very vunerable, black Buffy has severe tied
back hair and a black form fitting all business outfit almost
masculine. Buffy is at war with herself both sides stuck on reapeat
until Willow snapped her out of it. The all business Buffy the
side that fights and the beige Buffy the side that strains to
remain normal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: 2 Buffy Metaphor
-- Rob, 12:57:28 05/17/01 Thu
I would also add to that that this give Buffy to look at herself
from an objective viewpoint. By having Buffy watch herself, literally
and figuratively, doing the action that got her stuck in this
trap in the first place, she can more easily understand what is
going on with herself, internally and externally, and attempt
to fight the situation.
Buffy's greatest moral dilemma
yet...Spoilers from WOTW -- Rob, 14:00:30 05/16/01 Wed
At the end of WOTW, Buffy finally found out what we've been talking
about on-line for a while: the possibility that she might have
to kill Dawn. The only way to reverse the spell if the Key has
already begun to be bled. This is perhaps Buffy's greatest moral
dilemma ever. Her job is to save the world, but in order to save
the world, she might have to kill her own sister. This is also,
of course, a Catch-22. If Buffy managed to save Dawn after the
blood-letting began and decided not to kill her, the spell would
be irreversible by that point and the world would end, probably
leading to her sister's death anyway. So the great unfairness
of this is that, while it is a moral dilemma, it is one with only
one solution. Buffy has the choice of not killing her sister,
thus causing the death of millions, including her sister eventually,
or killing her sister, saving the world, and causing herself endless
amounts of guilt and trauma. What does everyone else think about
this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy's greatest moral dilemma yet...Spoilers from WOTW
-- Jessica, 13:29:52 05/18/01 Fri
Their might be another alternative. If Dawn and Buffy really do
share the same blood ( Doc said that Dawn had strong DNA) maybe
if Buffy kills herself or sacrifice herself then she doesn't have
to kill Dawn. It might be an alternative.
Xander gay? -- Kate, 14:17:48
05/16/01 Wed
Okay, don't bite my head off:), but I've been wondering somthing
ever since Intervention. Whats up with that comment about Spike's
"compact, but well-muscled" body? You know, when Xander
was trying to be surportive to Buffy about her "sleeping
with Spike?" I mean, that kind of came out of nowhere, didn't
it? I can't have been the only one who thought that was more then
a little gay.Is he gay? I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out
that way.After all, just because he's attracted to women dosn't
mean he can't be attracted to men also.And if he is, threre's
been more then a little hints about it.(Keep in mind though, when
you read my "hints" that a lot of them can be explained
very easily) -Xander's loud exclamation of Angel being" a
very attractive man!" -His almost homophpbic response to
even the thought of somone thinking he's gay(It'd be intresting
to see how he reacts now, as that was in high school) - His "description"
of Spike in Intervention -His comment about sleeping with Riley(back
in the fourth season - His harsh reaction when he thought Willow
thought that the nature of her and Tara's relationship was secret
and she was trying to tell him, in Buffy Vs Dracula.(well, I thought
it was harsh, maybe I read it the wrong way) -In Spiral I got
the distinct impression from the way his body was angled that
he dove after Spike to stop him from attacking Glory, not to atttack
her himself. I also thought his response to Spike in the garage
in Spiral was interesting.He appeared almost, affectionate toward
him,( I loved his little smile he gave as he was talking to him)
and his "You know I hate you" was pretty unconvincing.Of
course that could be explained by his being grateful that Spike
had saved Buffy's life.Who wouldn't be nicer to somone who saved
one of your best friends life? It really isn't all that much,
but still.... somthing to think about.:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Xander gay? -- Talia, 14:59:45 05/16/01 Wed
Two comments on this: first, the evidence is inconclusive. Xander
has always seemed to me like the kind of guy who everybody calls
gay because he's kinda geeky and puts his foot in his mouth frequently,
but actually isn't. Your examples are amusing, but not enough
to make me change my opinion. Second, who cares? I have no problem
with gay guys (well, I'm mildly annoyed that they're out of the
datable-by-me population, but that's not prejudice). If Xander
is gay, he's still the same lovable guy. Anyway, right now he's
very involved with Anya.
Just my two cents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Not Gay just Awkward -- Simplicity, 15:34:37 05/16/01
Wed
I always thought that Xander admires other men but in a non sexual,
awkward way. Thought of anothe moment. . .in Fool for Love when
he is watching Riley observe the vampires, he calls him a "slealthy
jungle cat". But I don't think he's gay. If you think about
it, Xander is surrounded by women. . .Anya, Buffy, Willow, Dawn,
etc. He doesn't have the opportunity to socialize that much with
other men. The only males his "age" are Spike and Riley
(before he left). Giles is there, but he is a sophisticated, older
man. There's not a "meeting of the minds" there. Xander
just doesn't know how to respond to other men!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Not Gay just Awkward -- rowan, 16:36:34
05/16/01 Wed
I think Xander is just looking for a guy to pal around with because
he's surrounded by women. He and Spike make a perfect couple,
because I think Spike is looking for the same thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Not Gay just Awkward -- Javoher, 12:42:53
05/17/01 Thu
Xander works in construction, possibly still in some sort of supervisor
capacity. It's safe to assume that it's at least 80% male, probably
more like 99%. He has plenty of opportunity to socialize with
men of all ages. He's just awkward.
That said, I keep remembering what he said about the April robot
being every guy's fantasy. He muttered "I miss Oz. He'd get
it." His close friends, surrogate family, are all women.
He (and the show, IMHO) could use a little more testosterone in
the mix.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Well, if he is.... -- Jen C., 16:29:54 05/16/01 Wed
You know Spike would be the one to bring it out!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yes, Spike and JM's Chemistry is Sinisterly Attractive!
-- rowan, 16:38:19 05/16/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Xander gay? -- JBone, 20:04:02 05/16/01 Wed
As I remember back to "Restless" (its been half a year
since I last viewed it), I don't remember any homosexual leanings
in Xander's dream. In fact he had very heterosexual fantasies
about the young male cliche of an affair with an older woman (Joyce)
and the ultimate male cliche fantasy of multiple women (Willow
and Tana).
Naw, I see Xander as being the compulsive joker, especially at
his own expense, and when he is the only one to get the punch
line. Compulsive smart asses crack one-liners for the one-liners
sake.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Xander gay? -- rowan, 20:22:27 05/16/01 Wed
"Naw, I see Xander as being the compulsive joker, especially
at his own expense, and when he is the only one to get the punch
line. Compulsive smart asses crack one-liners for the one-liners
sake."
He kind of shares that trait with Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hehehe. Two words...Homoeroticism, Yay ;) -- Wiccagrrl,
20:40:22 05/16/01 Wed
Oh, wait...this isn't MBTv. Seriously, I don't tend to think Xander's
gay, although there have been a few subtexty moments that made
me go "Humm...interesting." I also think Joss does love
to play with subtext and chemistry in all kinds of ways. (B/S,
B/F, even the comments by the Host on Angel about Cordy and his
sizzling loins and about sitting chatting up the Senoiritas by
the watering hole. Or a "gay now" Willow kinda drooling
over Dracula. Attractions/ chemistry can be fascinating stuff.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Hehehe. Two words...Homoeroticism, Yay ;) -- Rufus,
20:49:25 05/16/01 Wed
I don't think Xander is gay...he loves women but also takes note
of what attributes other men have. That's normal for everyone.
Joss does a good job of keeping people guessing. I did like when
Buffy told Xander she thought that Xander may be sleeping with
Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Xander gay? -- VanMoodyGrad, 09:22:46 05/17/01 Thu
I think you are reaching for straws here. The whole point about
Xander is that he has had trouble feeling like a real man. He
is self conscious about it. One of the things he loves about Anya
is that she has made him feel like a real man for the first time
in his life. Because of her he has a new apartment, a better handle
on the job situation etc. I believe that he has been self conscious
about better looking men that seem to have it together. Whatever
you think about Spike you have to realize he has self confidence
and style. Angel with his brooding ways and good looks is something
that a guy like Xander feels he can't compete with. VMG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Xander gay? -- Rob, 13:30:24 05/17/01 Thu
I think that this is just Xander's sense of humor, and was not
meant as anything more. I find it similar to Chandler on "Friends,"
which has had many episodes dealing with the fact that people
think he is gay too. I think that seeing Xander as gay is mistaking
humor for true feelings. After all, at the moment he is in a very
successful, heterosexual relationship with a woman with whom he
seems to truly be in love. I don't think any more needs to be
read into that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Xander gay? -- Kate, 16:35:53 05/19/01 Sat
Woah, people! slow down, in fact come to a screeching halt. I
didn't say he WAS gay(If I accidently implied that I did, I'm
sorry) I was just THINKING.Opening my big mouth and putting my
foot in it.I tend to mouth off without thinking, and next time
I'll be more careful about what I say:) I did put out a message
about two days ago saying all this, but I guess it never showed
up for some reason.I put it out as THEORY, thats all.(And I think
I may have offended some people)I ask to you remember that. (Warning!Opinion
Ahead!)It does strike me as interesting that people get a lot
more heated up about the idea that he might be gay, then Lindsey.Of
course that is a diffrent story, and people are more invested
in Xander, they know him better.However, I still think its interesting.But
its only my opinion.:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Actually... -- Solitude1056, 17:36:30
05/19/01 Sat
My mother used to say - when wearing her develop. psych. hat -
that men who wear pink are more comfortable with their sexuality.
And so far, I think Xander's coming closer to qualifying than
ever before. Then again, he can hold his own in a fight now alongside
Buffy, he's got someone who adores him (sexually), he's making
a living, and he's got his own place. A lot of his comments do
swirl around the minor jealousy, passed off as an attempt at humor.
Xander's always been a bit self-deprecating due to insecurity,
and he's also surrounded by women, but he doesn't speak straightforwardly
of his own insecurities except when pushed to it by circumstances.
So I've never taken his comments as even remotely sexually motivated
- it's more like the Zeppo stating, "well, this other guy
has such-and-such" and implying that naturally his female
friend would thus find this other guy more attractive than Xander.
And there's also the dose of Xander's humor, wanting to be the
comic relief & deliver the punch line regardless of how it sounds
after-the-fact.
I like the way Joss & his crew play with our expectations of TV
characters, given that most other sitcoms/dramas I've seen, you'd
never have a male character deliver such lines, even jokingly.
And in the rare circumstances where a character does, it's because
he's the token Closeted Gay Guy for the sitcom's comic relief,
albeit a necessarily permanently celibate Closeted Gay Guy. And
yet I have numerous male friends who joke like this constantly,
just as I have numerous female friends who remark in similar ways
about other women. So Xander's behavior strikes me as very human
- and that's a nice change from the cardboard characters we get
elsewhere.
Glory winning -- Leah, 14:47:20
05/16/01 Wed
In tWotW Buffy says that she didn't just think Glory would win-she
felt it. Something about that just struck me as meaning that it
really is true. Buffy has always had some psychic kind of abilities,
and I think that the fact that she "felt" that Glory
would defeat her means it may really happen.
So if it is true that Glory will defeat Buffy-what exactly does
that mean. What constitutes Glory winning? Is it Dawn dying, Glory
using the key, Buffy dying, Buffy being emotionally destroyed?
I guess we'll see next Tuesday...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Glory winning -- LoriAnn, 10:48:39 05/17/01 Thu
Feelings have to do with emotional responses to things. They have
nothing to do with objective truth. They do, however, affect us
more strongly than truth does.
Shout out for Dawn (spoilers if
you haven't seen WOTW) -- darrenK, 15:28:04 05/16/01 Wed
Right now the pressure is ratcheted up to it's Nth degree and
no one is quite sure what the Hell is going to happen.There's
a lot of speculation out there that Dawn will have to die. I've
even read some "spoilers" to that effect.
But before any of that happens, I want to say that Dawn has really
made this season. Dawn is awesome--wise, spunky, funny, and raw.
Right from the start, Michelle Tractenburg was the equal of SMG
and James Marsters as an actor. And the chemistry between the
three of them has only highlighted the new trust between Buffy
and Spike. I have never doubted that Buffy and Dawn truly love
each other. And I've never doubted for a second that Spike loves
Dawn as much as he can love anyone.
Michelle struts around like it's her show and Buffy is her sister
and Sunnydale is her town, Hellmouth and all.
And it is. dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Shout out for Dawn (spoilers if you haven't seen WOTW)
-- rowan, 16:35:06 05/16/01 Wed
I totally agree! I was not thrilled in the first ep with this
"suddenly sister" storyline, and I couldn't have been
more wrong. MT is fabulous. Her chemistry with SMG and JM is amazing.
I devoutly hope she is with us for the next two seasons (or however
long BtVS lasts). I look forward to her discovering her "Keyness"
and her developing relationship with Spike and the rest of the
SG. What a fantastic addition to the show!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Shout out for Dawn (spoilers if you haven't seen
WOTW) -- Rob, 13:03:43 05/17/01 Thu
Leave it to Joss to take a TV convention (adding a younger character
in a later season, usually in an attempt to freshen the show),
and turn it on its head. Not only did he add Dawn when freshening
really was not needed in this stellar show, but she has proven
to be an amazing character. She has gone far deeper than just
to be Buffy's kid sister, and prevails both as a wonderful character
and as another metaphor for the innocents Buffy spends her whole
life protecting. Being her sister also adds in the moral dynamic
of whether Buffy should put her family (Dawn) or the world first.
In typically brilliant Whedon fashion, this becomes one and the
same, since if anything should happen to Dawn, the world would
literally (and metaphorically, for Buffy) end. And just on an
acting level, Michelle Trachtenberg is wonderful. Funny and bright,
she really has brought a new perspective to this great show, and
has established herself most admirably. Not only do the characters
on the show feel like she's been around forever, but she makes
the audience feel like she has too. Brava, Michelle!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Shout out for Dawn (spoilers if you haven't
seen WOTW) -- Jessica, 13:22:16 05/18/01 Fri
I totally agree, the show needs Dawn and Buffy needs Dawn. Dawn
is the only family that Buffy as left and Dawn brings out a new
side in Buffy because now she as to be the grown up and the mother.
If Dawn was to go Buffy would loose another person that anchors
her to the world and that pushes away the wish of death that Spike
talked about .
Glorys infection of emotion.....
-- Rufus, 17:22:03 05/16/01 Wed
I can't think of a better punishment for Glory than to be cursed
with the feelings of guilt she wrestled with last night. She is
in a similar situation to Anya in that she is trying to figure
out what these things called emotions are.
Glory:"People, how do they function here like this? In the
world..with all this bile running through them? Every day it's
whooo...You have no control. They're not even animals. They're
just these meat baggy slaves. To hormones....pheremones...and
their feelings...hate em! I mean really...Is this what the poets
go on about? This? Call me crazy...but as hard core drugs go...human
emotion is just useless. People are just puppets. Everyones getting
jerked around by what they're feeling...Am I Wrong....Really I
want to know...Gonna bleed you either way."
Dawn: "Depends on the person."
Glory: "So you're saying some people like this?"
Dawn: "Some"
Glory: "Funny, cause I look around at this world you're so
eager to be part of..and all I see is six billion lunatics looking
for the fastest ride out. Who's not crazy.... Look around..everyones
drinking, smoking, shooting up...Shooting each other or just plain
screwing their brains out. Cause they don't want em anymore. I'm
Crazy?....Honey, I'm the original one eyed chicklet in the kingdom
of the blind..cause at least I admit the world makes me nuts.
Name one person that can take me? That's all I'm asking..Name
one..."
Dawn: "Buffy"
I think that Glory is referencing some of Bens thoughts for her
concept of humanity. As she doesn't get life beyond her own she
doesn't understand that there is more to humanity than the worst
things we do to each other. She is becoming unstable and I do
wonder what would happen if her time to use the portal was up?
Would replace her victims in the psych ward? She could spend her
days telling everyone that she is a god and they could give her
pretty coloured pills. She considers Bens emotions an infection
she said herself she wasn't supposed to feel guilty. She is in
the same situation as Anya was...mortal feelings and they scare
her. What will a guilt ridden god do?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Glorys infection of emotion..... -- rowan, 19:26:28
05/16/01 Wed
I had wondered in Tough Love about Glory's mental stability. She
did such a detailed, emotional accounting to Tara of what it's
like to be a brainsuck victim that I wondered if that was how
she experienced the times when she's not in control of Ben's body?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Glorys infection of emotion..... -- Rufus, 20:33:09
05/16/01 Wed
Yes, I have mentioned that before...he description and emotion
seem to indicate that she has personal experience in the dark
room. So I wondered if what Glory takes is not all of the victims
mind but what in the mind holds one in reality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Sorry to be repetitive. -- rowan, 20:38:25 05/16/01
Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Don't worry about repitition........ --
Rufus, 20:44:15 05/16/01 Wed
And who says I said it on this board....:):):):) There is lots
of information in every show to keep us happily speculating for
a long time...I prefer that to complaining any day. If we go back
to the earlier eps we can clearly see what was to come. I like
that continuity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> So do give us examples of this continuity,
as you see it... -- Masquerade, 08:55:55 05/17/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So do give us examples
of this continuity, as you see it... -- Rufus, 12:48:18 05/17/01
Thu
Okay.....I'll start with Buffy vs. Dracula. We start with the
perfect couple Buffy and Riley. Xander and the rest watch them
on the beach, they look happy. Then later Riley shows up to find
that Buffy has blown off their plan for slayer training. May seem
small but if you really have it bad for someone you don't forget
that you are spending the day with them. It's an example of Buffy
rejection love because is frightens her.
Giles is ready to go back to England because he feels that Buffy
no longer needs him. He then gets the magic shop and is reinstated
as Buffys watcher.
Joyce comments to Buffy.."I'm going to have to get used to
the place without you again. It gets so quiet." Joyce later
dies in Crush and Buffy is in the quiet home with Dawn having
turned into the parent figure.
Buffy has problems with how her job as a slayer is seen when she
says to Dracula..."I prefer the term slayer, killer sounds
so..." she then comments about not wanting to sound like
the serial killer Gacy, who painted clowns with balloons. She
later goes off at Spike in Crush about being like a serial killer,
he doesn't draw Clowns but he does sketch Buffy.
Buffy is too impressed with Dracula because of the name...same
thing with Glory...Buffy puts too much on the fact that Glory
is a god. Buffy is unable to kill Dracula because he turns into
mist...she may later have problems killing Glory because she morphs
into Ben.
Xander says.."Vampires can't even do that."....we are
now finding out that a lot of the info on vampires may not be
complete or correct, when we find out vampires are capable of
love. I think much of the CoWs info may need a rehaul to reflect
new realities.
Blood lots of stuff on blood. Buffy is able to defeat Draculas
thrall when she tastes his blood. We know that blood is the key
to the key. Blood may be what saves the world.
Willow starts the fire at the beach and everyone is surprised
at her growing abilities. Tara eventually tells Willow that her
powers frighten her.
Riley goes to Spike for information....starting the trend of Spikes
walking clinic. Buffy goes to the crypt the next ep.
I'll do a few on the Real Me....the game of Life with Anya foreshadows
her growing humanity...first she wanted to trade in the little
pink babies for cash, now she understands why someone would want
to have children. And she has made a tidy profit working for Giles.
Big foreshadowing in the converstation with Riley....Buffy: "a
pesky life or death job I can't quit or even take a break from."
Riley: "She doesn't get the sacrifices..She's a kid.".....Buffy
goes catatonic in WotW from the stress of the job she can't quit...."Sacrifice"
I think Dawn will soon understand that idea.
Buffy goes to the crypt for information giving Spike a punch in
the nose.
Giles gets the idea for the magic shop.
Dawn: "She still thinks I'm little Miss nobody, just her
dumb little sister, boy is she in for a surprise." Everyone
was in for a surprise being that Dawn isn't a sister but the key.
All the episodes have something in them that you can look at later
and see that we were set up for what was to come. Anyone feel
free to add more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So do give us examples
of this continuity, as you see it... -- Rob, 13:23:35 05/17/01
Thu
Rewatching previous episodes, I was extremely impressed in "Tough
Love," when Tara and Willow's argument reflected things which
were subtly placed in previous episodes. Willow says she feels
like since she has not had a parent die, Tara is treating her
and her opinions as unequal. In "Forever," a previous
ep, we saw Tara telling Dawn that Joyce cannot (or rather should
not) be resurrected. Willow, however, subtly makes the book with
information on this slide out of the shelf a bit for Dawn to see.
So even from this earlier episode we see the seeds of Willow's
repressed feelings of resentment or anger or jealousy for Tara,
even while at the same time loving her with all her heart. She
makes a quiet rebellion without ever telling Tara. And when Tara
asks Willow how Dawn got the information, Willow looks and sounds
very obviously guilty. Tara acts like she doesn't realize this
though. I believe however that she did realize, but did not want
to say anything either. Perhaps seeing Willow so easily give Dawn
info. about the black arts brought up her fears of Willow's growing
powers, later faced head on in their fight. In earlier spots,
Tara spoke of Willow's growing powers as well. I think it is just
brilliant how such subtle clues are placed throughout episodes
that are later revisited. Not many shows so such attention to
character details. In many shows, the character's actions are
dictated by what the plot requires. In this show, the characters
always come first: their feelings, emotions, character trait affect
what happens. Even a simple spell to make a book slide out of
a bookshelf later is shown to have deeper meaning. That was also
seen in Buffy's pulling the book out of the shelf in WOTW. I remember
this happening in a previous episode recently, although I forget
which one, so even that little detail, when Buffy pulled a book
out and paused, is said to have great significance in a later
ep, when we find out that is a moment when she felt Glory would
win. These little details are for me what make "Buffy"
the greatest show on television, for every episode, even the mostly
stand-alone ones contain integral points regarding character development
or plot points. Arguments don't just come out of nowhere...they
build up slowly for a long time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm up to Family and
FFL -- Rufus, 22:42:01 05/17/01 Thu
Continuity goes on as in Family, Taras secret finally gets out.
But a few other things happened as well. Buffy tells Giles about
the Key, an improvement over last year when Giles was the last
to find out about Riley being with the Initiative. Buffy mentions
her father in Spain with secretary and hasn't returned calls.
Her mother is still ill. Buffy talks about the memories of the
divorce she and Dawn have...remembering that Dawn actually wasn't
there...proves how powerful the memories the monks built are...also
in WotW we see that Buffy clearly remembers Dawn being brought
home as a baby. We get to see the first Glory/Ben switch at the
hospital when the Lei ach demon was ready to attack. Tara does
spell to hide her demon self...and as with magic done for the
wrong reason it backfires and they can't see the demons that attack
them. The secret of Tara happens to be a way of keeping the women
folk barefoot and at home under male control. Spike punches Tara
showing that she is human. The chip still works. Buffy accepts
Tara as family and tells Taras father to get lost. Riley makes
first visit to Willy's bar meeting Sandy. It's when I realized
that he was on his way out.
Fool for Love This ep was full of fun. Starting with Buffy almost
getting killed by a vamp. Riley saves her and takes her home.
It gets her to thinking about how slayers die.
She asks Giles and he tells her that it is too emotional for Watchers
to record the slayers death. Makes me question some of the Watchers
habits.
Buffy pays Spike to tell her how he killed 2 slayers and we get
a trip to the past.
We find that Spike is the stage name for William...the bloody
awful poet...who would make Xander glad he is only a butt monkey(notice
how well the 2 men get along). Spike is rejected by the love of
his life and ends up undead and Drusillas new pet. His new gang
is Angelus and Darla...they don't think much of him.
When Spike tossed his upperclass trappings he reminded me of Giles
who at about the same age became the Ripper. Hmmmmm if he had
lived would he have done the same thing as Giles?
Hunts Slayers for the attention killing one would get him. Kills
first slayer in China...gives Angel the chance at the next one...both
men go on to fall for Buffy.
While Buffy and Spike talk Riley bombs tomb that the vamp that
hurt Buffy is in. Spike tells Buffy about the NY slayer and we
can see how he got his duster.
Sets up the eventual breakdown of Buffy in The Weight of the world
with these words: "and the thing about the dance is, you
never get to stop." "Death is your art. You make it
with your hands day after day.....every slayer has a death wish...even
you." Buffy for just one second in WotW wishes the conflict
with Glory was over as she thinks she will lose this battle. Killing
becomes like a factory assembly line and slayers, even Buffy,
burn out.
Spike tells Buffy it's her family and friends that tie her to
the world. We get to watch as her mother dies in Crush. Spike
tries to kiss Buffy and she drops him on his ass. He decides to
get even and kill her and goes to get his shot gun.
Buffy goes home and finds her mother packing for the hospital.
She goes outside and begins to cry...Spike comes to kill her sees
her face and sits and comforts her. We see in this ep that Spike
is getting closer to Buffy, he also flashes back to Dru who dumped
him because of Buffy..in Crush she tells them she knew then he
was in love with the slayer. We really get to see how seriously
Spike takes love...something we thought that evil vampires shouldn't
be able to do. The watchers are going to have to update their
books. In Checkpoint that is brought home by the female slayer
that did her thesis on Spike not having a clue about the realities
of vampires only what she read in texts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So do give us examples
of this continuity, as you see it... -- verdantheart, 06:32:55
05/18/01 Fri
My personal favorite: At the end of "Crush", Spike tells
Buffy, "No. It's not that easy. We have something, Buffy.
It's not pretty, but it's real." Buffy doesn't agree.
But later, in intervention, there's Buffy telling Spike, "That
[robot's] not even real ... What you did for me, and Dawn, that
was real. And I'll never forget it."
The fact that both of these come at the end of their respective
episodes emphasize them for me. Plus there's all of Dawn's "I'm
not even real" angst.
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So do give us examples
of this continuity, as you see it... -- Rufus, 15:48:19 05/17/01
Thu
Now to the Replacement, Xander finds out that he is more than
just a butt monkey. But we also see Spike at the dump with a manniquins
arm...later he has all the makings of the Buffyquin...this is
pre OOMM when he realizes he loves her...the obsession was there
he just didn't understand it.
Riley tells Xander that Buffy doesn't love him. He eventually
finds solace with vamp hookers.
Now to Out of my Mind
Riley is becoming ill with the chip still remaining in his body.
The Military is back to help him, and eventually take him away.
Both Riley and Spike find they are not welcome on patrol. Eventually
Spike is who does patrol with her and protect her family.
Joyce passes out and ends up in hospital, the beginning of the
end for her. We know that Joyce eventually dies.
Buffy goes to Spike to help find Riley, she slaps him. Buffy keeps
taking Spike to third base.
Willow does her Fiat Lux spell and gets big light instead of little
tinkery lights...Tara takes note. Willows magic is becoming more
of an issue.
Riley is clearly getting paranoid about not being in the Super
club. He is on his way to Belize.
Xander tries to hint to Buffy that all is not well in her relationship
with Riley. Buffy ignores him.
After failing to kill Buffy...again...Spike has the love dream
and he now knows he is in love.
No Place like home
We see the Monks do the spell to create Dawn...they are terrified
of the Beast but say..."Our lives aren't important. We have
to protect the Key." They are willing to sacrifice themselves
for the key. We have to wonder what the monks have found out that
we don't know yet.
Buffy is given the Dagon Sphere by the security guard.
Meets Ben the man-nurse.
Spike takes to stalking. Eventually getting caught big time in
Crush.
We see Glory beat the Monk to death to get the Key. Lots of people
are lined up to die for or kill for the key.
Buffy who had been feeling alot of sibling jealousy towards Dawn
is told by the monk that Dawn is the key.
Buffy now goes into protect the sister she loves mode.
One episode after another links together. Sometimes the smallest
scene tells you what is to become.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cool examples!....:).
-- FanMan, 20:54:13 05/17/01 Thu
Thank You rufus and Rob! I started recording Buffy in season four.
I'll watch the eps again during the summer and pay more attention
to details. Joss & Co are very good at subtle hints like detective
shows have.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So do give us examples
of this continuity, as you see it... -- mundusmundi, 06:31:19
05/20/01 Sun
Another interesting tidbit about The Replacement: At the beginning,
Buffy is with Xander, Riley and Tara in X's basement watching
TV, while reading a book on the Crusades. Foreshadowing, of course,
the Knights of Byzantium, and Xander's line in Spiral ("It's
a crusade!")
Blood Ties....spoilers for The
Gift -- Rufus, 17:47:24 05/16/01 Wed
One of the most important conversations happened in Blood Ties
when Buffy rescued Dawn from Glory...
Buffy: "Are you all right? Did she hurt you?
Dawn: "Why do you care?"
Buffy: "Because I love you. You're my sister."
Dawn: "No, I'm not."
Buffy: "Yes, you are. Look."
She takes Dawn's hand. The cut across her palm has opened up during
the fight.
Buffy: "Blood. Summers blood."
She takes her own hand, smears blood on it from her shoulder wound,
holds it up.
Buffy: "Just like mine."
Buffy presses her palm into Dawn's, mixing their blood.
Buffy: "It doesn't matter how you got here or where you came
from. You are my sister. There's no way you could annoy me as
much if you weren't."
It doesn't matter where Dawn started, it only matters that she
is now Buffys sister. Belief can be a very strong motivater. It
motivated the Knights to search for the key to destroy it, and
, it motivated the monks to try to preserve the key because they
believed that the key could be used for the forces of light. Now
Buffy believes Dawn is her sister. You can see how strong those
memories are when Willow saw Joyce bring Dawn home and Buffys
reaction of first jealousy then the need to protect. The Guide
said that Buffys love was brighter than the flame...can that mean
also stronger than the light of a god? Whatever Buffy does next
week will come from the belief that Dawn is her sister and the
love she feels for Dawn. If Buffy sacrifices herself for Dawn
I feel it will be out of the belief that if the blood of a Summers
girl could open the portal, then the blood of a Summers girl can
close it. Then I think the gift will then be revealed. Doc said
the DNA was strong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I absolutely agree! -- rowan, 19:23:04 05/16/01 Wed
And what if Spike were so injured that he either needed Key blood
or Slayer blood to survive? Hmm...then he would have Summers blood,
too...wouldn't that make a fascinating blood tie next season?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I absolutely agree! -- Morgane, 06:20:24 05/17/01
Thu
I haven't seen the Weight of the world yet but I totally agree
with you!! It would be a very nice turn, if Spike would have Summer's
blood! And after thinking, that makes a lot of sense... He keeps
saying how much he cares for Summer's women. And remember in the
RV in Spiral, when he said something about "it should be
only me, you and big sis' " or something like that, to Dawn.
He really see them as a family more than the scoobie gang. He
doesn't say he would prefer to be alone with Buffy, but with the
Summer's women. And in the cave of Spike's crypt in Tough Love.
The three of them really looked like a family to me. Only one
thing bothers me, would Buffy give her blood to Spike even to
save him? She did to Angel but it appears to be a very big sacrifice
to her and it was for someone she deeply loved. I would more see
Dawn doing such a thing. But what consequences blood of the key
would have on Spike? I mean, we know what consequences it would
have on Glory but we don't know about others, especially others
that are demon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I absolutely agree! -- rowan, 16:02:18 05/17/01
Thu
Maybe it would cement the work started by the chip. After all,
see the comments above in the other thread about the potential
low quality of that chip work!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I absolutely agree! -- Unsung Hero,
16:47:08 05/17/01 Thu
What good would Slayer or Key blood do if Spike were injured?
It healed Angel only because he was inflicted with a poison that
only slayer blood could cure- other than that, slayer blood is
only an aphrodesic(spelling?)? Or did I miss something? And I
don't think the drinking of blood actually makes him tied like
a blood brother- or else he's brother to millions of bloodlines
already.
However, on the subject of Buffy's sacrafice and the mixing of
her blood with Dawn's, I am in complete agreement. Very astute
thinking there. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I absolutely agree! -- rowan,
20:17:43 05/17/01 Thu
I guess what I'm thinking is that Dawn's blood may have properties
heretofore unseen in the Buffyverse (she can start the apocalypse,
after all), so its affect on Spike might be interesting. IMO,
I can't believe that chip won't stop working or come out at some
point, because that's the only way to really advance that storyline,
and it's hard to believe the writers will go back to evil Spike,
since that's so close to the Angel/Angelus storyline. I'm weaving
fantasies about Dawn's blood "curing" Spike. And I guess
I'm already assuming that Buffy shares Dawn's blood, so she's
got "keyness" too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I absolutely agree! -- Rufus, 17:09:48
05/17/01 Thu
I think of the chip as a bug zapper....it stops potential behavior
but the being it is installed in makes the choices on how to work
around it. Spike could still be causing lots of grief for Buffy
but he doesn't. He could be killing by proxy to get dinner but
he doesn't..so what is going on...or will we find yet another
basement with a refrigerator unit that stores fresh kills...:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I absolutely agree! -- FanMan,
21:02:56 05/17/01 Thu
If Spike started turning back into his evil self vs Grey Spike,
Joss would show us the viewers. As you posted below, we viewers
always get subtle hints/warnings that make much more sense after
a few eps. He planned Joyce dieing and Dawn two years ahead!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Could Be the Start of a Beautiful
Friendship (WOTW spoilers) -- rowan, 19:21:17 05/15/01 Tue
Ah, yes. One down, one to go. Overall, I have to admit this was
not my favorite ep. I think I'm too spoiled. The whole Glory/Ben
thing didn't really capture my interest. It seemed to drag a little.
Maybe it was because I had already decided in my head that Ben
was a selfish bad guy. As much as I liked the Willow & Buffy psychic
interaction, not much really happened in this ep. Maybe the writers
were letting us get our breath between Spiral and The Gift.
But there were a few nuggets of gold.
1. Xander and Spike: this could be the start of a beautiful friendship.
Yes, picking right up from Spiral, we have a little Spike and
Xander bonding. That scene where Spike hit Xander in the head
and then got the chip migraine was so funny it had me ROFL. And
look how great they worked together in Doc's shop. I look forward
(hopefully if neither bites the dust, so to speak, in the finale)
to much hilarity from these two next season. They remind me of
Bogart and Rains in Casablanca, or Starsky and Hutch, or Gibson
& Glover from Lethal Weapon...or maybe those two guys from Adam-12???
With Spike's post-fight hair (a variation on bed hair) and Xander's
courage (loved him stabbing that reptile!), they are one hot couple.
By the way, have we noticed how many chip migraines Spike has
endured in the last two eps? Hmmm...if he can stand the pain now,
I guess that means he could still kill people, fight through the
migraine, and then feed? I wonder why he doesn't do that?
2. Boy, do I love Willow. When she said "Separate!"
it gave me the chills. I know there may be karmic hell to pay
next season, but I like that Willow is being more assertive and
taking a larger role in the action. We even got a little Willow
and Anya bonding, too.
3. Did you ever think you'd hear Willow utter the words, "Spike
was right"?
4. Oh, that trailer for The Gift. We saw the troll hammer, didn't
we? And Spike getting buried (as well as someone else) in a collapse
of cement. What was Willow doing with Glory and Tara -- reversing
the brainsuck?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: This Could Be the Start of a Beautiful Friendship (WOTW
spoilers) -- darrenK, 20:10:04 05/15/01 Tue
Spoilers ahead. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I just hope we don't have
to wait until next October to find out what really happens.
In other words, I hope we don't end up with an Aaron Spelling
style cliffhanger rather than a Joss Whedon style cliffhanger.
If someone is buried and dead, then I want to know who it is next
week, not when the leaves turn brown.
Good bonding between Xander and Spike and Willow and Spike. Everyone
seems to accept that when it comes to Dawn, Spike is sincere,
committed and ruthless Awesome darK powerful Willow Glory/Ben-
Yep, they're a little boring. Isn't it time for them to die yet?
Buffy--Sweet scene with her and baby Dawn, even if it didn't "really"
happen It turns out that death is Buffy's gift. But didn't we
always suspect that?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Cliffhanger speculations -- Cleanthes, 20:17:47 05/15/01
Tue
"I just hope we don't have to wait until next October to
find out what really happens"
Would this work, what with the network switch? The WB has the
right to show the reruns, doesn't it? Why would they want to show
episodes that will inure to the benefit of UPN?
What's the point of a cliffhanger if it doesn't drum up business?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Cliffhanger speculations -- darrenK, 20:25:41
05/15/01 Tue
You're right about the whole "drumming up business"
thing, but I think (I'm pretty sure, not positive) the script
for Episode 100 was final before the talks between the WB and
Fox broke down and UPN outbid the WB.
So, the WB would have to just sit back and take it. They could
however keep UPN from airing a rerun of 100, thereby depriving
late arriving audience of essential info before the UPN version
of the show starts.
I do think it would have been good to start the new season on
the UPN with a clean slate. The same way they resolved last year's
Initiative storyline before the awesome "Restless" episode.
"Restless" would have been a good way to begin the UPN
version of the show. dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: This Could Be the Start of a Beautiful Friendship (WOTW
spoilers) -- Shaglio, 07:29:02 05/16/01 Wed
One more nugget in my oppinion:
Everyone was just standing around confused and unsure of what
to do until Willow stepped up and started barking orders. She
reminded me of a taller, red headed Buffy. Way to step up to the
plate Rosenberg! She also reminds me of how Wesley has progressed
as a leader as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Totally Loved Willow, Xander, and Spike (WOTW spoilers)
-- rowan, 08:05:38 05/16/01 Wed
The LOCK that the KEY opens --
FanMan, 19:52:05 05/16/01 Wed
In the time before history, demons ruled the world. Humans were
beneath notice. Then TPTB decided that they liked the humans and
banished most of the greater demons, to keep them away they created
a probability barrier/spell of warding. The lock is part of a
spell to keep demon-realities from affecting the world of man.
The lock is the weak link aka hellmouth. The KEY was created to
control and repair the lock. Psychic "hot spots" aka
Angel eps are much smaller fractures in the warding spell. So
the domain of the KEY is all forms of reality intersection effects,
reality travel, opening and closing portals.The minor function
of the KEY is smaller reality alteration as in Willows spell in
Something Blue, or Superstar.
If the KEY had this function we have another question, why would
TPTB give something like that to mortals? TPTB could maintain
a spell-ward they created without creating a KEY.
Any oppinions about this specuation? Other theories about the
KEY or the LOCK?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The LOCK that the KEY opens -- VanMoodyGrad, 09:34:37
05/17/01 Thu
I always thought TPTB were the good entities and the "First
Evil" were the ones who were the bad entities. I saw it that
they had a fight and TPTB won. This is why they are called TPTB.
It could be that those on the evil side in the Buffyverse are
just as powerful as the ones on the good side. This could explain
why there are fractures in the spell from time to time. The evil
guys want back in and are working towards that end. Just a thought.
VMG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Powers That Be ......For Now Anyway.... --
FanMan, 20:26:04 05/17/01 Thu
No disagreement.
If Good=Evil and Order=Chaos in regards to the relative power
of Big Gods of the Buffyverse, the spell will fail inevitably.
Hope it is like the Sun, around five billion years give or take
a billion....:):):) If they are equal, the good is sort of indifferent
or starting to lose influence. Evil is easy to see in the Buffyverse,
grey also, Good is not acting directly or as overtly as Evil.
Free Will?
TPTB refers to THE POWERS, plural. HMMM...is there one ultimate
GOD above THE POWERS? A yin/yang thing?
I am sure Joss will remain ambiguiss about larger issues, wouldn't
have this board if the viewers knew everything!
The Chip Redux (WOTW Spoilers)
-- rowan, 20:37:09 05/16/01 Wed
There was a thread within the last week or so regarding the operation
of Spike's chip (I think it's dropped into archiveland). I thought
WOTW was interesting (in combination with Spiral) because it provides
a little more chip information.
1. Spike had a chip migraine when he punched Buffy, even though
his intention was not to harm her, but to help her. That should
mean he can harm a human physically regardless of motivation.
But he didn't get a chip migraine when Glory shoved him into Xander,
so the chip can obviously distinguish some difference in how the
force is being applied to the target.
2. Spike seems to be bearing up quite well under the chip migraines.
He's had at least 4 of them in the last two eps (which cover less
than a day in calendar time, I think). He punched the KofB to
save Buffy in Spiral, he punched Buffy, fought with Xander, and
slapped Xander in WOTW. So, it seems as if he can do the bad thing,
feel the pain, and move past it. It's not deterring his behavior
in the sense that he will risk the pain by performing a similar
action again.
Now, if he can do this for good intentions (save Dawn and help
SG), what's to say he couldn't break someone's neck, wait out
the chip migraine, then feed?
So, doesn't this mean there's more to Spike's behavior than just
behavior modification induced by pain stimulus?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Chip Redux (WOTW Spoilers) -- Jen C., 23:19:08 05/16/01
Wed
I thought I saw Spike get a migraine after attacking Doc - I only
watched the episode once (so far) so maybe someone who's really
scrutinized it can tell me if he did.
One thing - I think Spike meant to cause Buffy pain when he hit
her. I don't think for a moment that he wanted to harm her, but
that wasn't a love tap. So the question is, if Spike pushed someone
violently out of the way of a falling piano, would that activate
the chip?
**So, doesn't this mean there's more to Spike's behavior than
just behavior modification induced by pain stimulus?.** - absotively
posilutely!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Chip Redux (WOTW Spoilers) -- Solitude1056, 05:54:25
05/17/01 Thu
Yes, but the migraines seem to be proportional. He was trying
to kill the Knight, and the headblast appeared to pretty much
knock him out of the picture - enough that he was defenseless
(even unable to move out of the way) when the Knight started to
return the blow. Whereas when Spike thwacked Xander - remarking
immediately prior, "this is gonna be worth it" - his
migraine seemed to reflect exactly the amount of pain Xander was
feeling from the thwack. That made me suspect that the chip measures
intensity of blow or intensity of intention somehow? At least
it gives it some sort of constantcy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Chip Redux (WOTW Spoilers) -- VanMoodyGrad, 09:26:13
05/17/01 Thu
I don't believe we know exactly what this chip has done to Spike.
Sure it has kept him from harming people, but we don't know the
real story yet. I believe before it is all over the chip will
malfunction. I mean all of this intricate technology which was
created by the lowest bidder?. Come on. VMG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Chip Redux (WOTW Spoilers) -- Cleanthes, 10:07:26
05/17/01 Thu
"I mean all of this intricate technology which was created
by the lowest bidder?. Come on. VMG"
Part of the true evil that was the Initiative was that they did
NOT comply with the Code of Federal Regulations on procurement.
Bwa ha ha.... That Maggie Walsh - always a rascal.
[grin]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Chip Redux (WOTW Spoilers) -- LoriAnn, 10:41:50
05/17/01 Thu
I noticed the relatively large number of "migraines"
Spike has gotten in the past two eps. Is JW reminding us forcefully
that the chip is there and what it's function is? If he is, why?
"Why" must be that something important regarding the
chip is going to happen next ep. I think the chip will deactivate
for one reason or another; maybe Spike will fall on his head and
break the chip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Chip Redux (WOTW Spoilers) -- rowan, 20:13:38
05/17/01 Thu
Miscellaneous comments...
That whole scene with Doc was strange. Doc practically flew past
Spike, grabbed the sword, and started holding it at Spike's throat
(and Spike looked worried, because I guess that could have been
it for him if Doc decapitated him). Then Spike pushed the sword
out of the way and fell back. He seemed groggy and dazed (almost
eyes crossed) but I'm not sure why -- unless he hit his head when
he went down, because Doc didn't appear to hit him. Then Doc kicked
him on the jaw, and Spike was dazed again. Then Xander jumped
in and saved the day. It didn't quite look like a chip migraine.
I'm getting a creepy feeling like Doc has all sorts of weird powers.
It's interesting how sensitive that chip seems to be (I agree
that the Xander migraine appeared less severe than some others).
I was surprised about the Buffy migraine, because although Spike
was trying to hurt her to snap her out of it, it was a "cruel
to be kind" thing. His migraines from Spiral to WOTW seem
to be diminishing, and I can't tell if that's because the chip
can sense the degree of deadly intent, or if the chip is....getting
weaker.
I've thought all along that chip will eventually malfunction,
because who can trust government issue?
Somebody mentioned Spike's distressing lack of strength recently.
Puzzling. Is he perhaps suffering from what Buffy is experiencing?
Meaning, when coming in to contact with gods, their strength is
puny. I know Spike's getting the crap kicked out of him:
*tortured in Intervention, with cuts, bruises, a limp, and swelling
lasting into the next ep (which I think took us into at least
the next Buffyverse day)
*cut hands in Spiral, which lasted into the start of WOTW (hands
were still bandaged when he boosted the car) but were healed by
end of ep; looked like he healed within the same Buffyverse day,
though
*cut and redness under the eye in WOTW, which might have been
left over from KofB or getting whacked by Glory at the end of
Spiral
*burnt hands in both Spiral and WOTW (sunshine and then fishing
that box out of the fire)
You know, Spike may be a soulless killer, but he really does risk
alot of physical harm for Dawn and Buffy. I mean, the type of
harm (burning and decapitation, for example) that would end his
undead life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Chip Redux (WOTW Spoilers) -- FanMan,
21:19:17 05/17/01 Thu
I believe the Doc is much more powerfull than we have seen so
far. He plays the game of weak old man, even if you know he is
a demon he doesn't look scary until his eyes go black. A previous
thread mentioned that the Doc wanted Spike to get the chest, if
he just handed it over it would be suspicious. Good villian for
next season!
Spikes Chip. I put my two cents in below. More rambling follows.
Is the chip powered by a battery? If so can it recharge somehow?
Spike could have gone in for X-rays long ago...do people x-ray
brains? Hmm...a small chip could not hold many zap charges, a
large chip would be easy to locate with an MRI scan. It's a gizmo
because I'm still baffled about how it could work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Doc and Spike? -- Reid, 07:59:10 05/18/01
Fri
You wrote:
>I believe the Doc is much more powerfull than we have seen
so far. He plays the game of weak old man, even if you know he
is a demon he doesn't look scary until his eyes go black. A previous
thread mentioned that the Doc wanted Spike to get the chest, if
he just handed it over it would be suspicious. Good villian for
next season!
I agree that "Doc" either is a seed for next season,
or that he should be if he isn't. My roommate and I both thought
immediately after the WOTW episode that the whole thing was a
trick: if Doc is such a big fan of Glory, and if (as is commonly
supposed) he knew Dawn was the key, why didn't he tell her? And
etc. I think Doc wanted them to get the chest, either because
he wants Glory out of the way or because (more likely) he has
a specific design for Dawn. Perhaps, in addition to stopping Glory,
whatever ritual they do will ALSO set in motion a chain of events
that carries into next season--a chain of events that Doc is orchestrating.
I would like that.
This lead me to another guess. Perhaps Spike is "in on it"?
Both contacts with Doc have come through Spike only--no one else
knew about him; in WOTW Spike noticed the chest and was surprisingly
ineffective against the old man; back in BtVS 5.17 (can't remember
the title), Spike and Doc 'share a glance' as Dawn and Spike head
out the door--and this episode is conveniently paired with AtS
"Disharmony," in which Angel says, of a vampire, "she
will betray you . . . it's her nature."
There are stong and weak forms of this guess:
1) weak form. Spike doesn't really know what exactly is going
on, but he is working with Doc to get the chip out (although this
has backfired on him before). Initially perhaps the only deal
was to put Doc in touch with Dawn; then, when they needed help
with Glory, they connived further to get the chest into the hands
of the Scoobies. Spike still genuinely cares for Buffy and Dawn,
and hasn't perhaps foreseen the scope of Doc's plan (if there
is one), but it is simply in his nature to betray . . .
2) strong (less likely) form: Spike felt so rejected and betrayed
in IWMtLY that he has turned completely against the group and
is plotting something with Doc. Everything he has done since then
has been for this purpose--he's been acting as needed. Perhaps
he even already has the chip out (?). This is a pretty radical
suggestion, and does seem unlikely to me. But who knows?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Doc and Spike? -- Solitude1056,
18:52:20 05/18/01 Fri
Or perhaps Doc is hedging his bets. Remember that Doc's information
states plainly that to stop Glory, Buffy must kill Dawn to close
the portal(s). In that case, any plans Doc may have for Dawn are
effectively null if Buffy follows the information as written.
While Doc may know of Buffy's inventiveness through the grapevine,
the chance that this information will spur Buffy to find another
way - or that she'll take the advice and do it - is certainly
risky. However, to on-the-other-hand myself repeatedly, if Doc
wants to stay in "good" with Glory in the off-chance
that Glory makes it, then appearing to give misleading or incomplete
information may form part of his intended defense for having let
two Scoobies get away clean with the goods.
It's not unlikely that Doc would have no problem letting the Scoobies
try to best Glory, hence the unbelievably obvious move of standing
precisely in front of the one object containing information pertinent
to the Scoobies' question. Come on! We've gotten the impression
that Dreg was temporarily back thanks to Doc, so Glory's worked
with him in some capacity. And while he seems absent-minded, he's
sure sharp enough in his glances to indicate that the dim lights
are pretense. So if the Scoobies win, he's set up for being the
next villian; if they don't, Glory (perhaps) rewards him once
she returns to her power base, and it doesn't matter anyway 'cause
then there'd be no Scoobies. And we know that doesn't happen.
So...
If Spike's been pretending all this time, it'll run a close second
in crummy plot devices to the And He Woke Up And It Was All A
Dream plot line. And Spike's not stupid; crass, perhaps, but not
stupid. He wouldn't have hotwired the car, for instance. And he
wouldn't have been about to pat Dawn's head when she was upset
(if that's truly what he was about to do, ergh), nor would he
have been so quick to do the Very Cool Guy move to cover the outstretched
arm... unless his intentions were malignant.
As for the forgetting spell, it dawned on me that if the minions
aren't human, that'd be why it wouldn't work on Spike, too...
or else Glory would have to explain to her minions each time,
all over again, what that Ben guy was doing in that small room
under the stairs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Doc and Spike? -- Reid,
21:30:13 05/18/01 Fri
Your comments nicely highlight my unstated assumption that Doc,
if he is seeded as a villain for next season, has foreseen with
some confidence that the Scoobies will "win"--either
because of something intrinsic in the 'solution' itself, i.e.
death and new life (if the solution is 'just' to kill Dawn, then
why is timing so important?), or by improvising something else.
The idea that Doc is just hedging his bets conflicts with my mostly
irrational hope that the next villain will be someone who--while
perhaps not so powerful in terms of brute force as Glory--stays
about 17 steps ahead of everyone else. This, in my mind, might
be a perfectly adequate answer to the "what next, after slaying
a God," question, as well as something the Scoobies haven't
really faced before (although the Mayor came close, and he predictably
was my favorite villain thus far).
I agree that the Spike guess in its strong form seems highly improbable.
But I probably won't abandon my suspicion about the weak form
easily--if anyone could pull something like this off, it is Whedon
and Co.
But possibly--perhaps even probably--they are cooking up something
entirely different, which none of us have foreseen . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Doc's wiley trick --
wilder, 12:13:27 05/19/01 Sat
If Doc is one of the three hellgods, perhaps the information the
Scoobies are using is incorrect. Maybe he's just setting them
up, and Dawn doesn't need to be killed. Ahhh, maybe that's just
wishful thinking on my part.
Wiggy magicks.......spoilers
for WotW -- Rufus, 21:13:05 05/16/01 Wed
I found the part where it's kind of explains Glorys current situation
with Ben:
Glory: "gasps...She's not supposed to remember that. Nobody
should, the cloak between Ben and me is fading. I almost helped
her...He....I...wanted to...HUH...I can't do this..Get him out
of me."
High priest: "W..what?"
Glory: "Ben...the human meatsack who's infecting me. Do your
mojo...make an incision or a removal or whatever you've gotta
do....Help me.....I'm thinking Ben's thoughts And I'm feeling
his feelings...and Uhhhhh I..."
morphs to Ben: "can't kill the girl." back to Glory:
"Damn it...help me!"
High priest: "Th...this I cannot do. You risk terrible magicks
in opening the portal. Nothing comes without a price...this...is
yours."
Glory has limitations when it comes to magic. She may be a god
but she has, at least here, limitations regarding magic and now
the control of the meatsack (Ben)she is renting. Seems there is
no free ride, even for gods in the Buffyverse. I wonder what happens
if the god and meatsack merge into one? Glory can now remember
Bens pain...will she learn to feel true pain of her own? She is
feeling pangs of conscience will she become more mortal as the
cloak fades?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Wiggy magicks.......spoilers for WotW -- FanMan, 22:03:18
05/16/01 Wed
No more speculating about Ben being the third hellgod. He is as
weak and vulnerable as any human. When Dawn hit him, he morphed
into Glory and Glory felt/remembered the pain. Two possibilities
for merging: the new entity is an average of the power of Glory
and Ben, Bloring(Ben+Glory+boring...grin) has the full power of
Glory. It seems like thier personalities and morality would reach
some middle state of equalibriam. More bad than good, but having
a conciounce. Ben is becoming more cinical and ruthless, Glory
is getting a conciounce and other human mental quirks. Whatever...I
hope niether is in next season!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Wiggy magicks.......spoilers for WotW -- Masquerade,
06:09:28 05/17/01 Thu
Yeah, I remember those lines of dialogue. I guess I found them
a little convenient and plot-devicey, and I was hoping there might
be more of an explanation (something earlier in the season perhaps,
that made it likely the walls between these two might start thinning).
*oy*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> yeah... -- pocky, 09:19:54 05/20/01 Sun
yeah, the whole talking-to-self thing in Weight of the World was
really weird. and when Glory said something about the cloak thinning,
i kind of started to think if there was any foreshadowing to it
in the previous episodes.
i really can't come up with any, except that now it makes sense
that when Ben found out that Dawn is the Key and then Ben turns
into Glory and Buffy comes in and kicks Glory's butt (what a great
big run-on ^_^') when Buffy asked Dawn if she was okay, Dawn was
still kind of staring into space and just nods and mutters okay.
so i'm like, "hey!!! didn't she see Ben transform into Glory?!
why isn't she telling Buffy?!" so the whole cloak thing explains
that.
as for the cloak thinning, the only episode i could think of would
be Tough Love. because Willow proved that even Ms. HellGod can
be beat down with some magick.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Wiggy magicks.......spoilers for WotW -- Solitude1056,
20:22:57 05/17/01 Thu
Actually, I read this as meaning that Glory's "price"
for returning to her home is that Ben gets dragged along with
her. Otherwise, she wouldn't have had means (I suppose) to grant
him any sort of immortality once they're in separate dimensions.
For that matter, we've been assuming he'd be killed somehow by
the journey through the portal - that whole comment about "this
body being shrugged off." But if his soul continues in another
form, then sure, it's possible there'd still be some Ben-identified
Spirit hanging out, still wrapped up with Glory. Yikes.
And for that matter, if Dawn had had any family other than Buffy's,
it's possible that Glory's little speech about "us girls
who aren't really girls" would've made her start thinking.
But she's grown attached to this mode of being, and Glory hasn't.
Leaving that aside, I still thought it interesting how Glory was
approaching their similarities.
Spoilers from Tonight's Show --
Steve, 22:20:05 05/15/01 Tue
Spoilers for tonight.
Some things aren't worth even the whole world. Even the whole
universe.
If to save the universe means to kill Dawn, then let the Universe
be Damned. It is the only honorable thing to do in such a circumstance.
Killing Dawn is out.
I hope Buffy makes it clear that if anyone even attempts to kill
Dawn during the final battle - for any reason, that person does
it at the forfeit of their own existence as well. Prior friendships
aside. You touch Dawn, and that is the last thing you do I would
tell the Scoobies, if I was Buffy. I will be crying at your funeral
as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spoilers from Tonight's Show -- Darrick, 04:53:34 05/16/01
Wed
I don't know, I'd lean towards killing Dawn in this situation,
but I'd look for other options. After all, if reality collapses,
I doubt Dawn could survive in her present form. I'd (hopefully)
be willing to trade my life for Dawn, or Ben's life, but not _everyone's_
life. What about all the other children, babies, small woodland
animals, etc ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spoilers from Tonight's Show -- DEN, 07:05:39
05/16/01 Wed
Morality in the Jossverse does not exactly replicate that of ours,
but the moral issues raised are the same. A base line of Judaeo-Christian
morality is that evil may not be done in pursuit of a good end.
"Dawn's life versus the universe" is a child's question
about ends and means. Phrased in exactly that form it has long
been a staple of catechism classes, Sunday schools, and every
other form of Western elementary religious instruction. The answer
is always the same when the question is expressed in that basic
form: an innocent person may NOT be intentionally sacrificed even
to save the universe. (Such modifications and ramifications as
the Dirty Hands Problem are introduced far later).Now Joss knows
all of this.Why, then, does he seem to be insisting on a solution
to Season 5 that after WotW is being presented as a practical
no-brainer on one hand ("Dawn has to die"), and a moral
no-brainer on the other? Does he have something up his sleeve
none of us expect? I think I'll stay for one more card.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spoilers from Tonight's Show -- spotjon, 11:41:33 05/16/01
Wed
"If to save the universe means to kill Dawn, then let the
Universe be Damned."
So, then should Buffy have not skewered Angel when it came down
to him or the earth? It was either kill Angel or let the earth
burn. Now, it may come down to killing Dawn or letting all of
existence erupt into chaos. Shouldn't the same choice be made
if necessary?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spoilers from Tonight's Show -- DEN, 13:29:54
05/16/01 Wed
A possible reply is that Angel is not an "innocent"
in the way Dawn is. At the time, and certainly since, we've seen
that the "demon" is part of even the souled Angel. That
in turn suggests some level of responsibility for the situation
Angeles created.(Just as, arguably, Ben does not get a free pass
for Glory's deeds). At least the issue is open to discussion--it
falls into that zone of complexity I mentioned in my earlier posting
to this thread. Dawn by contrast has nothing to do with generating
the situation to which she is the "Key". THe difference
is essential.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spoilers from Tonight's Show -- spotjon,
13:43:04 05/16/01 Wed
I disagree. Going by the vampire mythology in place at the end
of Season 2, which states that the soul is separate from the demon,
and is not responsible for its actions, the re-souled Angel bore
no responsiblity. Sure, he would have remembered what "he"
did given enough time, but it was the demon that opened the gateway
to hell, not the soul. Buffy condemned the guilty demon to hell
along with an innocent Liam. She knew that Angel had nothing to
do with what Angelus did, but she still ran him through, because
it was the only way to save the earth. But even if Angel was responsible
in some sense, Buffy still held the belief that it was all the
demon's fault, and that Angel was innocent. Buffy knows that she's
made this decision before, and she'll have to decide whether or
not she can do it again.
another theory about Ben and
related stuff (possible mild spoilers) -- purplegrrl, 09:24:59
05/17/01 Thu
I was going to add this to one of the threads below, but it appears
to have drifted off into the archives this morning.
My new theory about Ben is that his life is similar to Buffy's
-- he is a human being who has to deal with the hand fate dealt
him. He is not the first human male to be the mortal vessel for
the hellgod Glory. Merely the latest in a long line of infant
males "chosen" for the duty. He tries to lead a "normal"
life, cleaning up Glory's messes along the way -- much like Buffy
tries to lead a normal life while still doing her duties as the
Slayer. And as Buffy has done, Ben complains about his fate and
his duties. While still technically an "innocent" (he
is not responsible for what Glory does when she takes over his
body), Ben has had to do some morally questionable deeds over
the years in order to clean up after Glory -- such as summoning
the Quellor to take care of all the crazies that Glory "made"
after sucking their brains/sanity. This could explain how, as
a human, he knew to call the Quellor in the first place (remember,
the Quellor has been called several times in the past, and presumably
not by Ben). Growing up, Ben may have had a Watcher-like mentor
who explained his duties to him and taught him how to deal with
the bizarre-ness of having a hellgod residing in his body on a
part-time basis.
Will Ben's death actually kill Glory? Possibly. But it is also
possible the the death of Glory's mortal vessel merely suspends
her in limbo until such time that she is strong enough to break
into this dimension again. However, when she does, she is forced
into the body of a newborn male to be able to survive in this
dimension. The Key would break this cycle of limbo and rebirth
and restraint, allowing Glory to once more to return to her own
dimension. Unfortunately, from what we've been told, using the
Key will open *all* the dimensions, not just the one that Glory
wants to get back to.
The Key is like a master key at a hotel or other large building
-- it opens all locks. Even if the Key is neutral, neither Good
nor Evil (which I believe it is), why have a key that opens all
locks simultaneously?? This seems dangerous even in the most benevolent
hands, let alone in the hands of someone like Glory. I think with
the proper rituals and incantations that the Key could be focused
to open a single lock/portal/doorway between dimensions. However,
this process is very difficult, requiring much concentration and
control -- something that most people/beings cannot or will not
exert to wield the Key (it is much easier to open all dimensions
than to learn the focus to open only one). Glory is not interested
in subtlety and finesse. She wants to go home and will bash at
the lock on the doorway to her dimension with the Key if that
will get her the result she wants. Perhaps the Knights know this
about Glory and the Key, and this is why they believe the Key
must be destroyed rather than allow anyone, especially Glory,
to use it. (The Knights were "called" to protect the
dimensional portals after the Monks sensed that Glory was coming
to try and steal the Key they had been guarding all these years.
They made the Key into a human (Dawn) in an attempt to throw Glory
off its scent.)
Do the Monks know how to focus the Key? Possibly. But it seems
this knowledge or information has been lost or misplaced over
the years. Otherwise, why did they not use the Key themselves
to send Glory back to her own dimension or some other dimension??
Or perhaps the Monks were afraid to use the magics that caused
the Key to function. Perhaps they thought it would be easier to
deal with Glory than to focus and manipulate the Key. (Although
it seems strange that if the Monks have the power to make the
Key human, that they couldn't focus the Key's power and return
Glory either to limbo or her own dimension.)
Just my thoughts this morning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Interesting theory, but... -- Jack_McCoy, 09:47:25 05/17/01
Thu
Glory said she had been waiting to go home for about 25 years,
Ben's age. This means she is still relativly "new" to
Earth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: another theory about Ben and related stuff (possible
mild spoilers) -- darrenK, 12:16:29 05/17/01 Thu
You've obviously put a lot of thought into this theory, but you
assume that 25 Earth years is only 25 years in whatever Hell dimension
Glory is from, rather than 25 Earth years being 500 Hell years
the same way 1 Earth year can be hundreds of years in C.S. Lewis'
Narnia. But, in order to advance his plot C.S. Lewis made the
equation indistinct so that the single earth year between The
Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is an undefined period of hundreds
of year from the Narnian Age in Prince Caspian, but the single
earth year between Prince Caspian and The Voyage of the DAWN Treader
is only 3 Narnian Years from the time of Prince Caspian. Like
C.S. Lewis Joss Whedon can make time in the Buffyverse do whatever
he wants. That's because Joss and the other writers are the Powers
that Be in the Buffyverse.
There's also no particular reason to suspect that Glory was thrown
out of her Hell more than 25 years ago.After all, Glory remembers
her enemy "Gregor" very clearly. I don't think Gregor
is immortal, nor do I think--judging from his costume, etc.--that
she met him on Buffy's Earth. Nor, did she meet him during the
time she was trapped in Ben. Gregor seemed about middle aged and
would have been in his 20's at Glory's banishment.
The Buffy writers always leave themselves some hedge room on facts
like that to allow for plot improvisation. And well they should,
absolute facts close off imaginative possibilities.
Where Ben is concerned, Gregor made it very clear to Buffy that
if Ben is killed, Glory is killed. "Kill the man and the
God dies." I don't think that this was said in such absolute
terms so that we could speculate about whether Glory dies or not.
I think it means that if you kill Ben, Glory DIES.
As to the Key, I think the knights don't have any experience with
it. It's always been beyond their grasp. Nor do they know anything
about it other than legends. The knights--and you--have assumed
that the monks failed in their attempt to use the key in the service
of the light and hid it as a last resort, a sign of failure. I've
contended in other posts that the monks succeeded in their quest
and Dawn isn't a "hiding place," she's specially created
to use the key.
It's also wrong to think that the monks spent all their time with
the key trying to find ways to best Glory. Ben was created to
be Glory's prison and for a number of years he was probably a
pretty good prison. During that time it was probably assumed that
Glory had been properly contained. The same way it was assumed
that the punitive Treaty of Versailles had contained the militaristic
ambitions of pre-WWII Germany.
The key has been left purposefully vague, so that we don't know
how it works, or whether it's evil or good, or just a tool. My
own suspicion and hope is that the function of the KEY is something
that we'll learn more about in the next 2 seasons. At least I
hope this is true because I don't want Dawn to die. But we'll
see next week...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: another theory about Ben and related stuff (possible
mild spoilers) -- purplegrrl, 14:45:14 05/17/01 Thu
Well, actually I'm not sure that I do assume that 25 Earth years
equals 25 Glory-hellgod-dimension years. But, oh well. (I agree
that we've been shown/told that not all dimensions in the Buffyverse
work on the same time continuum -- without bringing C.S. Lewis
into the picture.)
When Buffy and the gang were tracking the Quellor, they turned
up some evidence of crazy people and the Quellor beginning in
the Middle Ages. The gang assumed this meant that Glory had been
in this dimension, has had access to this dimension, or keeps
being thrown into this dimension for that long. The 25 years Glory
is complaining about may just be how long she has been stuck in
*this* mortal vessel in *this* dimension *this* time. Perhaps
the limbo Glory is in allows her access to any other dimension
*except* her home dimension (they must *really* dislike her at
home!!).
***Where Ben is concerned, Gregor made it very clear to Buffy
that if Ben is killed, Glory is killed. "Kill the man and
the God dies."***
"Dies" could just be a convenient term for "leaves
this dimension, hopefully never to return." I think the Knights
see the world in very black-and-white terms. If Glory no longer
has immediate access to this dimension (Ben, her mortal vessel,
is dead), then she is effectively dead. Since Ben and Glory have
been shown as two, separate-yet-together individuals, I think
it is more a case of denying Glory access to this dimension for
some undetermined time period. Glory does more than just live
in or take over Ben's mind (equated with the religious fervor
experienced in some religions), she takes over his physical space
in this dimension. Up until "The Weight of the World"
Ben had little or no memory of Glory taking over. He saw the evidence
of her presence and dealt with that accordingly. In hindsight
Ben knows that Glory has taken over (such as when he realized
he had missed 2 weeks at his job at the hospital), but didn't
have her memories.
***I've contended in other posts that the monks succeeded in their
quest and Dawn isn't a "hiding place," she's specially
created to use the key.***
Possibly. But Glory knows the Key is "pure, green energy."
By making the Key human, the monks effectively *did* hide it from
Glory. She knew the monks had changed the Key's outward appearance,
causing her to search longer for it. Besides, couldn't Buffy guard
a box (or other convenient container) of energy as well as a human?
Perhaps better since she would have no emotional ties to a box
of energy, whereas she does to Dawn. If the need arose, Buffy
would have far fewer qualms about destroying a box of energy to
keep a hellgod from opening all the dimensional portals than she
would about killing her sister. (Dawn's blood is the key to the
Key, not the Key itself.)
There are things going on here that we haven't been given enough
background on to fully understand -- the monks, the Knights, the
Key, Glory. I hope everything (or nearly everything) will be explained
in the season finale.
Who is Angelus -- matthew, 14:37:07
05/17/01 Thu
after watching through the looking glass and seeing what angels
true demon looks and acts like it makes me wonder who angelus
is. i always thought that angelus was angel when the demon had
control of him but from what i saw the demon wasn't cruel or as
nasty as angelus it just seemed to act on instinct. so IMO angelus
is liam given the great power of a demon but with out a conscience
to make him do the right thing so it would seem that buffy and
angel have one hell of a lot in common.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I agree -- Jack_McCoy, 16:36:14 05/17/01 Thu
After seeing the demon come forth, it made me wonder if it was
sentient at all. This puts a whole new spin on our opinions on
vampires if they are little more animals. It means that without
the host human's memories, intelligence, and education, they are
more like hellhounds then other intelligent demons. Which means
that vampires are more human than we think. What do ya'll think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Speculation -- FanMan, 20:07:56 05/17/01 Thu
The Vampire personality is based on the memory of the host body.
Something interesting though:what would happen if a human that
was quick-grown in a cloning lab was vamped? Clarifications: would
a personality manifest in the vamp if it is raised by sentiant
and communicating "parents". For this scenerio that
would be say one month to biological maturity: not enough time
for a personality to develope.
When does a human have a soul? Conception? Birth? Sentiance? If
animals do not have souls, sentiance would be the time that a
soul would manifest as an emergent energy/thought pattern.
Would said vampire develope a personality? Be somewhere in the
range of animals inteligence for it's unlife?
Vampires in the show have a pack mentality. Unkown if that is
from the vampire essance, human instinct that is hardwired in
the primitive brain, or normal personality of people as group/social
animals.
Hmmm! I just asked questions!...:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Demons and Vampires -- change, 16:55:07 05/18/01 Fri
This explains why demons and vampires don't get along too well.
Besides being demon/human half breeds, it appears that the demon
half is nothing more than a mindless animal. Demons probably think
of vampires about the same as we think of gorillas.
In addition, since the demon part is just a mindless animal, this
implies that a vampire in game face is still mostly human.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Who is Angelus -- spotjon, 07:07:05 05/18/01 Fri
I was rather disappointed with the portrayal of Angel's inner
demon. I was hoping that it would be more than a mindless and
ravenous animal, but would actually show the capacity to think
and, well, be evil. But who knows, maybe the demon really is rationally
evil, but the joy of being totally freed after so long threw it/him
into an ecstatic feeding frenzy.
My personal favorite depiction of a demonic entity is in C.S.
Lewis' book Perelandra. In it, a man is possessed by a demon (presumably
Satan, but we're not told explicitly), but he takes on all the
outward appearances of a human. Much like a vampire, there is
a human exterior, but the core is pure evil. It's a very chilling
book, and I think that the Buffy writers could learn something
from it. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Good, and Bad, Omens -- Solitude1056, 07:37:02 05/18/01
Fri
And my ultimate suggestion for reading material that Joss probably
read (and is why we have Evil-as-Do-Gooder, and 2 witches, a chipped
vampire, a scholar, a carpenter, a vampire slayer, an ex-demon,
and a key to the apocalypse in an RV being chased by men on horseback)
would be Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. The devil's
top on-earth guy and the lord's top on-earth guy end up having
to work together to prevent the apocalypse because, quite frankly,
they've both grown sort of attached to the place. Earth, that
is.
Pick it up, if you've not read it. Should keep you occupied for
a day or two while we wait anxiously for the last episode of the
season...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Good, and Bad, Omens -- Shaglio, 08:08:51
05/18/01 Fri
That was one of the funniest books that I ever read. Right up
there with the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series and Kurt
Vonnegut's books. I belive it had a sub-title, something like
"the nice and accurate profecies of Agnus Potter, witch."
I just like that they had Bohemian Rhapsody in it - before Wayne's
World made it popular again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I prefer this mindless animal -- Greta, 08:28:22 05/18/01
Fri
Because it makes clear that the it's the vampires' human nature
that makes them "evil." I.E. when Angelus killed Jenny,
it was the beast that let him catch her and snap her neck, but
it was the soulless MAN whose twisted artistic vision arranged
the body in Giles' bed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> good point! -- Solitude1056, 09:27:28 05/18/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I prefer this mindless animal -- spotjon,
11:24:17 05/18/01 Fri
True, this does seem to be the way things work in the Buffyverse.
I do wish, however, that demons would occasionally be portrayed
as a little more... demonic. I mean, if they're only animals,
then they are amoral. If we go with the demons=fallen angels route,
then demons are most certainly capable of conscious and purposeful
evil, and they are not simply animals. Not that I think humans
are any less capable of evil than demons are. I think that they
can be even worse in the Buffyverse. True, there have been some
very evil demonic entities in the show, but for the most part
they are portrayed as destructive, but amoral.
In Perelandra, the demon-man is extremely intelligent, and can
discuss philosophy until your skin crawls off of your body from
boredom, but then turns around and begins skinning little frogs
alive. Yikes. The main character in the book notes that the creature
was very intelligent but only used that intelligence as a tool
to fulfill its evil desires. There's some very creepy stuff in
that book.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I prefer this mindless animal -- Rufus,
13:00:54 05/18/01 Fri
"can discuss philosophy until the skin crawl off your body
from boredom."
I just love that little quote there. Makes me want to go skin
a frog...kidding.....:):):):)
As for the demon side of Angel, it makes perfect sense to why
Angel would feel so guilty. The Demon part of him gave him the
urge to do evil cause it feels good. The human side of him put
in the artistic finishing touches that could have only come from
a person. That further explains why Angel feels so guilty. Not
only did Angelus murder people he knew but, he used his human
mind to make the murder more horrible. How would a mindless demon
come up with the idea of killing the host bodys family unless
it had access to the persons memories of rage and resentment...and
how to go home. The demon just gives the human the push towards
evil, the human side translates that drive for evil into action.
Angel feels guilty because the demon used his mind to pervert
not only the anger he had for his father but to taint any good
qualities he had as well. Holland Manners said that evil lives
in the hearts and minds of every living being. In Angel the demon
just found more material to work with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I prefer this mindless animal -- Humanitas,
14:27:47 05/18/01 Fri
True, we have seen a lot of demons who are more comic or animalistic
than truly 'demonic.' Whoever, I think that makes sense, given
the number of demons that exist. If evil is distributed on a bell
curve, like most traits, then it makes sense that only a few demons
reach the level of Big Bad. After all, most people aren't Warriors
for Good, despite the basic tendancy toward goodness posited in
Joss' description of the function of a soul.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Angels -- Rufus, 15:51:38 05/18/01
Fri
Holland Manners from Reprise: "You see, if there wasn't evil
in every singel one of them out there, why they wouldn't be people......They'd
all be angels."
There seems to be a bell curve for both evil and good, or we would
have nothing but angels and big bads fighting each other. Not
the lovely gray that Lorne loves so much.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Sublimation, Sunlight and Writer's
Wiggle Room -- Scott L., 07:45:25 05/19/01 Sat
These are all great points. Something that is keeping me from
biting was the line that Wesley useed about Angel's demon side
being completely sublimated in this dimension. It made me think
that the sublimation, in addition to or instead of metaphysical
properties of the Pylea, allowed angel to exit in sunlight and
see his sticky-up hair in the mirror.
What made an even bigger "Hmm" in my head was the fact
that the pure demon could exist in the light of day.
So is the demon side of the vampire altered in this dimension
-- making it less demonic than it would be if it had it's own
existence on Earth? We won't know until the writer's allow us
to see a pure vampire -- one untainted by a human vessel.
What choices can Dawn make? --
Jazz, 04:51:35 05/18/01 Fri
Your posts are all so interesting - they certainly make me think!
And all the posts on whether Buffy can kill an innocent (or semi-innocent)
Ben to save her sister, has made me wonder whether Dawn, herself,
will take the choice away from Buffy. These last episodes have
seen her piling on the guilt - Spike getting tortured, Tara brain-sucked
and now Giles near to death! She sees it all as her fault - if
she thinks that they might all die, including Buffy, because they
are trying to save her, wouldn't she make the choice that she
couldn't let it go on, and sacrifice herself, for their sakes?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What choices can Dawn make? -- Solitude1056, 06:39:17
05/18/01 Fri
She might've made that choice if she'd seen the impact it all
had on her sister - going catatonic, I mean - but Dawn didn't.
And her words to Glory pretty much underlined Dawn's belief that
if anyone can pull it off, Buffy can. For Dawn to kill herself
would be a major statement to the effect that she didn't think
Buffy could or would be able to save her, and Dawn believes completely
that Buffy won't let her die. Probably doesn't know how, but she's
got faith.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What choices can Dawn make? -- Rufus, 13:15:33 05/18/01
Fri
Would sacrificing yourself for billions of people be the same
as suicide?
Faith, belief is what will be needed for the last ep of this year.
Both Buffy and Dawn believe that they are sisters. They understand
this isn't true, but the built memories and consequent experiences
together have made them believe they are sisters. The monks were
willing to sacrifice their lives to protect the key. What is it
about this instrument of chaos has so many people willing to risk
all to destroy or protect her? With Dawn in human form she has
a drive to survive that she wouldn't have comprehended as the
key. With Dawn as a sister Buffy has the drive to protect she
may not have for a non sentient glowy mass. Belief has made the
Knights travel the world for generations looking to destoy the
key. So who are the "fools"? The general was only willing
to see the key as one potential, the monks another. Buffy only
sees her sister, the baby she wanted to protect. What benefit
has the gift of Death? I can't wait to find out. I still say these
monks were smart guys.
Did Spike's chip go off? -- darrenK,
08:31:43 05/18/01 Fri
When Spike tries to strike Buffy out of her catatonia does the
chip go off?
I've watched the episode twice and I haven't noticed it...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Did Spike's chip go off? -- Solitude1056, 09:26:22 05/18/01
Fri
It doesn't say that his chip goes off in the shooting script,
either. When I watched it, I got the impression that Xander jumped
Spike and Spike was reacting from Xander's blow, not the chip's
zap. Just my two dinar.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Then is the Slayer human? -- darrenK, 11:21:52
05/18/01 Fri
Good, then my brain isn't malfunctioning.
Does that mean the Slayer isn't human?
Is that the message from Restless?
dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Did Spike's chip go off? -- Nina, 13:24:39 05/18/01
Fri
Well I watched it again and again and as I saw it the first time,
Spike says "ow" (not in the shooting script but he says
it) and grabs his head in pain way before Xander punches him.
I wonder about one little thing though. That dialogue Spike and
Buffybot had in "Intervention". The Buffybot said that
Spike could bite her if she let him do it. Maybe it was mentioned
there to forshawdow what Spike could do in "The Gift".
If Dawn lets Spike drink her blood (not too much, but enough -
she could go to a hospital after - no vamping Dawn here) wouldn't
Spike have the Key's power? Then he could offer to Buffy to kill
him instead of Dawn. Of course something would happen at the last
minute, but we could see if the chip activates or not when the
"victim" wants it!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Did Spike's chip go off? - other theories
-- purplegrrl, 14:11:41 05/18/01 Fri
Another possibility was that the chip recognized that Spike's
intentions were not to hurt Buffy, but to try and help her out
of her catatonia. If that required a slap to the face, then the
chip would allow that action.
Or maybe because Spike was trying to help Buffy rather than actually
hurt her, hitting her caused Spike's chip to respond at a lower
level. Something less than head-clutching, mind-numbing pain.
An "ow!" rather than an "OW!!!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Did Spike's chip go off? - other theories
-- Wisewoman, 16:14:51 05/18/01 Fri
My recollection is that Spike's chip DID react when he slapped
Buffy in TWOTW, although not majorly. As to whether the Slayer
is human, well the chip's definitely kicked in on several other
occasions when Spike hurt Buffy, for example when he made a grab
for her wound while playing pool at The Bronze during Fool for
Love. They both gasped with pain that time! :-)
Is Dawn Evil? -- Rufus, 22:45:36
05/18/01 Fri
Dawn has been worried about who and what she is...most of all
she is afraid she may be evil. Is she? I think she may have gotten
a good answer from the resident expert on evil, Spike. Spike,
as impure as the yellow driven snow, he may be a Fool for Love,
but he does know the look and feel of evil. He says that Dawn
isn't evil. Is he right? Dawn stole a pair of earrings from Anya,
has had angry jealous feelings about her sister Buffy. Is she
evil because she has shown herself to be a normal teenager. If
petty theft were the only qualification for membership in the
evil club, then Dawn is evil. Hey she may be used for destruction...that's
evil.....but would destruction be a choice of Dawns...no. Dawn
may be the key but I don't think she is evil. I think that Glory
is evil and that Glory could use Dawn for an evil purpose, but
that doesn't make Dawn evil. So, what is evil? How do we measure
it? We know it when we see it in it's most blatant forms, but
how much do you have to do before you cross the line from good
to evil? Has Dawn crossed that line?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Evil Meter -- FanMan, 00:49:17 05/19/01 Sat
Things would be simpler if there were an EVIL METER. Point at
a criminal and see how evil he is! Sorry but I do not know how
to measure evil. Actions can be evil, but judging the actions
is subjective. Hitler was evil. Children are selfish and innocent:
not contradictary! Children given good moral guidence learn to
tame their selfishness. One can remain morally pure after losing
innocence. Innocence is ignorance of pain, fear, hatred etc. If
you understand the motives of evil and are not controlled by selfishness
or become cynical about suffering you are morally pure. Important
note: pure as in uncorrupted not perfect.
Amoral: having no moral values. Animals and some criminals. Immoral:
actions that are embarassing or considered wrong in a social context.
Evil: Actions/thoughts that result in excessive suffering. For
this I need to make a distincion. The world has limited space
and food/energy, so all life competes. Plants/animals and humans/demons
are in an ecosystem wherin something allways dies and becomes
food. Hunting and eating food, humans teritorial and culteral
conflict, both will cause suffering. Suffering caused by normal
conflict is not evil, deliberate harm for the purpose of harm
not competition is evil.
Amoral vs Evil: An identical acion can be either one, the value
judgement requires the distintion of motive. Hatred of anything
or anyone is evil. To complicate matters, someone can do a "good"
act for a reason that furthers their purpose of evil, so the judgement
of evil requires context also.
Ack! Morality is complex!
Classic Movie of the Week - May
18th 2001 -- OnM, 21:38:17 05/18/01 Fri
*******
9:15. Personal note. When I was a little kid, my mother told me
not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. The
doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal. I was terrified.
Alone in that darkness. Slowly, daylight crept in through the
bandages, and I could see . But something else had changed inside
me. That day I had my first headache.
12:45. Restate my assumptions. One-- Mathematics is the language
of nature. Two-- Everything around us can be represented and understood
through numbers. Three- If you graph the numbers of any system,
patterns emerge. Therefore, there are patterns, everywhere in
nature.
*******
One might ask why God permits chaos and irrationality to exist.
No, not the social forms that attend to those words-- the mathematical
ones. I grew up in a day and age when recorded-music-wise, the
LP record ruled the roost. Most of these were recorded at a speed
of 33 1/3 RPM. If you express this number as a fraction, like
I just did, everything looks innocent enough. But if you print
the number in its decimal form, whereby you end up calculating
just what the real number is (the fraction really represents the
number as a formula, literally the quantity 1 divided by the quantity
3), a problem quickly surfaces: The number becomes 33.3333333333333333333333333333...
etc. etc. etc. The number never ends. Was this a little joke on
the part of the company (I believe it was Columbia Records) that
the Long Playing Phonograph Record would symbolically play forever?
I mean, hey, the system would have worked just fine if it was
at 30 RPM, or 32 RPM, or even 35 RPM. We even got those little
records with the big hole, (RCA came up with them) which turned
at a nice neat 45.00 RPM.
Those of you who have read my posts over a period of several months
probably know that I am an audiophile, and am even crazy enough
to be employed in the audio/video business. You might think that,
therefore, blessed with all manner of esoteric and historically-nuanced
knowledge of the industry, I would know for certain *why* these
particular speeds were chosen for these inventions of the time.
But I haven't a clue, and as far as I can tell, no one else seems
to know either. It is apparently lost in the mists of time, or
perhaps God just never intended us to know-- the idea just popped
into the head of some recording engineer one night in a dream,
or in some kind of vision while hiking through the desert. It
is not for me, or seemingly others, to say.
But that won't stop someone, somewhere, from trying to pry these
little mysteries out of the universe. Occasionally, someone even
succeeds, and humanity's knowledge base lurches forward. So, depending
on the particular revelation, you get a 12 inch round flat piece
of plastic with music on it that revolves at some irrational speed,
or maybe you get an atomic bomb that threatens to set the atmosphere
on fire (ooops...). In the former case, you get Elvis and Buddy
Holly playing out of your speakers, and in the latter you kind
of wonder if maybe some secrets shouldn't stay that way.
Such is a dilemma faced by the protagonist of this week's Classic
Movie, a mathematician, who, like many, starts out by trying to
solve a given problem for the sake of achieving that solution,
in and of itself, like climbing the mountain because it's, like,
*there*, right? But there is more-- much more-- than meets the
eye, and the solution turns out to be one of those secrets that
God might wish to keep to herself.
Enter one Maximilian Cohen, played by Sean Gullette, who thinks
he sees patterns in the numbers of the stock market. He isn't
interested in doing this so he can strike it rich, it's just such
a complex mathematical system that it seems to defy any possibility
of understanding, let alone prediction. To aid himself in this
quest, he has built a supercomputer, whom he nicknames Euclid.
He works obsessively, day after day, week after week, to no avail.
Then one day, a bug/crash/power failure/divine chaotic intervention
strikes during a program run, and Euclid spits out this very long
number (216 digits, actually), which appears to be random nonsense.
Except, all of a sudden, the world of people around him, which
Max normally makes great effort to keep as far away as possible,
seems extraordinarily interested in his irrational number-- even
though they don't know what the number is. Several factions of
mysterious organizations, including both elements of the scripturally
sacred and the economically profane, want what Max has got. The
problem is, Max isn't even sure yet just what he's got, only that
it portends to be none other than a fundamental Key to the Universe,
perhaps even the mind of the Creator.
Of course, Max could also be insane or at least irrational, himself.
His work is not only interrupted by the unwanted visits from the
outsiders, but also from excruciating, mind-melting migraines
that get worse and worse as he draws closer to the goal of deciphering
the 216-digit enigma. God warning him off, or testing him to see
if he is strong enough to be worthy of such enlightenment? Warning--
if you find your brain outside of your body, on the steps to a
subway platform, or in the bathroom sink, this may be a sign.
(Or, were this the Buffyverse, meeting with a spirit figure in
the desert who says 'Math is your gift...').
Some people are born to great responsibility, some have that responsibility
thrust upon them. However you start out, it's where you end up
that matters. Sometimes that end is insanity, sometimes it's enlightenment
beyond all imagining. Still other times, it may be both at once.
This film has all of that and more.
The words 'daring', 'innovative' and 'unique' are adjectives that
have been applied to countless movies throughout the history of
cinema. They usually don't really mean anything of the sort, but
they do for this film. It doesn't look like anything that has
ever gone before it, and it's isn't going to have anything that
comes after that could imitate it. Shot with an ultra-high-contrast
black &
white film stock, it's unflinching, binary light and shadow thrusts
chaos in your face. It's grainy and harsh, like the characters
who inhabit it's realms. I love it-- it takes chances, and it
wins, big time.
So, count down from 2-1-6 and rent or purchase this week's Classic
Movie, Darren Aronofsky's *Pi*. It's most certainly not irrational
to do so!
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Technical minutia et al:
*Pi* is available on DVD. (Technically, the name of the movie
is the mathematical symbol for Pi, but my cheesy little word processor
here doesn't seem to have a bank of symbols handy to place in
the text, so spelling it will have to do!) There are a number
of neat extra features on the DVD release, including commentary
tracks from the director and actors. The aspect ratio of the theatrical
release is 1.66:1, which is also the format shown on the DVD,
sound is standard Dolby Surround. The movie is shot in B&W,
and running time is 1 hour and 25 minutes. Principle cast members
are Sean Gullette, Mark Margolis, Ben Shenkman, Pamela Hart, Stephen
Pearlman and Samia Shoaib. The screenplay is by Darren Aronofsky,
cinematography by Matthew Ubatique and music by Clint Mansell.
In doing some background for this week's entry, I found that,
amazingly, the web site for this film is still up. It's a pretty
trippy site if you run the Java version. The link is:
http://www.pithemovie.com
Some more interesting stuff can be found at James Berardinelli's
'Reelviews' site (A big fav of mine, if you've never been there,
check it out. Most excellent review archives, current reviews,
and lotsa other good movie stuff!) Try this link for another piece
of the Pi:
http://movie-reviews.net/comment/070798.html
Benny Boy -- Mee, 02:14:36 05/19/01
Sat
Why doesn't Ben just kill himslef thereby destroying glory (if
he cares so much about people). Isn't it selfish to place his
life above a myriad of others?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Benny Boy -- Scott L., 07:24:52 05/19/01 Sat
Yep. Ben is being selfish. Pretty human of him, huh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> ego galore -- pocky, 09:12:13 05/20/01 Sun
well, yeah, of course Ben is selfish when it comes to sharing
his body with Glory. Glory herself admitted to the fact that it
sucks being trapped in someone's body for twenty-something years.
and she's a god. an immortal. so for her to actually have a concept
of the time she spent inside Ben must mean that those twenty-something
years transcend the very bounderies of suckness.
what about Ben, then? well, i'm inferring that his life has been
crap since he was born, what with Glory taking over his body now
and then. he lost his job, he wakes up wearing women's clothing...
it's really a surprise that he hasn't gone insane yet.
so, i think, that Ben has every right to be selfish in this matter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: ego galore -- rowan, 10:35:37 05/20/01 Sun
Yes, Ben's gotten a crappy deal. He didn't ask to be created to
house a fashion-victim hellgod in exile. But then, Buffy didn't
ask to be a Slayer, either, or have her mother die, or be given
a sister who's the Key to the apocalypse and a bunch of fake memories
about her. Life's sometimes about crappy deals. It's how you respond
to them that shows your character. Ben has a nasty, selfish character
and IMHO, has shown himself to be much more evil than Spike (who
despite his demonic nature, which leads him to instinctively kill,
always seems to end up on the right side of the apocalyptic duel).
My Views -- Sue, 07:55:55 05/19/01
Sat
Spoiler space for episodes up to and including "Weight of
the World."
Under no circumstance should Buffy even consider killing Dawn.
Regardless of the consequences.
Buffy had made many sacrifices. In the first season she went to
all but certain death for the sake of her friends when she went
to confront the Master. In the second season she sacrificed her
one true love to save the universe. Time and time when the needs
of humanity called for the sake of some so-called larger good
for Buffy to make a sacrifice she has risen to do so.
But you can't have Dawn. Not now, not ever, not for any reason.
For it is better for the whole universe to be thrown in to chaos
than for Buffy to kill her sister.
For a sister's love is absolute.
And if for the universe to survive that love must be killed, then
it is in chaos regardless. If that love must die for the world
to continue then it isn't a world worth living in anyway.
So, if the only option left is to kill Dawn, then I say let the
universe be damned. Killing Dawn isn't even a consideration. Not
even on the table for discussion.
No, it is better for the universe to be thrown in to chaos than
for Buffy to sacrifice Dawn.
For a sister's love is absolute.
If we have learned one thing this season it is that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My Views -- Scott L., 08:08:07 05/19/01 Sat
Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a tragedy. Bad things happen in tragedies.
Sacrifice of popularity, friends, and family to save the world.
Tragic.
If a sister's love is truly absolute, it will last beyond death.
And to save the universe, a universe full of sister's and their
love, Buffy should be able to sacrifice her happiness.
I hope it doesn't come to that. I don't think it will. But it
could, and that would be a tragedy.
And the show would go on...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: My Views -- darrenK, 09:10:02 05/19/01 Sat
I agree with both of you. And I think Dawn is great.
On a more cynical real world note, I'm also hoping that Dawn's
age and her appeal to the 12-17 demographic will keep her with
us through season 7.
Buffy might not be in high school anymore, but someone has to
be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: My Views -- Nina, 12:45:54 05/19/01 Sat
I doubt that Dawn is going to die for one reason: it's way too
obvious. Too many people think she will die. BtVS is a good show.
Well written. Like a good mystery book. We have to believe that
killing Dawn is the only solution, because when they'll come with
something else it'll be a shock. SMG said in a E! online interview
that when she read the script for "The Gift" she couldn't
believe what they come up with. It was something no one could
expect. Okay she doesn't spend as many hours as we do speculating
about the season, but I'm fairly certain that whatever happens
is going to be unexpected. JW didn't say that someone would die
in the season finale. From an interview I read he said "You
should worry". That's what people do. They worry and while
they worry they are not thinking about what he may have thought
about! Good way to send people on the wrong path! Kudos! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: My Views -- Jill, 12:53:03 05/19/01 Sat
Er - I'm part of the Universe that would die, I don't have a sister
but I do have a daughter and my love for her is absolute. Give
me the knife and to save my daughter, or any of my family or friends
or the people who live next door or the people in the next street
let alone the whole Universe, I'll off Dawn.
Jill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: My Views -- Rufus, 17:22:36 05/19/01
Sat
Okay, your love for your daughter is absolute....lets say she
is the key...you have the knife..you are part of the universe....will
you kill your daughter? That is the choice Buffy has. Sounds easy
if you aren't personally involved with the key, you can dehumanize
the key. Buffy can't. She knows the key as her sister. Her love
is absolute. She wants another option as she doesn't want to kill
the sister she loves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: My Views -- Shelley, 06:19:31
05/20/01 Sun
I'm not sure what I'd do. But did you all see "Sophie's Choice?"
If not, Meryl Streep was a half-Jewish mother of two children,
who was in the process of being sent to a concentration camp during
WWII. As they were waiting to board the train, a Nazi soldier
was taking children from their mothers, presumably to kill them.
When he noticed that Sophie was only half Jewish, he offered to
do her the "favor" of taking only one of her small children.
When she said she couldn't choose, he said he would take both
of them, despite her pleas. In a heartwrenching moment, she says,
"take my little girl," because I think she felt her
older son would better be able to survive what was ahead. So isn't
it possible that Buffy, who (probably) couldn't love her sister
more than that mother loved her child, would have to choose to
sacrifice her sister to save the other people and world she loves?
She was entrusted with The Key because the monks knew she would
go to extremes to protect her, but isn't she also just as responsible
(if not moreso, now that her attempts to hide Dawn from Glory
have failed) for protecting the rest of the world too? Somehow,
I don' t think it will come to that, but it's something to consider.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My Views -- Sue, 22:39:02
05/22/01 Tue
The right choice was the one that Xander made in Triangle.
Even if that means the death of both of them.
Refuse to choose.
When it comes to Love 1+1 doesn't always equal two.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: My Views -- Sue, 22:34:35 05/22/01
Tue
Spoilers for "the Gift"
Ok, you will off Dawn, but would you off your Daughter?
That is why I don't blame Ben. It is also why I don't blame Giles
for killing Ben.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My Views -- rowan, 16:39:17 05/19/01 Sat
It's very interesting that the choice in this 100th episode is
the same choice Buffy had to make several years ago: sacrifice
a loved one to save the world, or choose to save the one. Sending
Angel to hell seemed like the right choice for the Buffyverse,
and it can be argued that it was the right choice for Angel, too.
But now, we're about to see Buffy make the opposite decision (at
least it appears that way): put the good of the one above the
good of the many. It will be interesting to see how this decision
turns out and whether it (although the opposite choice of several
years ago) becomes right for the Buffyverse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: My Views -- Nina, 19:09:16 05/19/01 Sat
Hmmm... Is it me, but I really don't see any killing of Dawn happening.
Buffy is confronted with the knowledge that she has to kill Dawn
to close the portal, but she has also the choice to kill Ben before
the portal opens. She also have that little Dagon sphere that
(wisely) has been hidden for quite a long time and can repell
that which cannot be named (Glory). For dramatic emphasis they
made it sound as if Buffy had only one choice, but she doesn't.
Killing Ben is no picnic either as he is human, but still it's
easier than to kill Dawn. And that Dagon sphere must have some
kind of useful magic to it or it wouldn't have been introduced
otherwise.
So yes, Buffy finds herself with a tough decision on her hands.
But for now she sees her options through blinders. Once she has
time to regroup other possibilities may rise. I still think that
blood being the central key to the Key is important. Why blood?
Don't we have a vampire on the crew now that crave for blood?
There must be some kind of connection otherwise the key to the
key would have been something else (why not her hair?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: My Views -- Malandanza, 05:32:29 05/20/01
Sun
"Hmmm... Is it me, but I really don't see any killing of
Dawn happening. Buffy is confronted with the knowledge that she
has to kill Dawn to close the portal, but she has also the choice
to kill Ben before the portal opens... For dramatic emphasis they
made it sound as if Buffy had only one choice, but she doesn't.
Killing Ben is no picnic either as he is human, but still it's
easier than to kill Dawn."
I can't really see Joss repeating Season 2 by having Buffy kill
Dawn. However, I am troubled by the lack of a reference to Angel
in the Buffy/Willow mind meld. It would seem that showing Buffy
running Angel (not Angelus) through with a sword would have fit
into the vision better than Joyce's grave (and would have had
the added benefit of demonstrating to Willow how much her unauthorized
re-ensoulment spell hurt Buffy). Was this a deliberate ommision
so that veiwers would not draw parallels between the two seasons?
I'm not certain that killing Ben would end the problem -- he may
not be killable. In Glory's talk with her minions about killing
Dawn immediately, it was revealed that if she failed to open the
portal, Glory would be trapped in the Buffyverse "forever"
-- not merely until Ben dies. Furthermore, we have seen that Ben
losing control of his body when he is rendered unconscious; it
may not be possible to kill him if Glory takes over any time he
is in danger (a theory mentioned by, I believe, Masquerade).
Even if Dawn has to be killed, Buffy does not have to be the one
to kill her. Buffy could hold off Glory while Giles, Willow or
Xander kill Dawn -- it would be an interesting twist to let one
of the Scoobies get a little blood on their hands instead of always
having Buffy protect them. Perhaps Giles would not be a callous
about the death if he were the executioner (then again, his Ripper
persona might enjoy the task). Granted, Buffy would still be morally
culpable, but at least she shouldn't have to kill her sister herself.
I think they'll find a way to save Dawn (but I've been wrong before
-- I thought Buffy would save Angel right up until the point she
drove the sword through him).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: My Views - Failure and loss... --
OnM, 09:21:45 05/20/01 Sun
*** "However, I am troubled by the lack of a reference to
Angel in the Buffy/Willow mind meld. It would seem that showing
Buffy running Angel (not Angelus) through with a sword would have
fit into the vision better than Joyce's grave (and would have
had the added benefit of demonstrating to Willow how much her
unauthorized re-ensoulment spell hurt Buffy). Was this a deliberate
ommision so that veiwers would not draw parallels between the
two seasons?" ***
Could be, but I saw the reference to Joyce's grave as evidence
of Buffy's continuing feelings that she was somehow responsible
for not saving her mother, and so her Mother's death is her fault,
and now Dawn's death is her fault.
It's not only her failure (as she sees it) to protect her family,
but also a failure as The Slayer, which despite her earlier resistance
is becoming more and more a calling that she respects. The Slayer
is gifted with all this extra strength and abilities to fight
evil, yet what good did that strength do in saving her family?
So it's a double failure, again, as she sees it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: My Views - Failure and loss...
-- Rufus, 14:44:26 05/20/01 Sun
This situation is the same as Angels in Reprise, Buffy for a moment,
gave up. She wanted the battle she thought she couldn't win over.
She has snapped out of it, the pointless loop of guilt that held
her back. I guess Buffy is headed for her Epiphany....will she
kill Dawn like she had to send Angel to hell? Or is there another
choice she will be unaware of until she understands her gift?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: My Views -- Cleanthes, 10:57:51 05/20/01
Sun
"However, I am troubled by the lack of a reference to Angel
in the Buffy/Willow mind meld."
Surely Buffy's brain has fully processed her actions with regard
to Angel.
Willow entered Buffy's brain to see what has driven her to catatonia.
The piling-on of recent events drove her to catatonia, no? Therefore,
it would only be recent events that would or even should matter.
When Buffy acted against Angel, she avoided catatonia. If her
mind brought up *that* memory, it would help her break free of
the loop because that was a DECISIVE memory. It would have missed
the point of her being locked in indecision and doubt to have
muddied the waters with the Angel memory, regardless of how closely
the external situation seems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> My take on not including Angel -- Greta,
12:02:39 05/21/01 Mon
*It would seem that showing Buffy running Angel (not Angelus)
through with a sword would have fit into the vision better than
Joyce's grave (and would have had the added benefit of demonstrating
to Willow how much her unauthorized re-ensoulment spell hurt Buffy).*
But when Buffy was in the catatonic state, she didn't yet know
she herself might have to kill Dawn. She just thought that she
was responsible for letting Glory take her to her death. In that
way, Joyce's grave worked as a reminder of another situation in
which Buffy believes (albeit wrongly) that if she'd been just
a little faster, she wouldn't have lost a loved one.
As for the Willow part, I have my heart set on Evil Willow taking
over as mid-season Big Bad, darn it, and realization now that
magic, however, well-intentioned, can hurt people would just ruin
that:(
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: My Views -- rowan, 10:21:18 05/20/01 Sun
I guess I thought the reason we saw Joyce's grave was to develop
the whole "guilt that she killed Dawn" angle. In the
Young Buffy scene, we see Buffy asking Joyce if she can take care
of Dawn sometimes. Part of Buffy's guilt in failing Dawn is that
she made that promise to her mother and was (in her own mind)
unable to keep it. That's why the grave was important, especially
as the immediate predecessor to killing Dawn -- to point out that
Buffy has let down not only Dawn, but Joyce as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: My Views -- Regina, 22:46:17 05/19/01 Sat
Well this may be moot by morning, if the Wildfeed is still scheduled
to be broadcast, but Buffy had no other choice but to run the
sword through Angel. Only his sacrifice was going to close the
portal, but Buffy may believe that she has an alternative to killing
Dawn and that is sacrificing herself. Summers' blood and all being
the crucial element. Wasn't that the whole point of her cutting
her own arms and mixing the blood from Dawn's wounds with her
own?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: My Views (The Gift spoilers) -- rowan, 10:32:32
05/20/01 Sun
Well, I agree. I think that Buffy will defeat Glory (either with
assistance of a Scooby to finish the deed by killing Ben) but
it will be "too late" because Dawn will already be slashed
and the apocalypse will have started. I think a careful viewing
of last's week's promo and the WB trailer support these conclusions.
Buffy and the SG will then either have to kill Dawn, or accept
the world is ending. Dawn will want to sacrifice herself. Again,
I'm getting this from interpreting the WB trailer. Buffy will
then figure out that she can sacrifice herself (her blood will
be an acceptable substitute).
The only thing I can't figure out is how Buffy dies and how they
can get her back next season.
Where this will leave us all, IMHO, is that the writers have placed
Buffy in the exact same position as with Angel, but she has now
made a different choice -- sacrifice herself instead of the loved
one (still saves the world, however!). It's the next leg in Slayer
development for her, but I'm not sure exactly how we're supposed
to interpret it. Other than her death opening up some potential
for Spike/Dawn bonding (if the spoiler is true that Buffy asks
Spike to protect Dawn before the big battle, I'm assuming he'd
get staked before he'd stray two feet from Dawn if Buffy dies),
I'm not seeing yet how this is bringing Buffy closer to her Slayer
roots. She certainly will end up with a status greater than any
other Slayer (sacrificed herself and survived). Maybe her sojourn
in heaven (or hell) next season will clue us all in to what this
is about.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My Views (spoilers for The Gift) -- rowan, 06:02:38
05/20/01 Sun
Maybe I'm missing something here....I don't really understand
how Buffy will be able to avoid confronting the issue of killing
Dawn.
If Buffy gets to Glory before they slash Dawn and start the bloodletting,
her choice is to kill Ben (Glory's weakness) and stop Glory. I
think that's the only (to date) way that's been shown to beat
Glory. Now, I guess it's possible that Buffy beats the crap out
of her with the troll hammer, but even then, how do you kill a
god? I think the only answer we've seen is "kill the human
vessel." In this situation, no killing of Dawn is necessary.
If the bloodletting ceremony starts, the only way to close the
portal is to kill Dawn. This is the same choice as Angel (IMHO,
the only difference is the level of culpability on the part of
the initiator -- Angel was active, Dawn is passive.) So, quite
reasonably, a second person could start the ceremony while Buffy
is busy with Glory. That's why we're hearing the Spike spoilers
(IMO) about him being the one to go after Dawn and getting defeated
by Doc's tail. We've also seen the trailer, which shows Dawn pleading
with Buffy to let her go, wind whipping up, and the construction
site collapsing, which all look apocalyptic to me.
It seems to me very unlikely that Buffy can get the job done with
Glory before the bloodletting starts. That's why Giles referred
to the fact that the margin of error is so small in WOTW.
So, I think the similarities are great between the two situations:
blood opening a portal, only sacrifice of the open who opened
it to close it, Buffy having to sacrifice a loved one. This time,
though, all signs IMHO point to her refusing to make the sacrifice,
and substituting herself instead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: My Views (spoilers for The Gift) -- Reid, 06:57:45
05/20/01 Sun
"It seems to me very unlikely that Buffy can get the job
done with Glory before the bloodletting starts. That's why Giles
referred to the fact that the margin of error is so small in WOTW."
I interpreted the "margin of error" comment differently,
and it has become the primary reason why I believe that--when
the conversation between Giles and Buffy continues--it will be
revealed that there is something more to it than 'just' killing
Dawn. I think that there's a narrow margin of error because, if
everything is in perfect alignment, both the big bad will be destroyed
and Dawn will be saved. Otherwise they are just accepting the
same solution as the Renaissance Faire. That's not a new solution
provided by an ancient scroll; that's just the same old solution
in a different wrapper.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: My Views (spoilers for The Gift) -- rowan,
09:46:44 05/21/01 Mon
"I interpreted the "margin of error" comment differently,
and it has become the primary reason why I believe that--when
the conversation between Giles and Buffy continues--it will be
revealed that there is something more to it than 'just' killing
Dawn. I think that there's a narrow margin of error because, if
everything is in perfect alignment, both the big bad will be destroyed
and Dawn will be saved."
The reason I probably wouldn't come to the same interpretation
is because of Giles's very obvious reluctance to impart the information
to Buffy, which looked to be because he knew Dawn would need to
be killed after the bloodletting starts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: My Views -- spotjon, 12:18:00 05/21/01 Mon
"[Y]ou can't have Dawn. Not now, not ever, not for any reason....
For a sister's love is absolute."
Now that's an awfully selfish attitude to have. It's best for
Buffy to let her sister live and allow billions of others to be
sucked into all of the hells for eternity (or at least for a few
moments of excrutiating pain before death)? I don't subscribe
to the "do what's best for the largest number of people"
philosophy, but when the death of one can bring the salvation
of all the universes, then what other choice is there to make?
Granted, this is not as clear-cut as Buffy's choice with Angel
was, but when the stakes are so high, what other choice can be
made? I'm sure that Buffy would like nothing more than for her
sister to live and be happy, but if the Key unlocks all of the
doors, she won't be living much longer, anyway. Assuming it comes
down to do or die (which I doubt it will), Dawn should die for
the universe(s).
Of course, it's easy to say something like that when it isn't
your own sister on the line. I don't know that I would be able
to make that choice if it came down to it. But really, there are
only three options:
1. Kill Dawn and save the universe (multiverse?) 2. Let Dawn live
and let the universe die. This would probably result in Dawn reverting
to her natural state of energy, and possibly being destroyed.
3. Somehow Buffy and/or the gang find a loophole that will save
both Dawn and the universe.
I'm fairly certain that #3 is what's going to happen tomorrow
night, but let's narrow our scope to the first two options for
the sake of argument. In both of these scenarios, Dawn will die,
or at least be reverted to her natural state and probably never
returned. So the question would come down to: will Dawn be killed
by Glory or by Buffy? If Glory kills her, the universe dies. If
Buffy kills her, Dawn will know that her death will save the universe.
It's not an easy choice, but in the absence of option #3, there's
really not much to argue about, IMO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Bravo. -- Solitude1056, 20:23:21 05/21/01 Mon
I guess sometimes you have to take it down to the simplest to
see that there's not much choice, unless Buffy et al can pull
#3 out of their proverbial hats. I'm keeping my fingers crossed...
and you folks with the wildfeed, hush! This is one episode which
I don't want ruined by spoilers! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Bravo. -- spotjon, 10:09:48 05/22/01 Tue
Thanks. I think that it's easier to discuss things after you've
simplified them into their most logical forms. I suppose another
option could be this:
4. Buffy and the gang rescue Dawn before the bloodletting begins.
This isn't likely to happen (where would the drama be?), but it's
still a possibility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: My Views -- Steve, 22:55:00 05/22/01 Tue
It isn't about Buffy, it isn't even about Dawn, it is about LOVE.
I wouldn't want to live in a world where a sister's love must
be destroyed. LOVE is that important. It is the ends, that justifies
those means (sacrificing everything).
long essay -- Steve, 13:18:24
05/19/01 Sat
In the process of writing a long (book length) study of BtVS and
Angel, I've just released a draft of the introductory chapter
if anyone's interested - it's at:
http://www.btinternet.com/~stephen.dailly/writing/critframes.htm
Future sections will include close readings of the movie and several
episodes, some anthrpological/ cultural/ literary commentary (Manga/
Anime/ Neoplatonism) and some other stuff.
I'm interested in comments, pos & neg (either posted here or by
e-mail.
Enjoy
S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: long essay -- spotjon, 07:54:34 05/21/01 Mon
Wow, I have to say that this is quite a work you have here. I
especially liked your last point that so many questions are never
directly addressed in the show. It would be great if they were
addressed at some point, but I honestly doubt that they ever will
be. This is a great introduction to both of the shows, and to
the philosophies therein. I hope you'll have some more chapters
online soon!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: long essay -- Rob, 13:07:30 05/22/01 Tue
I found your introductory chapter absolutely fascinating. It was
filled with a great deal of meticulously documented information
and was very enjoyable to read. I hope that you post more chapters
soon, because I would be very interested in reading your interpretation
of different episodes and characters. I am particularly interested
in the allusions to "Carrie" that you saw in Joyce and
Buffy's relationship, your comparison of "Buffy" to
"Heathers," which was also in many ways a "high
school as hell" piece, although in that case, the demons
were human. I was also very pleased to see that you noticed the
irony of the term "rogue slayer" as applied to Faith.
Many people seem to forget that having died, albeit briefly, Buffy
is more of an exception to the rule than Faith, although, admittedly,
Buffy is a far better (and more stable) candidate than Faith.
(It would be interesting, however, to conjecture whether the Council's
disowning of Faith returns Buffy to the position of being the
"main" Slayer, after whose death another is called,
or whether once a slayer dies and thus activates another Slayer,
that is the only time it can happen.) Anyway, I am highly anticipating
reading more of your essays in the future.
Costs, Knowledge, and other Thoughts
-- Solitude1056, 15:35:59 05/19/01 Sat
So time again for me to ramble, this time probably not nearly
as cohesive, ugh. Mostly it's just questions and notes, so bear
with me. Some of these have been bugging me. :)
1. Ben
Ben & Glory's merging seems to be either incomplete or only in
certain areas, like actions & direct physical experiences (such
as violence or doctorly works). This is the only reason I can
think of - other than the possibility that Ben had head trauma
and thus despite getting through med school suddenly turned profoundly
stupid - that Ben didn't taunt Glory by confronting her with the
information that all he has to do is hide Dawn for 24 hours, and
then Glory's trapped for good.
2. Glory/Ben interaction
If the "price" of such terrible magick is some form
of merging, that would indicate to me that perhaps for Glory to
return, she's bound to Ben infinitely & thus he'll be coming with
- perhaps even as part of her, infinitum. I suppose there could
be two parts of that: one, in the build-up to the exit window,
the magicks are making sure that Ben gets every opportunity to
stop Glory... and/or it's a good way to stifle her drive once
she returns, assuming that none of the other forces (the Monks,
Buffy et al, the Knights) were able to stop her.
3. Angel vs. Demon
Someone else remarked that the pure Demon was walking about in
the sunlight, as was the pure human half of Angel. But that would
only not make sense if the Demon is the reason Vamps can't get
in direct sunlight. Perhaps it's more of the fact that humans,
when alive, require sunlight. And vamps are dead folks, so somehow
sunlight accelerates the aging/decomposition process unnaturally
because of the Demon's presence. The Demon, in and of itself,
might not be sensitive to sunlight, but by virtue of having a
host body that's human - and should be in the advanced stages
of decomposition, especially in Angel's case - the Demon's now
susceptible to anything that would provoke sudden decomposition...
and that "sudden" decomposition would be the reason
vamps dust. (Ok, so probably not the reason Joss picked, but it'd
work out nicely if it were.)
More later...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Costs, Knowledge, and other Thoughts -- Anthony8, 20:01:01
05/20/01 Sun
Here's my take on the Vampire/sunlight issue as it relates to
Angel in Pylea (the Host's dimension). The reason vampires turn
to dust in our dimension is a matter of cosmic balance in the
same way that they are vulnerable to crosses and holy water. They
are able to exist in our dimension, but are subject to metaphysical
restrictions on their mobility (including the need for an invitation
to enter a home) so as to prevent them from readily wiping out
humanity. Without these restrictions, their extraordinary strength
and speed would give them an unfair advantage in a dimension that
is not theirs to rule. After all, according to Giles in WTTH,
the vampires are merely among the number of hybrid remnants of
the demonic forms that "lost their purchase" on our
reality in order to make way for mortal animals.
Pylea, on the other hand, is a demon dimension. It makes sense
that in that dimension, the metaphysical boundaries flip in the
favor of demonic beings and to the disadvantage of the mortal
animals. Although Angel is not of the Host's demon species, apparently
he is demon enough not to be subject to the restrictions imposed
on him in our dimension.
An interesting thing that occurred to me in reference to Pylea
is that The Powers That Be have a major influence in that dimension.
My take was that TPTB were allied with the Forces of Light (Both
Angel and Buffy are considered to be warriors on their side) and
that they played a part in imposing the metaphysical restrictions
on vampires and other demonic forces in our dimension. In the
last few episodes of Angel, however, it has become obvious that
TPTB also play a major role in the demon (well, at least, in Pylea)dimensions
as well. Anybody have any thoughts on this?
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Costs, Knowledge, and other Thoughts -- FanMan,
20:27:07 05/20/01 Sun
My take is that humans are not the center of existance. Demons
range the scale of good and evil. TPTB would be irrisponsible
if they only paid attention to one little speck of dust in one
galaxy. Besides if you are close to omnipotant and omnicient how
long would the actions of humans hold your interest? To rephrase
the last, I think TPTB look at the overal picture of the whole
world in a glance, then look somewhere else. A farmer looks at
the whole field not one plant.
Playing things out -- Bill, 09:48:47
05/20/01 Sun
Angel -"Through The Looking Glass" spoilers below.
One of the philosophies represented on Angel last week I believe
was predestination, or fatalism.
The idea that one must play the cards they are dealt, play out
their destiny to the end regardless of where it takes them.
It seemed like the psychic friend who The Host went to knew that
if he went with Angel and co. that would mean his death. But she
felt that the Host had to go anyway to meet his destiny. He had
to play his fate out, regardless of where it ultimately took him.
He had to go out to meet his fate, and not deny the path "they"
(the fates, the PTB?) laid out for him.
I think it is a empty hopeless reality if in the end the best
that we can hope for is to have the courage to "play things
out". Kind of throws free will out the window.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Playing things out -- LoriAnn, 03:52:48 05/21/01 Mon
There is an element of predestination in the Buffyverse on the
face of it. But Buffy has made choices, although I can't remember
specific instances, that seemed to change destiny. The destiny
in Angel and Buffy seems more a "calling" than a specific
immutable path. Action is taken and "destiny" branches.
About the psycic on AtS, are we dealing with predestination or
precognition, regardless of how she phrased it? This is a classic
debate that, in ourverse, is usually forularized as if God knows
what is going to happen, is He then ordaining what will happen:
precognition vs. predestination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Breaking the Vase -- Solitude1056, 19:03:50 05/21/01
Mon
The whole question reminds me (again today, for some reason) of
that scene in The Matrix when Neo goes to see the Oracle. She
tells him, as he stands in the doorway to her kitchen, "nevermind
the vase." Confused, he asks, "what vase?" right
as he bumps the vase by his elbow. It falls to the ground and
shatters.
As he starts to apologize, the Oracle shushes him. She adds that
what's really going to "bake his noodle" later is the
question of whether he would've broken the vase if she'd not said
anything.
Hmm.
Should Ben be condemned for his
actions? -- Masquerade, 10:47:13 05/20/01 Sun
In a discussion below, there was some question about whether Ben
was taking Dawn to Glory's minions or taking her off somewhere
to kill her and was interupted by Glory's minions. I will concede
to the folks who said the former, as that is what the shooting
script says. Ben seems to be accepting Glory's offer--allow me
to use the Key, and I'll spare your life when I escape your meat-sack
body.
OK, so fine. But it seems as if now everyone wants to jump on
Ben and say, "See! I knew he wasn't as good as he seemed
ALL ALONG." This, I would venture, is not the conclusion
we're supposed to draw. The writers have gone out of their way
to show Ben unwilling and UNABLE to kill Dawn even though he knows
he can stop Armeggedon and save himself by taking this one human
life. In Spiral, the Knight Gregor laid out that very fact to
Ben, and then Ben with morphine and scapels and other potentially
dangerous doctor-stuff, did not kill Dawn.
He begins to change his tune only after he and Glory begin to
experience each other's thoughts, attitudes, and feelings. It's
as if Glory's self-centeredness is infecting him and making him
capable of hurting someone as much as his empathy is making Glory
feel guilt.
So I don't think we have evidence that Ben is at his own core
a bad person, or even that he has given into human weaknesses
under the duress of Glory's impending ascension. I think we have
to ask: how much control does Ben really have over his actions?
How much of what he is doing is coming from Glory-induced sociopathy?
If anyone has clear, concise views on this pro or con, there's
ice cream and puppydogs and potential immortality on my website
for you if you start singin'!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Should Ben be condemned for his actions? -- Rufus, 14:37:44
05/20/01 Sun
It is tempting to think that Ben never was a good man, I don't
believe that though. He did want to become a doctor to help people.
His life has been destroyed by his "sister" Glory. He
is in a reverse situation to Buffy. Buffy loves and wants to save
Dawn, the sister who really isn't a sister. Ben wants rid of his
"sister" who never was his real sister. Both Ben and
Buffy have now had a similar moment where they gave in to wanting
it over. Buffy in the magic shop, Ben in an alleyway. But can
we judge Ben as a whole for the things he has done to help Glory?
I don't think that Ben is a bad person as much as a person in
a no win situation. Until Glorys feelings bled into his own, he
wouldn't or couldn't kill Dawn when the chance came. What kept
Glory and Ben apart is breaking down and each can feel the emotions
and motivations of the other. I think the memory of killing hundreds
of men has hit Ben, he has rivers of blood on his hands. His reaction
became very Glory like and self centered. Dawn noticed that his
reactions weren't really Ben, but more of a pouty Glory. His situation
is the reverse to Buffy. Buffy has to try to save the sister she
loves. Ben has tried everything he can to rid himself of the sister
he hates. Now that he shares her mind he feels he can't win. Her
offer of a separate life with no regrets was enough for him to
say to Dawn it's either you or me. In that moment Ben chose himself.
But is that based on his own nature or is that partly Glory speaking.
I wonder if Ben will get another moment of being just himself
before it's too late, or has he just decided to wait out his bad
feelings until Glory can take them away forever?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Should Ben be condemned for his actions? -- rowan,
15:31:36 05/20/01 Sun
Ben is the victim of some extremely bad luck. Due to events beyond
his control, he was created as the vessel to contain an outcast
hellgod, and eventually cause her death by means of his own. These
are things of which he is "innocent": he had no say
in these choices nor were they consequences of anything he did.
Once Ben became aware of Glory, however, he became accountable
for the consequences of his own actions (or lack thereof). Yes,
Ben wants to become a doctor. This is an admirable goal. He seems
to have good taste in women (Buffy) and he's kind to children
(remember how he tried to comfort Dawn?).
But his isn't the lot that life handed Ben. He's not "called"
to be a doctor and fulfill that role. He was called as the vessel
to a hellgod, just as Buffy was called to be a Slayer. He was
in the quite unique position of being the one person who knew
exactly who Glory was and where she was at all times. Yet, he
failed that calling because he never accepted the challenge of
it. Ben had a chance to do something great for humanity; not necessarily
by killing himself, but even by revealing the truth to Buffy.
This side of Ben was there at the outset. Ben exhibited less than
savory elements in his character from the beginning of our acquaintance
with him. As early as the incident with the Queller demon (long
before the infection of contaminated emotions in WOTW), Ben was
an active conspirator in Glory's cause. Instead of fighting Glory,
he was enabling her by allowing her to continue her plans. While
verbally denigrating her, he nevertheless is willing to help cover
her up. Even when he drugged himself to keep her at bay, he had
one basic concern: being allowed to live his own life.
In his conversations with the minions, the SG, etc. we see his
continual concern with being allowed to live his own life. Occasionally,
I encounter people in life who seem self-absorbed. You know the
type: everything in their lives is interpreted in the "key
of me" and they experienced nothing except what affects them
directly. I think of these type of people as the absolute center
of their own universe. Ben is the same. He continually and consistently
interprets all events with Glory, Buffy, and the SG through the
lens of his own self-interest.
But even in that self-absorption, Ben is basically weak. He can't
take an active step to either fully committ to Glory or fully
oppose her. He can't kill himself, he can't kill Dawn. He's indecisive;
and in the Buffyverse, indecision can get alot of people killed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Should Ben be condemned for his actions?
-- FanMan, 16:11:48 05/20/01 Sun
rowan, I agree completely! I have expressed similar views in earlier
posts. Your explanations are more eloquent than mine...COOL! You
say what I feel.
I think Ben is predisposed to be fairly good, just too weak mentaly
to show some backbone. He is also selfish in that he focuses on
himself, other people have problems too. I would say a big part
of his selfishness is not having empathy. He cares in an abstract
way not the way you care about someone that you understand. Last
is his vicim psychology...poor me, a God ruined my life.
Buffy had her life turned upside down, she complains but when
it counts she has the backbone to deal with her situation. Buffy
is admirable because she tries despite the odds and unpleasantness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Should Ben be condemned for his actions?
(*Gift* spoiler) -- OnM, 16:22:46 05/20/01 Sun
I really can't add too much to the comments from Rufus and rowan,
they pretty much summed up my primary thoughts on the subject,
but I will add this bit for consideration:
The contrast I see is between Buffy and Ben, whereby Buffy, faced
with indecision, ultimately gets off her tuffet and decides, and
inevitably takes the moral high road. Ben does not-- as rowan
remarked, he is ultimately self-absorbed, and so while he pretends,
or intends to do good, he will only do that good if it also benefits
himself. (So, he's pretty much your typical human, to be fair).
Spoilers for *The Gift* suggest that Buffy will make the ultimate
sacrifice-- give her own life-- if that is what would save Dawn
and/or the universe, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find
any fan of the show who would doubt for the slightest microsecond
of time that Buffy would *willingly* make that sacrifice. The
same certainly could not be said for Ben.
To do my favorite thing and suggest a movie as a comparative example,
it might be *The Contender*, and the contrast between the two
persons being offered the same high political office. One takes
the moral high ground-- and suffers for it, the other takes a
course that appears innocent, but actually primarily benefits
that person at the expense of others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Should Ben be condemned for his actions?
(*Gift* spoiler) -- change, 17:18:38 05/20/01 Sun
> The contrast I see is between Buffy and Ben, whereby Buffy,
faced with indecision, ultimately gets off her >tuffet and
decides, and inevitably takes the moral high road. Ben does not--
as rowan remarked, he is ultimately self-absorbed, and so while
he pretends, or intends to do > good, he will only do that
good if it also benefits himself. (So, he's pretty much your typical
human, to be > fair).
The other difference between Buffy and Ben is that Buffy has Giles
to give her moral guidance, and the rest of the SG to give her
support. In the WotW, when Buffy broke down into a catonic state
with her moment of accepting defeat, it was Willow who went in
her mind and got her to get off her tuffet and get back on course
again. Ben has no one to do this for him. Buffy also had Giles
and Joyce to give her a good moral foundation. Ben was probably
raised by Glory's minions who would have taught him to not care
about humans and to accept Glory.
Perhaps Ben should be condemned for his own actions, but he is
also a victim of circumstance too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Ben a victim -- FanMan, 19:09:10
05/20/01 Sun
If Ben did try to opose Glory directly it would be difficult.
If he left Sdayl when he was in control Glory could use her super
speed to get back. He cannot put himself in a cage like Oz: any
cage without magical wards would be easy for Glory to break. If
he asked for help from an enemy of Glory, there is a good likelyhood
that they would try to kill him to get Glory. Glory could simply
have the minions put him in a cage if he acted out too much: identical
to Oz, but with Ben as the alter that is caged. Who besides people
with supernatural knowladge would even believe him if he described
his problem? Actually until the cloaking magic wore off literally
noone human! A good reason not to feel any attachements to humans,
they were prevented by magic from even remembering any mention
of his connection with Glory. This connection is part of his life
in a very personal way and he cannot talk to anyone about it.
There is only the minions to talk to: poor Ben, the only entities
he can "safely" talk to are servants of his enemy!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ben a victim, as was Faith?
-- OnM, 19:54:38 05/20/01 Sun
Interesting that Faith used just these sorts of reasoning/defenses
to try to explain how she became the way she is. It took an extremely
long journey down some very dark paths before she realized that
she had to stop making excuses and seek redemption for her negative
actions.
Faith had a core of morality buried deep within her, I suspect
that she would never have been called as a Slayer if she didn't,
but that still wasn't enough to keep her only on the side of good.
It took years for her to get back, we don't have all that long
for Ben to assert his inner core or morality. Selfishness calls
strongly to the short-term solution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ben a victim, as
was Faith? -- FanMan, 20:19:25 05/20/01 Sun
Ben is a victim. I do not pity him or Faith. I do not respect
Ben and his victim attitude. I was merely expanding the other
view. Two sides to everything, yin/yang and all that type of stuff.
Judgement is blind if you ignore one side of a situation. I would
respect Ben as I respect Faith if he takes some real responsibility.
Hope to see Faith again, she always makes things interesting like
Ethan!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Should Ben be condemned for his actions?
-- Sue, 23:02:03 05/22/01 Tue
No.
Just morned.
(After killing him first).
Ben wasn't Evil. He just wasn't good.
He was normal, like the rest of us.
People like Buffy are very rare.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Should Ben be condemned for his actions? -- Solitude1056,
21:22:41 05/20/01 Sun
He begins to change his tune only after he and Glory begin to
experience each other's thoughts, attitudes, and feelings. It's
as if Glory's self-centeredness is infecting him ...
Naw, he's been self-absorbed from the get-go. ;) All his other
flaws aside, I can understand the character's self-centeredness,
given the assumption that he was raised in relative isolation
by a bunch of bumpy minions who probably lost no chance to remind
him that he's merely a vessel of some great God of chaos & despair.
I sincerely doubt, given an upbringing like that, that he's used
to confiding in other humans, let alone being around other humans
in a non-working or non-scholarly environment. Dating was probably
out of the question, hence his utter clumsiness in asking Buffy
out.
If Ben, Buffy, Faith, and Dawn are all metaphors for "someone
who holds a greater purpose than originally obvious," then
Ben's the part where we get to see what happens when that potential
grows up in a test tube. He's the control group who didn't get
the benefits of a community, and thus he doesn't think first of
what we might call community - he thinks first of the only community
he's ever known. That is, his own community of one. Faith was
clearly raised in a community of some sort, and while her childhood
may have been lacking in other human ways, she still craved the
belonging with, and respect from, her peers (as demonstrated by
her extreme frustration and disappointment to find out Buffy had
it already & Faith wasn't going to be able to have it instead).
Ben, on the other hand, is a bit older than Faith was, and has
lived at least a decade more in this fishtank of an existence.
I'm willing to bet he gave up on actually belonging, and settled
for the vicarious belonging of helping people as a doctor. At
least then he'd have an excuse to be around humans, when they're
being most human, which meant to me that he's not a lost cause...
yet.
But habits are hard to break. If he's spent his whole life feeling
like the world is divided into Lucky Humans, Minions/God, and
One Person Named Ben, well, no wonder he's self-absorbed. Buffy's
community grounds her and thwacks her when she gets too whiney;
Ben doesn't have anyone to do that for him. So he's got little
idea of the appropriate response, is less likely to think "what
about everyone else?" since it's hardly ever that he's experienced
"everyone else" asking "what about Ben?" So
I don't think that was a Glory-induced comment, although it sure
sounded like her (and the shooting script clarifies that Dawn
"looks askance at this Glory-like response" or some
such). But Ben's said stuff like this from the beginning. I don't
see reason to blame it all on Glory. Neither of them can be too
sane when they've both spent 25 years in an isolation tank.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Should Ben be condemned for his actions? -- Malandanza,
07:17:53 05/21/01 Mon
"The writers have gone out of their way to show Ben unwilling
and UNABLE to kill Dawn even though he knows he can stop Armeggedon
and save himself by taking this one human life. In Spiral, the
Knight Gregor laid out that very fact to Ben, and then Ben with
morphine and scapels and other potentially dangerous doctor-stuff,
did not kill Dawn."
I saw the scene in Spiral differently. I do not believe that Ben
refrained from killing Dawn out of moral concerns -- instead,
he was pragmatic: if he had killed Dawn while surrounded by the
Scoobies and Buffy, how long would he have gotten to enjoy his
newfound mortality? Every member (including Spike and badly wounded
Giles)would have been competing with one another for the opportunity
to tear out his evil heart. Ben did not really have an opportunity
-- perhaps if a battle had been raging, he could have quietly
killed Dawn and pretended that the knights had been respsonsible.
Keep in mind that Ben knows that he is Glory, and knew (at the
time of Spiral) that Glory wanted to kill Dawn, but he came to
Buffy anyway. Spike's jealousy was misplaced: Doctor Ben's interest
in Buffy is not romantic, he was merely using her to gain access
to the key. Furthermore, it is not clear whether or not Ben would
have to perform a ritual (using the key) to free himself from
Glory -- will simply killing Dawn do the trick?
Since then, Ben has had second thoughts. He is likely feeling
guilty for betraying Buffy and Dawn to their mortal enemy. His
conscience, however, is not sufficiently strong to make a lasting
impact on either his actions or Glory's. He understands the difference
between right and wrong (leading me to believe he was NOT raised
by minions) and he chooses to do wrong because he is a coward.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Should Ben be condemned for his actions? -- freshwater,
12:08:16 05/21/01 Mon
"He understands the difference between right and wrong...and
he chooses to do wrong because he is a coward."
Absolutely!
Ben was not raised in a cave with minions and zero access to humanity.
He's a doctor, which means he probably did well in High School,
got into a good pre-med program, did really well, got through
medical school, internships, residents, etc. He must have had
almost constant interaction with people his whole life. How many
group projects did he have to participate in? He's probably been
exposed to the history of literature, medical ethics, people with
varied religious backgrounds. I've known plenty of people raised
horribly, exposed to abuse and never given a sense of right and
wrong, who learn to live humanely just from being around and being
exposed to all different people. It's part of being human to seek
a moral foundation, it's how we make sense of our actions and
those of others. In the same way that our minds have a capacity
to make sense of near random nerve stimuli (like creating the
"real" feeling of depth or motion from nothing but electrical
impulses in optic nerve cells), our minds also have a built-in
capacity for morality. If we're not given a foundation from our
parents, we will seek out a foundation from looking at others.
I refuse to believe that someone can be excused or pitied who,
after 25 or 30 years in society (and, as I said, Ben has been
surrounded by people at least since High School), still acts like
an immoral coward.
Also, Ben lives in Sunnydale, or there-abouts. This is a place
where supernatural things seem to happen almost every day and
where there seems to be a good concentration of ancient texts.
I think it's fair to say that if Ben really wanted to break out
of his complete selfishness, he could have found someone in that
town to talk to. I'm sure he learned research skills in medical
school. He couldn't take the time to research his "condition"?
With textural proof of his state in life, and the type of people
in Sunnydale, he could have created a social circle of non-minions
who would give him support. Again, I'm back to self-centered,
lazy coward.
One last thing on this rant: someone correct me if I'm wrong,
but I remember Ben's reason for becoming a doctor as something
like "to be near people and their humanity". I don't
remember "wanting to help" being part of that, but I
could be wrong.
Should Ben be condemned for his actions? Yes, and for a whole
history of non-actions too.
-freshwater
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Should Ben be condemned for his actions?
-- Solitude1056, 12:19:08 05/21/01 Mon
The rest of it, good points all - Ben's pre-now life is One Big
Unknown. But you're right (at least I'm pretty sure of this) that
he stated his reason for being a doctor was to be near people.
He didn't say it was to help people. That's been one of the main
reasons I've stated that Ben - for whatever reason - has felt
alienated from the majority of society.
And if he wasn't raised by minions (or Onions!) in a cave, then
it seems likely to me that when Glory first started popping up,
his family may have found him uncontrollable. He may have a history
of juvenile detention, and thus know right from wrong, but be
unable to prevent Glory when she appears. I dunno - but his isolation
from people either stems from his complete self-isolation, or
because he really was isolated by circumstances. His participation
in college & med school may be his own forceful re-self-integration
into society... Dunno. And don't know, at this rate, if Joss would
insult us all by suddenly giving us a "background" on
Ben. Joss doesn't seem to do that...
Which, incidentally, is one thing I loathe, of the Movie Of the
Week - where we get the full back history of the character. Either
we trust Ben because of his actions now, or we don't. If we hear
his history & change our mind, is that because the actor/writers
weren't doing their job to help us intuit this stuff earlier,
or because we care so little about the character that a 5-minute
exposition would change our minds? Yada yada yada. I ramble, but
hey, I'm sneaking a post at work. Bwahahaha.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Apparently he was... -- Rob, 13:09:35
05/23/01 Wed
Now having seen "The Gift" we know that Ben actually
was condemned for his actions, or at least if not condemned himself
was killed in order to keep Glory from returning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Nope -- Sue, 21:13:28 05/24/01 Thu
He would have died regardless.
He was a victim in all of this. All he wanted to do was live.
Can't blame a person for wanting that.
Still, Giles did what he had to do by killing him. Giles did evil
to stop evil. Madeline and General Sherman would have been proud.
Question about "the Slayer"
-- Kerri, 13:00:16 05/20/01 Sun
Would "the Slayer" have been a part of Buffy even if
she had never been called? Is it a part of her personality regardless
of whether she was called? Or is it something that becomes entertwined
with her as a result of becoming the slayer? I've just always
wondered this...any ideas?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question about "the Slayer" -- darrenK, 13:28:32
05/20/01 Sun
I think there are 1000 answers to these questions, but here's
my stab at it.
If I remember correctly, Kendra was assigned a Watcher and started
training before she was ever called. This meant she had been "identified."
So her potential as a Slayer was evident and the choosing of Slayers
isn't completely random. Now whether or not pre-Slayers have any
special abilities or not, is something that the Buffywriters have
never dealt with.
But in Graduation Day I, Faith, who, unlike Kendra was never "identified",
mentions being at a quarry during her pre-Slayer days and jumping
from a rock that was so high that everyone else was too frightened
to try. While this isn't evidence of special power, it is evidence
of a certain uncommon fearlessness that a Slayer better possess,
even before she is called.
As to what the role of the Slayer does to the individual, I think
we're finding that out all the time and it's interesting to note
that most Slayers don't seem to live into adulthood. They die
off as teens and so the potential powers of an adult slayer have
never been explored. Until now. dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Question about "the Slayer" -- Mav,
13:58:31 05/20/01 Sun
I was reading that, but in Becoming part I when Buffy meets her
first Watcher, she's acting like what I assume is a typical US
high school girl (I guess slightly exagerated though)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Question about "the Slayer" --
Kerri, 14:43:51 05/20/01 Sun
It's clear that those chosen to be the slayer possess certain
traits that make them a good candidate for this job, such as darrenK
mentioned about Faith jumping off the rock.
But what I was really wondering is -how in "restless"
we see the first slayer who is a part of Buffy-if the first slayer
has always been an aspect of Buffy and that is why she was called
or if Buffy becomes sort of possessed by the first slayer when
she is called almost the way Angel has demon within him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Question about "the Slayer"
-- Rufus, 14:53:02 05/20/01 Sun
Until Buffy was found by her first Watcher she was only a highschool
girl with untested potential. When she made her first kill she
became aware fully of her function. She may not have understood
it, but a slayer was born the second she made her first kill.
I don't think that Buffy is possesed with the first slayer as
much as she shares all of slayer knowledge in her unconsious,
waiting to be found and understood when she is ready to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Question about "the Slayer"
-- Robert, 15:31:22 05/20/01 Sun
A slayer is not called when she makes her first kill a slayer
is called when the previous one dies. My take on it is that all
potential slayers are just regular girls no different than anyone
else until they are called.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Question about "the Slayer"
-- FanMan, 15:51:48 05/20/01 Sun
I agree with rufus. I think that it is not possesion per se. I
would go with a theory of the general subconcious of all wonmen
through history. The Slayer taps into the knowladge of all previous
slayers as a form of enhanced instinct. Buffy is unusual because
she has survived long enough that simple combat is automatic,
without needing to focus on combat she can start the voyage of
self-discovery and learn more esoteric aspects of the Slayer influence.
Giles is a big help: he genuinely wants to help her vs normal
watcher view of SIC EMM SLAYER9(insulting to treat a human being
like an attack dog-Darn WC!)
An analogy is the concept of reincarnation, remember previous
lives and you will have skills and knowlagde that would otherwise
be unavailable. Buffy accesses this database of experiance.
There is a book called Clan Of The Cave Bear, this book describes
a neanderthal culture. An interesting thing about the neanderthals
is that they are born with a genetic memory of thier languege,basic
skills, and history. Not very relivant, however it is similar
to the concept of behavior and personality being signifigantly
influenced by genetics. If we assume thier is some form of nonphysical
soul/lifeforce for each individual, the soul should be able to
exist in bodies besides its original. So 1 soul grows up human,
if the same soul were in an animal it seems like it would have
a different life and personality.
So here are six possible ways a Slayer is chosen. 1. Personality
that has developed by upbringing and general life experiances:predisposition
to be brave and heroic. 2. Genetic influence or predisposition
to certain behavior. 3. Choosing a soul itself( dose not seem
probable unless their is some form of reincarnation,if the soul
is the criteria you would want an "OLD SOUL") 4. TPTB
choose with ineffible criteria. 5. Random. Improbable and I don't
like it! 6. Slayer ability comes from a feminine God or Daemon.(Deamon
not demon,not sure of the spelling though...:):) Criteria for
choosing slayers would depend on the focus/purpose of this mysterious
entity....ineffible again!
Well I haven't answered any questions because Joss chooses the
way things work.....I want to see Josses outline for the next
two seasons! Anticipation is good for a true fan, I will have
to wait...Sigh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Question about "the Slayer"
-- OnM, 15:57:04 05/20/01 Sun
If you go back to the original movie, the Slayer was identified
by a certain type of birthmark. Buffy had had hers removed, so
it took the Council longer to locate her in advance.
The next Slayer is 'called' when the previous one dies (apparently
even if they are revived later!), but we don't know for sure how
long the Council had to look for Buffy before finding her, I don't
recall that the movie ever made that exactly clear, but I'm sure
we could check and find out.
My theory, as I stated once before in another thread sometime
back, is that the 'Calling' involves the transmission of a metaphysical
'virus', which enables the physical powers and abilities of the
new Slayer. Once changed, the Slayer should always retain these
abilities, unless suppressed by some exterior action, such as
when Giles drugged Buffy prior to her Cruciamentum test in *Helpless*.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It is all in JOSS's HANDS......Joss
is BUFFYVERSE GOD -- FanMan, 16:25:52 05/20/01 Sun
I should have made that seven options! I had forgotten that theory.
If it is a metaphysical virus, it is very different from the normal
definition of "virus" It was probably OmN that mentioned
vampire infection as a virus, it is contagious so that seems reasonable.
The problem with that is if only one(or two?) are infected at
a time the effect is not infecting someone else. The Slayer ability
jumps, so it seems more like a single entity/influence. Also a
virus has some form of connection between hosts: the question
of this thread is how are Slayers chosen? What is the connection
between various Slayers?
I could go on, but at the end of the day it is in JOSS's HANDS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It is all in JOSS's
HANDS......Joss is BUFFYVERSE GOD -- Rufus, 17:06:20 05/20/01
Sun
Ironic that both the slayer and vampires may be caused by a virus....holds
with what season one said about the first vampire being the result
of the infection of the last demon to leave our dimension.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: FM--The 'vamp as
an infection' was Rufus' idea, I believe, so no credit for me
on that one! ;) -- OnM, 20:05:32 05/20/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: FM--The 'vamp
as an infection' was Rufus' idea, I believe, so no credit for
me on that one! ;) -- FanMan, 20:11:50 05/20/01 Sun
Sorry rufus, I was thinking that if OnM had his theory of slayer
power being a metaphysical virus it was also his idea for vampire
infection as a virus. I am sure that thread is somewhere in the
archives, it has been a while.
Only speculation, but I like to speculate!
Questions about Willow's spells....WOTW
Spoiler -- FanMan, 19:36:38 05/20/01 Sun
Willow used a spell to get into Buffy's mind. At least that was
what seemed to by what Anya ,Willow, and Xander all said. My question
is this: were there any overt aspects of the spell besides lighting
three candles placed in a triangualar pattern? The candles looked
like normal candles, not special magic candles. Most spells in
the show have a ritual, material, vocal, and suplication step.
Simpler spells use a few words and guesters.
Second question: to me it seemed more like a psychic telepathic
effect, do you think it was magic or psychic? Psychic is usually
something without outside help of any type. Magic is using/affecting
forces outside of yourself.
Third question: Willow said "Seperate" and Xander and
Spike flew through the air. Was this a spell? Willow can do telekinisis
without any ritual= pure psychic ability.
Fourth question: is there much difference between magic and psychic?
It is easy to contrast a spell with magic ingrediants and chanting
vs telekinisis where it is just concentration. When Willow said
"seperate" the effect seemed to be kind of a grey area
between the two definitions.
I think magic and psychic are related, but not identical. A simple
definition would be that they are identical, and with enough skill
any magic spell could be cast by simply concentrating. Well I
am puzzled....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Slightly Off-Topic Analogy -- Solitude1056, 20:38:03 05/20/01
Sun
Back a few years ago, there was an intriguing re-telling of the
whole Arthur & the round table nonsense (I say nonsense, cause
it's been retold so many times now!), but told from the point
of view of Merlin, thus the title, uh, Merlin. Duh. Anyway...
Mab - the Queen of the Fairies, in this version - teaches the
young Merlin of three types of magicians. Those who perform magic
with words, those who perform it with their hands, and those who
simply think it into happening. Each is a step above the rest,
with those who can simply think magic, the highest of all. To
analogize with Willow's development, we've first got potions and
circles and what-have-you; next we have simple incantations without
accompanying accoutrements. When she hits the point that she can
just think the spell without designating a prepatory incantation,
well, gee. That ranks as pretty powerful in my book, in the Jossverse.
And with "separate," I'd say she's getting there; with
her Buffy-mind working, she's gotten there.
(Btw, the shooting script is very specific that the candles are
for ambience, and not as part of a specific setup for a spell.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> something I noticed in toughlove and afterward -- Jen C.,
22:28:10 05/20/01 Sun
When Willow went to Glory for payback, she cast the "Thicken"
spell that kept Glory "glued" in place. The first time
that she cast the spell, she needed to say the entire spell. Every
time that she used it thereafter, she only had to say the word
"thicken" and the spell would work. It would seem that
some spells only need to be cast once, and then they remain active
(like a computer script), needing only a "command" to
execute.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: something I noticed in toughlove and afterward
-- FanMan, 23:03:40 05/20/01 Sun
Thanks for the input. I have read a few books on "real magic"
and it seemed like all of the incantations and other aspects of
spells are merely aids in focussing. I decided to skip all that,
I am working on telekinisis. I am at 318 hours and I can exert
a force around one thousandth of a pound. My current goal is to
levitate a penny. Willow is way way beyond me! Maby another 300
hours for my penny?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: TRUE MAGIC -- darrenK, 12:40:12 05/21/01
Mon
I hate to be a partypooper...
But the magic--like that in Merlin, or the Tempest, or Faust--works
at the behest of the writers who are the practioners of the Buffyverse's
true magic-- the plotting, the dialogue and the story.
While they do maintain some order and consistency (and I'm sure
that Joss has drawn them a chart somewhere) the magic serves the
purpose of the storytelling and fits a logical system only so
long as it serves the story, then--like the creative process itself--it
goes wildly, grandly and excitingly awry.
Any attempt to codify it and have expectations of it working in
some orderly way kills the surprise of it just a little bit.
Magic like all things in the Buffyverse is only a metaphor.
dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: TRUE MAGIC -- Solitude1056, 12:57:00
05/21/01 Mon
Very much so - the writers are the true gods, in any consistent
'verse. Look at Tolkein, CS Lewis, even our more recent movie
and tv writers who've created whole universes for us to enjoy.
The key is that there's got to be an underlying consistency to
the story, something upon which we, as the audience, can base
our expectations. If the magic suddenly, randomly, converts to
a different set of Laws, then it's no better than having a character
who at the last minute suddenly reveals that she or he can really
fly a plane and thus save the day. The Matrix was one of the few
stories I've seen recently that had a nice plot device for such
last minute heroics: "download me the program on how to fly
a helicopter." Normally, such last-minute knowledge bores
me to death, because it disrupts my expectation of what the character
can do in the story - it's about as subtle as deus ex machina.
Joss has already demonstrated repeatedly that he's able to hold
onto that consistency, even if his math sometimes sucks. ;) So
I'd be very surprised if Willow's development was just because
in the last 4 episodes there hasn't been screen time to show her
doing all the prep, various incantations, a circle, potions, etc.
Either that's the way it works, or it doesn't work that way, or
it does but the writers are getting lazy, or there's another reason
altogether - which in this case, as I'm positing, is that Willow's
abilities have developed to the point where hand & word aren't
as crucial as she once thought them.
I like the idea about it being an "open program," by
the way. The idea that a spell exists, once begun, and thus can
be triggered by simple steps afterwards, is intriguing, albeit
bothersome for me. As a pseudo-programmer, I'm not sure I'm keen
on the loose ends aspect of things just meandering off into nowhere
without a nice shut-down process at the end, but hey, that's me.
Joss may be different.
And back to dK's post, it's not that the magic, like any other
"reality aspect" of the writers' particular universe,
exists only for so long in an ordered fashion. If that were so,
why bother with just letting magic run amok? Why not, say, have
gravity suddenly cease to exist when Spike's about to fall to
a crushing death? Blah, blah, blah. Yes, I agree that we don't
want to guess the outcome easily - keeping us suspended is the
mark of a true storyteller - but neither do we need to be insulted
by having the story's basis dramatically and suddenly upturned
just for the sake of furthering the plot. Joss didn't make Spike
into Mister Helpful Guy overnight - it was a long and arduous
process to shift our expectations from Vampire=Evil&MustDie to
Vampie=MayBeHelpful. If he took his time with one major aspect
of the Buffyverse (the bad guys), why wouldn't he take his time
with another major aspect (magic)? That alone indicates to me
that Willow's abilities aren't a shorthand to spend less screentime
spent on her prep, or because the writers are getting lazy, or
because magic's changed suddenly. Joss has been working up to
this, and to all indications (from what I can see, and based on
past experience with The Devious Mind Of Joss), it's probably
Willow-centric movement and for a particular reason. Why, and
what, I don't know. But worth sticking around to find out...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: TRUE MAGIC -- darrenK, 15:39:53
05/21/01 Mon
Solitude, Thanks for the rather comprehensive reply to my note.
Though you position it as a rebuttal, I do in fact agree with
you.
I was not saying that there should be NO standard. Nor was I advocating
a carté blanché for the writers to plot without
regard to previous precedents or the established ways we've seen
the buffyverse work.
But, I do resist the idea that buffyversemagic has to be so codified
that our understanding of it becomes scientific. The fact is that
magic is a deus ex machina for storytellers; this is unavoidable.
But it can seem to be organic to the world the writers have built,
which it is. Because they are good, careful writers.
But, if magic is too carefully explained it not only loses its
mystery, but, worse, the story becomes subservient to the technical
knowledge of magic rather than the other way round. The writers
have to have room to manuver. If the rules of buffymagic are too
carefully quantified then we lose that manuverability.
On an entirely separate note, Willow's powers have seemed the
same for several seasons. She could research spells and had the
power to complete them providing she had the time and ingredients.
Way back in Season Two she had the power to give Angel his soul
back, but in season 4, she was still struggling to do a Demon
location spell. Even in Season 5, Anya was able to interrupt her
concentration long enough for the spell to go wrong releasing
that troll. And she's never been able to turn that rat back into...
Then, poof, Tara makes vague references to Willow's power scaring
her, Willow breaks into the book of Darkest magic, now she's a
superhero with the powers to be a major player in the battles
between Buffy and Glory.
Seems suspicious to me. Especially when Willow's eyes turn the
same color black as Doc's. Nice effect though, but I wouldn't
be surprised if Willow is the Buffyverse's Phoenix, all set up
to be next year's big, dark bad.
This show has been all about undercutting our expectations and
no expectation is as great as the one that says that a loyal,
gentle Willow will anchor Buffy and the Scooby Gang.
dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Sources -- Solitude1056, 17:39:58
05/21/01 Mon
On an entirely separate note, Willow's powers have seemed the
same for several seasons. She could research spells and had the
power to complete them providing she had the time and ingredients.
Way back in Season Two she had the power to give Angel his soul
back, but in season 4, she was still struggling to do a Demon
location spell. Even in Season 5, Anya was able to interrupt her
concentration long enough for the spell to go wrong releasing
that troll. And she's never been able to turn that rat back into...
Then, poof, Tara makes vague references to Willow's power scaring
her, Willow breaks into the book of Darkest magic, now she's a
superhero with the powers to be a major player in the battles
between Buffy and Glory.
Hmm, when you put it that way, yeah, I can see exactly how Willow's
abilities can form a deus ex machina kind of plot device. I hadn't
thought about the iffyness of Willow's magick over the long term
but you're right, it has been a suddenly development. So I wonder
what causes that? First thought is, natch, that it's linked to
the Key somehow. I've always remained suspicious that Joyce's
tumor was related to the higher energy levels being pumped out
by the Key to those around her; perhaps Willow's sudden strength
and focus is also related to this.
On the other hand, it's always seemed as though Willow's drawing
from something unidentified - like in the soul-returning spell,
where she was definitely not the usual Willow all of a sudden,
halfway through. (Remember Oz and Cordy's reactions, too. They
noticed it, so I'm not just making this stuff up... I think. *grin*)
For the most part, Willow has usually needed someone with her
to help her focus, and Tara's been that person recently. Anya's
interruptions just reinforced (for me) the idea that Willow works
best as one-half of a pair, even if that other half is something
that's helping her (the PTB?) that we can't see or identify...
yet. But in the past few episodes it's seemed to me that Willow's
still thirsting to see Glory suffer, even though Willow dealt
a few good blows... that wasn't enough, I'd imagine. Willow's
intensity now may be related to that still unchecked need for
vengeance, as has been highlighted in other episodes like, uh,
Something Blue, was it?
And Evil Willow showing up still floats around in my head. Joss
drops clues way in advance - and it seems like in retrospect that
whole double-bill of Evil Willow was wasted if it was only to
show us that she had latent bisexuality. We've seen her tell off
Giles and Angel, back in season one - I still love her angry line
to Angel that he was going to live forever and yet he didn't have
time for a cup of coffee?! Heh. Ok. Where was I... oh, yes. So
Willow's got a temper, and has a definite mean streak, to the
point of sadism, buried in there. Her more recent line to Spike
that if he tried payback, she'd be cranky was a distinct reference
IMO to Evil Willow's sultry pouty phrase of "oh, you made
me cranky."
So there's some darker aspects to Willow that we've not seen,
but it stands to reason she could potentially become a real unknown
variable now that she's finally developed a focus upon which to
cast her repressed anger and resentment. It's been a running joke
along the seasons that Willow's the goody-goody study nerd, and
with her recent uncoverings of her innate abilities, I'd be very
surprised if she'd willingly sink back to what the character may
see as settling for being a lowly sidekick, or whathaveyou. I
think we're being set up, carefully, for watching Willow develop
into another Riley-like arc, where she goes off on her own to
exercise outside the watchful eye of the Scoobies, in an attempt
to find "her own place" with her own power and Self-Image
distinct from the gang.
That's what I'm suspecting, at least. I doubt she'd be the next
Big Bad. It seems more likely that it'll be rough going for a
bit, even if she regains Tara. She may still lust after the power
she had, and seek other outlets for it, and in that manner, become
something dangerous, in the same way she did by attacking Glory
when the Scoobies didn't have their defenses ready.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sources -- FanMan,
20:13:44 05/21/01 Mon
DarenK....woa! Hey I was just puzzled, I put my views up for others
to comment on. I do not want to precicely define the entire magic
of Buffy or anything else in the show, I do like speculation and
alternative/opposite views....Thanks DK & Solitude!
Cool speculation about Willow in next season...:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sources --
Solitude1056, 20:27:25 05/21/01 Mon
Gee, you didn't want the whole epistomology & phenomonology explained,
too? Drat. And I was having fun... :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sources
-- FanMan, 22:58:16 05/21/01 Mon
Lots of shows you see one episode and it stands alone. Predictible
plotlines. Joss knows how to give us as much info as the Scoobies.
We are allways almost as confused as they are! Few shows have
mystery. Plenty of stuff to speculate about on Buffy because not
everything is handed to the viewers on a platter(or wacking us
viewers on the head with the bloody obvious!) Same reason the
X-Files was so good in the beginning.
Dk had a point. I do not want to precicely define magic. I do
like comparing realverse to Buffy and other fiction to Buffy.
Precice? No. Explore possible causes and origins of aspects of
the show? Yes and YES! My views are individual, I gain insight
and alternate perspectives from discussions on this message board.
My sight favs: Masquerade for creating her website and this cool
discussion forum. OnM & Solitude 1056 provide the most insightfull
comments here besides Masquerade.
Please add some more epistology and phenomonalogy! Enough here,
I will wait until The Gift for profound statements.
Changed my mind; I am a fan of Buffy....hidden meaning in there
somewhere?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sources
-- Rufus, 02:10:50 05/22/01 Tue
Okay explain the phenomonology, I'm no philosopher so an explanation
using BVS to help me understand can only be a good thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> the Will It So... spell -- pocky, 17:23:00 05/21/01
Mon
i, too, noticed that ever since Tough Love, Willow has been using
one-word commands to effect some sort of metaphysical result.
when she said, "Shatter," in Tough Love while fighting
Glory, the mirror shattered. and then, "Thicken," Glory
got stuck again. "Air becomes fist," and "Separate,"
are a couple of other examples.
i'm just thinking that maybe Willow cast the I-Will-It-So spell
again. and considering how adept Willow has become since then,
maybe she's found a way to control the effects of said spell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Questions about Willow's spells....WOTW Spoiler -- Boxdman,
17:44:06 05/21/01 Mon
I read something somewhere that talked about "high"
and "low" magic. "High" magic is ritualistic
with candles and repetitive rituals. "Low" magic is
more the power of the mind. One using "low" magic has
progressed beyond the rituals in those spells they are using and
now have proficiency with it such that they can tap into the magic
with but a thought. (Though I do like the "run program"
idea *g*)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> High & Low -- Solitude1056, 18:54:40 05/21/01 Mon
Close to my understanding, but not quite. I was taught that Low
magic is folk magic, sympathetic magic. Incidentally, "sympathetic
magic" is the main current behind many superstitions. My
grandmother, a Presbyterian from the Southern US, taught me that
if it hasn't rained, then you should wet a broom & shake it over
your garden. It sounds like rain, and that's to "let Mother
Nature know what she's supposed to do." That's pretty much
textbook sympathetic magic, in that you're doing a small version
of what you want to happen on a big scale. Folklore is full of
such "little magicks." High magic (usually) is more
of Big And Important Issues, like life, death, invokation of archangels
and daemons, blah blah blah. Invariably it involves a great deal
more ritual, ceremony, fancy accoutrements, checking the planets
for the right "time," etc.
As a witch once explained to me, low magick is the equivalent
of meditating on your back stoop. High magick is more like going
to a Roman Catholic Mass. However, both require equal amounts
of concentration & focus to achieve the goal. It's just the style
that's different. One uses simpler methods and (usually) deals
with simpler and smaller issues, such as getting a job, or finding
a new house. The other leans more the scholarly side, with its
goals more traditionally associated with invoking archetypes,
major prophesy, etc etc.
Hey, wow. Another mini-lecture from yours truly. Oops. Well, hope
it cleared up some of the occult's perspective on High vs. Low
magick. It's still an open question whether it's got anything
to do with the Jossverse, but hey.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> To define or not to define? -- Humanitas, 08:38:44
05/22/01 Tue
This thread reminds me of the general distinction between "Star
Wars" and "Star Trek." Both great worlds, but they
are fundamentally about different things. "Star Trek"
is largely about how things happen, and "Star Wars"
is about why. Just a thought, coming out of the debate on wether
to codify the magic of the Buffyverse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: To define or not to define? -- FanMan,
00:18:17 05/23/01 Wed
I started this thread because I was confused about a technical
distintion between magic and psychic acts of Willow. Recieved
two good answers; a logical prgression of Willow needing less
ritual mumbo jumbo because of increasing skill/and or focus because
of her anger about Tara. Her use of Darkest magic is letting her
tap into some evil influence with several possible plotlines RE
Willow for season six. The second scenerio is vauge except for
Willow being more powerfull because of an outside influence.
Buffy and Angel are both definately in the catagory of why. Metaphores,
character developement, and story telling are the focus. Explanation
in detail is not part of the show.
Reasons for technical discussions; although what and how are secondary
Joss & co are very good about being consistant, Joss gives us
hints that make more sense in hindsight or sometimes from fan
speculation, hey it fills time waiting for the next ep so give
me a break(Grin), Joss gives us viewers as much info as the Scoobies
eventually get...and what they get RE real important info allways
has some vaugeness for us to fill in the blank. Often lots of
vaugeness like any of Ben's history before coming to Sunnydayl
or what is the origin of Slayer power....etc.
Last it is not just magic that I speculate on, I tried to come
up with a scientific description of how the chip in Spike's head
works. Completely stumped! Either post hypnotic sugestion or it
is a gizmo like Star Trek has lots of.
What's Good? (Slightly off topic)
-- Philosopher, 22:40:22 05/20/01 Sun
This is probably the wrong time to bring this up, with all that
is happening, but since I was thinking about it now, I thought
I would bring it up. I can understand with all the pressing issues
currently, that people might not want to bring this up right now,
but perhaps after the season is over it might be a discussion
topic.
Dawn isn't evil, but is she "good"? Is "good"
just the absence of evil or is there something more to it?
Something additional?
Who in the Buffyverse is good? Buffy has goodness inside her.
But do the others? Again is there something more to being "good"
than just fighting evil? Something additional?
What is it that makes a person "good"? That something
special that makes them stand out. Not to criticize the others,
but there does seem to be something different about the "good"
that makes them people who everyone remembers. Makes them better
than the rest.
Is "goodness" something you are born with? Is "evil"?
And for the rest of us, is our lack of "goodness" something
that we just have to accept.
SPIKE I'm a vampire. I know something about evil. You're not evil.
DAWN Maybe, maybe not. Maybe I'm not evil but I don't think I
can be good.
Again, the others are capable of good acts. Out of friendship,
out of loyalty, out of love, but does that make them "good"?
I believe Buffy is "good". She has that extra something.
So is Tara. The rest seem to be like the rest of us.
SPIKE Well, I'm not good, and I'm okay.
(Yes, it bothers me using a quote from Spike, but somehow I think
it seems apt for the rest of us as well. We might not be evil,
but can we accept not being good? Are we okay with just being
normal?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What's Good? (Slightly off topic) -- FanMan, 23:16:27
05/20/01 Sun
Good is rising above normality when the going gets tough. Many
normal people are not tested morally in critical ways. I am normal,
most boring normal people will be heroic if they have a valid
reason. People plod along through life, you see thier Good side
when there is a disaster or someone in front of them needs help.
Too many problems to wory about everything; make a difference
in your life.
Hey this is cool! Lots and lots of discusions about evil, demon
morality, vampire rights to hunt food(humans!) We need the other
side of the arguement....thanks.:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What's Good? (Slightly off topic) -- Sue, 22:19:57
05/22/01 Tue
Spoilers
Buffy isn't like us.
There was something special to her (and I am not talking about
her slayer strength). Something that made her better than most
of us.
In the end, though, Buffy didn't destroy Glory.
Giles did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What's Good? (Slightly off topic) -- Rufus, 01:16:24
05/21/01 Mon
Good is relative to any situation you are in. If you consider
good to be a way of being that never wavers, never questions,
then no one is good. Then you could consider good the total of
your every human action singled out until you find where you are
on a scale. When JW put forth his newer explanation of the soul
he said it was a direction that though predisposed towards good,
your choices could send you to the opposite direction of evil.
If you consider good an absolute that any angry thought or feeling
negates, then we are all bad. So I see good as who and what a
person usually does, thinks, strives for. Perfection is impossible
but your acts and thoughts can make is so your scale tips in the
direction of good most of the time. Dawn fears that something
inside of her renders her not good, but her actions show that
she is in fact normal(for a teenager) and good. Her fears of the
unknown show her normality. Spike knows that he prefers evil,
but infected with love he is making choices that are pulling him
to a contrary way of being. Has he done anything that changes
his nature towards evil? What act or acts change a person or vampire
into doing what is against their nature? Is good truly the norm
or just a quality we admire, and only hope to obtain, one act
and thought at a time?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What's Good? (Slightly off topic) -- Sue, 22:30:12
05/22/01 Tue
In the sense we are using the word in this discussion, most of
us are not really "good" just like most of us aren't
really "evil".
We are capable of doing good, but being good?
But there are a few out there, and some of us are fortunate enough
to have met them who are truely good. They aren't perfect, no
one is perfect, but they are better than the rest of us.
If you ask them, they would never admit it, for they are so good
that they are extra sensitive to the less than perfect thoughts
within them. And that bothers them more than it bothers the rest
of us. There is a sad irony in this. They never feel as good as
they really are.
Buffy was "good". She wasn't like the rest of us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: What's Good? (Slightly off topic) -- FanMan,
23:26:22 05/22/01 Tue
Humility is one of the virtues of a saint or hero who is not heroic
for selfish reasons. Good people are appreciated for real actions,
not bragging or self righteousness.
There are many people who are good in this way, thier lives are
not controversial and newsworthy so our glorious country focusses
on celebrities, polititions duplicity, and other CRAP.
Remember to notice the next time you see someone volunteering
in a soup kitchen, taking in recovering drug addicts just because
it is right...etc.
I almost posted this message without adding a disclaimer: there
is NOTHING crappy about the celebrities on my two favorite shows.
Prove me wrong if you dare!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: What's Good? (Slightly off topic)
-- Sue, 06:09:56 05/23/01 Wed
To them often they really can't let themselves see the goodness
inside them.
For them, it isn't about "being better than the rest".
It's just what they are.
It is hard to describe unless you have met them personally. There
is a goodness within them that shines through and brings joy to
all around them.
Buffy was "good". She wasn't like the rest of us.
Most of us are neither good, nor evil. For the lack of a better
word, we are normal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Bell curve of goodness? -- FanMan,
20:54:51 05/23/01 Wed
Buffy is in the top one percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Bell curve of goodness?
-- Sue, 21:04:18 05/24/01 Thu
Buffy wasn't like us.
She was better than us.
And she left the world a far, far better place.
But still, it took Giles to destroy Glory.
but it doesn't make sense...
-- Manoon, 05:20:58 05/21/01 Mon
so from the day he was born Glory was trapped inside, her prison
so to
speak. In order for Ben not to have succumbed to any of life's
accidents, he
would have needed to have been wrapped in cotton wool, or locked
in a room,
and it just doesn't ring true that the Minions (or Onions, as
I prefer to
think of them!) would have ALLOWED the vessel of their great one
to go out
into the real world where there was a real danger of real risk
(excuse the
repetition, but you know what I mean, and I gotto finish this
post before my
boss gets back from lunch...) The only thing which WOULD therefore
make
sense is if Ben had been denied any kind of free will at all
I'm reminded of the film "The Sixth Sense", when it's
revealed Brucie is a
ghost himself, and u sit in the cinema and think back and think
"no, it just
doesn't work!"
anyway, is my maiden post, so be nice to me... :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: but it doesn't make sense... -- Morgane, 07:57:57 05/21/01
Mon
"it just doesn't ring true that the Minions would have ALLOWED
the vessel of
their great one to go out into the real world where there was
a real danger
of real risk"
Well, you would be right if the minions would have ANY power over
Ben, but
as we have seen several times, Ben is way more stronger than the
minions, in
fact, he appears to have the same physical strenght or almost
than Glory
herself. So, how do you think the minions would have stopped him.
We saw Ben
kicks the minions' ass several times actually.
When the hellgod of the other dimension have put Glory into Ben's
body, they
expected the body to contain her. Now, she has minions to help
her to be
stronger but it doesn't mean that they have always been there.
I meen, Ben
had propably live a while before Glory started to appear, she
needed enough
strenght to get over him. Even now, he's still as strong as her
to take the
control of the body.
Just think, if Glory would have had the control of Ben's body
from a while
ago, she would have found the key when the monks had it. The fact
that the
monks hid the key only several monthes ago, means that Glory appeared
in her
actual form only several monthes ago too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: but it doesn't make sense... -- Solitude1056,
08:26:56 05/21/01
Mon
But if she'd appeared only a few months ago, then the Queller
incident
would've been more like the first or second time Ben had to clean
up.
Instead, he said he was cleaning up after Glory, just like he
had "his whole
life." That told me that she's been out & about for some
time now - just
perhaps not in such long durations until recently.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: but it doesn't make sense... -- Manoon,
08:46:25 05/21/01 Mon
the problem is that the history has not been fully explained,
so we all
speculate many different things which cant all be correct. I guess
the point
i am trying to make though is that even if Glory had not surfaced
until more
recently than some people think, the Onions STILL know that Ben
is the
vessel to their God which makes him such an important individual.
What power
does it take to lock him in a room, so that he doesn't, for example,
go for
a drive, have a crash, and die in the accident? Or get runover
by a drink
driver? Anything resulting in death - which would be the end of
Glory (as we
know it). Too much is at stake.
And the Onions did pretty much overpower Spike one time... they
may be ugly,
but they are many! Wonder if they smell, too?
One final thing - Sol, you're my favourite poster!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: but it doesn't make sense... -- Malandanza,
09:51:21
05/21/01 Mon
"the problem is that the history has not been fully explained,
so we all
speculate many different things which can't all be correct. I
guess the
point I am trying to make though is that even if Glory had not
surfaced
until more recently than some people think, the Onions STILL know
that Ben
is the vessel to their God which makes him such an important individual.
What power does it take to lock him in a room, so that he doesn't,
for
example, go for a drive, have a crash, and die in the accident?
Or get
runover by a drink driver? Anything resulting in death - which
would be the
end of Glory (as we know it). Too much is at stake."
I think the lack of precautions by the minions indicates that
killing Ben
will not result in Glory's death. Further evidence was in WotW
when the high
priest warned Glory that killing Dawn prematurely would result
in Glory
being stuck in the Buffyverse forever (not merely until her human
host
dies). We saw Glory take over when Dawn hit Ben over the head
with a chain
(hard enough to render him unconscious) but when he returned to
control of
the body, he appeared to have suffered no ill effects. Perhaps
whenever Ben
is badly injured (even badly enough injured to be killed) Glory
automatically assumes control and the damage is repaired to Ben
when Glory
changes back. Another possibility is that religious awe keeps
the minions
from touching Ben (although I'm sure Glory could order her minions
to keep
Ben locked away).
I agree that Glory probably has not manifested for Ben's entire
life (think
of Ben at three -- would Glory also have the body of a three-year
old when
she took control? And if not, where does all that extra mass come
from and
go to?) I would think Glory began to appear as Ben approached
adulthood. She
has been known to him for 5 or 6 years at least since it is the
interaction
with Glory that made him decide to become a doctor. I doubt Ben
was raised
by minions -- if so, he would have been brought up to revere Glory
rather
than revile her. The minions may have had some trouble tracking
down baby
Ben -- Glory's enemies would hardly have gone to the trouble of
imprisoning
her just to hand the prison over to the very people who wanted
to free her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: but it doesn't make sense...
-- Morgane, 11:02:00
05/21/01 Mon
Just a thought about the putting Ben into a locked room thing
(then I return
to my math study because I'll be into serious troubles!) We see
Ben as an
potentially dangerous guy for Glory if he gets killed or hurt.
But as Spike
has tried to told us once or twice ;o), Ben is Glory and Glory
is Ben! If
the minions put Ben in a locked room, it mean to put Glory in
a locked room
too, which I don't believe she would like very much. Anyway, the
minions
wouldn't have the guts to do it. They're not really brave ya know!
Plus
Glory's their god, who would lock his god in a room even to keep
it safe.
Another thing, I just wonder if Ben could really get killed that
easily, or
at all. I mean, if Glory can't get killed when she's in a her
female form,
how could Ben died in the male form. I mean, the female form isn't
another
body, but the representation of Glory taking the lead. It isn't
two
different bodies, but only one. So, I believe this body (which
is Ben
actually) always has the same strenghts and the same weaknesses
whatever
that means.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: but it doesn't make sense...
-- spotjon, 12:23:01
05/21/01 Mon
"It isn't two different bodies, but only one. So, I believe
this body (which
is Ben actually) always has the same strenghts and the same weaknesses
whatever that means."
Then how was Dawn able to knock Ben out, albeit momentarily, in
last week's
episode? She could do that because Ben is more vulnerable physically
than
Glory. She mentioned that her head hurt, which was a result of
the two of
them blending. Glory herself couldn't be hurt by a chain to the
head, but
Ben can. I think that Ben might be stronger than the average human,
but I
doubt that he's nearly as strong as Glory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: but it doesn't make
sense... -- Solitude1056,
12:44:25 05/21/01 Mon
I got the impression that when Ben goes unconcious, Glory can
come out. When
Ben isn't exerting regular pressure to remain in control - such
as asleep or
knocked out - then Glory's able to take over. But the hurting
head may have
been because of that other issue, where Glory can absorb & deflect
any
damage that might happen to Ben's body.
Alternately, this still raises the issue of "kill the man,
kill the god,"
and whether or not you can actually kill a God. Glory's said she
doesn't
want to die, but what does she define as "dying"? Could
she just mean
"ceasing to exist as a separate entity" or does she
actually mean dying as a
human would conceive of it? Gregor's take was that the other Hell
Gods
intended that Glory live & die as a mortal, which would mean that
this is a
limited run & when it's over, the fat lady's sung & that's that
for
Glorificus. If not, then I fail to see the point of their little
venture,
since Glory's hardly done away with - she's no better than the
toxic waste
dumped into barrels at the bottom of the ocean. Might have put
the problem
off for a few centuries, but it will come back, and when it does...
just
remember, payback's a bitch. So unless the Hell Gods were as short-sighted
as humanity in such matters - or just underestimating Glory's
resourcefulness - then that part doesn't jel for me. Either Glory
dies when
Ben dies, or she doesn't, in which case killing her vessel doesn't
do much
but put it off for a little longer.
I suppose it'll all be explained in a little over 24 hours (if
you're on the
east coast)... :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: but it doesn't
make sense... -- purplegrrl,
13:30:28 05/22/01 Tue
My thought is (as I posted further down) that Gregor and the Knights
of
Byzantium may consider Glory "dead" if she no longer
has access to this
dimension - whether that entails sending her back to her own dimension,
"locking the door" to this dimension, or putting her
into some sort of
limbo. No "crossing over" with John Edwards for Glory!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> that's so sweet! :) -- Solitude1056, 13:00:55
05/21/01 Mon
Like OnM said, we're only as good as the company we keep. I just
figure if I
post enough (but not so much y'll start telling me to shut the
hell up) then
every now & then I might stumble across an intelligent idea. *grin*
(Of
course it also helps that everyone here is really good at bouncing
these
ideas back and forth, even if I'm still convinced that some of
them are
really Joss' Evil Writing Crew in disguise...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: that's so sweet! :) -- Masquerade,
14:25:52 05/21/01 Mon
"Of course it also helps that everyone here is really good
at bouncing these
ideas back and forth, even if I'm still convinced that some of
them are
really Joss' Evil Writing Crew in disguise..."
Oh, don't I wish!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Okay, everyone up against
the wall. -- Solitude1056,
17:20:02 05/21/01 Mon
Everyone, ID, and make it snappy!
Except you, OnM. No need, since I'm already positive you're one
of the
Davids in disguise. Not sure which one, but I'm working on it.
*grin*
(ok, chill, I'm just teasing... except about the OnM part.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> What ever do you mean
by ID??I'm just a Godless
Canadian....:) -- Rufus, 18:37:36 05/21/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: 'The Mirror merely
Reflects, 'tis not the Object
Itself" -- OnM, 19:37:11 05/21/01 Mon
Keep dreamin', Sol-- I am not now, nor have I ever been, a David.
;)
If you have any doubts, I'll dig up and post a mini-spec I wrote
just prior
to the start of the new season last year, and you can see how
wrong I was
about nearly everything!
Keep postin', though. I'm certainly not bored yet! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That was just
a ploy to throw us off the scent. --
Solitude1056, 20:10:07 05/21/01 Mon
But we've seen through your guise! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, a
guise gotta do what a guise gotta do...
-- OnM, 21:45:32 05/21/01 Mon
And I gotta get some sleep soon.
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: but it doesn't make sense... -- LoriAnn,
16:23:57 05/21/01
Mon
Last week one of the minions said something about all the trouble
they had
to go FIND Glory, so apparently the minions had to search for
her and may
not have found her until recently.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: but it doesn't make sense... -- Rufus, 16:35:41 05/21/01
Mon
From what I saw in the last ep. the fate of the minions is directly
connected with Glory getting home. The one minion reminded Glory
if she bled
the key now "they" would all be stuck in this reality
forever. So question
is did the minions get exhiled here with Glory? Then you can easily
deal
with the issue of Ben/Glory and the minions with the fact that
they know
that even when Ben the vessel still contains the god they worship.
A god who
specialized in destruction and chaos in her home dimension. They
call Ben
sir, they know that to hurt Ben or restrict Ben in any way they
risk the
wrath of Glory. So the minions are there to be a mouthpiece of
Glory to Ben
and to make sure both sides of the being are comfortable. To harm
the vessel
isn't in the rules for the minions, they are there so serve the
dark force
of Glory. To harm Ben is to harm or disrespect their god...can't
be done.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Glory the god in a soggy diaper!...(grin) -- FanMan,
20:47:51
05/21/01 Mon
Way up in this thread someone mentioned Ben turning into Glory
when he was
three. I had visions of The HELLGOD from the B*** dimension being
a child.
Glory teethin! Glory crawling on the floor and taking her first
steps! Glory
in soggy diapers demanding respect and worship!....ROTFL....He
He
Made my day!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Glory the god in a soggy diaper!...(grin)
-- MANOON, 02:29:36
05/22/01 Tue
Wouldn't that make the funniest flashback sequence? I bet the
writers are
kicking themselves, wishing they had thought of it...
however, this has made me wonder a little further in another direction..
is
the human form Glory takes now her real form? Is it the form she
had when
banished from her realm (in terms of age and appearance) or it
is a human
form she has "grown" or "developed" since
she was imprisoned in a human
vessel, the only possible physical manifestation is a human one..
was Glory
the grown up vixen she is now when put into Ben 20-odd years ago,
or as
FanMan jokingly suggested, was she a baby who grew as Ben did
(which might
suggest why he sometimes likened her to a sister?). If non of
the above is
true (and I am sure there are many of you with ideas and evidence
to
support), what IS the true form of the beast?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Glory the god in a soggy diaper!...(grin)
-- FanMan,
22:55:10 05/22/01 Tue
Glory mentioned to Dawn in WOTW "this body doesn't matter,
girls like US
don't need human bodies" I know I butchered that quote, I
don't want to
watch WOTW a third time in one week...:)
My guess is that Glory did not manifest out of Ben until at least
puberty(she is his polterguist equivilant...ha ha), though more
likely
around 16 to twenty. He said he cleaned up afer Glory his whole
life in the
Queller ep, exageration I would say.
Second question; Glory's true appearance? Unknown. My guess on
her apperance
on the show is that she is what Ben would look like as a female,
slightly
modified by Glories lifeforce. Change the sex chromasone and appearance
will
be much different cause of different hormones etc also.
Dawn of Time -- Rufus, 17:46:12
05/21/01 Mon
I went back to the transcripts and got the passage from season
one that talks about the change from dark to dawn in this reality.
Giles(The Harvest): " This world is older than any of you
know. Contrary to popular mythology, it did not begin as a paradise.
For untold eons demons walked the Earth. They made it their home,
their...their Hell. But in time they lost their purchase on this
reality. They way was made for mortal animals, for, for man. All
that remains of the old ones are vestiges, certain magicks, certain.
creatures...."
Xander: "So vampires are demons?"
Giles: "The books tell the last demon to leave this reality
fed off a human, mixed their blood. He was a human form possessed,
infected by the demon's soul. He bit another, and another, and
so they walk the Earth, feeding...Killing some, mixing their blood
with others to make more of their kind. Waiting for the animals
to die out, and the old ones to return."
Glory is old, older than the written word, the Key was created
shortly after Glory. The Key is pure energy. It has a function
but how does that relate to the Buffyverse. The earth was a hell
first, then came the Dawn of man. If you think about it you have
to wonder what drove the old ones out of this reality. What made
the earth evolve towards the light? What was strong enough to
make the old ones lose their purchase on this reality. I think
there is where you may get an idea of how and why the Key was
created. The Knights could only see the Key as a force of destruction.
The monks saw Dawn as a potential force for light. The power of
the key is absolute...even Glory can't boast that.
Then there is the vampire. Forced out of the light by their evil
dark nature. They are the result of an infection of the demon
soul. The vampire is a demon hybrid considered the lowest of low.
It is clearly infected with humanity. Something Darla said to
Angel in the Prodigal sticks in my mind:
Darla: "What we once were informs all that we become. The
same love will infect our hearts - even if they no longer beat.
Simple death won't change that."
The vampire is the result of an infection. But as a demon it can
still become infected by love. Death doesn't change the persons
memories and personality. The same thing they were in life becomes
possessed by the infection of the demon soul. I feel this makes
for an unstable creation. The vampire can still love. Bringing
me to the conversation Dawn had with Spike...she was afraid of
being evil...Spike told her she wasn't. She may not be all good
but she is okay. Both Dawn and Spike have been changed by their
ability to love. Love is what will bring Buffy to her gift. Seems
to be something all three characters have in common. So, what
do you think the gift that is the result of love is?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dawn of Time -- cynthia, 19:19:34 05/21/01 Mon
The gift of love is hope. All great and small things begin in
the dark and are drawn toward the light. It's always darkest before
the dawn.
If Dawn is the key. The key is hope. The loss of hope allows for
despair and doom. And when all else is lost, hope can keep one
going with the power to change that which should be impossible.
Using the key to open will mean the lost of hope. Using the key
to close keeps hope within our diamention(?) where it can work
wonders and cause things that did not exist before to come into
being (i.e. Glory's sudden tasting of emotions and morality, Sprike's
love of Buffy and Dawn and the changes it caused in him. I believe
that even if he steps back into his previous mode that it will
not be exactly the same because I believe his recent experiences
will be long remembered and felt. The feelings he has felt are
much more powerful than the infatuation he had for Cecily or stem
from the gratitude, however misplaced, for Drucilla.) I think
the monks realized this whereas the knights did not. The monks
realized that just keeping the other creature of other dimentions
out would not be the greatest loss. Losing hope is.
If hope has the ability to create things from the most adverse
of circumstances, maybe Dawn will continue to exist after the
key is made safe, the creation being a reality that did exist
before.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dawn of Time -- FanMan, 20:30:30 05/21/01 Mon
Cool perspective! I posted some similar views in my thread "The
LOCK that the KEY opens." I did not think of the KEY as hope...different
and valid points.:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Playing things out -- Bill, 09:48:47 05/20/01 Sun
Angel -"Through The Looking Glass" spoilers below.
One of the philosophies represented on Angel last week I believe
was predestination, or fatalism.
The idea that one must play the cards they are dealt, play out
their destiny to the end regardless of where it takes them.
It seemed like the psychic friend who The Host went to knew that
if he went with Angel and co. that would mean his death. But she
felt that the Host had to go anyway to meet his destiny. He had
to play his fate out, regardless of where it ultimately took him.
He had to go out to meet his fate, and not deny the path "they"
(the fates, the PTB?) laid out for him.
I think it is a empty hopeless reality if in the end the best
that we can hope for is to have the courage to "play things
out". Kind of throws free will out the window.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Playing things out -- LoriAnn, 03:52:48 05/21/01 Mon
There is an element of predestination in the Buffyverse on the
face of it. But Buffy has made choices, although I can't remember
specific instances, that seemed to change destiny. The destiny
in Angel and Buffy seems more a "calling" than a specific
immutable path. Action is taken and "destiny" branches.
About the psycic on AtS, are we dealing with predestination or
precognition, regardless of how she phrased it? This is a classic
debate that, in ourverse, is usually forularized as if God knows
what is going to happen, is He then ordaining what will happen:
precognition vs. predestination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Breaking the Vase -- Solitude1056, 19:03:50 05/21/01
Mon
The whole question reminds me (again today, for some reason) of
that scene in The Matrix when Neo goes to see the Oracle. She
tells him, as he stands in the doorway to her kitchen, "nevermind
the vase." Confused, he asks, "what vase?" right
as he bumps the vase by his elbow. It falls to the ground and
shatters.
As he starts to apologize, the Oracle shushes him. She adds that
what's really going to "bake his noodle" later is the
question of whether he would've broken the vase if she'd not said
anything.
Hmm.
Battle Strategy (The Gift speculation)
-- rowan, 18:22:38 05/21/01 Mon
Here's a question I don't think I've seen on this board yet. Imagine
you're
the SG. You're going up against Glory in the big battle. She has
only one
weakness: Ben. She has Dawn, and your margin of error to save
Dawn is very
small: before the bloodletting. You're unsure when the ceremony
is to take
place or where. What do you do? What's your battle strategy?
Here's what I'd do.
The BuffyBot. Hopefully, it was only decommissioned, not destroyed.
Definitely, I'd get Willow to make that little fix. My attack
plan might go
something like this. First, I need to distract Glory so that the
deKeying
ceremony either doesn't take place on time, or I have to kill
her. To kill
her, I have to bring out Ben. The best results achieved against
Glory thus
far were a combination of Willow's magick, followed by Buffy's
strength.
So, I'd send Willow in for the first magickal blows, followed
by an attack
by the BuffyBot, while Willow attempts to psychically pull Ben
out. If the
BuffyBot is defeated, in goes Buffy.
Meanwhile, I'd send Spike after Dawn. His instructions would be
to get to
Dawn before the bloodletting. If he reaches her after the bloodletting,
his
instructions are to bring her to Buffy. Giles, Anya, and Xander
would be on
symchophant/minion duty -- their job is to take out as many synchophants
and
minions as possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Battle Strategy (The Gift speculation) -- Nina, 20:06:56
05/21/01 Mon
I love the Buffybot idea! I'm still going for the Dagon's sphere
though. I
want them to find the use for it. I'm pretty sure it will save
the day.
Think about B1 when Buffy discovered the spell to Angel's soul
on Ms
Calendar's floppy disk. We knew it was there since "Passion"
and it was only
discovered at the end of the season. That Dagon's sphere must
have a use.
Something that will hopefully help them.
After having seen the season finale of The X-Files (so disappointing
for
me!) I can only hope that JW will come up with something original!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Battle Strategy (The Gift speculation) -- Rufus,
20:18:10 05/21/01
Mon
In Shadow it was revealed that the Dagon Sphere was "created
to repel that
which cannot be named". I don't see any reference to any
other funtion to
the sphere. But then you could consider how you would use a god
repellent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: God Repellant? -- FanMan, 20:23:19 05/21/01
Mon
We only need my evil meter now!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: God Repellant? -- rowan, 20:43:59
05/21/01 Mon
Yes, because they'd need to point it at Glory and Doc to determine
who is
more evil and therefore who needs to be dealt with first!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: God Repellant? -- FanMan, 20:50:12
05/21/01 Mon
Doc is scarier becauese he is sneeky and smart. No mystery with
Glory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: God Repellant? -- OnM,
21:39:55 05/21/01 Mon
I am kind of hoping that they keep Doc around for S6. He's only
been on
screen for about 10 minutes total so far, and already I'm getting
those same
great potential character vibes I got with Faith, The Mayor, Anya,
Tara,
Dawn and The Host/Lorne.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: God Repellant? (Gift
spoiler speculation) -- rowan,
07:44:34 05/22/01 Tue
They may need him to get Buffy back (if spoilers are true about
Buffy, that
is).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Now I'm getting this visual of Glory as
a mosquito. --
Solitude1056, 06:27:42 05/22/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Other Weapons -- change, 04:03:27 05/22/01 Tue
The scoobies have acquired a number of weapons this season. Besides
the
Dagon Sphere, they also have Toth's Ferula-Gemina (the rod from
the
Replacement that splits people into two). They could use that
to split up
Ben and Glory. Glory might not even be able to survive without
Ben.
They also have a troll hammer. Someone mentioned that they saw
Buffy using
it in the preview. I haven't looked at the preview that carefully,
but maybe
Buffy knocks Glory around a little with it.
Of course, my favorite weapon is Spike's chip. All the SG has
to do is to
wait until Ben appears again, and implant Spike's chip into his
brain. Then
Glory will be neutralized.
They've gotta use the robot though. Two Buffys are so much better
than one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Other Weapons -- DEN, 00:14:49 05/23/01
Wed
During the fight for the tower stairs, I kept thinking in terms
of a
twelve-gauge shotgun loaded with double-ought buck, or a couple
of H&Ks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Other Weapons -- DEN, 00:17:32 05/23/01
Wed
SPOILERS for "The Gift" in previous posting--sorry,
it's been a long night.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Other Weapons....Spoilers --
FanMan, 00:52:41 05/23/01
Wed
Nuaghty naughty! If the Slayer starts using high tech too much
demons will
fight fire with fire. Imagine a vampire with a sniper rifle from
half mile
away...
The H&Ks would have been very effective against the minions and
brain
sucked. Regarding Glory though; have you ever seen The Terminator?
Niether
weapon could damage a T-800 and Glory is/was much stronger and
more durable.
If the military were aware of Glory they could give her some serious
grief
though. US army 10,000 soldiers and martial law. Add in some intel
from the
Watchers Council and the only thing that would keep the odds in
favor of
Glory is her super speed. Super strength? irrelivant with a properly
designed liquid cage, this would be very hard to design but the
government
spends billions on weapons research so they can afford it. Indistructible?
Not if they know she has to change into Ben sometimes, another
opttion is to
imprison her indefinately. Use rocket launchers and two inch titanium
cables
hooked to winches on 100 ton tanks to push and manouver Glory
into the cage.
20th century weapons and military vs Glory would still be iffy
becsuse of
her super speed plus she can cast magic. Star Trek? Tracter beem
to hold
her, fly to a black hole and drop the Hellgod...no problem CAPTAIN
KIRK!
Was that just an enthusiastic comment? Did I go really overboard
in
commenting about fighting Glory with Guns?
Well I enjoyed it!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Detour to X-Files -- Brian, 05:39:10 05/22/01
Tue
Certainly the ending was anti-climatical. Scully's baby is just
a normal
baby (and then you have to consider just what a real miracle that
is.
Skinner got his revenge on Krychek.
Doggatt gets to flex his X-muscles.
And we discover what we hoped would be true for so long.
Scully and Fox have been lovers for quite some time, and he knew
the baby
was his from the gitgo. Nice!
A BuffyNight's Dream (with a
little help from Shakespeare!) :) -- rowan,
20:42:37 05/21/01 Mon
A well-intention parody on our breathless wait for the 100th ep.
Enjoy! :)
The Place: Will Crown & Sceptre Spoiler Board
Stratford-on-Avon, England
The Time: The Night Before Opening Night
Antony & Cleopatra, 1606
Rosamunde: "Well, I think it's pretty clear from the trailers
that we've
seen as well as Wanda's spoilers that Anthony & Cleopatra hook
up, they try
to rule the world from Egypt, Octavian defeats them, and they
both die. What
I can't figure out is, how are they going to fit this into 3 hours?"
JohnBull: "This whole die for love thing was done so much
better in Romeo &
Juliet in 1595. What's Will thinking? Is he too stretched between
acting,
writing, and directing to come up with new ideas?"
BloodyMary: "Spoiler alert! I have it directly from a script
copyist that
Cleo dies in the finale and there's an asp involved."
Falstaff: "I'm concerned about the effect this play will
have on the canon.
After all, it's well established in Julius Caesar in 1599 that
Octavian and
Antony are white hats. How are we supposed to accept this suddenly
grey
Octavian and grey Antony?"
DarkLady: "I'm sorry but Cleo and Julius are soulmates. C/J
forever! This
C/A shipper story arc is not believable and is obviously done
just for
ticket sales because the actors have chemistry."
Marlowe: "Wanda also says that it's definite Julius Caesar
will be back. I
hate it when the characters don't stay dead. We need to see consequences
of
actions."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> ROFL! You made my evening! :-) -- Solitude1056, 21:16:49
05/21/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Wonderful! & Rufus won't have to kill any trees! Blessed
be your most
insidious cleverness... ;) -- OnM, 21:31:14 05/21/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Bloody Hell!!!.....turns off printer... the worlds
forests sigh with
relief........:):):):) -- Rufus, 23:04:58 05/21/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Brilliant! Brilliant! -- Rob, 11:52:59 05/23/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I liked it too. -- Justin, 17:18:50 05/23/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 11th Hour nears! - Cast your
vote for the Final Speculation! -- OnM,
21:16:26 05/21/01 Mon
OK, it's 10:45 PM here in the Eastern US as I start writing this
post, so
it's less than 24 hours to the great
whatever (a little more for those in the Western regions). So
I'm sure
everyone has an idea as to what will
go down, now's the last chance to cast your vote, express your
thoughts,
start a marathon of all the
previous eps and look for more clues (if I was still in my 20's,
I might do
something that outrageous, but I
have only so much energy to go around, and so I'll have to make
do with
working off memory!) or of
course just go to sleep. Your call!
To make posting easier if one of the options listed below suits
you, we will
employ handy identifying
letters. Item A is my current choice, I'll elaborate below on
why, but this
way those who like shorter posts
can get right to the poll thing.
SPOILERISH SPECULATION FOLLOWS FORTHWITH:
A > Buffy and the Scoobies plan a basic attack against Glory,
but Dawn's
bloodletting starts anyway, and
now Buffy is faced with killing her sister to stop the dimensional
breakdown. At the last minute (or two or
three) she realizes that she shares the same blood as Dawn, and
decides to
kill herself to save Dawn and the
universe from extremis hellaciousness. Problem is, one, she is
told by Giles
that she can't take her own life,
the spell doesn't work that way, she must have someone kill her,
and two, of
course none of the Scoobies
would be willing to kill Buffy. We are now really down to the
last minute,
and Buffy suddenly realizes that
there is someone who would kill her-- Spike. He does so-- after
realizing
that he really doesn't want to,
despite all the past history between them-- and the portal closes,
Dawn gets
rescued, everybody's in shock
over now-very-dead Buffy, and then Giles, who has obviously planned
for just
this possible horrific
contingency, brings forth some magiky accouterments and casts
a spell--
Buffy comes back to life, and
Giles dies in her place. More shock etc. Later on, the closing
shot of the
survivors looking at a tombstone,
on which the epitaph states "She died to save the World".
The grave is Joyce
Summers'.
B > Same as 'A', but someone other than Giles dies to save
Buffy. Willow?
Xander? Anya? You pick.
C > Same as 'A' but Spike vamps Buffy. Buffy is therefore dead,
but will of
course rise again as a vampire
in Season 6.
D > Same as 'A' but the Key restores Buffy to life, leaves
Dawn behind in
her familiar corporeal form, and
goes it's merry energy-like way out into the universe.
E > Similar to 'A', but Buffy and Giles plan a scenario similar
to what Mary
Elizabeth Mastrantonio's
character did in 'The Abyss' when she and her ex-hubby were trapped
in the
submersible with only one
diving suit-- she plans to die in order to close the portal, and
have Giles
bring her back.
F > Buffy has Willow place some of her (Buffy's) blood inside
the BuffyBot,
cast a spell to make the Bot
momentarily human, and has the BuffyBot die to close the portal.
Willow gets
a truly wicked month-long
headache from this one.
G > The whole thing is a time loop, and Buffy needed to make
the decision to
allow Joyce to die (in the
'incorrect' timestream, she come home a little earlier, and saves
her
mother, as a result of which Glory
eventually wins). 'Groundhog Day', with thanks to thoughts by
Tensai at the
C&S board).
H > Doc turns out to be a 'good guy' who pretended to be evil,
and he
defeats Glory and saves Dawn and
Buffy and the universe at the last minute.
I > Same scenario as 'A', except no one saves Buffy after she
dies. Show
ends with the tombstone shot,
but it's Buffy's grave, not Joyce's. The show ends. A:tS starts
up, finishes
the Pylea arc, but everyone's
back to L.A. by the 3rd act. Angel finds out that Buffy is dead.
He goes to
Jeeves (*The Trial*) and points
out that he never got to save anyone, even though he succeeded
in his tests
of valor. Jeeves brings Buffy
back to life.
J > By whatever means, Buffy ends up dead at the end of the
show.
Cliffhanger until Season 6, since we
know there is no way you can have BtVS without B.
K > It's all a dream in Faith's head.
L > None of the above. Your theory goes here.
*******
OK, why I picked 'A'--
Let's face it, if you really want to stir up the fans, having
Buffy die--
really die-- would certainly do it.
Even though she died once before in Season 1, the stakes are higher
here--
it's not just Earth at stake, it's
the whole damn universe. There's Dawn, and the fact that Buffy
promised her
mother she would look after
her, and at its most fundamental level, Buffy has now moved on
to become
effectively Dawn's mother.
What parent wouldn't give his/her life for their beloved child?
This is also
why Giles gives his life for
Buffy. I'm still going with Giles here (it could be any one of
the other
scoobies, given the proper magick
mojo, (especially Willow), but Giles is the parent figure, there
are far and
away more clues that point to his
death in *Restless* than any of the other scoobs, also the 'farewell
speech'
he gave to Buffy in *Spiral*,
even though he didn't die just then, it seemed pretty darn foreshadowy
to
me. Then there was Marti
Noxon's statement about Buffy not having any parent figures in
S6. Yes,
Giles could just leave, like go
back to England, but that isn't anywhere near as angsty, right?
I didn't put this in 'A' cause it was already long enough, but
I think Glory
will be defeated when Ben
momentarily reasserts himself, and Giles kills him, thus sparing
Buffy the
further dilemma of killing yet
another 'innocent'.
I threw in the Spike killing Buffy part because I love the irony
that all
his unlife he has longed to kill
Slayers, now finally one is actually *asking* him to do it, and
he can't
bring himself to do it because he's
fallen in love with one. But in FFL, it was foreshadowed when
he spoke of
the 'death wish and that when
that happened with Buffy, he would be there to 'slip it in' (suggesting
a
knife image, btw, and we already
know that there is going to be a bloodletting involving Dawn,
which
certainly suggests some kind of knife).
Also, he has stated in the past that he 'likes the world the way
it is', and
also that he would die to save
someone he loves, and he seems, peculiar though it may be, to
love Dawn.
Finally, the tombstone of Joyce Summers, and why the 'She died
to save the
World' epitaph-- if Joyce
hadn't died, Buffy would not have formed the bond with Dawn to
the level
necessary that she would
eventually sacrifice her life to save the world-- she would have
given in to
the 'death-wish' that was
illustrated in *Weight of the World*, and Glory would have won.
The child
becomes the parent when the
parent is gone. Joyce's gift was to make Buffy what she has become
today.
The Slayer draws strength from
pain, and she is full of love.
*******
My thanks to everyone here at ATPoBtVS and at the Cross & Stake
spoiler
board for many of the
thoughts and insights that I used to help put these ideas together.
Special
thanks from yours truly go to
Rufus and rowan for their excellent insights on the relevance
of the 'Blood
Ties'ep. Greatest thanks of all
go to Masquerade and Angel X for these great boards! (OnM genuflects
in most
humble, appreciate
manner).
Tomorrow (or soon thereafter, for those outside N.A.) we shall
see if the
Truth is In Here. The aliens
outside have considerately allowed me to catch tomorrow's eps
before
finishing their abduction of me and
the Evil Clone. One of them confesses to having the hots for Anya,
I'm
keeping an eye on him/her/it.
OnM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I choose.......J -- FanMan, 23:10:48 05/21/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Drat, I knew there'd be a test... uh, ok, I choose... uh,
J. :) --
Solitude1056, 06:45:37 05/22/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Can I go for all or none of the above? -- Brian,
07:16:01 05/22/01
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> my vote -- purplegrrl, 07:25:13 05/22/01 Tue
Either A or D gets my vote.
OnM, I think you may be right about Giles "giving it his
all." Although I
haven't really heard him say so, I think ASH would like to go
back to
England for a while and be with his family.
I really don't think it will be J, or C. Not J because Joss has
indicated in
interviews that he doesn't particularly care for cliffhanger season
finales
and will wrap things up. Not C because if Buffy is vamped, sans
soul or
chip, she becomes one of the ravening mob, not the Slayer - hence
no BtVS!
H - possible.
I - would be good, assuming Jeeves would make the deal. (Besides,
I'm a
sucker for a good crossover.)
K - please, no "Bobby Ewing" endings!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: my vote -- Jazz, 07:56:13 05/22/01 Tue
According to British TV reports, there is definitely going to
be a spin-off
for Giles, a short one of around 6 eps, with the pilot set in
LA, then
moving to the UK. So I don't think Giles is going to pop his clogs
(sorry,
that means die!)just yet. Though the rumours about the story-line
for the
spin-off sound exceedingly interesting, but then, as JW's new
baby, they
would, wouldn't they!
And I'd love it to be I, vote-wise, 'cos I'm just a sucker for
romance - and
I'd love to see a confrontation between Angel and Spike, if Angel
saved
Buffy! Only, much as I'd love it, I don't think it's going to
happen, so I
vote A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: He OnM -- FanMan, 23:03:10 05/22/01 Tue
Thanks for mucho possible endings and the survey.
Not many replies to your survey....only me and Solitude "guessed"
right.
Maby Solitude is one of the Buffy crew? Yaaaaaaaa! only me! woof
woof....(grin)
Existentialism in the Buffyverse:
Mini-Lecture #23 -- Solitude1056, 07:33:25
05/22/01 Tue
Bleah. In 12 hours we'll know all! Ok, in the meantime (and because
my
morning meeting was cancelled so naturally I'm pondering what
to do other
than, uh, work)... I'll entertain those masochistic members of
our ranks who
wanted to know about Epistomology and Phenomenology. Suckers.
I mean, uh, oh
ye enlightened and inquiring minds. Yeah. That's what I meant.
Ok, let's see. First, if you read this & say, "Hey, that's
not the [insert
fancy philosophical style] that I know and love!" then it's
okay. There's
several different branches of it since to each philosopher his
(or her) own.
I studied Heidegger and Kierkegaard the most; I studied Sartre
only at
gun-point (Being & Nothingness was my cure for insomnia in college).
I know
a bit o' Husserl but didn't like him as much. To jump right into
it - and
I'll try to tie it into the Buffyverse as much as possible - let's
start
with existentialism, which can be expressed simply as "existence
preceeds
essence."
In the Buffyverse, each person is born, grows up, and along the
way develops
into him- or herself. Some say essence preceeds existence. The
soul has to
be there for the existence to begin. In the Buffyverse, though,
there's an
awful lot of existence preceeding essence, though. Well, for starters,
you
have to define "essence." Soul? Personality? Spark o'
life? Dawn's faux
memories may be an existence that preceeds her essence (energy),
or they may
be simply providing the appearance of continuity when in fact
her existence
began with the Monks, and only afterwards (in the past few months)
has she
developed an 'essence.' All philosophical rantings and meanderings
aside,
the bottom line of existentialism (or at least one of them) is
that you
start out with a clean slate, and what you do determines who you
are. Your
existence defines your essence.
Going backwards to Kierkegaard and forwards to Sartre, existentialism
contains strong notes of absurdism, too. The element of the absurd
can be
summarized as: when all choices are equal and there is no set
path, then
stating that "this is the way such-and-such is done because
that's the way
it's always been done" is absurd. That "always been
done" clause is false,
since there's not been any "always been done" by you,
the creature that only
recently came into existence and even more recently developed
an essence
that even allowed you to process your existence. Etc, etc. (Yes,
philosophers love this stuff. You guys just panting in total excitement
yet?
Wait til I get to the part about aesthetics and seduction vs.
pornography in
artistic settings... oh, wait, different precis. Oops. Ahem.)
Alrighty now. So now you've gotten your ten-cent two-cup version
of
existentialism, let's move to the even less scholarly version
of
epistomology. (And they said pop philosophy was dead. Panicmongers!)
Heidegger's definition of epistomology is "how we know, what
we know." Small
diversion here: Heidegger did not agree with Cartesian philosophy.
Existing
"outside of the world" wasn't Heidegger's intent; his
point was that to
truly experience and understand the world, you had to be part
of it.
Epistomology tends to run hand-in-hand with Phenomenology, and
phenomenology
is the study of, well, things. Yeah, things. (Well, if you really
want a
fancier explanation, look here...) Heidegger's biggest focus was
on
"everydayness," that usual, mundane being-in-the-world.
Again in direct
opposition to Descartes, Heidegger posited that since we are
of-the-world-and-in-it, to determine how we know what we know,
we have to
either study how we interact with things (and go even crazier
than we are
now), or we just set aside the question of "does this exist?"
and ask, "what
is the experience - ie, the existential interaction with this
thing?"
In that sense, Heideggarian phenomenology is what we're doing
as the
audience of the Buffyverse. In a writer's mind, we're practicing
suspended
disbelief. In a philosopher's mind, we're setting aside the question
of
existence in order to study our direct interaction with the stimuli,
which
are the plots, characters, and motivations. According to Heidegger,
"phenomenology should make manifest what is hidden in ordinary,
everyday
experience." And whew, Joss has got plenty that's hidden
in everyday
ordinary interactions between his characters. And from those,
we intuit
certain conclusions, which we then turn around and discuss at
length - it's
the discussions of "what did you see that I didn't?"
which constitute the
phenomenology (study of things) of this board, and of the Buffyverse.
And
it's the meta-discussions of "how did you then draw your
conclusions?" which
constitute the epistomology (study of our knowledge about things)
of this
board, and the Buffyverse.
And if you're really interested suddenly, or just want to freshen
up with less scatterbrained explanations, I highly recommend The
Basic Problems of Phenomenology, by Martin Heidegger. I have a
copy but no, you can't borrow it, I'm considering framing it.
Otherwise you'd be able to see all the dirty jokes I scribbled
in
the margins during class. And FYI, Being And Time is not nearly
as
scary as some people make it out to be. (Usually they're confusing
it with Sartre's Being And Nothingness, which really is very scary
- and badly written, too. Heidegger's much better organized.)
But
if you want a good overview to the absurdism of existentialism,
and the strange overlapping dialectical arguments, read my
favorite anthology of Soren Kierkegaard. It was compiled &
translated by two Kierkegaardian scholars, called The Laughter
Is
On My Side. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll feel all gooey
inside. On the other hand, you could really burn your braincells
and go read the ultimate post-modern existentialist text... Zippy
the Pinhead. I'm not making this up. Enlightenment is in the spin
cycle.
Are we having fun yet? :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Fine, now Masq is killing trees... -- Masochistic member
of the ranks,
09:09:25 05/22/01 Tue
OK, maybe just short-curcuiting my hard drive
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Philosophies 'R' Us -- purplegrrl, 09:42:05 05/22/01 Tue
***(And they said pop philosophy was dead. Panicmongers!)***
LOL!!
Thanks, Solitude. I didn't think dry ol' philosophy could be so
much fun!
A question(s):
Does cosmology (the philosophy, not the study of the cosmos) fit
into this
anywhere? It's been a while.
What about Manufactured vs. Natural - sort of "rage against
the machine"
thinking??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Jesters Caps are the Secret -- Solitude1056, 10:37:59
05/22/01 Tue
Nah, philosophy's tons o' fun. Regular barrel o' laughs. Ya just
gotta have
the right approach. Then again, I did précis on Sartre's
'viscosity' with a
retelling of the Emporer's New Clothes. No, that's not a value
judgement on
what I think of Sartre! Gosh, no, I loooove Sartre. Big fat NOT.
Hehe. And I
did précis on Heidegger's 'obstrusiveness' and 'readyness-to-hand'
ideas
with a story about little green men who land outside my dorm window
and
tried to sell me a flying saucer. And the Jester's cap is because
"thinking
caps" are de riguer for Very Important Philosophical Nuts.
So to understand
idiots who'd spend all day obsessing over whether a Deity is a
thing-in-itself or not, you have to get down with your silly self,
too. So,
now that you've got a bit more insight as to why I'm a heretic,
back to the
fun, eh? (And btw, for some excellent insight into Heidegger's
Being And
Time, go here.)
Cosmology's a big one. Couldn't you have picked a smaller topic,
I'm tempted
to whine... hehe. Frankly, most of philosophy is a type of cosmology
- "how
do we fit into this universe, why are we here?" and beyond
that, "does this
universe even exist, and how do I know I exist?" This division
is the basis
of most Cartesian and Cartesian-influence philosophies, such as
solipism
where the argument is that I'm asleep and dreaming every single
one of those
rotten spoilers, and their authors! None of you exist! You're
all a figment
of my imagination, and damn, my imagination sucks! Ahem, ack.
*polite cough*
Ok.
The cosmology of the existential viewpoint is that we enter the
world and
become who-we-are, by interacting with a world filled with natural
("Natural") and cultural ("Manufactured")
tools, most of which we didn't
make, but we can use and adapt to, and also adapt to us. I'm convinced
that
Heidegger spent his free time building footstools and handy time-savers
for
kitchen cabinets. Very concrete, hands-on; truly an emphasis on
the
physical, the tangible. What do things do, how do they work, what
happens
when I use them? Heidegger even spent time talking about things
like
"obtrusiveness," when a tool breaks. That's after you've
gotten over the
habit of trying to use the tool (like flicking the lightswitch
even though
the bulb's been burnt out for two weeks), and now it's just taking
up space.
It's obtrusive, hanging out in the corner of your study, watching
you,
leering at you, thinking its little broken-tool thoughts of glee
at your
discomfort about its broken-ness... ahem. Anyway! You get the
idea.
One of the reasons I enjoy the existential perspective is that
it lacks a
lot of the dualistic thinking in western philosophy ever since
Plato came up
with that damn list. Grrrrr against Plato - or whomever it was,
I'm pretty
sure it was Plato, but feel free to correct me while I open my
mouth to
change feet, again. *grin* But getting back to my point (which
is buried in
here somewhere), the idea is not to approach the "Me Versus
The World (or
God)" but to just set that aside. Instead of a separation
- be it visual,
mental, emotional, physical, or spiritual - our senses and minds
tell us
we're part of the world, so go with it. We stub our toe, that's
an
experience, now what does this toe-stubbing tell us about large
rocks buried
in garden paths? And what can we learn from what we've gathered?
We're not
designating The Rock as a "something else" and ourselves
as "the opposite,"
but instead we are all - the rock, the garden, the path, us, our
companions
- Dasein, which can best be translated as "the being."
This isn't the
Cartesian separatist idea, that Dasein is a thing that "be"s
- if that makes
sense - but that Dasein is. Ok, so I give you credit and a gold
star if you
can process that without scrunching your forehead up and contemplating
printing this out to burn me in effigy for such insanity and hair-splitting.
Wait, it is hair-splitting. But it's the basis of the existentialist
view:
that who-we-are, is what-we-are. We aren't things that also are,
we are
things. Don't know if that helps, but hey, nothing wrong with
a little
confusion. Call it a little extra protein, kinda like swallowing
bugs when
you're riding a bike in July. Hah! How's that for a visual?
But to put this non-polarized notion into the Buffyverse, let's
see... Feel
free to jump in here if you can come up with something better.
I'm no biggie
poster or philosopher, but I play one on Voy Forums. Bwahahaha.
First, Joss
(I suspect) doesn't play nice with the traditional polarized viewpoint,
although his original black & white, good & bad stories were acknowledgement
that his predominantly western audience is used to this type of
dichotomy,
and that we are used to the expectation that conflict occurs where
the good
& the bad meet. But what Joss has been doing has been to draw,
slowly and
surely, to the center point where the majority of the characters
are in the
center, and even those potentially qualifiable as "bad"
are more just
another "middle" character with non-aligning motivations
(ie, Glory wants to
go home, but she has to kill Dawn to do it, and while Buffy doesn't
care if
Glory goes home, she does care how Glory does it, hence conflict).
If the
conflict is because Glory is bad and Buffy is good, well, that's
one. But if
it's because of the older, and far better storytelling line, that
both
characters are, well, themselves, and they want conflicting things
- that's
way better IMO than their conflict being based predominantly on
external
polarizing judgements of "good" and "bad."
And alternately, we could polarize ourselves into "the show"
and "the
audience," but instead we have been treating the story, and
the characters,
as things - dasein - that we are experiencing directly. And therefore,
if we
treat the show and its moving parts as Dasein, then we are implicitly
granting those Dasein an existence independent of our interactions
with it.
If that doesn't make sense, think of how many times we've seen
steps B, C,
and E, and were expected to just "figure out" that step
D occured when the
camera wasn't on that character. That's giving the character the
power of
being a Dasein, in that it's doing and interacting in ways and
events that
we don't witness directly, which means that we're required to
re-assess each
time we interact with that particular aspect. This prevents the
static
no-character-development of some stories, and it's also helped
along by our
willingness to existentially participate in the story, by studying
what the
events/dasein indicate, relating those dasein to each other, and
then
studying what conclusions we've drawn from them.
Not the best stopping point, but I'm being dragged away from the
keyboard...
Six and a half hours, and counting! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Quote of the week -- Masquerade, 11:02:20 05/22/01
Tue
"I'm no biggie poster or philosopher, but I play one on Voy
Forums.
Bwahahaha."
Oh, and one other thought--in the age of the internet where we
can interact
with the producers, writers, and actors directly through the medium
of
discussion boards (not this one, of course, *wah*), there can
be no true
dichotomy between the show and the audience. There is interaction
(or am
supposed to say "dialetic"?) between audience and show-creators
in a way
that is much more telling than the days of sending in fan letters
by
snail-mail.
Oh, and yet one other thought--"Grrrrr against Plato"
Yeah, we can pretty much blame him for a lot of Western thinking,
his
essentialism make categories immutable and things that didn't
fit into neat
categories "less real". But it took a good dose of Aristotle-worship
to get
this philosophy out in the real world where it could make non-chaos
ensue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Quote of the week (OT?) -- Solitude1056,
12:27:59 05/22/01
Tue
Interaction, not dialectic. Technically, dialectic is a type of
debate where
you follow a movement of thesis, antithesis, and thereby reach
a synthesis,
which becomes your next thesis, against which you place another
antithesis,
ad nauseum. We'd be going into the dialectic if the writers were
positing
statements, and we sought to prove the statements not by proving
them, but
by positing the opposite and then proving the negation, which
in turn proves
the positive, and the summation of both creates the synthesis.
That's all a
fancy way to say that theologians (who tend to use dialectic more
than
anyone else) just can't argue a straight line if their lives depended
on it.
The amusing footnote is that I usually tell people my degree is
"logical
dialectic," since the real degree ("20th century european
theology with a
concentration in feminist existentialism") usually makes
most coworkers
blink in uncomprehending disbelief - except for the few who think
"theology"
means I'm either going to convert them, or welcome conversion
myself! On the
other hand, I work with mostly programmers and engineers, and
I don't think
most of them - despite their ability to grasp calculus, which
I failed like
there's no tomorrow - could logic their way out of a paperbag.
It's just a
different way of processing information, and fortunately for me,
the
Buffyverse is logical... it just doesn't use the same basic assumptions
as
we do. (Like, "magic works, demons exist, and Hell Gods do
their shopping at
Hot Topic and Mister Rags.")
Getting back to the idea of existentialism, I really think Joss
may be an
unwitting agent for existentialism. Sheesh, he even includes the
Heideggarian angst that results from isolation from the experiential
world.
We've got Angel, whose existence as a new vamp defined him, until
he had the
time to develop an essence based on his experiences as a vamp.
And we've got
Buffy, whose role as Slayer was her existence for quite some time
before she
developed an essence that includes both her pre-Slayer self as
well as her
Slayer self. And I suppose there's always the question of, "what
if you
began with an essence, but your existence changed radically? How
much is
new, of you and to you, because your existence (and thus your
interaction
with all around you) has shifted so dramatically?" In this
case, is it
"essence (original persona) preceeds existence (new way of
doing)"? Or does
the new existence effectively null the previous essence, thus
revealing that
previous essence as illusory, and rendering the person open to
creating a
new essence based on the new existence - thus illustrating that
existence
does preceed essence? And why are we travelling at this speed,
and what are
we doing in this handbasket?
I mean, I suppose that in pre-Slayer days, Buffy would'nt have
been the
first to beat up what she couldn't solve; with the Slayer part,
now, that's
usually her first response. Her existence has shaped her essence
to the
point where we're dealing with almost an entirely different person.
For that
matter, this is metaphorical for all battles humanity faces as
each person
grows up, and grows into themselves.
So hopefully with that last bit thrown in there, I'm not completely
off-topic... yet!
4 and a half hours, and counting!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Quote of the week (OT?) -- purplegrrl,
13:18:38 05/22/01
Tue
***On the other hand, I work with mostly programmers and engineers,
and I
don't think most of them - despite their ability to grasp calculus,
which I
failed like there's no tomorrow - could logic their way out of
a
paperbag.***
And they probably don't *want* to either!
I took my philosophy course(s) at an engineering college, where
most of what
we studied took a Man vs. Machine/Free Will vs. Imposed Will bent.
I
remember standing outside class one day, listening to some of
the
engineering students complain about having to take philosophy
(a required
course), that it cut into their engineering curriculum, and so
on. They
didn't think philosophy would do them any good, that what were
they going to
do "stand around the water cooler and discuss philosophy"
with their
coworkers? (their words). I didn't have the heart to tell them
that with
philosophy they might actually become more well-rounded human
beings. (See,
Masq, you are providing a valuable service. ;) ) Which is, of
course, not to
say that *all* engineers feel this way. But it is interesting
to note that
what I experienced was not an isolated incident.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Quote of the week (OT?)
-- Masquerade, 13:34:57
05/22/01 Tue
*Alas* this is a pretty common attitude in these United States
(I'm assuming
you are posting from somewhere there, forgive me if you're not).
I recall
this TV commercial for one of those technical institutes that
are so popular
today as a substitute for college. It starts off flashing a bunch
of
dead-white-guy images of philosophers then cuts to the chase of
bragging how
they teach you ONLY the things that will get you a job!
Several of my upper division philosophy students had seen this
commercial,
too, and we sat around one day in my seminar assuring ourselves
that these
people would go to their technical institute, take a series of
very
practical computer and engineering classes, get out in two years,
and go on
to lead boring, uninspired lives of accumulating material wealth
and never
realize that most, if not all of the things they believed were
once
originally posited by a philosopher or at the least a dead economist
and
they had no means with which to challenge these beliefs--they
would be
slaves to them forever.
We all felt a lot better.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Quote of the week
(OT?) -- purplegrrl, 14:13:23
05/22/01 Tue
Which I guess means I have the best of both worlds, since I have
a science
degree *and* a humanities degree. Or I'm terribly confused and
just don't
realize it!
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, you're absolutely
right, pg! ;) -- OnM,
16:37:31 05/22/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> We're having fun now, kids! -- freshwater,
13:34:16 05/22/01
Tue
"Technically, dialectic is a type of debate where you follow
a movement of
thesis, antithesis, and thereby reach a synthesis.."
Technically, this is just one way of using "dialectic."
It is, specifically,
from Hegel. The idea that the Mind of nature expresses itself
in a concept
(thesis), and that concept immediately gives way to its internal
contradictions (the antithesis), and the tension between them
creates a
higher concept, the synthesis. Reason, the theory goes, is an
expression of
this world Mind, and, therefore, exhibits the same thesis/antithesis
dialectic.
But the original dialectician was Socrates. Dialectic in this
sense was a
means at arriving at the Truth. A concept would be proposed and
then torn
apart as much as possible to show its inconsistencies, and then
a consistent
concept would be arrived at. The Socratic/Hegelian distinction
is a bit
subtle. In the Socratic form, there is the assumption that there
is a Truth,
and though discussion, it can be found. By Hegel's account, as
you said, the
process is on-going and doesn't admit to some transcendent Truth
which is
the beginning and end of the argument.
Of course, then there's the Scholastic dialectic, influenced by
Aristotle,
therefore, by Plato, therefore back to Socrates again, where a
concept is
stated, and then objections are stated, then replies to the objections
are
stated. Again, there are similarities to Hegel, but again, based
on the
Greek (and of course, given its place in history and its practitioners,
Christian) influences, it is assumed that there is a Truth, usually
stated
in the Thesis. The Objections (pseudo-antithesis)are not synthesized
with
the thesis to arrive at a new concept, they are, instead, shown
to be
non-Truth.
And, please, let's not even start on Kant's transcendetal dialectic!!
So I'd say in the traditional sense we are definitely involved
in a
dialectic. But if anyone starts a Hegelian dialectic, I'm outa
here ;) !!
-freshwater
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> What about the Glory-Ben thesis,
antithesis, synthesis? --
Masquerade, 13:37:19 05/22/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What about the Glory-Ben
thesis, antithesis,
synthesis? -- freshwater, 14:02:58 05/22/01 Tue
I'm not sure if that was a rhetorical question or not, but I'm
bored at work
today, so I'll assume it to be an actual question.
Interesting point. Now, as I started this, I didn't think it'd
be a perfect
example of t/a/s in a sort of "text-book" way, but as
I think about it, it
might be after all. In Hegelian dialectic the thesis, let's start
with
Glory, by its very nature and existence brings about the antithesis,
and
therefore the conflict. In the Glory case, it's not her as a concept
that
brings about Ben as an antithesis, but an external agent, the
other
hellgods. However, in a practical sense it has become quite classic.
If we
remove the idea of free will agency, it becomes even closer to
a real t/a/s
case. Glory, by her nature, is so powerful and evil, that the
other hellgods
create Ben, a weak mortal, born innocent. If we disregard the
hellgod's free
will and assume they act out of necessity, then, in fact, Glory
as a concept
must create Ben as an anti-concept. Now, we can go further, towards
synthesis. Glory, by her nature, her own concept, acts in a way
to "go
home." This, as the high-priest guy says, risks terrible
magicks -
specifically the blending of Ben and Glory. Again, ignoring the
possibility
of free will, it is the Glory concept which, because - as a concept
- it
wants to go home, necessitates the synthesis with Ben.
That of course works if we take the view that there isn't free
will, and
things are fated. I think, at least in the Buffyverse, this might
have some
validity. Although free will is not outright denied, there is
definitely an
element of fate running through that world.
-freshwater
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Uh... we are? -- Solitude1056,
13:49:13 05/22/01 Tue
Bummer that you don't like Hegelian, because with several years
of that
theologically-tainted philosophy behind me, it's pretty much what
I know
best. Wah. *cough* Hehe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Uh... we are? --
freshwater, 14:12:27 05/22/01 Tue
I fear that which I don't understand. (That's a little exteme,
but you get
my point, I hope)
Most of what I know best is pre-Kantian, so, in my ignorance,
I dislike
Hegel.
Hmmm....In my desire to avoid a Hegelian dialectic, has this become
one??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> How about we don't
even go there... ! :-) --
Solitude1056, 14:17:10 05/22/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Existentialism in the Buffyverse: Mini-Lecture #23 --
Rendyl,
10:03:53 05/22/01 Tue
*Blink*
Note to self - Have that cup of coffee -before- reading the board.
(bringing up the question 'At what point does my essence join
my existance
in front of the computer screen?' since my essence seems to still
be crashed
in my bed.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Existentialism in the Buffyverse: Mini-Lecture #23 --
freshwater,
10:23:59 05/22/01 Tue
Ok, I'm going to jump in, even if 20th century philosophy is by
no means my
strong point. So, feel free to yell at me if I get this all wrong!!
Phenomenology, as Sol said, is the study of things (thoughts,
feelings,
fears could be considered "things" in this case). The
philosophy attempts to
learn about things by separating their real ("material")
existence from
their phenomenal existence - the objects of consciousness based
on the
sensible properties of the real objects interpreted by the mind's
innate
ability to structure information from the senses. It is, to some
extent, the
study of consciousness. In this way, phenomenology is an extension
of
Kantian transcendental philosophy and his synthetic a priori,
simply - the
idea that sense data becomes "knowledge" only by the
application of the
mind's pre-existing ability to create structure. Here, both Kant
and
phenomenology both admit to the real existence of external things,
but
acknowledge that our only real epistemological knowledge of them
comes
through the senses and the consciousness' manipulation of the
data. Kant
would go so far as to say we can know nothing about what external
objects
are "really" like, only our interpretation of them.
That being said, I would agree with Sol that our viewing Buffy
is, itself,
very phenomenological, especially since there is no Buffyverse.
In viewing
the show, in "suspending disbelief," we allow the creation
of objects in our
consciousness based on the creative wills of the writers. In our
analysis of
the "realities" of the Buffyverse we seek to find the
connections between
the mental objects we have created. This ties in with the discussion
below
(which I think initiated this thread) about trying to find consistency
in
the rules of Buffyverse magick. We've been presented a world of
ideas and it
is by looking for connections within the presented information
that we
understand the phenomena (the objects of consciousness). It's
easier to
suspend disbelief when the presented data are internally consistent
to the
same extent that our minds create consistency in the real world
out of sense
data. Not to say there is complete consistency in the real world,
just that
by creating structure, the mind is able make sense of all the
data presented
it.
Now, this discussion is timely give what happened in WotW. As
I just said,
viewing Buffy is very phenomenological. But this episode, in particular,
could also be said to be steeped in phenomenology, specifically
Willow going
into Buffy's mind. We get to see directly into Buffy's consciousness,
directly into her thought process, almost by definition, her phenomenology.
We see her interpretations of external and internal events - the
new sister,
Buffy's desire to protect her, the first Slayer's message, the
momentary
desire to have it all end, killing Dawn. These are all mental
objects for
Buffy - phenomena. In her physic loop we see a breakdown of her
mind's
ability to make sense of the objects and their interdependencies,
and,
therefore, her "loss" of consciousness. It's only when
Willow is able to add
another piece of information (another mental object) - basically,
you didn't
kill Dawn, but you're going to if you don't stop this - that Buffy
is then
able to break out of the loop and again start to make sense of
her
phenomenal world, and therefore "regain" concsiousness.
And one side point. I'm going to have to disagree with Sol in
the statement
that Descartes wasn't about "being in and of the world."
Cartesian
skepticism, the denial of the external world, is only a means
to an end,
that being the real, undeceived, knowledge of the external world.
It was
only by his attempted denial of the real world that Descartes
was able to be
sure one existed.
-freshwater
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Existentialism in the Buffyverse: Mini-Lecture
#23 --
Solitude1056, 10:45:55 05/22/01 Tue
About Descartes? Your version is more accurate, but I still don't
like him.
*grin* But seriously - my comments should be taken with as much
salt as you
like, and always, always check the source code, err, source material,
if you
really want to form a knowledgeable opinion. I get only so far
with
third-hand interpretations of Buffy, and even less far with the
same of any
even marginally complex philosopher.
(And way to go on the philosophical jive talkin! - as a reformed
master, uh,
spouter of such things, I salue a peer.)
*cackle*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Existentialism in the Buffyverse: Mini-Lecture
#23 --
Solitude1056, 10:47:01 05/22/01 Tue
About Descartes? Your version is more accurate, but I still don't
like him.
*grin* But seriously - my comments should be taken with as much
salt as
anyone likes. Always check the source code, err, source material,
if you
really want to form a knowledgeable opinion. (Not you, freshwater,
since you
seem to have one already, or at least get points for faking it
decently.
Hey, it's Babelfish for the Philosophy Undergrad!) Me, though,
I get only so
far with third-hand interpretations of Buffy, and even less far
with the
same of any even marginally complex philosopher.
(And way to go on the philosophical jive talkin! - as a reformed
master, uh,
spouter of such things, I salue a peer.)
*cackle*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> How'd I goof a double-post? I amaze myself.
Sorry! :) --
Solitude1056, 10:52:26 05/22/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> No masochist....just a tree killer...........:):)Spoilers
for the Gift --
Rufus, 13:31:11 05/22/01 Tue
In a quote Joss said something about the season being wrapped
in "maudlin
Postmodernism". The theme of the season finale is sacrifice
and what belief
in and love of your family can make you willing to sacrifice.
I also took a
few words and remembered where I had heard them. With regard to
sacrifice I
went to the writing of Kierkegarrd "Fear and Trembling"
but as this is a
postmodern ending I couldn't get my hands on a copy but I saw
a few quotes
by Derrida in "Gift of Death". What would you see as
the difference between
the existentialist view of sacrifice by Kierkegarrd and Derridas
post modern
take in The Gift of Death?
Also can you see any influence of Deconstruction in BVS? For people
like me
you can write simple and draw cute little pictures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Bonus points to whomever can find me Joss's quote
on "maudlin
Postmodernism" -- Masquerade, 13:56:33 05/22/01 Tue
Let him do his own bloody BtVS philosophy for a change. Yeah,
I like that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Quote from the Bronze -- Rufus, 14:49:35 05/22/01
Tue
The quote was from the Bronze Thursday May 3, 2001
Joss says: "Macbeth, Macbeth, Macbeth! Oh, I'm sorry, was
that a bad thing
to say?
As for spoilers, there will be some death, there will be someone
leaving the
show, there will be some misery, and a happy ending, all wrapped
in a neat
little bundle of maudlin postmodernism! Don't miss it!
As for the scottish Macbeth play, we did it at the house a few
months back
and there was no curse a'tall. So there."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Shoulda known it was tongue-in-cheek!
-- Masq, 14:53:01 05/22/01
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> With him those are the only kind.....
-- Rufus, 15:05:47
05/22/01 Tue
But it got me thinking about the situation and that quote and
some other
stuff said in the show made me come to the conclusion of what
the season
ender was going to be about. With the situation with Glory I could
see
sacrifice was going to be the end...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Well, he's said some semi-coherent
stuff on the soul,
Angel's angst, etc -- Masq, 15:12:39 05/22/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Macbeth warnings -- Brian, 07:52:54
05/23/01 Wed
I believe bad luck (the curse) only happens if you mention the
play while
you are in the theatre where the production is to take place.
I believe it's
true, as I was involved in a production where two of the actors
were badly
hurt during a performance, and I can down with walking pneumonia
just in
time for dress rehearsals.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> note to self... "maudlin Postmodernism"
-- Solitude1056, 06:51:14
05/23/01 Wed
Actually, shortly after I came across that comment from Joss,
I was reading
a photography magazine with an article that discussed modernism
&
postmodernism (in art, specifically)... and suddenly it dawned
on me that
Joss was actually NOT speaking out of the side of his mouth when
he called
the BtVS 5th season "post-modern." Only problem is that
I didn't study art
history, so I'm a little vague without the text as to the specifics
of
artistic post-modernism as contrasted with modernism... If anyone
else is
interested then I'll see if I can post a few of the more illustrative
paragraphs from the article, with credits (natch).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: note to self... "maudlin Postmodernism"
-- Cleanthes,
13:42:13 05/24/01 Thu
"She saved the world a lot" on a tombstone certainly
qualifies as a
postmodern bit of maudlin.
I dunno about "art", myself, but in philosophy & semiotics,
"postmodern" is
characterized by whimsy and recursive irony. Sums up ALL of Joss's
interviews, don't you think?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> on a slightly lighter note, or philosophies be hanged! --
purplegrrl,
14:28:06 05/22/01 Tue
There was an article in the newspaper here yesterday that identified
our
"problem" as the audience of BtVS.
To quote:
"We're sentient, sophisticated adults who know the difference
between fact
and fiction, between real and unreal, and yet we treat these TV
characters
as if they are friends and family. In our minds, they have a past,
a present
and a future. We talk about them at work, in the grocery store,
at school
meetings.
We worry, we pine, we laugh, we cry. For heaven's sake, what's
the matter
with us? Are we pathetic or what?
'It's called parasocial communication,' said Garth S. Jowett,
director of
the school of communications at the University of Houston.
Well, *that's* a relief! Our condition has a name.
'It's the notion that you actually are connected to these people,
even
though they're not real. You invite them into your home, and they
become
part of your hormonal excretions because you allow yourself to
be stimulated
by them.' "
Hmmm, do you think they're talking about us??
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Teleological suspension of the ethical -- Cleanthes, 15:46:39
05/22/01
Tue
Hey, good one! I started buying Kierkegaard books about 4 years
ago, when I
realized that I could make more sense of Xena by reading them.
Now, I'm an
addict! (of both K. & X. - we'll leave aside just what I category
of ousia
my feelings for BtVS amount to...)
I don't have anything much to add except that Kierkegaard's concept
about
when the ethical can be absurdly suspended may have some bearing
on
tonight's episode, due to start in just over an hour. Oops, better
go get my
VCR ready.
Questions about Anyanka... --
Rob, 09:24:33 05/22/01 Tue
Now, I know that this subject may be rather old, but I just recently
rewatched "The Wish," and I have a few questions about
Anya when she was a
demon. Now, the only episode I have ever missed was "Doppelgangland"
(damn
my crappy VCR...LOL), and some of my questions may have been addressed
in
that one, but I won't know unless it's ever rerunned somewhere
or those darn
DVDs ever come out.
But anyway, here it is. I was wondering how Anya's demon power
works. Now I
know the source of her power is the necklace, which she then places
on the
neck of the girl who wants to be avenged (Cordy in the instance
of "The
Wish.") My question, however, is, when does Anyanka decide
to take the
necklace back? When has the wish lasted the point where it is
time to
reclaim it?
I was surprised that Anyanka didn't reclaim it when Cordy was
drained by
VampWillow and VampXander...If she wouldn't do it when the wisher
was
killed, then when? By leaving the necklace there, she left it
susceptible to
be taken and later smashed by Giles. I don't fully understand
the logic in
that, or why she didn't at least attempt to take it from Giles
before he
called upon her. Since this necklace contains all the source to
her power
and its destruction would render her mortal again, wouldn't it
have been in
her best interest to get it back as soon as possible?
If anyone has any answers to this question, or any theories, if
the show has
never answered them, I'd be really appreciate some responses,
since these
questions have been kind of bugging me.
Many thanks,
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Questions about Anyanka... -- ocum's safety scissors,
08:56:07
05/23/01 Wed
plot hole.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Questions about Anyanka... -- Rob, 13:03:54 05/23/01
Wed
You think? I don't know...Thank you for your response, but I thought
there
might be more to it. Any other theories about this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Interesting question...Anyone else have any
theories? -- Jake,
13:06:03 05/23/01 Wed
I'd like to know too...
Some reflections on Spiral --
fresne, 11:54:48 05/22/01 Tue
When Spiral came out, lo the weeks ago, there was some complaint
about the
lack of reality of Buffy and Crew taking off in a Winnebago, horsemen
catching up with said vehicle, the choice of a desert road for
retreat, etc.
However, upon reflection, I'm intrigued by some of the symbolism.
You'll have to forgive me. This is much in the way of a rambling
reflection
as we all wait for the final episode's resolution.
Logically, of course, Buffy and Co, should have taken off in several
fast
vehicles up Hwy 5 at a nice 80-90 mph. However, what makes for
a boring
(although fast) road trip, also makes for an un-cinematic episode.
So, with
a big "whatever", I consign logic to the round bin.
More interestingly, Buffy and Co. travel into the desert. A place
of
extremes. Hot days. Cold nights. Bright blinding light and sharp
delineated
shadows.
In several episodes, the desert has already been positioned as
a liminal
place where dreams and oracular visions occur. In Restless, because
ARLtR,
the Scobbies each have flashes of the desert place, the greater
sandbox,
into which Buffy must ultimately go. The desert (a fold in the
sand, with
three sides of rock, and a vista) where Buffy confronts the First
Slayer and
some of her own nature.
In Tough Love, if Sunnydale is where the Hellmouth welcomes you
with demons
and vampires, the desert is a pure spiritual place where tame
spirit animals
calmly take you to spirit guides who mouth obscure statements
over a sacred
fire. Because that's what it is all about.
And so, when in Spiral, as they journeyed in their house on wheels
into the
desert, this place in between the Western Coast and all that lies
East, and
are then were set upon by men on horses, I reflected that they
were
literally driving into the Western.
The desert has a significant place in the American vision of the
West. Men
on Pale Horses and Outlaws and Indians and Settlers in their covered
wagons/houses on wheels roam this desert of the imagination.
So, of course the family unit in their wagon are chased by men
on horses
with flaming arrows. Of course they are holed up in a ramshackle
building to
make their last stand. Of course one of them is injured and gives
a "before
I die" speech. Of course...How could they do any less?
And then there are the knights themselves. Knights of Byzantium.
Chasing our
heroes through the desert. Knights on a crusade. The desert has
its own
place in the literary imaginings of the Crusades. Exotic. Foreign.
A place
where religion is born. And there's Byzantium, in a way the initial
source
of the Crusades. It was after all a request from the Emp. of Byzantium
that
sparked the whole thing. Not knights of Istanbul (which is nobody's
business
but the Turks) or Constantinople that was, but lost Byzantium.
Heir to the
Roman Empire. Rich. Powerful. Complex. Gone. Reduced to a blue
squiggle
tatoo, like some strange Templareque nod. Knights ineffectually
laying siege
to their enemies keep. Like a plague of locusts these Crusaders
descend on
the desert and ultimately the desert swallows them up.
And then in even more random thoughts... To head into the desert,
Buffy and
Crew headed east (Sunndale has docks after all) towards life,
birth, and the
dawn.
It's in the desert, that the Scobbies finally see that Ben is
Glory and that
Glory is Ben. And the only one to retain this knowledge is the
most liminal
and divided of the group. Dead, but walking. Evil, but ok.
I have no real conclusions, only musings and anticipations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Some reflections on Spiral -- LoriAnn, 13:56:42 05/22/01
Tue
Neat musings, and I didn't think anyone else remembered that if
Istanbul is
Constantinople, it's nobody's business but the Turks.
As far as logic goes, going anywhere any way was just as effectual
as going
anywhere else or any other way. As long as they were where Glory
wouldn't
know to look, they would be fine unless, of course, they were
attacked by
medieval cavalry, and what were the chances of that?
I particularly liked your idea about the connection between revelations
and
the desert, and the way you backed it up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Very nice! Me like! -- OnM, 16:13:59 05/22/01 Tue
THE END WAS FIVE GOOD YEARS --
Vulpes, 18:05:06 05/22/01 Tue
IS THIS THE END OF BUFFY - HER DEATH?
PLEASE SOMEONE TELL ME THAT BUFFY IS LIVING AND NEXT SEASON THINGS
WILL BE
NORMAL?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> It ain't over.............. -- Rufus, 18:09:40 05/22/01
Tue
I think you will be pleased. It is just the end of five years
at the WB.
Buffy will return with a 2 hour season opener in September at
UPN.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: It ain't over.............. -- nan, 18:36:57 05/22/01
Tue
There was one thing that Buffy said that gives hope. "The
monks made her
from me."So we are back to Dawn starting out as pure energy
and maybe part
of it now being part of Buffy. Now I have no idea how they would
pull it off
but I'm sure Joss has everything planned(I hope)Of course I could
be totally
wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: It ain't over.............. -- rowan, 18:44:52
05/22/01 Tue
It's interesting, because I've seen so much controversy on other
boards
about Buffy substituting herself for Dawn and how their blood
isn't
identical, etc. etc. But I guess most of us missed the point when
the monks
told Buffy how Dawn was made. Now we know why Buffy protected
her so
much...as she started to tell Giles, Dawn is part of her...and
I think Buffy
meant to say, the best part, the real part, the non-Slayer part.
Buffy is
Dawn's sister, her clone, her true mother (more so than even Joyce).
And one
of the last things Buffy did was entrust that part of herself
to...Spike. To
the end of the world. Even without a smell of soul around him.
Can't wait for season 6!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: It ain't over.............. -- Rufus,
18:49:50 05/22/01 Tue
Rowan, you get another cookie....I told you the monks were smart
guys.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> SBD -- Eania Snow, 19:19:05 05/22/01 Tue
What will become of Spike now. With no slayer will he go back
to the big bad
or was it dawn all along that held him here. It might be a moot
point to
discuss it. It is likely Buffy would be back with in a few episodes
and from
the end of Angel Im guessing he will be back for a bit as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: SBD (spoilers) -- Solitude1056,
20:19:20 05/22/01 Tue
I TAPED THIS ONE! But this week also had the crummiest reception
ever,
thanks to a really huge storm in the area. Deeeelightful. Sheesh.
But now I
can join the ranks of "watching it again for the small details"
- and thus I
must remark
that I noticed Spike's goodbye when he & Buffy went to her house
to get
weapons. And so it didn't surprise me, given that implicit goodbye
(much as
Giles had done two episodes before), that Spike broke down and
cried when he
saw Buffy's body. This episode didn't hit me as hard as the Body,
perhaps
because I know Joss will pull something off... but Spike's reaction
startled
me, somehow, and made it all that more human. Odd, eh?
And strangely, it was a relatively cheerful episode on Angel,
for all its
darker points - and I mean that it resolved quickly, and bam,
they were
home. But Willow waiting for them just sort of pulled everything
back around
again, and thwap! you're reminded of the previous hour. Very skillful,
even
more of a punch once I'd had an hour's distraction with a different
story
line...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Hey...Sol did you notice....................
-- Rufus,
20:39:03 05/22/01 Tue
At the end of Buffy the WB put a nice little thank you for the
five years,
almost made one think the show was over, until Willow showed up
at the
Hyperion. Nice save from JW, a reminder that Buffy was still a
show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey...Sol did you
notice.................... --
Solitude1056, 05:56:32 05/23/01 Wed
Willow's appearance at the end of Angel's episode brought it around
full-circle, and did so beautifully, with only Angel's whispered
conclusion
that "it's Buffy." I mean, he knows as well as anyone
else in that circle
that Slayers come with expiration dates, and so I wasn't surprised
that her
death would be his first conclusion. And you're right, it could
also carry a
subtle message of "there's still something going on, even
if the camera's
not on us" that I mentioned in another thread. Where A, B,
and D happen and
we just figure out that C happened while we were looking the other
way...
and that C was while we were busy watching AtS, and now we've
seen D. It
implies for me that somehow there's an E coming soon.
I still keep going back to that cheerful "we made it"
scene and what-all of
wrapping up the Pylea everyone-is-free-now scene... and Cordy
kicked butt,
might I add! - which just emphasizes that the last bit - Willow's
silent
cameo - was pure skill. We didn't get off the hook from BtVS;
Joss was just
waiting for the right moment to ground us back into the fact that
Buffy's
died. He's a cruel man - brilliant, but cruel. And I love it!
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Promise to a Lady ...........spoilers
for The Gift -- Rufus,
20:21:30 05/22/01 Tue
Spike made a promise to Buffy to protect Dawn...he said until
the end of the
world......I think he respects promises he makes....His grief
in the end was
absolute. But he will stand by his promise...even if he has to
be reminded
of it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Promise to a Lady ...........spoilers
for The Gift --
rowan, 05:10:19 05/23/01 Wed
AtLtS...what an episode for JM. To me, three of the most outstanding
scenes
all had JM involved. This whole story arc with Spike has been
brilliant
(apologies to those who like the Big Bad). Little by little, each
ep of the
season adds a stroke, until suddenly, Spike is totally different
from the
start of the season -- and you're not really sure how he got where
he is.
1. The "reinvite" scene: Of course, being spoiled, I
knew about the "I know
you'll never love me, I know I'm a monster" speech (and yeah,
right, like I
believe that after what I saw in this ep!) What I found to be
even more
moving in that scene was the non-verbal exchange at the door:
Spike's
acknowledgement he can't go in, Spike respecting it & not forcing/asking
to
come in, Buffy's total lack of recollection that he is deinvited,
Buffy's
smile when she reinvites him in, and the look exchanged by the
two after he
steps in (which Spike breaks, without taking advantage of the
moment). Can
you say 'chemistry', boys and girls?
Following that up with "I'm counting on you to protect her"
and "Until the
end of the world. Even if that's tonight." had me reaching
for the tissue
box, frankly. Look at those lines. Spike is accepting responsibility
for
Dawn, not only for that night, but for all the nights to come
based on that
phrasing. He also casually accepts that he may die.
And Buffy. If she really feels about Dawn as she expressed to
Giles (that
Dawn is more than a sister, she's a part of Buffy), then Buffy's
speech
resonates with her trust in Spike. She trusts him with that which
is most
precious to her: a piece of herself. And I think that speech has
overtones
to suggest that Buffy believes she herself may not survive, and
that Spike
will be the one left to stay with Dawn.
What a scene that was. So much meaning crammed into so little
time and
words. Brilliant.
2. The "Doc" scene": Oh, MT and JM. Every one of
their scenes this year was
a gem. Can you imagine the guilt that Spike is going to have to
deal with
next season? If Spike had been able to defeat or delay Doc, Buffy
would be
alive. How will Spike deal with that? Turn bad? Give up? Or take
over
Buffy's Slayer duties and stick to Dawn like glue? (Note to Giles:
Spike
needs some training, because twice Doc has totally kicked his
butt and that
is disturbing. The vamp can deliberately miscap a quote from Henry
V, but he
can't defeat a tiny lizard demon.)
What a scene. How about that soul comment from Doc? Another piece
of info to
add to the Buffyverse. A promise can help you care enough to do
good, even
if you don't have a soul.
The most wrenching moment was right before Doc tipped Spike off
the tower.
No wildfeed description could adequately convey that moment. The
tears in
Spike's eyes when he knew he had failed. The love for Dawn and
the fear of
losing her. His whispered, "No" as if he was looking
on the most horrible
thing he could imagine. The terror in Dawn's eyes when she saw
Doc would tip
Spike off the tower. Her instinctive movement towards Spike to
stop Doc. Her
scream of "No!" as she saw another person she loved
perhaps die on her
account.
Again, so much meaning in so short a scene.
3. The discovery of the body: This was a strong season for almost
every
actor (must say I wasn't as impressed with Anya and Xander as
with the
others, but I think their characters have a harder time expressing
emotion).
When Spike crawled over (obviously with many broken bones from
the fall) and
fell to his knees, then cried his eyes out, while Buffy's voice
extolls,
"You have to take care of each other. You have to be strong."
again I found
myself reaching for tissues. Kudos to JM, ASH, AH, and MT, who
really made
that scene real for me.
"His grief in the end was absolute. But he will stand by
his promise...even
if he has to be reminded of it."
I can't pretend to see into the future. Joss may delight in showing
us
Spike's fall from grace in as much fascinating detail as Spike's
crawl up
from the pit. But Spike IMHO will never go back to being the one
dimensional
(albeit fun) villain he was.
I agree with you. Spike is going to want to keep that promise,
but he will
probably need alot of help from his friends. I can't wait to see
which ones
step up to the challenge.
This thread is going all over the place, but kudos to AH on her
scene with
Tara: "I got so lost." "I found you. I will always
find you." was another
tissue box moment. That scene was the voice of every lost child
longing for
its parent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks rowan, well put!
-- verdantheart, 06:54:19
05/23/01 Wed
USA Today says James Marsters "responded to an expanded role
with one of the
season's best performances." Sounds like an understatement
to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> About Doc -- Greta,
09:14:27 05/23/01 Wed
(Note to Giles: Spike needs some training, because twice Doc has
totally
kicked his butt and that is disturbing. The vamp can deliberately
miscap a
quote from Henry V, but he can't defeat a tiny lizard demon.)
Doc is this bothering, nagging question that keeps bothering and
nagging
me:) It is disturbing that Spike didn't defeat him, because, IMO,
if he was
just a tiny lizard demon, William the Bloody, slayer of slayers
and
immumerable nasties, should have had no problem. Likewise, even
a
super-charged Buffy should've had more trouble with him IF he
was determined
to keep her away from Dawn.
But what if he wasn't? What if he thought- since he did pass along
the
crucial(?) information about the ritual, albeit unwillingly (are
we sure?
-I'm not)- that Buffy would kill Dawn? What if Dawn's death wouldn't
or at
least wouldn't just close the portal, but would also bring what
Doc wanted?
Alternatively, what if Buffy-through-the-portal was what he wanted
all
along?
To consider:
He knew Spike was a vampire but he didn't stake him or decapitate
him - he
just tossed him off a building. Did he want Spike alive? Or did
he just not
care?
We never saw his body, and three other players (Spike, Buffy and
Glory) were
all shown to survive equally nasty falls.
He's Joel Grey. Joss and half the cast are apparently groupies;),
so if they
can have him back they will.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You Said It (nt)
-- Avatar 2001, 15:07:57 05/29/01
Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: About Doc
-- maddog, 21:31:00 05/30/01 Wed
Doc's kinda an odd phenomenon. When I first heard about him I
was under the
impression he was a lot more powerful than he seemed. The early
reports made
him out to be quite powerful. So what happened surprised me. I
think he
didn't stake Spike because he was running out of time. He didn't
have long
to bleed Dawn. I also think he liked the fact that he could rub
it in
Spike's face. Showing no body does kinda leave that open. I'm
sure that was
done on purpose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: SBD -- cynthia, 22:15:27 05/22/01
Tue
Well, if Spike's chip is broken by his fall, as someone pointed
out, one
would think that he would revert. But,on the other hand, if he
is willing to
keep his word on the pain of death, and continues keeping his
promise to
Buffy out of love and respect, then perhaps this is his key to
salvation
(regaining of his soul). When one has lost one's soul the only
way to get
back is to reclaim it back. And just as a seed in the spring grows
in the
darkness until it reaches the light, perhaps this is happening
to Spike
without his concious knowledge.
I'm also wondering if the stolen earings have an part in all this.
Dawn was
told to put on a ritual outfit, but if she had on the earings
and noone
noticed, for Dawn's hair is very long, perhaps it has an effect.
If a ritual
requiring that everything be in it's proper place and time( and
that seems
to be the case here) would they change things somehow?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: It ain't over.............. -- Justin,
14:04:41 05/29/01 Tue
Intrusting herself to Spike. That is so damn romantic!!
AAAAAUGH!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Consider the function of the key....spoilers
for the gift -- Rufus,
18:48:14 05/22/01 Tue
The question shouldn't be if Buffy will be back but why will she
be back.
Lots of hints on why...you have the summer to go over the episodes.
You
always find the answer in what has come before. So....does the
Key have
other capabilities......and what does the power of family, faith,
and love
have over the death of the slayer. Does the gift have a benefit
we haven't
as of yet seen?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Consider the function of the key....spoilers
for the gift --
rowan, 19:13:32 05/22/01 Tue
Yes, if I went to heaven, rejoined Mom, and left what I thought
was the best
part of me back to comfort my friends, I'm not sure I'd be back
either.
Hey, Rufus, if you keep giving me cookies, you'll never get me
to leave.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Consider the function of the
key....spoilers for the gift
-- Kvon, 19:32:03 05/22/01 Tue
Thank you Rufus for giving me hope. I am perfectly willing to
believe that
Joss could set up the move to another network story as a blind,
and that he
would really kill the main character, because he is such a damn
good
storyteller, and I do not know where the heck he is going. He
could equally
well surprise me by finding some way to bring back Buffy--to rehabilitate
Faith--to make Spike noble--etc.
So now we finished the countdown from 730--are we counting back
up again?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Words from the Guide.........spoilers
for the Gift -- Rufus,
20:16:06 05/22/01 Tue
The guide in Intervention answers Buffys question about her ability
to love:
Guide: "You think you're losing your ability to love....You're
afraid that
being the Slayer means losing your humanity....You are full of
love, you
love with all of your soul, It's brighter than the fire....blinding...that's
why you pull away from it......love is pain, and the slayer forges
strength
from pain....Love...give...forgive..Risk the pain...it is your
nature love
will bring you to your gift...Death is your gift......
But is there a benefit to the process of pain and death we are
missing?
Death could be a way for Buffy to become the person she is supposed
to be.
Death may not be an end but a process for the slayer....but how
will she
come back from her journey? Giles called Buffy a hero...which
part of a
heros journey could she be on?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Words from the Guide.........spoilers
for the Gift --
Rob, 21:27:21 05/22/01 Tue
The big thing that you are all missing, Is this is the classical
Hero
storyline in all books, First the Hero goes through the denial
process,
basically the first two - three seasons where Buffy didn't really
believe in
the Slayer aspect of everything, then comes the part where the
Hero comes to
grips with the powers that the Hero has (seasons three and Four).
Then in
the end the third stage the Hero has to die (season Five) to be
transformed
into something bigger and better. Classic Hero Complex/Journey...How
Joss
will do it. I can only wait........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Words from the Guide.........spoilers
for the Gift
-- Anthony8, 23:25:00 05/22/01 Tue
Also remember that, as a general rule, the Hero's "death"
is a spiritual
rite of passage. It does not necessarily have to mean the physical
destruction of the individual so much as the death of the old,
immature self
to pave the way for a spiritual transformation into something
more advanced.
Three months until we find out how this really plays out. Didn't
Jonah spend
three days in the belly of the whale? Well, in the Buffyverse
all things are
possible.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hey, not missing this
at all! -- rowan, 05:12:22
05/23/01 Wed
I have no problem with Buffy coming back. Heroes need to be transformed.
Classic underworld journey. Buffy comes back even better. A Gandalf
for a
modern time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe not better
-- Avatar 2001, 15:18:56 05/29/01
Tue
Joss's words:
At the Bronze
May 23, 2001
on my way to bed. I've never been so tired. (lie.) We did it.
Feeling
good. Killed the girl. Girl comin' back. A good thing? Nothing
is simple
in this life. My actors and writers and crew are unbelievable.
I'm lucky
to be this kind of tired. Thanks all of you for your comments
and
opinions, even the ones I hated. UPN will be a good home for us.
'Cause
the show won't change -- except inasmuch as it's always changing.
Next
year is going to be intense. INTENSE. And the musical... the musical...
could be the worst hour of TV ever made, but you won't be able
to say we
didn't go there. I'll post sometime soon, wherever the bronze
may be.
Need the sleep.
Love the tired.
j
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey, not missing
this at all! -- london,
15:21:54 05/29/01 Tue
My thoughts exactly,Buffy has spent most of this series looking
for a
purpose other than killing vamps.Fate stepped in, separating her
from Riley
because she needed to focus on her task ahead.Her loyal friends
made their
own transitions,Willows power and darker side,zanders love for
Anya and her
willingness to learn the ways of mortals,and Spikes love for Buffy
and his
devotion to Dawn.Buffy was warned that death would be her gift,I
think the
path she was on was a circular one and she will now be reformed
both
physically and mentally into the best slayer yet!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Consider the function of the key....spoilers
for the gift &
PltzGlrb -- LoriAnn, 19:16:24 05/22/01 Tue
Vulpes, Nothing's been normal up till now. Why would you want
that to
change?
Willow went to LA to tell Angel about Buffy, and Angel has books
with
formulae to open dimensional portals. Even though we saw Buffy's
body, she
must have gone through a dimensional portal and will be retrieved
from it.
"The Gift" was a very moving episode and very satisfying,
but still left a
lot open to consider: Spike hit his head when he fell and may
have broken
his chip; Willow has been practicing heavy magic, which carries
a heavy
price tag; Anya may be dead or badly hurt; Giles will almost certainly
have
a heavy price to pay for what he did to Ben; we don't know what
happened to
Doc, so he could return; Dawn must have been badly traumatized,
and the
result could be inactivity for a time when she should be helping
get Buffy
back. The first eps of next season will be busy ones.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Consider the function of the
key....spoilers for the gift
& PltzGlrb -- alimonster, 20:01:32 05/22/01 Tue
I am new here...I am just desperately trying to find some definite
confirmation that Buffy will be back next season and that Dawn
will not
replace her as the slayer as she indicated in this episode...and
while I
think your whole dimensional portal theory is interested and would
like to
see a connection continue between "BTVS" and "Angel"
how can that possibly
happen with them being on different networks? Won't crossovers
be forboden
next season? Legally the actors can't be on both networks, can
they? Or has
Joss demanding that in the contract negotiations?
And btw, does this mean another slayer will arise now or is Buffy
still
technically alive as far as the legacy is concerned since a part
of her
lives on in Dawn? If Buffy keeps dying and coming back to life
(which I have
a hard time believing Joss would do twice) we'll end up with a
buttload of
slayers running around out there...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consider the function
of the key....spoilers for the
gift & PltzGlrb -- Fancy, 20:17:47 05/22/01 Tue
As far as the slayer legacy goes. . .it would take Faith dying
to activate a
new slayer. When Buffy drowned she was techically "dead"
so a new slayer was
activated. Kendra came and she was killed by Druscilla. Kendra
died so Faith
was activated. Hence, Faith would have to die. Buffy was already
out of that
loop when she died the first time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consider the function
of the key....spoilers for the
gift & PltzGlrb -- shelley, 21:26:35 05/22/01 Tue
As far as network crossovers go, I think it must be possible because
they
had characters from Fox's "Ally McBeal" and ABC's "The
Practice" on each
other's shows, because both shows are written by David E. Kelly.
So there
you go!
As far as this episode goes, I must say I'm absolutely stunned!
I don't
think I can bear to wait all summer! AAAARGH!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consider the function
of the key....spoilers for
the gift & PltzGlrb -- Shaglio, 06:06:07 05/23/01 Wed
Likewise, ABC's "The Practice" had a crossover with
Fox's "Boston Public"
earlier this season. I believe David Kelley does Boston Public
as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Let's hope Joss
has as much weight as David E.
Kelley -- rowan, 06:17:57 05/23/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> There won't be
a cross over but... -- Avatar 2001,
15:27:43 05/29/01 Tue
Orlando Sentinel
May 24, 2001
(...)
Whedon: I have a brilliant non-crossover plan.
Question: Can Angel make it without love-of-his-vampire-life Buffy?
(...)
***********************************************************
Pittsburgh Post Gazette - "Is Buffy Dead?"
May 24, 2001
(...)
As for crossovers with "Angel," Whedon said none are
planned, although
after this week's episode where Angel found out Buffy died, her
death
will be mentioned.
"We have a spectacular non-crossover planned, and I will
not explain
what that means," Whedon said cryptically.
(...)
Bloody Hell! What the F$#@ is a non-crossover.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> crossover
not cross over -- Avatar 2001, 15:59:47
05/29/01 Tue
It could have been worse I could have written butt not but.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> On non-crossovers
-- verdantheart, 07:21:39
05/30/01 Wed
If the rumors of James Marsters being on the cast list for Angel
are true,
I'm hoping that the "non-crossover" is that a member
of Angel's cast will
move to Buffy's cast shortly after the season starts! After season
5, I
can't see how Spike could stay away from Buffy, there's so much
left
unresolved. Besides, Spike and Dawn have such a bond, it's difficult
to
picture them apart for long.
This would also give us the opportunity to see one or two conversations
between Spike and Angel that, frankly, I've been dying to see.
There's the
potential for a couple of scenes that a writer would give a lot
to script.
How much does Angel know about Spike's situation, anyway?
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consider the function
of the key....spoilers for the
gift & PltzGlrb -- Wiccagrrl, 23:04:29 05/22/01 Tue
I am new here...I am just desperately trying to find some definite
confirmation that Buffy will be back next season and that Dawn
will not
replace her as the slayer as she indicated in this episode...
A couple of things make we fairly confidant that SMG/Buffy will
be back. I
seriously doubt that UPN would pay well over $2 million an ep
for Buffy
without, well, Buffy. And Sarah, like the rest of the cast, has
two more
years left on her contract. I don't know how they'll do it, but
she'll be
back.
My main thought on how was that she'd be on the other side, and
TPTB would
ask her to go back- telling her she was needed, that her job wasn't
done,
that there were things that needed doing that only she could do.
It'd be a
tough choice. Plus, I see that as a chance not only to see Joyce
again, and
for Buffy to say goodbye, but for TPTB/Buffy to see/review her
life, talk
about why she's so important tp the world (maybe they'd even do
parts of it
as a clip show, giving us glimpse's of the series up till now)
Basically,
weave a necessary "reintroduction" to the series (for
UPN's new audience)
into the story.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consider the function
of the key....spoilers for
the gift & PltzGlrb -- LoriAnn, 02:31:13 05/23/01 Wed
Of course, the reminisce and flashback show has been done too
death, but it
still might be a good and relatively inexpensive idea, and these
shows
always help to bring potential new viewers up to speed quickly.
I think
shows like BtVS, those with a substantial history, can be intimidating
to
new viewers, and new viewers for the show and for UPN are what
Buffy needs
now, that and quick resurrection.
"She saved the world a lot," is one of the funniest
lines ever and on more
than one level.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> a lot -- Solitude1056,
06:32:51 05/23/01 Wed
Nice to see I'm not the only one who nearly lost the serious demeanor
at
seeing the tombstone. "She saved the world. A lot."
??? Ok, so much for the
bathos here, we just took a jump to the left into a bit ludicrous
- and I
had the strange feeling that someone was pulling my leg, just
a small
twitch. Joss has definitely got something up his sleeve.
(Problem is that the last shot of the tombstone sort of undid
the impact of
the Scoobie's reaction. Anya looking confused, Willow in shock
& leaning on
Tara, Spike breaking down and sobbing, and Dawn's face - ! No
way to even
describe that expression. Wow, that girl is a definite high-class
actress,
and a major boon on the show.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consider the function
of the key....spoilers for
the gift & PltzGlrb -- rowan, 05:18:17 05/23/01 Wed
I'm not brilliant like the writers of the show, but several possibilities
(some less probable than others) occurred to me:
1. Angel, Spike, or some other members of the SG go to the heaven
dimension
(assuming she's there and not in hell) and retrieve Buffy.
2. Willow, Dawn, Spike, et al. perform a resurrection spell (Doc's
or
someone else's).
3. Buffy is sent back by TPTB because her work is unfinished,
or as a reward
for her sacrifice (living on borrowed time for a while, etc.).
4. Faith sacrifices herself as a substitute for Buffy in order
to resurrect
her.
5. Buffy returns only as a spirit/ghost.
6. Buffy is reincarnated into a new Slayer (we see SMG, but the
characters
see a new actor, with Buffy's spirit inside).
7. Some remaining rascally monks reverse part of the finale, undoing
Buffy's
death as reward for her sacrifice.
8. Dawn figures out how to resurrect Buffy because of their shared
Summers
blood.
9. TPTB owe Angel a boon and he asks for Buffy.
Hey, anything is possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sorry to disagree
but..... -- FanMan, 06:08:38
05/23/01 Wed
I think you are brilliant. Besides they get paid!
My fav site cause of you and other insightfull posters.
Bonus of intilectual silly jokes, movie O the week...etc.
Keep it up!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, thank
you! (she blushes) -- rowan, 06:16:36
05/23/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consider the
function of the key....spoilers for
the gift & PltzGlrb -- Anthony8, 16:03:44 05/23/01 Wed
I don't know why, but number 6 on your list was the first possibility
that
occurred to me.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nº 6 is too
tricky to shot, nº 7 is better but... --
Avatar 2001, 15:50:29 05/29/01 Tue
What if neither the Scoobies nor another good guys are responsible
for
Buffy's resurrection? What if some evil character like the Doc
or the First
Evil (remember that it was him that returned Angel) is responsible
for that?
Would Buffy still be a hero?
Nine isn't bad either. But there aren't going to be any crossover,
just
non-crossovers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consider the
function of the key....spoilers for
the gift & PltzGlrb -- maddog, 22:04:03 05/30/01 Wed
I can definitely see option 3. From the experiences with Angel,
they aren't
very easy going. They speak in riddles and they have their own
agenda. So
the possibility that Buffy screwed up their agenda and therefore
they have
to send her back I could definitely see.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> concerning crossovers -- spotjon,
13:13:44 05/23/01 Wed
This was posted at cinescape.com this morning.
==
While talking to the LA Times, Buffy/Angel creator Joss Whedon
spoke of the
issue as well as the harsh feelings between the producer and the
WB,
explaining why it won't be happening soon, saying, "There's
acrimony here,
and I like to kid myself and say it'll fade. A lot of people got
bruised. I
haven't broached the subject yet [of future crossovers], and now's
not the
time."
Whedon adds, "[Buffy and Angel] will and can reference each
other, but the
big emotions can't be about each other. They haven't been for
the past year.
There will always be a lingering tie, but both do have to move
on... There
are some restrictions that come with it, [but], in a way, it's
like other
changes you face. If you lose a cast member, for instance, like
we did with
Seth Green [who played Oz on Buffy], you work through it, and
inevitably, it
can lead to better situations."
==
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks LoriAnn and all other for
the messages and hope for
next season -- Vulpes, 08:39:54 05/23/01 Wed
Is there anything that the Scoobies should be thankful for?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: THE END WAS FIVE GOOD YEARS -- darrenK, 18:19:44 05/22/01
Tue
This can't happen like this. SHE CAN"T BE DEAD. She just
can't...
And I can't wait 4 months to find out how she comes back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: THE END WAS FIVE GOOD YEARS -- Sue, 22:58:09 05/22/01
Tue
Spoilers
She isn't. Said the raven, NEVERMORE!
That said, her love will continue to live within the hearts of
all the lives
she has affected. She isn't dead as long as her friends struggle
to live
within this world. Do it for her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: THE END WAS FIVE GOOD YEARS -- Reid, 06:07:42
05/23/01 Wed
You said:
"That said, her love will continue to live within the hearts
of all the
lives she has affected. She isn't dead as long as her friends
struggle to
live within this world. Do it for her."
On the phone last night, trying to reassure a distraught friend
about SMG's
probable return, I said, "The really brave and inventive
solution would be
to have two more years of BtVS without the title character."
Of course,
contract info suggests strongly that this isn't the case, but
it would be a
nice reminder that the show is an ensemble production.
I do hope that, before Buffy comes back, the SG gets to shine
at least a
little on its own.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: THE END WAS FIVE GOOD YEARS -- rowan,
06:21:02 05/23/01 Wed
I admit I would like to see Buffy back. It's hard to let go of
a great
character.
That said, I too don't want her back too soon. I would like to
see how each
member of the SG (and I now include Spike in that definition,
as well as
Dawn) handles Buffy's death. It's too precious a character growth
opportunity to see how they handle a "no buffer" Buffyless
Buffyverse.
And then we have all the fun of seeing how Buffy deals with being
back after
everyone has moved through all the grief stages and put their
lives back
together.
Evil Joss.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Joss is evil (but in a good way)
:-) -- Avatar 2001, 15:54:48
05/29/01 Tue
Dracula -- ViewAskew, 18:24:52
05/22/01 Tue
....... BUFFY :'(
I just had a realization... Buffy said that Dawn was made from
a part of
her, Doc told Dawn she had strong DNA, and Buffys blood caused
the portal to
close which leads me to conclude that Dawn does come from Buffy
and she
shares her blood. But where did the monks get Buffy's blood from???
Dracula!!! I think its been mentioned here before that the Dracula
scenerio
may very well have been used by the monks as a diversion while
they created
Dawn and implanted her into everyones memories. Dracula feed off
of Buffy,
thus giving the monks something to create Dawn out of( Spike said
blood is
life)... any thoughts on this...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dracula -- Rufus, 18:54:32 05/22/01 Tue
Yes, that could certainly be a way of getting sample DNA from
a subject. It
sure beats some of the other ways I know of to get them off an
unsuspecting
subject.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dracula: Why Dawn is part of Buffy.....Gift Spoilers
-- FanMan,
22:36:45 05/22/01 Tue
Three reasons why that is a very good theory.
1. Dracula is a cultural archetype, the original legend of the
vampire. His
personaltiy and abilities are part of our conception and vision
of the suave
seductive vampire. The thing is that a normal myth that has a
basis in fact
will be innacurate or exagerated. Dracula was EXACTLY like the
myth;
suspicious much?(in hindsight only!....g)
2. The castle; Xander remarked that he had never seen it. The
only part of
Dracula showing up that was not a part of the normal myth of Dracula
was the
castle. Never heard of Dracula being able to teleport/create an
entire
castle!
3. Joss! He likes to retell stories in his own twisted genius
way. Nuff said
on that, except Joss RULES!
4. Add comments please(g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Dracula: Why Dawn is part of Buffy.....Gift
Spoilers -- DEn,
00:05:49 05/23/01 Wed
Another clever interpretation, nicely integrating an ep that otherwise
is a
one-off in a season dominated by the "Glory arc." Reviewing
S5, I'm
increasingly impressed by its COHERENCE. There was little waste
motion
anywhere--check out the source of the troll's hammer in an ep
widely
dismissed as meaningless. So this interpretation really nails
down the
SAMENESS of B/D--which seemed an add-on when stresses at the opening
of "The
Gift."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Dracula/Thematic Coherence -- fresne,
09:03:58 05/23/01 Wed
I completely agree about the season's thematic coherence. And
one thought I
had was how the season ender reflected back on the season opener.
Dracula tells Buffy that her power is rooted in darkness, destruction,
death.
And for a time this seems true. Buffy hunts in the dark. She revels
in the
kill. And then grows troubled by this hardening of her soul.
And yet in the end, her power is rooted in life, love, and light.
Death is Buffy's gift. Not because she is a dark hunting slayer
in the
night. Nor because death a final gift of peace. But because her
final gift,
her death as a sacrifice, is a gift of love. She dies not in darkness,
but
as the sun rises for a new day.
Is there a way back from The
Gift? Speculation, spoilers and a bit of a
tribute -- darrenK, 20:09:17 05/22/01 Tue
I guess the whole season felt pretty grim. I can hardly remember
an episode
where Buffy's attitude wasn't that of someone who was expecting
death.And
for those last 3 or 4 episodes the look in SMG's eyes was WRENCHING.
Now I feel like there should be...something? A funeral? A parade?
Isn't that
what you do for heroes?
If "Death is your Gift" wasn't a clear enough sign of
her impending doom,
then that strange slaying at the episode's beginning should have
been. It
felt elegaic and ceremonial-- as much of a tribute to her lone
battle as the
5 season montage. Joss once said in an interview that he felt
bad for all
those young women in horror films who were caught alone in an
alley to die
at the hand's of some monser. He's righted that wrong.
Anyway, what I could spend a long time getting around to saying
is that it
felt like the true end, a real death.
I'm sure that there is something up his sleeve. Maybe with the
tables turned
Angel will have to go to Heaven to get her?
Or Dawn is the Key to her return? Maybe she'll be transformed
into Buffy?
After all, wouldn't that explain the strange quote from Faith
about Buffy
being "all dressed up in big sister's clothes?" Some
bit of meaning is
there. Or foreshadowing?
Or maybe, Dawn will be the Slayer who rises? It would put the
Slayer back in
high school. But what would happen to SMG?
Would a Slayer even rise? Isn't Faith that Slayer?
SMG might have two years on her contract, but this episode felt
too final.
Or like the end of Buffy?
Where is the way back from that?dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> A Possible Way Back...spoilery -- Wisewoman, 20:22:51 05/22/01
Tue
Okay, Dawn's already had a great deal of success bringing one
dead relative
back from the grave, even if it was a shameless rip of "The
Monkey's Paw."
That attempt would have ended disastrously if Dawn hadn't halted
it at the
last minute, but look at the set-up to it: Dawn, who as far as
we know has
never done magic before and is not a witch, got the instructions
for the
spell from Doc, not exactly a reliable source, as we've seen tonight.
Even so, if one spell exists that will do the deed poorly, isn't
it possible
that there are others that will accomplish it properly? Especially
if Dawn
has the assistance of the now-incredibly-powerful duo of Willow
and Tara? Of
course, Tara's stand was that trying to bring Joyce back was the
wrong thing
to do...would she feel the same about Buffy? And Willow's recently
been
wandering around in Buffy's mind...that's gotta give her a bit
of an edge!
One thing we know: Joss sets things up months, sometimes YEARS,
in advance,
so he knows exactly where he's going with this, even if we don't.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> won't the PTB still owe Angel a life? -- JoRus, 22:14:39
05/22/01 Tue
So, she could get a ride back from LA with Willow..: )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: won't the PTB still owe Angel a life? --
Sue, 22:21:56 05/22/01
Tue
Spoilers
Give it up.
Buffy is dead.
For there is no greater love than someone who willing gives up
their live
for their friends.
And Buffy, she did it for everyone.
She made the ultimate sacrifice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Graveyard Shift: Possible clues to the end of
the GIFT
(spoilers/speculation/drivel) -- darrenK, 22:25:35 05/22/01 Tue
There is the possibility that Buffy was not killed.
They played it like she died, but no one checks her body and the
headstone
could easily have been the dream of a comatose Buffy.
Just last week in Weight of the World we see Joyce's headstone
sitting in
the middle of Buffy's childhood home, a headstone we've never
seen before.
It certainly wasn't there at her funeral. Has Buffy even had time
to get one
put there? Either way, Buffy's mind is certainly capable of spontaneously
generating a tombstone. Doesn't this just set us up for another
exciting
romp inside Buffy's tombstone obsessed psyche?
NOT TO MENTION THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT TOMBSTONE SHOT SHOWS BUFFY'S
TOMBSTONE
NOWHERE NEAR ANYONE ELSE's NOT EVEN HER BELOVED MOTHER'S? Shouldn't
they be
buried next to each other? And wouldn't that have been a dramatic
shot to
sum up this death laden season with? The camera slowly panning
from mother's
headstone to daughter's? But you can't do that if it's just a
dream...
And we know that Slayers in comas can dream. Faith dreamed with
Buffy 730
days ago when Faith told Buffy she was all dressed up in big sister's
clothes. Earlier, I suggested that
this might mean that Buffy is somehow resurrected from Dawn. Now
I realize
that Big sister's clothes means that she's wearing the mantle
of a Big
sister, that she'd be assuming that role. Like maternity wear
means that you
will be a mother.
And we never hear what Willow says to Angel. The shot is very
carefully cut
so that Willow doesn't answer Angel. If Buffy were dead couldn't
we hear her
say "Buffy's dead." It would be dramatic and much punchier
than "Buffy's in
a coma on a respirator and we're not sure she's going to make
it." But for
dramatic purposes, it does makes sense for Willow to journey to
LA because
it sets us up to think that Buffy's dead.
If Buffy's dead, why isn't Tara with Willow? Would Willow really
have wanted
to make the two hour drive to LA to see Angel alone? No way, but
if Giles is
at Buffy's bedside and Xander is at Anya's, doesn't the newly
recovered Tara
have to watch Dawn? And if Buffy's dead then what's the hurry?
She wants to
tell him in person why not wait till the next day? Or call to
tell them to
come to funeral. No, she's been sent to pick Angel up, so that
she can be
with them at the hospital because Buffy needs Angel.
It should also be mentioned at this point that the portal energy
being
deadly is only hearsay. How long has it been since anyone tried
to live
through something like that? And when's the last time a Slayer
tried? Maybe
it would have killed Dawn, who's a human besides being the KEY.
Didn't Joss say that there was no "cliffhanger." There's
only no cliffhanger
if Buffy's alive, otherwise there's a cliffhanger.
Interdimensional portals, resurrection spells, some sort of magical
cloning
are all options, but they might take a half-season to set up.
We're used to
Slayer's being in comas
For what it's worth--and after a second and third study of tonight's
videotape--that's the plot option that gets my vote.
dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Graveyard Shift: Possible clues to the end
of the GIFT
(spoilers/speculation/drivel) -- DEN, 23:55:39 05/22/01 Tue
This is the best"immediate" analysis of B's condition
I've seen. It
addresses the key points logically, and solves the death/resurrection
issue
Joss was at such pains to establish with "Forever."
In this season
especially, the show has enjoyed playing with posters' heads.
Like a good
magician, it misleads and distorts. BUT JOSS NEVER LIES. Purists
may with
some justification call "Buffy in a coma" a copout.
It would not, however,
be a deception--just a good fake move.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I genuflect in your general direction! -- Solitude1056,
06:59:13
05/23/01 Wed
Course I'm not sure which direction you're in, so how's about
we settle for
just some random genuflecting? Very astute observations - as far
as I'd
gotten right now was the strange nagging feeling that something
"wasn't
right" about Buffy's tombstone... I was expecting her to
buried with her
mother. It's common when it's spouses or parents & child-age son/daughter.
The fact that her tombstone was situated next to that Initiative
shrub - the
same one, I'm sure of it! - and no where near her mother's, and
the "A Lot"
part just made me feel kinda, uh, dunno. Just like, "gee,
I dunno."
So therefore I semi-prostrate myself. Not fully, mind you, since
my knees
seem to be bothering me worse than usual today - although that
probably has
a lot to do with the fact that I pounded up and down the stairs
during every
commercial break to broadcast updates on the episode to my dogs,
out of
sheer excitement. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Graveyard Shift: Possible clues to the end
of the GIFT
(spoilers/speculation/drivel) -- rowan, 07:47:01 05/23/01 Wed
Hmm...when I first read your post, I thought to myself, 'no way,
she's
physically dead -- at least for now' because:
1. When she went through the portal, first she writhed, then her
eyes closed
and she went limp (which answers why the earlier fall didn't kill
her but
this one did -- it was the portal that killed her, not the fall).
2. Willow went to Angel after a passage of time (different clothes)
and his
reaction indicated he knew she was dead.
3. Everyone was crying like she was dead.
4. Why erect a tombstone if she's not dead?
But after reading your post a second time, she could be comatose
(a la
Sleeping Beauty) -- the portal could have just separated her spirit,
and
since they know no way to return her spirit to her body, she's
as good as
dead to the SG.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Graveyard Shift: Possible clues to
the end of the GIFT
(spoilers/speculation/drivel) -- Manoon, 09:00:20 05/23/01 Wed
You know, Buffy really should remain dead if the story is to remain
meaningful (in the context of the Buffyverse etc). I dont think
it is going
to happen, and obviously it depends how they do it, but for me
the whole
things revolves around the fact that if Glory had succeeded in
using the Key
to open the portal, Dawn would have died. No-one is really disputing
that
(of course, you're going to now, I know how you work!!) So the
fact that
Buffy substituted herself, SACRIFICED herself, should mean something
more
than 'oh, because it's Buffy, the rules change'... something along
those
lines.
I want Buffy to return, of course. I didn't want Dawn to die.
SO what am I
going on about? Buffy's 'death' from which we pretty much know
she will
return, just detracts a little, is all, once I sit down and think
about it
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Graveyard Shift: Possible clues to
the end of the GIFT
(spoilers/speculation/drivel) -- Alan, 09:27:10 05/23/01 Wed
I believe Buffy is dead and won't be back.
1.) As the program moves to UPN, I can only assume that there
will be
changes. Harecore BTVS fans will follow the show from WB and the
cliffhanger
possibilities will attract marginal viewers to UPN. While fans
watch UPN
episode after UPN episode waiting to see if Buffy will be "resurrected"
they
will become hooked into the show without a Buffy.
2.) Gellar has been doing the role for five years, and has a potential
film
career to consider. Time to move on? In her career plan, it is
probably time
to separate herself from Buffy to be considered by movie audiences
as an
adult actress.
3.) "The Gift" is rife with "final" references.
Despite numerous plot
devices that might allow for Buffy's return Whedon rarely does
what is
expected. Comatose or dreaming Buffy is too predictable. Having
Willow in
the final scene of Angel closes the circle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> For and Against -- Reid, 09:33:44 05/23/01 Wed
For:
A coma explanation is nicely foreshadowed both by Faith and by
Buffy's
journey in the previous episode. Also, to add to the graves in
comotose
visions, what about the grave in which Faith and Buffy struggle
in Faith's
fourth season vision? Is there a tombstone on that one?
Against:
Presumably Angel will remain in LA over the summer, in time for
next season.
Would he do that if he thought there was a chance Buffy would
recover? Plus
there's the whole, "been there, done that" element.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Yes there is, and it's actually pretty simple. -- change,
10:09:25
05/23/01 Wed
There is a rather obvious way back. Dawn's blood opened a portal
to other
dimensions. We saw demons and things coming through it. So, another
Buffy
from another dimension (think The Wish) could also have come through,
and
she could replace our Buffy.
If you want to be really cheesy, our Buffy may have passed through
the
portal to another dimension just as an alternate Buffy passed
through to our
dimension. That way, the dead Buffy is actually from an alternate
dimension
(did anyone notice if her clothes were different?). Then, all
that has to
happen is for Willow and Dawn to go dimension hopping and find
our Buffy.
This is all getting pretty cheesy. This will be the 3rd or 4th
character
they've brought back from the dead, and the second time that Buffy
has been
killed. I just hate it when people just won't stay dead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Some comments on the Finality of death... -- OnM,
20:47:57 05/23/01
Wed
In our realverse, death is final, at least not taking any religious
visions
of an afterlife or resurrection of a messiah into account.
It is easy to place these presumptions into a fictional universe
such as
BtVS, but there is *absolutely no reason to do so*. The story
is **not about
death**, it is about a journey, about growth as a human being,
and the
meaning of life and of one's relations to other humans. Death
has a
completely different/metaphorical meaning in this context.
It has been a very, very long time since I read Vonnegut's *Slaughterhouse
Five*, but if you have read it also, you will recall at one point
the
protagionist dies. His comment on this? "It was purple".
(May be a misquote,
but that was the gist.) Death was just one part of a long journey
through
time and the universe. It was one event in a long series of events,
not
Birth/Life/Death/The End.
Ryuei and other Buddists on this board have commented in the past
that the
Buffyverse seems much more cyclical (Eastern) than linear (Western)
in terms
of its metaphysics. I tend to agree with this, although Joss and
the writers
do mix a variety of belief systems into their (again, fictional)
world.
Looked at in this way, it becomes not only possible for Buffy
(or Angel, or
Darla, or anyone) to 'come back', it is even *likely*. A magical
universe,
which by definition of the writers is what the Buffyverse is,
further allows
for this.
My only concern as a viewer/visitor is that whatever method the
creators
utilize to return our heroine to the Earthly plane is a creative,
original
one, which until I see otherwise, I assume they will. Past is
prologue, and
we have five years of nearly unrivalled excellence to draw upon,
and I give
the benefit of the doubt to people who are as clever as these
artists are.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Some comments on the Finality of death...
-- Cleanthes,
16:51:21 05/24/01 Thu
"It is easy to place these presumptions into a fictional
universe such as
BtVS, but there is *absolutely no reason to do so*."
I'm not so sure it IS possible to put final deaths in fiction.
That's what
Arthur Doyle tried to do with Sherlock Holmes. But, no - fictional
heroes
cannot actually die, regardless of their author's plans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Some comments on the Finality of death...
-- rowan, 16:23:55
05/25/01 Fri
Especially now, when as soon as the copyrights run out or the
person who
inherits the rights desires, someone pops up to start writing
new novels
with someone else's character.
The Three Hellgods theory --
ALLFORBUFFY, 03:00:40 05/23/01 Wed
WE ALL KNOW THAT GLORY WAS A GLORY. I THINK DOC AND GILES ARE
HELLGODS TOO.
Why else would Doc be up there to kill Dawn. Giles told Ben that
Buffy
doesn't have the strength to kill Humans but he did. He said she
isn't like
us and Thats why I think he is a hellgod too. I mean when Glory
was beaten
the two hellgods must of come here to make sure Glory doesn't
succeed.
Remember when Anya and Willow were in the magic shop and Giles
did something
to that demon. Also I think Giles had to give up his powers to
make sure
Glory is stoppped.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Three Hellgods theory -- Mav, 04:04:49 05/23/01
Wed
I'd certainly explain why he was so hell benton haveing Dawn killed
to stop
Glory. Ifyou were a hell god and you banished her, would youwant
her back?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Three Hellgods theory -- Sue, 06:28:18 05/23/01
Wed
"Giles told Ben that Buffy doesn't have the strength to kill
Humans."
She has the strength, just not the heart.
She will be missed.
Buffy was special, even for a slayer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Three Hellgods theory -- secondImpact, 13:29:52
05/23/01 Wed
i dont think DOC is a hellgod because he serves Glory (cutting
up dawn to
bring Glory back to the banished hell plane). He's just a worshipper.
(although he did give Spike a cool line. When Spike and Xander
killed the
Doc to get the box, Xander asked Spike, "What's that."
Spike respond,
"Something worth dying for." Nice!)
But Giles being a Hellgod? Cool idea, but I dont think so. When
he said that
Buffy didn't have the heart to kill in cold blood and not in the
heat of
battle but HE could, I think Giles was referring to his bad boy
days with
Rupert. Besides, would a former Hellgod worship a Demon? (with
Rupert and
the deadly gang). Then again, DemonWorshipping could just be a
cover for the
HellGod....nah!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Gift" is a gift -- JBone, 21:13:44 05/22/01 Tue
"The Gift" was everything that was advertised and more.
I'm a sucker for
great TV, and BtVS this year did not disappoint. I don't want
to theorize
about what will happen next year, I just want to extol the excellence
of
this year.
And this year had plenty of it, from the season premiere of Buffy
vs
Dracula, through the growing pains of a maturing scooby gang,
then the
illness and death of Joyce, and finally, the climatic battle against
Glory.
I cannot express enough kudos for the writers, producers, directors,
stage
crew, and of course, the excellent cast, for the immeasurable
enjoyment I
got out of the series this year.
My only real complaint is that I didn't have enough time to recover
from
such a earth moving episode to roll right into a season finale
of Angel.
Wow, what a year! I was a casual viewer in year one, until I watched
"Prophecy Girl" I've been hooked ever since.
As for the whole Angel - Willow thing; I'm sure there'll be a
ton of
speculation and spoilers for season 6, and I may come up with
a theory or
two of my own. But for right now, I'm loving it. But believe me,
I'll be
right there for the season premiere on UPN next year. GOD, I LOVE
THIS SHOW!
JBone
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Amen. -- OnM, 21:50:04 05/22/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Sorry to disagree, but.... -- change, 03:29:17 05/23/01
Wed
I really didn't like the ending of The Gift, and I don't think
it was great
TV. If one of the other scoobies had been killed off, then their
death would
have meant something. I wouldn't have liked seeing one of them
die, but it
would have been dramatic.
We all know that Buffy will be back. BtVS is scheduled for two
more years at
UPN and SMG has two more years on her contract. So we know that
Buffy didn't
really die. Killing her off like this was just a cheap trick.
The other problem is that Buffy beat Glory in a fight. The whole
point of
Glory was that she was an enemy that Buffy could never defeat,
at least not
in a fight. It would have been okay with me if Buffy had out smarted
her.
But, instead, the writers had Buffy just beat her into unconscienceness.
Not
very consistent or good writing in my opinion.
I was expecting better.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sorry to disagree, but.... -- rowan, 04:38:45
05/23/01 Wed
"The other problem is that Buffy beat Glory in a fight. The
whole point of
Glory was that she was an enemy that Buffy could never defeat,
at least not
in a fight. It would have been okay with me if Buffy had out smarted
her.
But, instead, the writers had Buffy just beat her into unconscienceness.
Not
very consistent or good writing in my opinion."
IMHO, the point of Glory was not for her to be an enemy that Buffy
could
never defeat. It was to present a situation where Buffy thought
she couldn't
win and where she was confronted with choices that made her doubt
her own
abilities, to the point that she wanted to "quit" because
she questions the
nature of the world. Frankly, much like what Angel has been going
through in
certain ways.
I think this story arc (as someone mentioned in another post on
this board)
created alot of confusion among fans, because it really wasn't
about
Ben/Glory and the Key, it was more about Buffy's finding herself
as a
Slayer. And about alot of the SG finding themselves as people.
One of the most poignant moments to me was Buffy's final instruction
to Dawn
to tell, "Tell Giles...tell Giles I figured it out...and...and
I'm okay"
after she has told Dawn, "But this is the work I have to
do." Buffy was at a
moment of existential crisis in her earlier conversation in the
ep with
Giles (the punching bag scene). It had been building throughout
the season,
with Joyce's death, Glory's seeming invincibility, Buffy's tiredness
in
Spiral, the catatonia, et al. She didn't understand the world
anymore or its
nasty choices. But in the moment she realized that she could substitute
for
Dawn, it seemed to me that her faith was restored, because she
realized
again the meaning of "her work". She left Dawn to carry
on the better part
of herself (her non-Slayer side) and sacrificed her life as the
ultimate
fulfillment of her Slayerness. She felt the Slayer death wish,
but it was
tranmuted into an act of sacrifical meaning, instead of someone's
else lucky
day.
The other thing I liked about the fight was that it used the entire
team in
a multilayered approach. I thought that Willow's brainsuck, Xander's
wrecking ball, Anya's ideas about the dagon sphere & hammer, the
BuffyBot,
and Buffy all contributed to make that final defeat possible.
"We all know that Buffy will be back. BtVS is scheduled for
two more years
at UPN and SMG has two more years on her contract. So we know
that Buffy
didn't really die. Killing her off like this was just a cheap
trick."
IMO, it's unfortunate sometimes that we know what we do. For example,
I was
never in any doubt that Angel would be back, because I live in
the same town
as DB's dad, and we knew about the spinoff before that sword ever
sent Angel
to Hell.
What moved me about the ep was the total belief the characters
had in
Buffy's death -- all the way through Dawn's last conversation
with Buffy,
the final words between Buffy and Spike, the finding of Buffy's
body, and
the last scene on Angel. I don't see Buffy's return (and who knows
right now
in what form or way that return might happen?) as a cheap trick
if the
characters grow from this experience. If Buffy just pops back
in like
nothing happened, sure, that's a problem. But the Buffyverse is
a mythic
place, not a real place, and in myth, physical death isn't always
the end of
life.
Joyce's death represented the side of the Buffyverse that shows
the reality
of real death (even though she was two steps from resurrection
because of
that spell!). But death experiences can also be metaphors for
transformative
experiences. Hey, I cried buckets when Gandalf fell to the Balrog,
but I
didn't feel cheated at all when he came back as Gandalf the White
in LOTR.
I will never forget those images of the SG (including Spike) when
they found
her body and her voice telling Dawn, "The hardest thing in
the world is to
live in it."
I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the ep. To me, this season has been
the best,
second only to the Angelus/Angel storyline.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Sorry to disagree, but.... -- Reid, 05:40:33
05/23/01 Wed
I like this interpretation. The only addition that I would make
is that the
season arc has also been about "family."
At the end of the episode, I was reflecting on the fact that,
well, most
everything that I had guessed might happen didn't (in my mind,
I ditched the
'Buffy dies' scenario early on b/c I guess I thought it was 'too
obvious').
And I realized that I had spent the whole time looking for wrap-ups
that
were 'neat' or 'clever.' But IMHO Whedon et al jettisoned 'clever'
in favor
of 'messy.'
Most everything is messy--it was not really the finest hour for
anybody, at
least not without some ambiguity: Glory is beaten into submission,
Ben
really doesn't have anything up his sleeve, there's nothing particularly
'tricky' about the ritual, Doc is just a 'regular' villain (but
the options
are probably still open for next season), Spike makes a dramatic
try to save
Dawn and just plain ol' fails, Giles shows his 'Ripper' face in
a way that
is genuinely ugly, Xander, Anya and Willow serve the cause in
a more
self-involved way than they sometimes have in the past [BTW when
Anya said,
"Give me this ring after the world doesn't end," I was
sure one of them was
a goner]. Buffy comes off the hero, but only puts it together
at the last
minute.
So, not 'neat' or 'clever,' but 'messy'--at least as the controlling
motif.
Then, I thought, of course! In addition to the existential themes
you
mention, it's also about family. In the episode by that name,
we got the
happy fluffy picture of a family; in this ep, especially in the
Giles-Buffy
fight, we see family as . . . well . . . messy. Loving folks precisely
when
they aren't all that lovable, etc.
Not sure the episode makes it onto my list of favs yet (I am partial
to
season 3 and especially the Mayor), but there is something fitting
about it.
It has its own logic--more the logic of real life than the logic
of the
cinematic arts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> It's more complicated than that. Family
always is. -- rowan,
06:13:24 05/23/01 Wed
Good old Glory. She hit the name on the head (and so did you).
I officially
amend my earlier statement:
"And alot about the SG finding themselves as people and their
place within a
family."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Sorry to disagree, but.... -- Scott
L., 08:19:09 05/23/01
Wed
[BTW when Anya said, "Give me this ring after the world doesn't
end," I was
sure one of them was a goner]
Funny, I was relieved when she said that. I figured because they
weren't
engaged yet, they were safe. Odd how we second guess things.
I still think that next season will star SMG as the Buffy-bot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> what a horrible thought! -- Manoon,
08:43:47 05/23/01 Wed
SMG in the next series solely as the BuffyBot - the very idea
sends shivers
down my spine. It's never gonna happen
as to whether Buffy will be back? Course. Don't know how, not
gonna bust my
brain wondering at this stage. When she does comes back, she aint
gonna be
the same Buffy we knew. She'll be changed. Whether through having
been on
some profound spritual journey, or darkened by experiences on
the other side
of the portal.. or even if she appears alive and well at the start
of the
series as could well happen, the whole Glory experience and the
choices she
had to make will have defined her more than ever before. In what
specific
way I already kinda wish I knew... i hate the not knowing, I dont
enjoy
suspense. What does anyone else think is next in the development
of the
Slayer?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Sorry to disagree, but.... -- Malandanza,
08:49:05 05/23/01 Wed
I agree with change that this was a disappointing episode -- because
of
Buffy's death (or, rather, her probable ressurrection). Too many
people have
been brought back from the dead (Angel, Darla, the Host, almost
Joyce);
death loses it's shock value if the characters are just brought
back the
next episode (and cheapens the sacrifice). It is possible that
they will not
bring Buffy back immediately, instead doing dream sequences or
having Buffy
reappear as a "spirit guide" for Dawn, but I suspect
she will be restored.
Will she be tainted with evil when she returns? Doubtful, they
already did
noir-Angel.
On the other hand, the episode has put into place a mechanism
for answering
some of our most nagging speculations:
Will Buffy's death call another slayer (meaning three slayers
if she is
brought back) or is Faith now the Chosen One and Only?
Is there a slayer gene (have all the slayers been only children?)
-- if so,
Dawn might have it. My guess is that being a slayer is a "gift"
from the
First Slayer rather than an inheritance (although only a few girls
are
capable of receiving it -- not necessarily genetic criteria for
potential
slayers -- it may be mental or spiritual).
Although I didn't like the idea that a god can be extintinguished
by killing
her human host, I thought the scene where Giles smothered Ben
highlighted
that Giles understood what type of person Ben was -- that Giles
alone knew
that Ben had come to the gas station surrounded by the KoB for
the purpose
of murdering Dawn. Giles held Ben responsible for Ben's own actions,
not for
Glory's. I ended up feeling a bit sorry for Glory -- she really
did not
understand what was happening and how Buffy could win. I think
Glory's
defeat contributes to a motif I have seen throughout BtVS and
AtS -- that
the creatures of myth and legend have no place in the modern world.
They are
vanishing and are incapable of adapting to the new world
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> thank you... -- xanthe, 14:32:30 05/23/01 Wed
I wanted to reply to this message and say thanks for your words
of hope of
and clarity. I'm only a browser right now, going through what
other people
are saying about The Gift, and trying to sort out how I feel about
this
shocking and brillant development. Everything you said reassured
me and
helped me to better understand some of the implications. Buffy
is dead. Long
live Buffy!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: thank you... -- Humanitas, 14:52:34
05/23/01 Wed
"Buffy is dead. Long live Buffy!"
Or maybe:
"Here lies Buffy, the Once and Future Slayer!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Season Five, some bright spots but definelty flawed
-- secondImpact,
14:32:34 05/23/01 Wed
I definetly dont think this season was the best. Season 3 was
the best, with
the finale of blowing up the school. I think my main problem with
this
season is that Joss Whedon forced the drama too much. The formuala
that I
really appreciated was Action, then character growth and moral
dillemas from
this Action. Season Five, we had characters from straight set
just TALKING
and TALKING (aka Dawson's Creek, blah blah blah!) Cmon, I appreciated
the
drama of this series better when it just flowed naturally, where
the actions
of the evil characters and the prediciment they put the Scoobies
turned into
drama. We didn't have a character come into a room and just yak
about their
problems, there was an active scene prompting this dialogue. Too
little
action in Season Five in my opinion. I like drama, but it should
be subtle
and not over the top.
Plus the Dracula episode? Please. I thought Joss Whedon was just
kidding
around, doing a pun of his show BADLY and he was gonna get back
on track
after that. No such luck, being bombarded with some utterly unbearable
shows
(Family, Triangle). Boo hoo hoo, does anyone care about these
characters
that much? The only truly impressive supporting character from
a dramatic
angle (aside from Spike) was Oz. The werewolf thing, finding out
Willow was
going out with Tara, what more drama do you want?
One example of Whedon taking things to the top too much was the
triumphant
THe Body. It was GOOD. Buffy's daydreaming that she saved her
mom, the
camera work was nice, Anya's speech; all grade A stuff. What was
BAD was
Willow (and again, Tara, argh!) arguing over what sweater she
was going to
wear. At first it was ok, but then it went WAY TOO FAR (she went
back into
the room to change, for chrissake)! Uh, your friend's mom just
died, I can
understand one or two lines about the sweater, but a whole speech!?
Cmon!
The two final redemption for this season? Spike and Buffy, separately
and
together. What made the Spike/Buffy relationship so special was
that it was
foreshadowed so well (ever since Spike met Buffy, as matter of
fact. But a
lot of Fshadowing this season as well to get ppl up to speed.
Cigarette
butts, flowers, Spike trying to score brownie points when saving
ppl). The
episodes which rocked the house with these two cats involved:
Fool for Love,
Crush (even if it went bananas at the end), Intervention, and
The Gift.
Fool for Love was an outstanding episode. Spike deserved a one-shot
episode
devoted to him, and James Marster flew through with flying colors.
What more
is there to say? We finally got to see Spike's past and motivation,
and he's
still as intriguing as ever. The little love/HATE relationship
is going in
full speed (Spike not killing Buffy when's shes crying); the pivotal
question: can Spike be redeemed without a soul? Plus, there's
that nagging
little deathwish for Buffy....
Crush was hot, all the way to the end where I feel Whedon took
things way to
psycho-seriously and tied Dru and Buffy up. I mean, it may be
justified with
Spike's neuro instability, but still this episode went over the
top. But for
the 90% that it was good (Spike's dillema with the dead victim
Dru gives
him) and the final scene ("What separates us slayer?"
then Spike got his
answer when he couldn't come into her house, oh man so full of
symbolism!)
was NICE! Coupled with the fact that everyone thought Spike was
sick just
gave the character so much symphaty factor. He's just a fool in
love, give
him a break.
Intervention was the funniest episode in the season, which was
very much
needed after all the yakkin the characters went through (and all
the yakkin
Im going through, i just like this show a lot JW for life!) Plus
the ending
with Spike? I don't care what Buffyverse says, this guy can be
redeemed! I
mean, let me quote it:
Spike: The robot, it wasn't suppose to....
Buffy: Don't. I mean, it wasn't even real.
Spike: (helpless, speechless)
Buffy turns away, but turns her head back.
Buffy: What you did for me and my sister. That was real.
And I'll never forget it.
Redemption! I mean, Buffy kissing Spike out of her own free will,
even just
small , nice nice nice!
The finale, the Gift. Two scenes that were the most powerful:
Spike being
asked in by Buffy to her house, foreshadowed by Crush. This gave
Spike that
little speech, not too much but coupled with the weight of a sledgehammer.
"I know I'm a monster, but you treat me like a man."
Buffy doesn't say
anything nasty, like "Shut up, I'm only using you to save
the world. There
can be nothing between us, you're a walking freek show."
She says nothing,
which is very good for season five akin to saying a LOT of things.
Second scene: Buffy's death, foreshadowed by Fool for Love:
"Every slayer has a deathwish. Even you. The only reason
you've lasted as
long as you have is, you've got ties to the world. Your Mum. Brat
kid
sister. Scoobies. They
tie you here but you're just putting off the inevitable. Sooner
or later
you're gonna want it. And the second the second that happens,
you know I'll
be there. I'll slip it in....have myself a real good day. Here
endeth the
lesson. I just wonder if....you'll enjoy it as much as she did."
- Spike
Now, after Gift, it seems that Spike's thesis has been proven
correct and he
got now what he wanted back then. But you can just see that it
hurts him
more than anything that the slayer is death, which is ironic because
in the
back of his mind (in fact, in back of both he and the slayer's
and everyone
elses mind) it was just a matter of time. Death is her art, Death
is her
gift. But this irony just stems the drama further, and I think
this whole
season was redeemed with Buffy's death and the unknown path for
everyone
else, especially a heart broken vamp with a chip stuck in his
head.
I don't think this ending was a cop out. First of all, though
Gellar still
has 2 more years to go, nothings set in stone. Besides, I know
she really
wants to bail out on the show for fear of typecast, so who knows
what the
future holds. Her death poses a lot of questions, most interestingly
for
Spike. But, I don't think this show can last without Sarah Michelle
Gellar.
I mean, the first few episodes I would think SMG wouldn't be there,
but I'd
die if there weren't substantial references to her (like how are
we gonna
get her back, i dunno). And Spike, without Buffy's approval or
disapproval,
really loses a lot of his emotional punch. But then again, Buffy,
in a
sense, lives on through Dawn, so the promise he made in blood
to Buffy is
still as strong as ever to the little sister. Gellar, just give
us one more
run!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: "The Gift" is a gift...You can say that again!
-- Rob, 08:05:19
05/23/01 Wed
"Buffy" has once again entered the realm of brilliant.
This was, without a
doubt, the show's best season, and its best season finale. It
contained all
those heart-stirring emotions that made us fall in love with the
Scoobies in
the first place, and all continued the themes of loss, redemption,
and
sacrifice that have been reoccurring especially in this season.
Like usual, Joss found a way to destroy an indestructible villain,
and he
played by his own rules, as usual. Every weapon that was used
against Glory
had already been established on the show in earlier episodes.
Nothing popped
out of nowhere. Even the troll hammer came to good use!
I also loved how every single person in the group played an essential
part
in the final battle, as they did last year. Xander's construction
skills
came in to use to beat Glory, as did Willow's magic. Anya not
only helped a
great deal in the fight, but was the one who came up with the
idea of using
the Dagonsphere and the hammer in the first place. Spike fought
Doc,
although unfortunately he could not stop him. Tara in her own
way helped as
well. That, in fact, I thought was one of the most brilliant things
in the
episode. Joss managed a way to return Tara to her former state
AND weaken
Glory simultaneously.
And on to Giles...in one short scene, he revealed a darker side
to him than
we have ever seen before. Never before has the moral ambiguity
of being a
watcher seemed so much in the forefront. In the battle against
evil, he had
to kill an innocent...one of the prices of being in his position,
of having
to save the world.
And finally those theories about whether Dawn is "genetically"
a Summers are
completely validated. In whatever way they did it, the monks did
not make a
girl that could have been with any family but give her to Buffy's.
They used
Summers genetic makeup, making Dawn in essence her REAL sister.
Dawn and
Buffy have the same blood, which is proven when Buffy's death
closes the
portal to Glory's dimension. How that actually worked is, in my
opinion is
that we know the portal is meant to close when Dawn dies. However
when
Buffy, who had the same blood, dies, the portal or whatever magic
is used to
open it is tricked into thinking Dawn is dead.
Anyway, the end of the episode was absolutely heartbreaking. Anyone
who
thinks that Spike has not become more human by having the chip
inside him,
that his feelings for Buffy are not real, was proven wrong, I
believe,
seeing him bawl his eyes out at the sight of Buffy's dead body.
Remember,
this is the same vamp who would have loved to drain her blood
himself only a
year ago.
Regarding the lighter moments of the episode, Anya and Xander's
proposal
scene was absolutely adorable. And the bunny was hilarious.
But the image that will stay with me all summer is the sight of
the
gravestone:
"Buffy Anne Summers...She saved the world a lot."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> More bunnies! We need more bunnies! -- rowan, 08:12:49
05/23/01 Wed
I loved reading your thoughts on the ep. I too think it was the
best season
finale, although the jury is out for me whether this season is
better than
Angel/Angelus. I think I want to see s6 and think about the 5/6
compared to
2/3.
How about when Spike shared that last tearful glance with Dawn?
I agree
about the human part... and the crying over Buffy. But it wrenched
my heart
even harder to see him part with Dawn, having to live with the
knowledge
he'd failed to save her.
Big doin's for Spike next season, I think...a chip and a promise
seem to be
as strong as a soul.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: More bunnies! We need more bunnies! -- Rob,
10:23:02 05/23/01
Wed
I agree with you about seeing seasons 5 and 6 together, after
the 6th airs.
The ending of this year was really brilliant, because in a way
there wasn't
a cliffhanger in the classic sense. Buffy died. A cliffhanger
would be
whether she would die or not. Instead, with this type of ending,
we are left
with more questions than we would have been otherwise. How will
Buffy come
back? Will Dawn being a part of her have something to do with
it? Will they
ever answer exactly how Dawn was made? What will happen to everyone
now?
Will Faith have to break out of jail and continue her slayerly
duties (b/c
right now, w/o her the world ain't got no slayer!) I'm sure season
6 will
answer a lot of these questions, and maybe ones we haven't even
thought of
yet.
I for one am still wondering about Dawn stealing Anya's earrings
a few weeks
ago...Will that be a continued plot point or was it just supposed
to show
that Dawn was troubled at the moment?
I agree with you about Spike also. His love for Buffy and Dawn
is so strong,
and I was so glad to see that Buffy acknowledged that his love
is real,
after scoffing at it in "Triangle." Ever since Spike
withstood Glory's
torture to save Dawn, Buffy has realized that it is stronger.
I was really
touched when she invited him back into the house. His subtle reaction
was
priceless. In many ways, Dawn's crush on Spike I've seen as a
kind of
wish-fulfillment for him. Dawn is just like Buffy, but defenseless.
She
needs his help. Spike before Buffy's talk with him in the house
tonight
thought she didn't really need him or love him. Dawn however does,
and he
protects her as she is a more fragile Buffy. Having the Buffybot
created was
also a manifestation of a more fragile Buffy. I think thought
that it was
not just an obscene sex toy, as Buffy thought, but the only way
Spike
thought he could ever be with Buffy.
Wow, I'm really rambling here! LOL. Where was I?
"...a chip and a promise seem as strong as a soul."
Amen to that...
And amen to the bunny!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: More bunnies! We need more bunnies!
-- rowan, 10:38:41
05/23/01 Wed
"I agree with you about seeing seasons 5 and 6 together,
after the 6th airs.
The ending of this year was really brilliant, because in a way
there wasn't
a cliffhanger in the classic sense. Buffy died. A cliffhanger
would be
whether she would die or not. Instead, with this type of ending,
we are left
with more questions than we would have been otherwise."
I'm so glad you brought that up! I don't think it meets the classic
definition of a cliffhanger, either. If no future eps ever air
(God protect
us against that!) it would fulfill Joss's vision of a complete
story arc.
Buffy has doubted herself, her role, the Buffverse, and she ends
with some
closure.
Yet cleverly (because we know there's probably an SMG in our future
at UPN)
something's gotta give.
"I agree with you about Spike also. His love for Buffy and
Dawn is so
strong, and I was so glad to see that Buffy acknowledged that
his love is
real, after scoffing at it in "Triangle." Ever since
Spike withstood Glory's
torture to save Dawn, Buffy has realized that it is stronger.
I was really
touched when she invited him back into the house. His subtle reaction
was
priceless. In many ways, Dawn's crush on Spike I've seen as a
kind of
wish-fulfillment for him. Dawn is just like Buffy, but defenseless.
She
needs his help. Spike before Buffy's talk with him in the house
tonight
thought she didn't really need him or love him. Dawn however does,
and he
protects her as she is a more fragile Buffy."
Yep! I love my Spike. If Joss does anything to hurt him, I'll,
I'll...probably love it anyway, even if he makes him go back to
a life of
unredeemable evil. Darn Joss.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Soap Opera Spike -- Brian, 11:06:18
05/23/01 Wed
I think that only happens in soap operas and comics that a character
goes
from bad to good and back again without any real growth in personality.
Joss
and Spike are too good for that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: More bunnies! We need more bunnies!
-- Rob, 11:13:58
05/23/01 Wed
Joss can be an evil little bastard, can't he? ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> ... AND his sinister attraction!
-- Solitude1056, 11:14:00
05/23/01 Wed
(Sorry, couldn't help myself. I'm stuck in mentally adding that
anytime
anyone says "darn ____.")!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Absolutely, me too! Season
5's Greatest One Liners --
rowan, 11:45:35 05/23/01 Wed
Has this been a great season for one liners? Okay, everybody,
post your
favorites. Here's some to get you started.
1. Darn your sinister attraction!
2. Out. For. A. Walk. Bitch. (does that count as 5 lines?).
3. Dawn, the hardest thing in this world is to live in it.
4. Aim for the horsies!
5. Death is your art - you make it with your hands every day.
6. Death IS your gift.
7. We will bring you the limp and beaten body of Bob Barker!
8. They're like hobbits with leprosy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Absolutely, me too!
Season 5's Greatest One Liners
-- Rob, 13:00:21 05/23/01 Wed
9. Oooh. The Game of Life!
10. Can I trade in one of my pink children for more money?
11. Am I real?
12. Don't call me Dawney.
13. Shiiiiii---- (Glory, falling from the sky HAH HAH!)
14. You see, the thing is, Dawney, your big sister took my key
and she won't
tell me what she did with it.
15. (I can't remember if this one's from this year or last year
but I can't
help putting it in) Xander and I were planning on a romantic evening
of
lighting candles and having sex next to them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Absolutely,
me too! Season 5's Greatest One
Liners -- JBone, 16:12:59 05/23/01 Wed
16. No, we're not going to leave you. And where'd you get that
accent Sesame
Street? One, two, three - three victims. Mwah, ha, ha, ha!
17. Damn it! You know what? I'm sick of this crap. I'm sick of
being the guy
who eats insects and gets the funny syphilis. As of this moment,
it's over.
I'm finished being everybody's butt monkey!
18. I watched Passions with Spike. Let us never speak of it.
19. Well, maybe we shouldn't do this reintegration thing right
away. See, I
can take the boys home and we can all have sex together, and,
you know, just
slap 'em back together in the morning.
20. Oh, yeah, okay. Let me guess - you won't kill me? Ooh! The
whole
crowd-pleasing threats and swagger routine. Outstandingly original.
You
know, I'm just passing through. Satisfied? You know, I really
hope so,
because God knows you need some satisfaction in life besides shagging
Captain Cardboard! And I never really liked you anyway. And you
have stupid
hair!
21. "Beneath me." I'll show her. Six bloody feet beneath
me. Hasn't got a
death wish? Bitch won't need one.
22. Besides, "I'm here to violate your firstborn" never
goes over with
parents. I'm not sure why.
23. Yeah, I said I'd do anything! Oh. You mean will I have sex
with you?
Well, yeah.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Absolutely,
me too! Season 5's Greatest One
Liners -- Anthony8., 18:43:56 05/23/01 Wed
24. Tick, toc Dreg. Tick, frickin' toc!
25. I'm not having sex with Spike. But I'm starting to think that
you might
be.
26. You guys couldn't tell me apart from a robot?
27. I'm a god.
The god of what? Bad home perms?
28. I need a brain to eat.
Oh take mine oh groovetastic one.
29. Oh most sweaty naughty feelings causing one?
30. Oh, the Slayer's a robot. Did everybody else know the Slayer
is a robot?
Glory? You're not the brightest god in the heaven's are you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Absolutely, me too! Season 5's Greatest
One Liners -- Anthony8, 13:50:46 05/25/01 Fri
33. Well, we listened to aggressively cheerful music sung by people
chosen
by their ability to dance...and we ate cookie dough and talked
about boys.
34. Newsflash...Hairdo...it's-not-always-about-you!
35. I'm even going to slide on the lame toadying because you're
dying and
stuff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Absolutely,
me too! Even MoreSeason 5's
Greatest One Liners -- Anthony8, 17:20:44 05/24/01 Thu
31. You dated a troll?
What..and we're surprised by this?
32. He's no ball of sunshine!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Absolutely, me too! Even MoreSeason 5's
Greatest One Liners -- Anthony8, 19:29:04 05/26/01 Sat
33. Shpedoinkel!
34. Sheez..don't get all Movie of the Week on me!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Absolutely, me too! Even MoreSeason 5's
Greatest One Liners -- Justin, 18:35:54 05/29/01 Tue
Why are all mine of the Buffybot?
35. Look, it's Spike! And he's wearing the coat.
36. You're my best friend. You're recently gay.
37. Spike! You're all covered in sexy wounds.
and was there ever a truer line spoken than:
38. Angel is lame. His hair stands straight up, and he's bloody
stupid.
(sigh) I was sad when her head got knocked off. And some great
Spike lines.
39. We few, we happy few....
we band of buggered.
40. When you say you love ALL of us...
41. "Were you sniffing her sweater?"
No...you know, it's a hunter thing. Just getting
the scent of my prey....grrrrr.
and my one dramatic line...to bring it full circle...
42. "And my robot?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Absolutely, me too! Even MoreSeason
5's Greatest One Liners -- Rob, 08:49:13 05/30/01 Wed
My favorite Buffybot line:
43. B: Hello, Anya. And how's your money?
A: Very well, thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Absolutely, me too! Even
MoreSeason 5's Greatest One Liners -- Anthony8, 11:56:04 05/30/01
Wed
Okay, this isn't a Season 5'er, but I was watching an old tape
of
'Innocence' from Season 2 and there was a line that just cracked
me up.
After Buffy rocket launches the Judge into tiny bits, she orders
the SG to
collect all the pieces, to which Cordelia exclaims: "our
job really sucks!"
I'm not numbering this one. So--Next!
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Absolutely, me too! Even
MoreSeason 5's Greatest One Liners -- Maladanza, 12:27:24 05/30/01
Wed
I liked this one from "No Place Like Home:"
Dawn (to Buffy):I tell you I have this theory? it goes where,
you're the one
who's not my sister 'cause Mom adopted you from a shoebox full
of baby
Howler Monkeys, and never told you 'cause it could hurt your delicate
baby
feelings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Absolutely, me too! Even
MoreSeason 5's Greatest One Liners -- oh that one's very good.
Best Dawn
line., 12:54:52 05/30/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Back to bunnies -- LoriAnn,
14:52:36 05/23/01 Wed
I thought the basement scene with Anya and the stuffed bunny was
really
funny. There was a bunny scene written into the previous ep, but
it didn't
make the final cut. I laughed out loud when I read it.
Anya has become a fuller character very recently, she's more than
just funny
malapropisms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Bunnies and
Shrimp -- Anthony8, 18:47:04
05/23/01 Wed
Speaking of bunnies, has anyone addressed the numerous times Anya
has
mentioned shrimp over the past two seasons?
What's up with that?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Bunnies
and Shrimp -- swyrlz, 10:58:57
05/30/01 Wed
I thought that was Tara
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Bunnies and Shrimp -- Anthony8, 11:37:25
05/30/01 Wed
No, if you remember back to the 'Superstar' episode where Jonathan
re-shapes
reality, Anya goes on and on about possible alternative realities,
each one
having to do with some variation on shrimp. Then, in 'Triangle',
when she
and Willow are explaining where they might have sent Olaf the
Trollgod, Anya
mentions that they could have sent him to the "crazy, melty
land," "the land
of perpetual Wednesday," or possibly the "world without
shrimp." Most
recently, in 'Spiral', she mentions that Xander doesn't travel
well "like
fine shrimp." I'd say she, or one or more of the BtVS writers
speaking
through her, has some kinda shrimp fixation. I'm sure there are
other
instances of this shrimpsession. Anybody want to contribute?
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Bunnies and Shrimp -- Brian, 12:27:09
05/30/01 Wed
Isn't there some kind of dish with shrimp and melted cheese.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Bunnies and Shrimp -- Anthony8,
15:52:27 05/30/01 Wed
I wear the cheese--it does not wear me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> great lines from all
seasons -- purplegrrl, 14:04:12
05/30/01 Wed
BtVS, Season 2, when Angelus is torturing Giles:
Spike: "I don't fancy spending the next month trying to get
librarian out of
the carpet.
BtVS, "Shadow" episode:
Spike: "Look, I know for a bleedin' fact the Slayer wouldn't
mind me being
here."
Riley: "Right. What's a little sweater-sniffing between sworn
enemies."
any time Spike calls Dru "Poodle"
Angel, Season 2:
Gunn: "What am I supposed to do? Sit home and knit?"
Angel: "I could use a sweater. Something dark."
BtVS, Season 4, "Superstar" episode:
Adam: "The magicks are unstable, corrosive. They will inevitably
lead to
chaos."
Angel, "Blind Date" episode:
Wesley: "There is a design, Angel. Hidden in the chaos as
it may be, but
it's there and you have your place in it."
Angel, Season 1, Ring of Amara episode:
where Spike is on the rooftop watching Angel and a young woman
have a
conversation and Spike is doing a voiceover, saying that Angel
has to go out
and get some more "Nancy-boy hair gel." (I can never
remember the whole
voiceover, but I crack up every time I hear it.)
and, of course, Spike's whole "Fool for Love" speech
("I'm love's bitch")
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: great lines
from all seasons -- rowan, 16:19:38
05/30/01 Wed
Spike gets a large percentage of the great lines to say, doesn't
he?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: great
lines from all seasons -- Lazarus,
18:13:25 05/30/01 Wed
Spike also gets a lot of the great no-line lines... (The flask
in The Gift)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: great lines
from all seasons -- Scott, 02:00:08
05/31/01 Thu
From BBB Season 2
Spike: Let's see, what rhymes with lungs?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: great lines
from all seasons -- Anthony8,
22:10:20 05/31/01 Thu
From 'Band Candy'--Willow sees the graffiti "Kiss Rocks"
and states "why
would anyone want to do that...oh, I get it." Or something
to that effect.
A8
Snippet from Joss... -- Solitude1056, 06:42:41
05/23/01 Wed
From the Bronze VIP Posting Board:
joss says:
(Wed May 23 00:33:51 2001)
"... We did it. Feeling good. Killed the girl. Girl comin'
back. A good
thing? Nothing is simple in this life. ..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Snippet from Joss... -- darrenK, 07:00:51 05/23/01 Wed
I guess I'm wrong then and she's really dead.I had hoped not.
I wonder if this means that she won't be the good Buffy when she
returns?
Maybe she'll be Buffy of the Hell dimensions?
Do we really have to wait 3+months? Ugh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Snippet from Joss... -- rowan, 07:40:21 05/23/01
Wed
I don't think I'll be able to live in this world (to paraphrase
Buffy) is a
person's sacrifice is rewarded by making them a hellgod. Don't
they have
some sort of white lighter/angel thingy in this universe (oops,
I may have
wandered into Charmed, there). :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Snippet from Joss... -- purplegrrl, 07:55:04 05/23/01
Wed
***Do we really have to wait 3+months? Ugh.***
Not only that, but making sure you have a local UPN station on
which to view
it!!
(Screaming in the streets now!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Snippet from Joss... -- rowan, 08:07:02
05/23/01 Wed
Thank God the season is starting in August. Can you imagine if
we had
Australian Olympics messing up the schedule again this year? My
only concern
is this two hour season opener. If I have to sit through too much
'bring the
newbies up to date on the whole Slayer thing' while waiting for
the 'advance
the story for the regulars' I may implode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Snippet from Joss... -- purplegrrl,
08:21:19 05/23/01 Wed
I'm not too worried about "bringing the newbies up to speed."
I'm sure Joss
will have some inventive way to do it. What about the intro from
last night,
beginning literally with day 1 ("I'm Mr. Giles.")? I
thought that was good
and fun.
I'm worried about being able to see next season at all! (no local
UPN
station) (Yes, I'm harping because the whole thing really annoys
me! ;) )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I'm with you! -- verdantheart, 08:42:27
05/23/01 Wed
Believe me, I feel your pain. I have a UPN station nearby, but
we can't pull
in the signal where I live. Now I have to see if it's available
on (big)
dish. Let us commiserate together!
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Share Buffy with a friend --
Brian, 08:59:17 05/23/01 Wed
I have friends in Austin, TX who have no UPN station available.
What I plan
to do is make two copies of Buffy, and send one to them. Perhaps
we can
start a system of sending tapes to each other to prevent severe
withdrawal
symptoms from occuring.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Share Buffy with a friend
-- Solitude1056, 09:09:10
05/23/01 Wed
I can get UPN (barring any natural disasters like last nights'
horrendous
storm). I think that putting stuff on the web might make the lawyers
irked,
but not if it's web hosted on a protected site that requires name/password?
I might be able to provide a home for such things, if someone
else who does
the whole tape-on-a-computer shindig could upload. Keep it up
for only 24
hours, so non-UPN folks on this board would have access to it,
and then we
clear it out so no one here gets accused of pirating, and we have
space for
the following week.
I dunno. You techno geeks, what do you think? I'll have webhosting
set up by
July, but don't have it right now to do any testing to see if
it'd work.
Fortunately, we have time!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Share Buffy with
a friend -- OnM, 09:37:22 05/23/01
Wed
That's a great thought Sol, but video is such a bandwidth hog,
it could cost
a fortune to support. Also, those of us with dialups would be
downloading
all night to collect an entire ep.
I'm with Brian-- push comes to shove, we could possibly use this
board to
set up a 'tape buddies' system. I would be willing to tape a second
copy of
the show and send it FREE to *one other person* here at ATPoBtVS
who
couldn't get the show any other way. That person could pass it
along to the
next, etc. Copyright concerns should fall along the fair use provisions
as
long as no money exchanges hands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Share Buffy with a friend
-- purplegrrl, 11:40:40
05/23/01 Wed
Gee, Brian. Maybe I should get to know your friends - since I'm
in Austin,
too!
However, there is a movement afoot to get Time Warner to add a
UPN station
to the Austin lineup. Have your friends call Time Warner Cable
and have
their names added to the list of people requesting UPN. Maybe
if the list
gets long enough they'll actually add it before the fall season
starts. We
can only hope.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Snippet from Joss...UPN??? --
LoriAnn, 13:54:15 05/23/01
Wed
If there is no UPN affilliate in your area, it is usually possible
for one
of the other stations, one that might already have a different
network
affilliation, to pick up individual shows from UPN. The station
usually runs
the programs in the wee small hours of the morning, but a VCR
can take care
of that problem.
You might consider trying to organize an effort to convince a
local station
that picking up BtVS would be a profitable move. TV stations understand
profit much better than they do pleasing an audience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> UPN ahoy -- purplegrrl, 15:50:17
05/23/01 Wed
Maybe this would work. I currently get "Andromeda" and
"Relic Hunter" in
syndication on WB affiliate and late night on NBC affiliate.
Actually, Austin *used* to have a UPN affiliate but for some reason
the
affiliation was dropped.
Maybe we need to convince WGN to carry Buffy again - at least
outside the
Chicago area.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Local stations and UPN
-- OnM, 20:25:39 05/23/01 Wed
That's another very good idea! That happened some years ago in
my locale
when ST:Voyager first came on line-- there was no UPN affiliate
here, and a
local NBC station got the rights to broadcast the show until a
UPN station
did finally appear.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Local stations and
UPN -- LoriAnn, 10:33:37
05/24/01 Thu
Andromeda and Relic Hunter (barf, barf) are both syndicated programs
that
are for sale to the highest bidder in all markets. They're not
UPN. In San
Antonio, we had a UPN station, but it changed to the WB, but then
one of the
other stations, I think an NBC affilliate, picked up Voyager to
show at some
ungodly hour, so if a person, for some reason, didn't want to
miss Voyager,
it was available to them, if at an inconvenient time. Then a new
station
picked up UPN, and they carried the entire lineup.
Perhaps your biggest hope is that with this new lineup some station
might
want to become a UPN affilliate, although I doubt you have any
unaffilliated
stations in Austin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Snippet from Joss... -- Anthony8,
16:32:11 05/23/01 Wed
Speaking of the Intro, it also served to validate one of the earliest
and
sneakier misleading spoilers leaked about the season finale--the
extensive
guest stars list. Technically speaking, every major character
that has
appeared on BTVS appeared in the dizzying montage that opened
"The Gift."
Regarding UPN, I guess I'm one of the few who is somewhat happier
that the
series will be there next year. We have both WB and UPN in the
Bay Area, but
I have never been able to get good reception on WB (I'm cable
impaired and
glad of it). On the other hand, UPN is exceptionally and consistently
clear.
A8
Philosophical Help Wanted, Please
(Gift Spoilers, of course!) -- rowan,
08:05:02 05/23/01 Wed
"She's more than my sister. She's me. The monks made her
out of me."
Okay, we know this isn't strictly true by the eyewitness testimony.
The monk
told Buffy that they formed Dawn out of energy and built the memories.
He
never actually said she was made from Buffy (although a niggling
thought is,
'how did the monks create life? isn't the spark of life God's
intellectual
property' -- but that's a debate for another day).
I'm not really interested in filling (or excavating) plotholes
here, because
frankly, this show is myth to me, and if I fell into every plothole
in every
myth, I'd never have time for anything else. I willing suspend
my disbelief
in the face of greater revealed truth.
Anyway, back to my original point...Buffy believes in her mind
and feels
with her heart that Dawn is more than a sister: she is Buffy,
the part of
Buffy that... We'll never know exactly what Buffy meant, since
she didn't
finish her sentence, but she told the whole SG how she felt and
she possibly
meant something like 'she's the real part of me, the part that
isn't the
Slayer part.'
So here's where I need the help. What do you philosopher types
think about
that? Sort of a 'I think therefore I am' with a 'I believe, I
feel,
therefore it is real/true' twist. Buffy has created reality out
of her
knowledge, belief, faith, and feeling. And she must be right,
because the
portal did actually close.
This scene in the Magic Shop reminded me very much of The Last
Supper: "This
bread is my body...this wine is my blood..which shall be given
up for you."
Transubstantiation, Buffyverse style. And of course, Buffy's last
words to
Dawn echoed for me Jesus's instructions to his apostles before
his
ascension: "Go forth and love each other as I have loved
you." (sorry for
the bad paraphrasing all around, but you get the jist).
Here's another couple of interesting points for S6. If Dawn is
Buffy, is
Buffy Dawn? Can Dawn get Buffy back?
Also, here's some more math. If Dawn is Buffy, and Dawn loves
Spike, then
Buffy loves...Spike? Just a little ray of hope for the B/S shippers.
Seriously, though, as much as I was moved by Spike's unrestrained
grief over
finding Buffy's body (although Willow did get to me a little more),
I
thought the even more moving scene was Spike's tear-filled last
glance at
Dawn. It conveyed all the sense the he knew he had failed (both
her and
Buffy), that he loved her, and that he knew Dawn would die. And
Dawn's lunge
towards Spike, and her agonized scream, had me running for the
tissues. Who
says you can't love a vamp? (not Buffy or Dawn, right?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> More thoughts to come later, maybe this Sunday, but for
now... -- OnM,
09:00:48 05/23/01 Wed
Thoughts keep coming into my head about both the last ep and the
season in
general, and those thoughts aren't very focussed just yet, though
they are
settling in somewhat.
I will answer the early part of your post by saying that I see
Buffy seeing
it as Dawn being the 'just a girl' part of her that she so longs
for, and
simply cannot have because of her calling as the Slayer. The Slayer
part of
her is just too weary of her duty, and faced with saving Dawn,
and her
friends, and the world, this is/was the best/the only possible
solution.
Did you notice the similarities between the expression on Buffy's
face as
she lay on the ground (presumably dead)after closing the portal,
and the one
on Faith's face after she had turned herself in to the authorities
and was
sitting alone in her jail cell? It was that same look of peace
and
acceptance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: More thoughts to come later, maybe this Sunday,
but for now... --
rowan, 09:05:31 05/23/01 Wed
Good point! I had the strong feeling earlier in the ep when Buffy
started to
say, "She's the part of me that..." and stopped, she
was going to say
something that equated to, "she's the real me." Ah!
All that girly goodness
without the hard Slayer center.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Buffy may find that Dawn is more like her than
she thinks -- OnM,
09:22:36 05/23/01 Wed
There seems to be a lot of folks who are certain that Buffy's
death will not
call another Slayer. Do you (or does anyone out there) know of
any specific
info *from someone associated with the show* that says this is
the case? I
don't think anyone has ever actually stated that as defacto canon.
I think another Slayer will be called (unless darrenK is right,
and Buffy
isn't really dead, just comatose like Faith after Buffy nearly
killed her),
and that that Slayer will be Dawn.
Buffy thinks Dawn is the innocent, unhardened, normal-human, non-Slayer
part
of her, but I think Dawn has the same essential makeup as her
older sister,
she's just too young to be aware of the potential. This fact alone
would
make for an excellent S6 story arc (IMHO) as Buffy would have
to deal with
this fact, since Slayerhood for Dawn is something she certainly
would be
angry about with the PTB.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy may find that Dawn is more like
her than she thinks --
rowan, 09:38:58 05/23/01 Wed
If Spike can be Dawn's Watcher, I'm signing on to this storyline.
;)
But I thought (and of course, my memory could be very suspect)
that when
Kendra & Faith were introduced the writers created an impression
that the
line now went through them. I may have seen a comment on another
board that
said one of the writers at the Bronze said there would not be
another Slayer
called. I'll try to hunt it down for you.
You make a very valid point about this whole "she's me"
stuff. If Buffy can
symbolically substitute for Dawn, then why wouldn't it be reasonable
that
Dawn would also be the symbolic Slayer substitute?
Poor Giles; at least this might mend his heart. And if the show
lasts long
enough (to give MT time to age a little), Dawn and Spike will
certainly fall
in love. I'm seeing a 10th season series finale that ends with
a Buffy/Angel
and Dawn/Spike double handfasting. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: More thoughts to come later, maybe this
Sunday, but for now...
-- Kvon, 10:28:32 05/23/01 Wed
Hmm...that reminds me of the episode when Xander split in two...the
demon
was trying (supposedly) to isolate Buffy's "human" half
and "Slayer" half.
Could the monks have already done this themselves? What would
a pure slayer
be like? Buffy did spend a lot of time this season wondering what
defined
herself outside of slaying.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Philosophical Help Wanted, Please (Gift Spoilers, of
course!) --
LoriAnn, 14:28:00 05/23/01 Wed
"'I believe, I feel, therefore it is real/true'"
Faith may be able to move mountains, but neither belief nor feelings
can
make anything objectively real. I don't know where Buffy got the
idea that
Dawn was part of Buffy, but my thoughts flashed back to Doc's
comment no
Dawn's DNA. Yes, Dawn is energy, green energy at that. That should
have been
a clue that she would have trials and tribulations because it
isn't easy
being green, but I digress. That energy has to be formed into
a patern: the
Summers pattern, DNA.
I think, as I think about it, that Buffy meant Dawn was her in
two ways:
1)the same way she meant they had the SAME blood, Summers' blood;
they're
sisters and their DNA would be very similar and 2) she sees Dawn
as the
innocent part of herself, the best part, the human--not slayer--part,
the
part that doesn't have the weight of the world on its shoulders.
As far as Christ symbolism goes, you picked out some neat things.
Did you
also notice the cruciform dive into the power field?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Not easy being green... -- Solitude1056, 17:31:07
05/23/01 Wed
You know, I'd never thought to ask, but now I do, since you commented.
Why
green? Why not white, or red, or blue, or whatever other colors?
What does
"green" mean, in the Joss mythos? Have there been any
other green energies
or significant uses in previous seasons/episodes?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Not easy being green... -- rowan, 19:11:13
05/23/01 Wed
This post caused a flood of green images in my mind, starting
with Kermit
the Frog, the Green Man (Lord of the Greenwood), and the green
slime that
invariably oozes out of supernatural creatures in horror movies.
Blood may be life, but green is the color of living thanks to
chlorophyll.
It's the color of regeneration, renewal, spring.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> More green... -- OnM, 20:21:38 05/23/01
Wed
It's also the color that our eyes are most sensitive to, which
most
biologists relate directly to our need for plant life for sustenance.
(Helpful if you are not completely in your right mind and need
to see some
hidden energy! ;)
More seriously, at least in modern Western society, it is the
color that
represents Earth, and things of the Earth, which both literally
and
metaphorically is our 'home'. Green energy could therefore represent
humanity. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Wicca worships the Earth
as the
source/mother of life. Any green color metaphors in Wicca?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: More green... -- Cleanthes,
20:46:10 05/23/01 Wed
I had this passage in mind, myself:
"Long-suffering is like an emerald whose colour never varies.
For no
temptation can overpower long-suffering, which always gleams with
a green
and constant light; and whoso strives against it, it wins each
time the
honour and the palm." Queste del Saint Graal, Matarasso translation.
But, I'm really partial to Dawn. She'll start her hero's journey,
now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Damn, you're good! Do you
keep all these great quotes in
your head? :) -- OnM, 21:54:27 05/23/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks, but no, I use
a computer... ;) -- Cleanthes,
07:36:09 05/24/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Green Witchcraft -- rowan,
20:15:51 05/24/01 Thu
Green Wicca, or Witchcraft, or Green Witch, all refer to forms
of
Wicca/Witchcraft that focus on the natural element of magick,
with less
emphasis on ceremonial forms.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Not easy being green... -- LoriAnn, 20:09:54
05/23/01 Wed
In the some Christian denominations, green is the color of hope.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Abject apology re: being green -- LoriAnn,
05:23:51 05/24/01 Thu
"Yes, Dawn is energy, green energy at that. That should have
been a clue
that she would have trials and tribulations because it isn't easy
being
green, but I digress."
When I wrote the above sentences, I meant it as a whimsical non
sequitur.
"It Isn't Easy Being Green" is the name of a song that
Kermit, the Frog sang
and made a moderate single hit, probably, in the seventies. I
didn't mean
for my flimsy whimsy to cause such comment. I hoped one person
would would
answer back something like "heh, heh."
On the other hand, the posts have been intelligent and have made
me thing
the color of the key might have some significance. As I last wrote,
in
liturgical Christian denominations, green is the color of hope.
It is also
the color of procreation, rebirth and renewal, a la spring, in
many older
cultures. But then so are bunnies. I wonder if that means anything.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Hey, we get philosophical about
fungus here! Green is a piece
of cake! ;) -- OnM, 05:34:25 05/24/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Hehe. -- Solitude1056, 10:08:33
05/24/01 Thu
Well, you DID get a "hehe" out of me, but at the same
time you made the bad
mistake of making me think. (Yeah, I know it doesn't take much,
and the
smoke & grinding sound may be frightening, but whatever!)
Green's also got some pretty negative aspects, and not just from
the later
connotation with money, greed, and envy. Problem is, I just can't
remember
zactly what they are, right now... Grr, I hate it when work distracts
me
from a good thought. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hehe. -- rowan, 20:18:28
05/24/01 Thu
Hey, I knew it was Kermit's song (I've sung it many times). But
it also made
me think about the significance of her color (all is fair game
in the
Buffyverse). Especially since the color of choice for that type
of
supernatural stuff is usually blue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Not easy being green... -- verdantheart,
12:14:00 05/24/01 Thu
If mentioned in one of the other posts, I didn't see it, I apologise.
Green
is the color associated with the heart chakra.
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Oooh, you're right. (Explains Kermit,
other than the frog-ness.)
-- Solitude1056, 12:56:50 05/24/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Kermit is but an shadow-copy of
the form of frog-ness --
Plato's stepchild, 16:47:26 05/24/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Not easy being green... -- Rufus,
15:58:56 05/24/01 Thu
Ooooooooo......that would explain Buffys attachement to Dawn as
her sister,
how can you slay or allow to die what you see as your heart....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Is Dawn the Hope Left at the Bottom
of Pandora's Box? --
rowan, 20:19:42 05/24/01 Thu
DID SPIKE SUBSTAIN CHIP DAMAGE
FROM THE FALL? -- Vulpes, 08:10:42 05/23/01
Wed
Did anyone notice the close up that Spike got when he landed on
the ground
from the great fall?
Could the chip be damaged?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: DID SPIKE SUBSTAIN CHIP DAMAGE FROM THE FALL? -- rowan,
08:17:14
05/23/01 Wed
Hmm..interesting thought. There was no chip action in the entire
ep. JM said
in a recent interview that the chip was not coming out any time
soon,
because the writers want to continue Spike's obsession with Buffy
(for what
that's worth).
My feeling is that the chip becomes less important because now
there's a
promise Spike has to keep (to the end of the world) sealed with
Buffy's
blood (and we know Spike respects blood, if nothing else). To
me, removing
the chip might make things a little more interesting if Spike
had to
struggle a bit more with choices, but it's not essential.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> May he just won't realize -- Greta, 08:23:24 05/23/01
Wed
that the chip isn't working any longer. Or maybe he'll know, but
not inform
the Scoobies, so as to be able to stay near Dawn and protect her.
You're right, watching Spike make the choice to do good when he
has another
option would be great.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: May he just won't realize -- verdantheart,
08:37:08 05/23/01
Wed
Absolutely. My opinion is that the chip doesn't have anything
to do with
Spike's obsession with Buffy directly, although it may have triggered
his
awareness that his feelings toward her weren't hate after all.
The chip's
removal or deactivation would just complicate things further for
the
character, which would make him even more interesting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: May he just won't realize -- rowan,
08:51:39 05/23/01 Wed
I won't bore you with my theories of evil (posted below on the
Evil Meter
thread), but basically, evil looks to be a lack of empathy. As
a vamp, Spike
could only empathize with humans in one way: keep them around
because they
are a food source. This is different than some vamps who continually
get
caught up in apocalypses that might wipe out humanity. The chip
allowed him
time (because it inhibited the feeding impulse) to reconnect to
humans in a
different way.
Now, Doc brought home the very point that many fans have discussed:
how can
Spike be anything but evil if he doesn't have a soul? Doc smelled
no soul on
Spike and asked why he cared. The answer: A promise to a lady.
So a promise
and a chip can equal a soul in the Buffyverse, at least when it
comes to
having an evil creature change his ways. Interesting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Promise + chip = soul, I doubt
it. -- LoriAnn, 13:43:23
05/23/01 Wed
"So a promise and a chip can equal a soul in the Buffyverse,
at least when
it comes to having an evil creature change his ways. Interesting."
That may be interesting, but the idea really minimizes Spike's
actions.
First, what connection does the promise have to the chip? Dru
said she had
known Spike was in love with the slayer for a long time. The chip
might have
given Spike a chance to meditate on his inner vamp more than he
would have
otherwise, but it certainly didn't cause him to love Buffy or
to promise her
anything. Notice how Spike treated Joyce. He clearly found some
of what she
had to say boring, and we all know that he has a sharp tongue,
but he never
tried to zing her, not even pre-chip, as I remember. The chip
as a "raison
d'etre" for his recent actions or for his promise to Buffy
doesn't work. It
may have had a catalytic effect on some of his actions, but if
it had much
more causality than that, we probably wouldn't be having this
exchange.
Instead, we would be discussing the inevitability of his descent
into acting
like the monster he says he is.
A promise is something people make for reasons of their own. It
is an act of
free will that must be re-willed everytime the temptation to break
the
promise arises. Although Spike is under the duress of the chip,
he still did
not have to make his promise, so it was an act of free will. When
the chip
can become a factor is when it is no longer a factor. If the chip
stops
working or is removed, Spike will have to re-will his promise
often and
without the threat of punishment from the chip to buffer the sting
of going
against his nature. (What his nature is is a different can of
worms.)
That Spike can make a promise that is contrary to his nature and
try to keep
it MIGHT be an indication of some sort of poorly defined or rudimentary
soul--no matter what Doc said--but that's a big "might."
However, to say
promise plus chip equals soul is an equasion that simply doesn't
work.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Promise + chip = soul,
I doubt it. -- rowan, 17:00:32
05/23/01 Wed
My comment was tongue-in-cheek. What I meant was the chip provided
the
occasion for Spike to reconnect to humans. It created a situation
where he
could simply not be a vamp without excessive pain. Without a moment
and
reason to reconnect to humanity, he would not have had a desire
to change
his behavior. The promise he made to Buffy (sealed now by her
and almost
Dawn's blood) represents the love he holds for both of them. It's
the
visible symbol of his change, which may eventually extend to changed
behavior towards others. These two things may, for Spike, at least
providing
some type of ethical compass for him, so that he can see true
north in the
absence of soul.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Doc's words to Spike
-- Rufus, 18:26:35 05/23/01 Wed
When confronted with Spike, Doc was visibly surprised and said:
Doc: "I don't smell a soul anywhere on you. Why do you even
care."
Good question...why does Spike....the big bad...care? Everything
we had been
taught about vampires just said that they were evil absolute.
So how can
Spike care? What are the implications of this ability to care?
All I know is that I believed him when he said he made a promise
to a lady.
A lady he would die for. Is it the chip? Or did the chip just
allow Spike to
feel again. Feel more than the Kill, more than the need to be
seen. Instead
of the push for the limelight and attention he has been content
to stand
aside and see the people he used to consider dinner. What is happening
to
Spike?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Doc's words
to Spike -- rowan, 19:01:15 05/23/01
Wed
I almost felt like Joss was speaking directly to the fans' concerns
about
souls when he put those words in Doc and Spike's mouth.
Evil beings can do/think/feel both good and evil. Good beings
can
do/think/feel good and evil. We've seen both. But when is the
tip point when
the preponderence of action/thought/feelings push you from one
status to the
other? Or is it foolishness to even try to classify beings as
one or the
other? Is everything just a grey mess, and we must sort it out
as best we
can in the moment?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Promise + chip = soul,
I doubt it. -- Malandanza,
10:19:00 05/24/01 Thu
When Angel fed on Kate -- even just to protect her -- the process
conjured
up some very dark thoughts. Similarly, when Harmony spoke to Angel
about
feeding, he became very uncomfortable. There seems to be more
to the feeding
process than just imbibing blood -- it also involves stimulus
of feeling the
life force drain away. Just as a return to this stimulus moved
Angel towards
darkness, the enforced absence in Spike due to the chip might
allow more
human emotions to surface.
As for the promise:
Spike may have been an awful poet when he was alive, but his unlife
has been
so full of adventure and romance that Lord Byron would have been
jealous.
There was Dru, his Dark Princess for 100 years, and then the doomed
unrequited romance with the Slayer. Will Spike keep his promise?
My feeling
is yes -- he sees himself as a sort of Gothic Hero and keeping
a deathbed
vow would fit quit well with his self-image.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Promise + chip =
soul, I doubt it. -- rowan,
20:05:34 05/24/01 Thu
Hey, we're on the same page! I called him a Gothic hero around
the time of
Crush (and got a crushing response from several posters, too!)
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Promise +
chip = soul, I doubt it. -- Rufus,
21:46:26 05/24/01 Thu
When I took Lit in college I got a t-shirt made that said Gothic
Heroine.....I passed of course.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Promise +
chip = soul, I doubt it. --
Malandanza, 20:09:10 05/25/01 Fri
"Hey, we're on the same page! I called him a Gothic hero
around the time of
Crush (and got a crushing response from several posters, too!)"
I was probably one of those posters :)
But I'm not completely converted -- I said Spike sees himself
as a Gothic
Hero, not that I see him as such. I still believe he is living
in a fantasy
world of his own creation. But because he fantasizes about being
a Gothic
Hero, I think he will keep his word to Buffy (although I'm not
certain that
the rest of the Scoobies -- especially Giles/Ripper -- will want
him
around).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Mad, Bad, and Dangerous
to Know :) -- rowan, 20:10:31
05/24/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Now I'm laughing..........:):):):)
-- Rufus,
21:56:18 05/24/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: May he just won't realize -- MKS,
12:51:21 05/23/01 Wed
When Dru came back in the episode in which Spike told Buffy of
his feelings,
didn't she say something about having been able "to smell
the love" on Spike
for Buffy? And she was talking about during their time together
away before
Spike came back alone. Perhaps even about their original time
in Sunnydale.
Am I just imagining this, or does it ring a bell for someone else
as well?
This would negate the theory that the chip has anything to do
with Spike's
feelings for Buffy. Though I suppose it could have had some type
of
influence...
(Sorry I don't know episode names, and don't have eps on tape,
so I can't go
back and check these things myself.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Dru's quotes re Spike's feelings
about Buffy -- verdantheart,
09:41:57 05/24/01 Thu
The quote (from the "Crush" script):
I knew... before you did... I knew you loved the Slayer. The pixies
in my
head whispered it to me...
She said during their breakup (FFL):
You can't blame a girl, Spike, you're all covered with her. I
look at you,
all I see is the Slayer.
At that time she didn't seem to recognize the emotion as love
any more than
Spike did. But she did see some kind of consuming emotion connected
to the
Slayer surrounding Spike.
You can find scripts at this site.
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dru's quotes re Spike's
feelings about Buffy -- MKS,
11:24:14 05/24/01 Thu
Thank you! I am totally new to "Internet Buffydom",
so have tons to learn
about what's available and where to find it. Appreciate your help.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're very welcome!
:) -- verdantheart, 12:52:53
05/24/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: DID SPIKE SUBSTAIN CHIP DAMAGE FROM THE FALL?
-- Rob, 11:10:48
05/23/01 Wed
At this point, I think it almost doesn't matter if the chip is
working or
not. Spike is doing good and liking it. The chip never made him
like doing
good. He did that on his own. If the chip did stop working, my
belief is
that it would turn out to be like the "magic feather"
in "Dumbo." At the
end, Dumbo finds out he could fly all along w/o the feather, because
the
power was actually in him all along. Similarly, I think if Spike's
chip were
taken out or ceased to work, he would choose to continue doing
good.
An interesting theory I had is, what if, when the Initiative was
disassembled, the power source of the chip was deactivated. Could
the "chip
pains" have been completely psychological and psychosomatic
this entire
time, a way for his psyche to reconcile itself to why he feels
compelled to
do good?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: DID SPIKE etc, etc -- Rendyl, 14:42:10 05/23/01
Wed
I have been reading the threads, rather than commenting on them
because I am
still trying to process the episode and all that went on. But
after several
Spike themed threads I had to jump in the water with the rest
of you.
Over and over everyone keeps saying Spike has changed...Spike
performed an
act of 'Good'...Spike chose against his nature. But -nothing-
Spike did in
the Gift was out of character for him.
Spike has always been willing to sacrifice for the one he loves.
His pride
and his feelings for Cecelia(?)...his life for Drusilla...and
now his life
for Buffy/Dawn. This is not a new and improved Spike. Whatever
actions he is
capable of (good or evil) have been a part of him all along.
He was a dark and romantic warrior for Drusilla. He protected
her, romanced
her, and in a manner of speaking (evil grin) slayed the monsters
for her.
With Buffy he had to be different. Unlike vampire princesses,
Slayers do not
seem to enjoy chains and bloodletting. So he became what he thought
she
wanted him to be. Just as he indulged Drusilla her dolls he grudgingly
endures the Scoobies. And just as he accepted Dru's insanity as
an integral
part of her he accepts Joyce and Dawn as beings neccessary to
Buffy. Where
he used to fight (and for Spike the fight has always been the
point, food
seems to have been just a nice bonus) humans now he fights the
demons. Same
coin, just a different side.
Spike tells Dawn he is not good, but never tells her he himself
is evil.
Maybe he doesnt see himself as evil..maybe he does. I am not trying
to bash
Spike (he of the chiseled cheekbones is my favorite character)
I am just
saying Spike has been at times heroic. We all jump on the chip/redemption
bandwagon but maybe the heroism and sacrifice have been in him
all along.
Maybe it is Spike, rather than the chip, who is making the choices.
Maybe it
always has been.
Whither Spike after "The
Gift"? Speculations, please (Spoilers for Seson 5;
long) -- verdantheart, 08:29:10 05/23/01 Wed
So now we've seen how season 5 wrapped up. Of course, the big
question is
how is Buffy to return. But, being a Spike-ophile, I tend to lean
strongly
toward the question of how Spike procedes from this event.
I note with some interest that "The Gift" had moments
of glory for almost
everyone. Willow was able to save Tara and simultaneously weaken
Glory
severely. (Tara didn't do so much, but then she needed saving,
as did Dawn.)
Xander came in with the wrecker, and Anya saved Xander at her
own expense.
Giles did in the evil at the peril of his own soul. Need we say
that Buffy
was heroic?
But the emphasis for Spike was his failure. He ran up the tower
for his
moment, but was surprisingly ineffective against Doc. He was tossed
from the
tower, apparently too badly hurt to help further.
Our last sight of him was to witness his heart-wrenching grief.
So what comes next for him?
Does he focus on Buffy's directive to protect Dawn? With Buffy
gone, Dawn's
just about the only person left that he cares about. She and her
mother were
the only humans who really talked to him like a person (although
Spike did
thank Buffy for treating him "like a man" -- is that
post "Intervention"?).
We know that Dawn cares about Spike, probably more than anyone
else does.
Will he still want to behave in a way that Buffy would approve
of, even
though she is gone? Can these things save him?
On the other hand, Spike's failure could fill him with self-loathing.
He
promised to protect Dawn to the end of the world, but he failed
-- and is
still alive. If he had been able to fend off Doc for a few more
seconds,
Buffy need not have sacrificed herself. Yet he seemed easily bested
(by a
demon almost casually brushed aside by Buffy later on). Can he
avoid blaming
himself? Self-loathing is often a precursor to evil (in real life
as well as
in fiction). Will he turn to evil?
On a related note, do many agree with the suggestion that Spike's
fall &
knock on the head busted his chip?
Or will he try to forget this alltogether (I find this less likely),
moving
to LA and attempting to reclaim Dru's affections with Buffy gone?
Will he attempt to bring Buffy back from beyond the veil of death?
Would he
dare, knowing that Buffy might well object, having achieved her
"death
wish"?
I can't help but think that Spike's immediate future will hinge
on his
coping with feelings of failure and guilt.
What do you think?
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Whither Spike after "The Gift"? Speculations,
please (Spoilers for
Seson 5; long) -- Vulpes, 08:55:33 05/23/01 Wed
Well put verdantheart!
Who will look after the orphan Dawn now that Buffy's die, I don't
think
Spike has failed Buffy. Dawn needs Spike now more than ever.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Whither Spike after "The Gift"? Speculations,
please (Spoilers for
Seson 5; long) -- rowan, 09:01:24 05/23/01 Wed
"Of course, the big question is how is Buffy to return. But,
being a
Spike-ophile, I tend to lean strongly toward the question of how
Spike
procedes from this event."
Am I with you there! I feel like that character in Checkpoint
-- 'I'm doing
my thesis on Spike.'
"I note with some interest that "The Gift" had
moments of glory for almost
everyone. Willow was able to save Tara and simultaneously weaken
Glory
severely. (Tara didn't do so much, but then she needed saving,
as did Dawn.)
Xander came in with the wrecker, and Anya saved Xander at her
own expense.
Giles did in the evil at the peril of his own soul. Need we say
that Buffy
was heroic?
But the emphasis for Spike was his failure. He ran up the tower
for his
moment, but was surprisingly ineffective against Doc. He was tossed
from the
tower, apparently too badly hurt to help further."
I'm glad someone else pointed this out (I'm tired of always being
the one to
harp on dear old Spike -- it's nice to have some help). It was
very
interesting the way this was set up. Even though Spike is changing,
he still
doesn't get the honor of actually being "heroic." It
would have been too
easy to let Spike "save" somebody. I like it this way.
Nice and messy.
Plus, this leaves us with a guilty Spike, who knows darn well
that if he had
stopped that demon (or even just kicked the darn knife off the
tower, for
crying out loud!) that Buffy would have lived. And he'll have
to look Dawn
in the eye, knowing she knows it too. Tough stuff.
"So what comes next for him?"
I think you've got the same two possibilities identified that
I do: stick to
Dawn like glue or turn really bad. I'm going to go out on a limb
here and
say I think it's option A. Spike made a promise to Buffy to protect
Dawn
"until the end of the world" and that promise was sealed
with Buffy's blood.
Spike respects blood. That promise means something to him. He
will cling to
it.
If there was no Dawn, I suspect Spike would drift into despair
and evil.
Now, I'm not saying the road is strewn with rose petals for Spike.
He's
going to need some help from someone who treats him "like
a man" not "like a
monster." Of course, there is Dawn. She has always pursued
Spike (except for
a short disillusionment after Crush). I don't think she'll let
him despair.
Buffy told her she must be strong and she must take care of everyone.
We may
see some Dawn taking care of Spike as much as Spike taking care
of Dawn.
I've had some thoughts about whether Spike would volunteer to
keep slay
patrol going. After all, unless Faith is sprung from jail, no
slayer, right?
One interesting storyline might be if Spike were to seek help
from...Giles.
After all, you rightly point out that Spike needs some training.
He couldn't
even handle that demon (who had the speed of Glory, by the way
-- and is Doc
dead? We heard a scream, but the guy has a habit of not staying
dead).
I think the chip will stay active for a while. I think they'll
work the
promise angle and save the chip for just when we think Spike's
turned the
corner. Then -- wham! What if Dru captures Spike and forcibly
removes the
chip? What would Buffy do then? (hmmm..maybe I have a career in
fanfic
here?!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Whither Spike after "The Gift"? Speculations,
please (Spoilers for
Seson 5; long) -- cynthia, 12:37:55 05/23/01 Wed
Regarding Spike, I believe there were several things here.
1. She makes him promise to protect Dawn, even against any of
her friends
and Giles. This, I believe, will carry over into not only recovering
from
the loss of Buffy but also as sorta of a Guardian figure to her.
He will
also continue to protect from anyone (including the gang) who
might try to
use her unknown power against her. This gives each of them the
gift of each
other to lean on, so each wouldn't be alone, the ones who aren't
quite
human.
2. Her other gift to Spike, and another showing of gruding respect
she had
for him, is that He didn't have to kill her. She said that if
she lost Dawn
she wouldn't be a Slayer any more but the only way to do so is
to be killed.
Noone was responsible for the action she took. It may take Spike
a long time
to accept this.
What would be interesting is if she came back and didn't remember
anything
that has happen to her for the past five years. What if she deals
with
Sprike without knowing his past. Being told it, perhaps even by
him, but not
having the experience itself. Would it change things between them?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Whither Spike after "The Gift"? Speculations,
please (Spoilers for
Seson 5; long) -- mundusmundi, 13:07:31 05/23/01 Wed
I suspect he will abide by his promise. And I suspect much tension
will
arise in next season's early eps between the Scoobies and Spike
over who is
Dawn's "protector."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Whither Spike after "The Gift"? Speculations,
please (Spoilers for
Seson 5; long) -- rowan, 16:56:40 05/23/01 Wed
Yes, that's a very good point -- perhaps specifically tension
between Giles
and Spike. Since Spike clearly received a mandate from Buffy (with
no one
around to see it), and Dawn will clearly want Spike with her (judging
by the
look of horror when she saw him plummeting to, perhaps, a pulverizing
death), the SG may come in to conflict with both of them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Whither Spike after "The Gift"?
Speculations, please (Spoilers
for Seson 5; long) -- bess, 17:57:09 05/23/01 Wed
here's my beef... did anyone else notice the strange message spike
got in
his head just before his little jaunt up to the tower ? that was
buffy's
commanding voice, wasn't it ? so how exactly did the slayer (no
willow
mind-entering involved) get into spike's head ? "go protect
dawn" and all
that... she called him, and he answered. i think there will be
some kind of
aftermath on this... or, maybe it's my B/S shipper side talking
;)
thoughts ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Whither Spike after "The Gift"?
Speculations, please
(Spoilers for Seson 5; long) -- rowan, 18:58:00 05/23/01 Wed
It was Willow's voice. I had the close captioning on, and it identified
the
voice as Willow's and then it cut to a shot of her. Then she and
Tara
cleared the way for Spike to get past the minions/synchophants
to the tower
stairs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Whither Spike after "The
Gift"? Speculations, please
(Spoilers for Seson 5; long) -- Myrtle, 22:59:46 05/23/01 Wed
Hmmm, I thought it was Buffy speaking through one of the tubes
from the
tower. It looks like Spike was leaning towards the mouthpiece/speaker
to
hear her, and that might explain the odd-sounding voice. But I
could be
wrong.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Whither Spike after "The
Gift"? Speculations, please
(Spoilers for Seson 5; long) -- verdantheart, 07:36:05 05/24/01
Thu
I'm surprised at the confusion. I thought it was clearly Willow.
See Josh's
interview for confirmation, link in post above.
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Whither Spike after
"The Gift"? Speculations,
please (Spoilers for Seson 5; long) -- Rufus, 12:38:36 05/24/01
Thu
I get close caption and it's clear it's Willow because they put
Willows
Voice before the lines she said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Voices in the Head -- Solitude1056,
07:47:54 05/24/01 Thu
Yeah, at first I thought it was from that speaker-y looking thing
next to
Spike, and wasn't sure who it was... and then the camera cut to
Willow. (I
also liked the small gesture of her putting her hand behind her,
without
looking, and Tara grasping it just before they blew everyone out
of Spike's
way.)
So while I can see the SG getting a little possessive over Spike
being
possessive of his role as Dawn's Protector, I think they're also
fully aware
that it's no stretch to imagine that Buffy would ask Spike to
do it. It's
just a matter of how seriously Spike takes it, and whether he
gets jealous
of anyone else treading on his sacred task.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Voices in the Head
-- MKS, 09:00:38 05/24/01 Thu
The SG should be getting used to this by now. Buffy has been going
to Spike
all season to seek his aid in protecting Dawn. He is clearly her
first
choice when needing to leave Dawn with someone she trusts. Interesting
that
she didn't like Spike but trusted him above all others with the
most
important being in her life.
The voice Spike heard WAS Willow. Actually, I don't think it was
coming out
of that "speaker" thing at all. That prop seems to be
causing confusion.
Spike heard Willow's thoughts in his head. The rest of the gang
couldn't
hear her - note Xander's "Are you talking to us?" And
though Spike spoke out
loud, it was not in a voice level that Willow could have heard
from her
position. (Maybe that's what the "speaker" was for.)
Or perhaps Willow was
hearing Spike's responses in her mind as well. Also interesting
was Spike's
complete trust that he could charge the stairs when Willow told
him too, and
that somehow the way would be cleared for him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Voices in
the Head -- Solitude1056, 10:04:25
05/24/01 Thu
Hell, at that point - when Willow/Spike/et al realized that there
was
someone up there with Dawn - I think Spike would've charged the
stairs with
or without Willow/Tara clearing the way. He's nothing if not dead
(ahem) set
on his goals, and right now his goal is Dawn and protecting her.
I think it's gonna be awhile before I can watch the season finale
again to
catch the finer details. On the other hand, I can't even read
the script of
the Body without tearing up when I get to Anya's lines!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> OK, this
just bugs me since "a vampire's mind
casts no reflection" -- Masquerade, 15:01:39 05/24/01 Thu
Buffy couldn't hear Angel's thoughts in "Earshot". So
I'll buy that Spike
heard Willow telepathically, but not that Willow heard Spike's
responses
telepathically.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
OK, this just bugs me since "a vampire's
mind casts no reflection" -- Solitude1056, 19:58:55 05/24/01
Thu
Did he respond mentally? I can't recall now - I thought he spoke
out loud,
which is why Xander asked who Spike was talking to. And thus I
wonder, if we
went back & re-watched it, if Willow was just shouting mentally
without
listening for - or hoping for - a response. That would make sense,
then, and
align with the "no reflection" rule of thumb.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: OK, this just bugs me since "a
vampire's mind casts no reflection" -- rowan, 20:02:43 05/24/01
Thu
Well, I recall that Willow's mouth was not moving, so she was
definitely do
all telepathic on her end. I thought that she asked Spike a question,
he
answered, and she gave instructions based on his answer, so she
must have
heard him. If she could hear him when he spoke out loud, then
why wouldn't
he have been able to hear her? All this led me to believe that
she projected
her thoughts telepathically, he can't so he spoke out loud, but
she was able
to pick up his thoughts from inside his head.
JMHO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
That's the interpretation I was going to
take on my page -- Masquerade, 09:12:33 05/25/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: OK, this just bugs me since "a
vampire's mind casts no reflection" -- verdantheart, 13:58:34
05/29/01 Tue
OK, I know this subject has been thouroughly hashed through, but
couldn't
Willow receive Spike's spoken response from one of the scoobies'
ears?
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Voices in
the Head -- rowan, 19:57:41 05/24/01
Thu
"The voice Spike heard WAS Willow. Actually, I don't think
it was coming out
of that "speaker" thing at all. That prop seems to be
causing confusion.
Spike heard Willow's thoughts in his head. The rest of the gang
couldn't
hear her - note Xander's "Are you talking to us?" And
though Spike spoke out
loud, it was not in a voice level that Willow could have heard
from her
position. (Maybe that's what the "speaker" was for.)
Or perhaps Willow was
hearing Spike's responses in her mind as well. Also interesting
was Spike's
complete trust that he could charge the stairs when Willow told
him too, and
that somehow the way would be cleared for him."
I think perhaps Spike at first thought the voice was coming out
of that
speaker thing. But then he realized it was in his head. On the
closed
captioning (which I always put on to catch every line during second
viewing
of an ep) it clearly stated it was Willow's voice and that it
was coming to
him telepathically.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We are the
Geek Chorus........ -- Rufus, 21:44:38
05/24/01 Thu
I tape the ep then turn the close caption on when I watch it the
second
time. Just to make sure.....:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
We are the Geek Chorus........ -- rowan,
14:08:44 05/25/01 Fri
My God, we're like twins separated at birth! I do the same thing.
I watch
Buffy without it on, then watch Angel, then watch Buffy again
with it on.
Then I read the shooting script. I obviously have too much time
on my hands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: We are the Geek Chorus........ --
Rufus, 14:55:46 05/25/01 Fri
Come Tuesday my house gets shut down, my husband takes the phone
and the
door and tells everyone I will surface again at about 10pm. I
get Buffy and
Angel twice in one night because of the US stations I get. I tape
The
Sopranos for friends in one VCR and Buffy and ATS on the other
machine.
Everyone knows not to call or ring the doorbell. My husband watches
at times
but prefers his computer. Actually that's how I got my computer
was Buffy, I
was spending prime time surfing and my husband, instead of getting
mad, got
me my own computer. I wonder how many other shows out there have
fans that
are this devoted?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: We are the Geek Chorus........ --
Solitude1056, 21:56:12 05/26/01 Sat
Dat would be me. If I'm alone in the house & the phone rings during
Buffy/Angel, either I'll ignore it, or answer it and holler, "It's
MY SHOW!
GO AWAY!" It's amazing how quickly the telemarketers seemed
to figure out
that calling from 8pm to 10pm on Tuesdays is a surefire way to
get their
eardrums blasted.
Yes, I do take my single evening of tv watching very seriously.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: We are the Geek Chorus........ --
Rufus, 23:43:36 05/26/01 Sat
I'm killing myself laughing here....you mean you actually answer
the
phone??????????? I ignore the phone and doorbell. If my husband
is home he
has his instructions. I'm quite low maintenance except for Tuesday
evening.
You should turn off your ringer on the phone. My computer has
a phone
program that takes messages...the only way anyone will get to
talk to me is
if it really is an apocalypse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: We are the Geek Chorus........
-- Lazarus, 21:57:41 05/29/01 Tue
It's nice to know I'm not the only one... The scary thing is,
we're
beginning to sound like Trekkies (Trekkers?)...
(Visions of Buffy conventions in ten years with people dressed
as the
characters, speaking 'authentic' demon languages or the language
from the
portal book on Angel and SMG standing on a stage shouting "Get
a life
people!" and then doing bad TV commercials and Nick Brendon
writing the best
seller "I Am Not Xander"...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: We are the Geek
Chorus........ -- Brian, 09:23:03 05/30/01 Wed
When will I learn not to be drinking coffee while reading humorous
posts.
Oh, well, my screen looks good dripping brown sluge.
Trekkies = Favor Classic Star Trek with Spock, Kirk etc.
Trekkers = Next Generation followers
or
Trekkies = The weird fans who dress up etc.
Trekkers = Those weird fans who are usually engineers
or
Trekkies = Geeks who live in the Star Trek Universe and are cluelss
about
real life.
Trekkers = Geeks who live their life in the Star Trek Universe,
but are at
least aware how clueless they are.
or (and my personal favorite)
Trekkies = gushing, rabid fans with no sense of humor
Trekkers = gushing, rapid fans who can laugh at themselves.
So, if we ever end up at conventions I hope we can fit into that
final
group, unless someone slights our great god Josh,
then, there will be fierce bunny vengence and serious stakage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Voices in the Head
-- Dawn, 20:00:12 05/24/01 Thu
I imagined Dawn ('bitty Buffy') will set anyone straight who tries
to get
between her and Spike. She has been his truest friend all season
(with the
exception of immediately post-Crush).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Voices in
the Head -- Jessica, 13:38:29 05/26/01
Sat
I think that Spike will take is role as Dawn's protector very
seriously next
season. In Restless, we see Spike on the swings with Giles and
he tells
Xander he his learning to be a watcher and Giles tells him he
as potential.
It might have been a predictions of what's to come in a way. It
would be
great to see Spike living in the Summers house and been Dawn's
legal
guardian, he is the only one who is old enough and has the time;
Willow
could make him false papers, it would be hilarious to see him
raising Dawn
for a few episodes. Spike has always loved all the Summers women
and he was
always protective of them. Imagine Buffy's reaction when she gets
back!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Voices
in the Head -- Greta, 20:17:01
05/26/01 Sat
I'm just picturing Spike's notion of parental guidance:) He'll
probably
dredge up some Victorian sensibilities to mix through his utter
lack of
respect for convention, i.e. Dawn will have to do well in school,
but he'll
show her how to cheat, and, of course, "Do you really think
you're leaving
the house looking like that, young lady? You look like a Darla."
Can you imagine her first date? Every father/older brother feels
like
driving a railroad spike through the ungrateful, evil little punk
after
their little girl, but Spike would know just wear to put it to
achieve
maximum pain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Voices in the Head
-- Lazarus, 22:00:05 05/29/01
Tue
BTW, the "speaker-thingie" appears to be the steel casing
on the electric
motor for a compressor in case anyone was interested...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Whither Spike after "The
Gift"? Speculations, please
(Spoilers for Seson 5; long) -- bess, 07:58:54 05/25/01 Fri
yeah, i just read that interview with joss.... damn. oh, well
!
thank you.
Sheesh: Storytelling & Storylistening
-- Solitude1056, 09:02:18 05/23/01 Wed
I'm stepping outside my usual laconic attitude. If I'm preaching
to the
choir, I apologize, but I've been contemplating this for a bit
now,
especially in the wake of such intense plot lines as the past
season.
from Preying upon the "Theatrical Parasite": A Reexamination
of Stoppard's
Influences in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.
Ros and Guil begin the play by flipping a coin only to discover
that heads
are produced consecutively. After the eighty-ninth flip, Guil
begins to
ponder this seeming anomaly in an attempt to explain how such
a phenomenon
could occur. "List of possible explanations. One: I'm willing
it. Inside
where nothing shows, I am the essence of a man spinning double-headed
coins,
and betting against himself in private atonement for an unremembered
past.
Two: time has stopped dead, and the single experience of one coin
being spun
once has been repeated eighty-nine times. On the whole, doubtful.
Three:
divine intervention. Four: a spectacular vindication of the principle
that
each individual coin spun individually is as likely to come down
heads as
tails and therefore should cause no surprise each individual time
it does."
That will make sense in a bit.
A black & white interpretation of such a grey storyline is, uh,
hm, how to
put it? Well, for starters, I'm not sure stating black & white
interpretations does much to further the intentions of this particular
board, which is to discuss the philosophical ramifications and
meanings in
the Buffyverse. At least, that's how I've understood it, and Masq
can
correct me if I'm wrong. Philosophy by its very nature seems to
be grey, as
much in-between and diaphonous as poetry. Words twist and turn
under
pressure and no two people may ever mean identical things with
the same
phrase, and two philosophies may present different arguments but
arrive at
the same conclusion.
To sum all that up? Hello. Joss is sneaky. The world is complex,
and messy,
and things begin and end and later we find out it was something
else all
along. Deciding Buffy is dead, judging Tara as evil for ruining
Willow's
demon-finding spell, declaring Dawn is off-limits without exception,
insisting that Spike's got no chances of doing good ... these
are all
examples of ways that sometimes we seek to categorize, codify,
nail down the
machinations of a storyteller who's got a universe in his head
that's far
more complex than we give him credit for. Joss is sneaky. He's
going to take
what we least expect, and what we have decided is "settled"
and "done," and
turn it around on us. He punches open the plot doors we've locked;
he
reveals bay windows where we thought there were brick walls. To
me, viewing
his latest storytelling movement with a black-and-white blanket
decision is
underestimating, and non-participatory in the very seduction that's
so
crucial to his stories being successful. When we make up our minds
and view
a situation only one way, we risk shutting out the possibilities.
That risk
is doubly injurious to ourselves, because our storyteller up on
the stage
relies on those hidden possibilities to keep our attention. In
effect, by
denying the possibility inherent in each action, we're denying
ourselves the
chance to be open to the newest change, beginning, ending, option,
possibility offered by our host, the Storyteller. Joss dangles
clues in
front of us, and sure, he's given us all the answers. But for
me, the fun
part is that we still have no clue what question he's asking us.
Yes, pat and settled and glued down interpretations are nice,
somewhere on
an emotional level: "there, that's settled and I don't have
to reconsider my
opinion now." But my fascination with the Jossverse is based
on the fact
that he doesn't let us do that; he's coming from a tradition that
includes
Dr. Tolkein, CS Lewis, Madeleine L'Engle, William Gibson, Andre
Norton,
Orson Scott Card, Ray Bradbury, Stephen King, Isaac Asimov, Susan
Cooper -
hell, any author for whom one story, about one select place, just
wasn't
enough. They had universes in their heads, and Joss does too.
And that means
that the realm of possibilities is infinite, reflecting how it
is in our own
world. We can cheer or condemn a story, but when it's filled with
characters
who are as complex and messy as our own friends and family, it's
no wiser
nor easier to judge them, or their circumstances, with cardboard
designations that can't withstand the complexity.
Leave gaps, welcome them. The black and white doesn't work here.
It may work
in static simpler sitcoms, but it doesn't seem to work in the
Buffyverse
anymore than it does in the Realverse. I like the posts and comments
and
feedback where others have welcomed Joss' teasing hints, and risen
to the
challenge of viewing a world with as many possibilities as Joss
suggests.
Which one he chooses isn't that important to me - I'm enjoying
the ride, and
I'm not ready yet to declare authoritatively that we've reached
our
destination.
Again from the same article as quoted above, I came across R.H.
Lee's
comment about the above-quoted passage from the play. Lee notes
that
Guildenstern's observation "is statistically accurate, and
presents us with
a world of total unreliability--an amazing combination of phenomena
simply
cannot be made to yield either a sequence or a precedent. The
eighty-sixth
spin is totally undetermined by the previous eighty-five. Facts
remain
isolated, refuse to form chains, and explanations remain forever
'possible,'
the nature of circumstances determining the run being beyond our
comprehension."
Hang in there, keep your minds open, point out any answers you
see that I've
missed, and maybe we'll narrow down some of the questions. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Sheesh: Storytelling & Storylistening -- rowan, 09:13:26
05/23/01 Wed
Hmm...I hope I'm not one of the people you think is trying to
push this into
a definitive interpretative box. The challenge to try fascinates
me, but I'm
quite generous in my inevitable defeat by the writers!
You've said (much better than I could actually say) what I feel.
And I'll
add my own little bit: the grey is more fun. This is myth and
let's embrace
it in all it's incredible, messy, glorious (he,he) confusion.
It's revealing
truth, but we'll never be sure what that truth is (or even as
you point out,
what the question was).
Hey, I ate it up when Buffy dove into that portal. Yo go girl
-- come back
from the dead and shake us all up. Rework the same plotline a
thousand
times, twist it differently, and let me puzzle over the differences
& what
they mean.
I once played with a 2 year old nephew of mine for two hours,
doing exactly
the same thing -- making a Batman figure jump off a table. He
kept saying,
"Again." Amen to that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Exactly! :) -- Solitude1056, 09:16:03 05/23/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sheesh: Storytelling & Storylistening -- Cleanthes,
12:42:53
05/23/01 Wed
Buffy dove into the portal that penetrated so deep into the well
of
storytelling that I bet she wakes up on another channel altogether!
BtVS paints mythical canvas. One cannot, and must not know where
the edge of
the canvas lies. One cannot even know what colors the artist has
in the
paintbox. Perhaps some novel colors hitherto unimagined will appear.
Oh, that last is a bit of comment on all the searching for "grey"
in a TV
landscape otherwise filled with black-and-white, settled stories.
I prefer
to colorize the greyscale.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.
:) -- rowan, 19:02:42
05/23/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Sheesh: Storytelling & Storylistening -- Javoher, 16:03:11
05/23/01
Wed
Thanks, Sol. Not having a background in philosophy I had to read
your essay
more than twice to understand what you're saying, but I think
I get it
enough, and understand forms enough, to add my 2 cents.
Most of what I come across out of Hollywood sticks very much to
Western
archtypal (sp?) characters, stock stories, and/or storytelling
forms. Now,
Western archtypes and story forms are black and white by definition.
They
exist, and have for centuries, because on some level they resonate
with us -
Prince Charming comes to rescue the Princess, the big bad wolf
blows down
the houses of straw and sticks but can't destroy the brick house,
those we
thought of as dead come back to life. In a sense, we've been telling
ourselves the same stories over and over for (probably) millenia.
Joss has
essentially done the same thing. The hero/champion, her advisors,
her
crew/band/army - this is Robin Hood helping the oppressed not
by stealing
from the rich to give to the poor, but by dispensing death so
that the
oppression may be lifted. The black-and-whiteness of these archtypes
and
forms reassures us that some things are absolute because we live
in a gray,
complicated world.
Here's where it gets interesting. Strip the black-and-whiteness
from these
archtypes and forms, add in the grayness of real life, and let
the archtypes
come closer to us. This way the storyteller becomes a teacher,
as Homer used
his stories to teach. This way Joss can comment on great evil
(Spike) being
capable of doing great good and vice versa (Giles), he can comment
on what
comprises innocence (Dawn), he can comment on what comprises a
family
(Xander and Willow). It requires a certain suspension of disbelief
on our
parts, but that's not very hard to do.
That's it. Since we're attributing here, I'd like to mention Joseph
Campbell
as a great anthropologist who wrote on the similarity of archtypes
across
all cultures is his "The Masks of God" series.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sheesh: Storytelling & Storylistening -- Anthony8,
17:54:14
05/23/01 Wed
I've mentioned it in an earlier post, but again, I would recommend
Campbell's "The Hero With A Thousand Faces" since it
serves as an essential
myth reading guide. Additionally, I would recommend Bruno Bettelheim's
"The
Uses of Enchantment" (analysis of fairy tales). Both guides
emphasize the
importance of the story in providing the gray areas necessary
to enable the
listener/reader to move beyond the literalness of words in order
to live the
myth.
Campbell himself used to cite "Star Wars" as the perfect
example of the
modern expression of human mythology and the Hero Cycle. IMO "Star
Wars" is
almost all black and white. If Campbell were alive today, I think
he would
see a much more representative application of his ideas in BTVS
(or even
more recent sci-fi offerings such as Deep Space Nine). If BTVS
didn't create
new gray areas for me each week, it would not have the same allure.
I know
for certain that if it weren't for the gray, I wouldn't be spending
any time
on these boards.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Sheesh: Storytelling & Storylistening --
Rufus, 18:17:24
05/23/01 Wed
In Restless we saw an exaggerated view of slaying in Giles dream.
In it
Buffy was a little girl and Giles the father figure. The act of
slaying was
turned into a game where you hit the target and got a prize. Then
there was
the introduction of a Grey Spike. I see that in the show. In past
seasons
slaying got taken for granted because we knew the vampires were
evil and
their deaths became meaningless, a plot device to allow Buffy
to hold a
wooden stake and kill without question. Then Joss introduced the
grey into
the Buffyverse and got me interested in what was going on anew.
To kill over
and over with no end and just a headcount is dehumanizing. Buffy
had to
examine her life and her calling and the catalyst for that was
Dawn and
Spike. Dawn introduced a non-reality and taught Buffy about family
and
connecting with others. The introduction of a grey vampire was
a test for us
all. We had to look at the vampire more closely. We got to see
that they
were a form of life and they weren't just one mass personality
dedicated to
chaos. Spike showed Buffy about love and how it can affect human
and
soulless demon. The closer you get to an adversary the more you
begin to see
their point of view. Buffy got to see that though Spike was a
demon there
also was some humanity left in him that made him very human. The
discomfort
she showed in finding out a demon could love was striking. If
a demon can
love just how different are they from us? That makes them harder
to kill.
I feel that Joss did a great thing in showing us that killing
shouldn't be
taken for granted. We now have to question our actions. Buffy
is no longer
playing a "game" for a prize, but fighting a real battle
with herself and
her calling, as well as demons. The grey in the Buffyverse has
been coming
since season one, it was like a slow leak..now we have to face
it...sometimes the only monsters on the show are humans....and
evil is
seldom absolute. I love the show more and more because the characters
don't
just make the motions but examine their lives and the consequences
of their
actions.
Last night's ending -- jsly,
10:18:00 05/23/01 Wed
Just a cheesy rip-off of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Last night's ending -- Rob, 11:05:05 05/23/01 Wed
Not so...At the end of "Crouching Tiger," the girl who
jumped started to fly
back up, just as the legend said. It is a very optimistic ending.
Just
because Buffy jumped does not make it the same thing. Mostly because
she
fell to the ground and died. It was a very sad ending.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Last night's ending -- Brian, 11:11:37 05/23/01 Wed
I think you missed the point of the episode ...and the movie.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Last night's ending -- Anthony8, 17:21:34 05/23/01 Wed
"Crouching Tiger" involved an entirely different type
of lover's leap than
last night's finale.
No-so-reluctant Heroes (Gift
Spoilers) -- Malandanza, 11:14:34 05/23/01 Wed
I wonder if Buffy will still be a slayer when she is brought back
from the
dead. Perhaps, like Darla, she will be returned as the normal
girl she
always wanted to be; i.e., her connection to the First Slayer
might have
been irrevocably severed by her death.
And I wonder if she will be content in such a role after all she
has
experienced as a Slayer (perhaps she could be a watcher).
We have seen several people on the show, formerly "cursed"
with superhuman
abilities, regret losing their powers:
Anya has adjusted to being human, but, initially, she desperately
wanted her
demonic powers back.
Angel becomes human only to reverse the process -- He wanted to
be a
superhero more than he wanted to be with Buffy.
Riley couldn't handle being a normal guy dating a superheroine.
he was happy
with Buffy while he was a super soldier, but risked his life to
avoid losing
his scientifically enhanced speed and strength.
Darla -- well, there were other issues with her...
Most recently, Cordelia was offered the opportunity to rid herself
of the
splitting headaches -- and refused.
Compare these attitudes with the attitudes of Spike and Faith:
for them, the
transformation into Vampire and Slayer, respectively, was the
most profound
experience of their lives. Each of the others, when faced with
the loss of
their superhuman abilities, has revealed an internal hypocrisy
-- as much as
they complain about being cursed, they are unwilling to give up
their
powers.
Having said that, I think that Buffy is different. Since she has
spent her
entire adult life knowing that she was doomed to die young --
like every
other slayer before her -- I think she would welcome an uneventful
decline
into old age. And I think the relief of not having the Weight
of the World
on her shoulders would outweigh the adrenalin rush of her slaying
days.
Plus, I think she will return with a more spiritual outlook on
life and more
at peace with herself than ever before.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Who Am I? -- Solitude1056, 11:59:06 05/23/01 Wed
let's see...
Anya has adjusted to being human, but, initially, she desperately
wanted her demonic powers back.
Angel becomes human only to reverse the process -- He wanted to
be
a superhero more than he wanted to be with Buffy.
Riley couldn't handle being a normal guy dating a superheroine.
he
was happy with Buffy while he was a super soldier, but risked
his
life to avoid losing his scientifically enhanced speed and
strength.
Darla -- well, there were other issues with her...
Most recently, Cordelia was offered the opportunity to rid herself
of the splitting headaches -- and refused.
For starters, Anya wasn't much of anything other than a vengeance
demon.
Angel knew he couldn't do much, and would weaken Buffy, if he
were human. He
didn't want to be a superhero, but he wanted even less to watch
Buffy get
killed because she was busy protecting him. Riley, well, like
Anya, he
didn't have much of a Self other than what-he-did. Who-he-was,
outside of
that, wasn't enough for him. It's become enough for Anya. Riley
didn't make
it that far. I don't think Darla really counts in this comparison;
her
situation's a bit different. And Cordy? Well, her self-image has
expanded to
include "someone previously vain and selfish who now helps
others through
her visions." Saying she doesn't want to get rid of them,
and disagreeing
with her decision, is your call. But for me, I could understand
the
bittersweetness of her decision, and could relate.
In some ways, Cordy's decision is a bit different from Anya and
Riley's,
because her self-image is not 100% that of "vision girl."
She's got other
parts to her idea of her Self, but that vision part is a significant
one.
She didn't keep the visions because without them she'd be nothing
- at
least, I didn't get that impression. She seemed to keep the visions
because
they are part of her, although not the whole part - but enough
a part that
she'd miss them. To analogize, Cordy is like any woman who complains
about
monthly cramps, the dangers of pregnancy, etc. But if you took
away her
sexuality, her state of "being female"? Sure, no more
cramps, no more risky
natural childbirth. And sure, there's a lot to a person that's
not just
based on gender. But that gender, that sexuality, is a big part
of how the
person sees herself.
Cordy's decision was much more mature than Anya & Riley's post-loss
angst.
She had the option, considered it, and decided against it. Not
because it's
"who she is," but because it's "what she does,"
and because she believes in
what she does. She recognizes there are goods and bads, and acknowledges
the
risks, but she's not doing it because without it she'd be nothing.
She's
keeping them because with it, she can do a lot more.
As for Buffy? Would someone around here puhleeeeese do a full
study of the
Campbellian hero cycle? I'm tempted but I doubt I'll have the
time for such
an extended essay before I leave on my trip - unless no one minds
waiting
until I get back in two weeks! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Who Am I? -- Anthony8, 17:18:43 05/23/01 Wed
I'm an admirer of Campbell's take on the Hero Cycle and world
mythology, but
I wouldn't attempt to do any sort of in-depth application to BTVS.
I'd
rather wait for your analysis. All the elements are there, though.
One aspect of the cycle that JW has not yet explored, IMO, is
The Boon. So
far, the Boon to mankind from Buffy's heroics has been the saving
of the
Earth as the human residents of the Buffyverse know and love it.
I suppose I
should be satisfied with that, but with the main character's death
and
anticipated resurrection, in one form or another, I would expect
the next
Boon to be something more profound than mere preservation of the
physical
status quo. Her journey and return from this point on should take
her
character to another level.
Buffy's "death" provides an excellent opportunity to
explore the Boon as it
pertains to the transformation of the Hero herself. I keep thinking
that the
words of Tara, The First Slayer and Dracula ("you think you
know what you
are, what's to come--you haven't even begun") were meant
to reach beyond the
events of the season finale and foreshadow bigger and even better
things in
the next two seasons.
I hope I'm making some sense here. I know from your other posts
that you
will provide a more articulate analysis of the cycle. I'll have
my copy of
"The Hero With a Thousand Faces" by the ready.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I knew there'd be a Quiz at the end of the Season!
-- Solitude1056,
17:29:04 05/23/01 Wed
Well, just remind me once I start posting again in mid-June, and
I'll
happily provide... once I have some time to brush up on my Campbell
& hero
mythos. :)
In the meantime, if you really want to, read up on mythic cycles
by checking
out Mythago Wood by Robert Holdstock. I don't know if it's still
in print (I
think it is), but you can get more info here. A strange and trippy
reading,
but fascinating in its execution of how our dreams, fantasies,
myths and
stories impact our reality, and a new take on "what if those
cultural
stories really did have an impact on a receptive area, like virgin
earth?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I knew there'd be a Quiz at the end
of the Season! --
Anthony8, 18:16:30 05/23/01 Wed
Thanks for the tip. By the way, did you or anyone else notice
how J.W.'s
directing style in the scene where Buffy tells Dawn what she intends
to do
paralleled the scene in "The Body" where Buffy informs
Dawn of Joyce's
death? In both scenes, the camera pulls away and the sound trails
off so you
can't hear what's being said so as not to intrude on the intimate
moment. It
was amazing how that scene last night pulled me right back to
that moment
when Dawn finds out that her mother is dead. In "The Body,"
we don't need to
hear the dialogue since the actors' body language and the viewer's
knowledge
of the facts tell all. In last night's episode, we are made privy
to the
conversation only after the two have said their last goodbyes.
The body
language and facial expressions were similar. Dawn's denial and
shock are
palpable even with the camera so far away. On the other hand,
we can see the
calmness and certitude in Buffy's face as she realizes what she
has to do.
It was really great work. I hope JW writes and directs more than
just a few
episodes in the next two seasons.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I knew there'd be a Quiz at
the end of the Season! --
rowan, 18:56:06 05/23/01 Wed
I think I could recognize an ep that Joss writes even if I wasn't
told he
was the writer. He creates such intimate scenes that convey a
thousand ideas
with a few facial expressions and minimal conversation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I knew there'd be a Quiz
at the end of the Season! --
LoriAnn, 09:53:09 05/24/01 Thu
"He [Joss] creates such intimate scenes that convey a thousand
ideas with a
few facial expressions and minimal conversation."
That being the case, he's lucky to have found actors who are capable
of
making such scenes work, particularly JM, MT, SMG. I don't mean
to slight
anyone else, but these three are particularly adept at conveying
much with
little.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> non-verbal moments -- Justin,
15:06:40 05/29/01 Tue
Yes, exactly, I'm so envious of that ability. Those non-verbal
powerful
scenes in the last episode... I had to pause the tape and jump
around the
room to work off the extra energy that was sparking all over the
place.
Justin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I knew there'd be a Quiz at the end
of the Season! --
purplegrrl, 14:58:40 05/30/01 Wed
***what if those cultural stories really did have an impact on
a receptive
area, like virgin earth?***
I've not read Mythago Wood, but from your description I'm willing
to bet C.
S. Friedman did before she wrote her Black Sun Rising trilogy
(Black Sun
Rising, When True Night Falls, and Crown of Shadows). A blend
of magic and
myth with a little science fiction. And one of the protaganists
is a
vampire! I highly recommend reading these.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Who Am I? -- Malandanza, 23:50:20 05/23/01 Wed
"Angel knew he couldn't do much, and would weaken Buffy,
if he were human.
He didn't want to be a superhero, but he wanted even less to watch
Buffy get
killed because she was busy protecting him."
Weaken Buffy... you mean the way Xander "weakens" Buffy?
What about Riley,
when he was a normal guy, protecting Buffy from the vamp when
she got staked
and sewing her up afterwards -- was he her Achilles heel? Buffy
doesn't need
someone to fight along side her every second of every day -- her
most
difficult battles are those she fights internally -- struggling
against
despair and that pesky Death Wish. A human Angel blissfully married
to his
one true love would have done more for Buffy than an army of ensouled,
brooding vampires.
And, after all, isn't being human what Angel is working for? He
was made
human by serendipity, and he threw away his mortality. One of
the first
things he did as a mortal was run off to do single battle with
a demonic
creature -- why didn't he bring Buffy along? She could have handled
the
situation alone (and, in fact, did so even though her attention
was divided
by Angel's blunders and she was not as prepared as she might have
been had
she been warned ahead of time). Angel's actions were like Riley's
-- he
didn't want to play Lois Lane to Buffy's Superman. His explanation
was
insufficient -- that he was needed in the battle against evil.
The world is
ancient and survived just fine without him (and did considerably
better
before Angelus) and the world will go on without him. Let TPTB
find a
replacement.
"In some ways, Cordy's decision is a bit different from Anya
and Riley's,
because her self-image is not 100% that of 'vision girl.' She's
got other
parts to her idea of her Self, but that vision part is a significant
one.
She didn't keep the visions because without them she'd be nothing
- at
least, I didn't get that impression. She seemed to keep the visions
because
they are part of her, although not the whole part - but enough
a part that
she'd miss them. "
Cordelia's visions are becoming increasingly deleterious. The
visions were
meant for a demon hybrid, not a fragile human. The visions are
often vague
and misleading -- of dubious value compared with the price they
exact.
Cordelia helped Angel before she had the visions -- she would
still be able
to do good without them -- and, if the visions completely incapacitate
or
kill her, she could do more good without them. But the visions
make her
special -- she's "vision girl," not just some failed
actress from a small
town.
As for Anya, I think she is the most mature of the group -- she
has come to
terms with her mortality -- she gave up seeking ways to recapture
her lost
glory and, in doing so, found that she was more than just a magic
amulet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Who Am I? -- LoriAnn, 10:16:53 05/24/01
Thu
Are Cordelia's visions really of "dubious value"? The
staff of AI complain
about them all the time, but the visions are what usually get
them into a
"case." That seems vaulable to me; and the visions certainly
did seem
valuable to Cordelia.
She likes being vision girl; she dislikes the headaches, particularly
since
they're getting worse. Easy trade off, get rid of both in one
fell swoop.
She could do that because, you're right, she doesn't see herself
as just
vision girl. However, in this ep, Cordelia was offered the opportunity
to
have sex with a guy she said she loved and, at the same time,
get rid of
visions and headaches both. She had to decide what was most important
to
her. It seemed to me that she chose helping people over anything,
perhaps
everything, else. That has been a trend in her maturation: she
wants to help
people and is hurt when she can't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Cordelia - Hypocrisy? -- Trelane, 22:25:58 05/29/01 Tue
Cordelia not giving up her power was not hypocrisy, I'd like to
know why you
think that? She finally realized that her powers are really helping
people
and despite the pain and torment they cause her it would be wrong
to give
them up. She made a sacrifice of an easy way out. Besides that,
she did give
her visions to the Gruesalog (sp?) in the ideas of the society
he could
create on Pylea.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Cordelia - Hypocrisy? -- Malandanza, 12:40:35
05/30/01 Wed
"Cordelia not giving up her power was not hypocrisy, I'd
like to know why
you think that? She finally realized that her powers are really
helping
people and despite the pain and torment they cause her it would
be wrong to
give them up. She made a sacrifice of an easy way out. Besides
that, she did
give her visions to the Gruesalog (sp?) in the ideas of the society
he could
create on Pylea."
Superpowers are not a prerequisite to helping people -- as Gunn,
Wesley and
Xander demonstrate on a regular basis. Riley, Angel and Cordelia
could each
have continued the good fight without needing their superstrength/vampire
abilities/ambiguous psychic flashes. In fact, we did see Riley
save Buffy
and patch her up after a battle she nearly lost. If the visions
are really
killing Cordelia (as has been indicated by the increasing severity
and
warnings in Pylea that humans were not meant to carry such powers),
she will
not be able to help anyone as a corpse. Furthermore, the visions
may have
been needed more in Pylea than in the Buffyverse where Angel and
his
comrades can track down evil on their own. Cordelia had the opportunity
to
give up her powers (helping countless citizens of Pylea in the
process) but,
like and Angel and Riley before her, she did not wish to give
up being
special.
Cordelia, Riley and Angel see their respective "curses"
as boons instead --
they would not be willing to give up so much if they thought otherwise.
When
they complain, it is hypocrisy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Cordelia - Hypocrisy? -- LoriAnn, 14:03:08
05/30/01 Wed
Hypocrisy? She's a hypocrite for being a whiner? You're writing
"might
have's" instead of "is's." The gift might have
been better used in Pylea.
The Groosalug might have used the gift better. Buffy should have
retired
when Faith came on the scene because Faith might have been a better
slayer.
Of course, that isn't what happened, is it? But it might have
happened.
Cordy is vision-girl. It isn't a curse or a boon, at least not
to her. It is
an action, we have to assume, of the PTB. If the PTB wanted the
Groosalug to
have this, wouldn't they have given it to him or at least given
Cordy some
substantial clue. It was the priests, bad guys at best and probably
tied to
WR&H, who thought getting the "curse" away from
Cordy and into their pet
Groosalug would be a good idea. I think from just that one thing,
Cordy
would have been justified in not being willing to relinquish her
unconfortable, perhaps even fatal, gift.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Cordelia - Hypocrisy? -- Trelane, 15:29:07
05/30/01 Wed
Sorry, your still wrong. No, superpowers may not be needed to
help people
but they sure help. And considering the type of universe they
all live in
having visions like that can be very helpful.
And your ignoring the fact that in the end she was never meant
to give up
her psychic visions, but she did give a vision to Pylea of what
they could
be like. The prophecies were fake anyway so she never could have
given them
up anyway. As for complaining as being hypocrisy every hero has
a crisis of
doubt(s). Your being too harsh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Cordelia - Hypocrisy? -- maddog, 20:55:41
05/30/01 Wed
hehe, first off, people's viewpoints can't be "wrong"...it's
called an
opinion.
We never know what the powers have in store, so to say that for
a fact, she
wasn't supposed to give them up you're basing a lot on speculation.
What is
concrete is this, Cordy realized no matter how painful they get,
she's
supposed to have those visions. And in the end, they help the
cause.
Otherwise she would have had sex and gotten rid of them, both
things that
under and other circumstance she would have done without hesitation.
I do
hope they deal with the increased pain of the visions next season
though.
Because that situation is gonna get dicey otherwise.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Cordelia - Hypocrisy? -- Lazarus,
21:14:18 05/30/01 Wed
Additionally, Cordy may also be reluctant to give up the visions
because
they were entrusted to her as the dying act of Doyle, someone
she loved and
respected. Thus they serve both as a rememberance of him and a
chance to
continue the calling he gave up to save her life and the lives
of however
many people would have been killed when The Scourge's anti-human
bomb went
off in L.A. with a 1/4 mile blast radius. Doyle's passing of the
responsibility to her was also a huge vote of confidence in her
strenth and
ability when he could just as easily have passed them to Angel...
(Although
I'm not sure how Angel would have reacted to being kissed by Doyle...
lol...
)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cordelia - Hypocrisy?
-- Maladanza, 23:10:53 05/30/01
Wed
I don't wish to respond the the individual threads individually,
so here is
an amalgam...
"And you're ignoring the fact that in the end she was never
meant to give up
her psychic visions, but she did give a vision to Pylea of what
they could
be like. The prophecies were fake anyway so she never could have
given them
up anyway. As for complaining as being hypocrisy every hero has
a crisis of
doubt(s). You're being too harsh."
Trelane
The visions were meant for Doyle -- we don't know that Cordelia
was ever
meant to have them (and, if they are killing her and TPTB are
benign
entities, it is unlikely that she was intended to be prophecy
girl). We do
know there was a prophecy in Pylea that someone would pass the
"curse" along
-- perhaps the priests invented the prophesy and perhaps they
did not (or,
the middle ground may be that they knew the prophesy and altered
it to their
own advantage). Even if the prophesies were legitimate, prophesies
on BtVS
and AtS are nororiously unreliable -- often literally true but
misleading
(equivocation). And I agree that I was too harsh on Cordelia --
I think that
Lazarus's reasoning is more likely:
"Additionally, Cordy may also be reluctant to give up the
visions because
they were entrusted to her as the dying act of Doyle, someone
she loved and
respected. Thus they serve both as a remembrance of him and a
chance to
continue the calling he gave up to save her life and the lives
of however
many people would have been killed..."
Lazarus
Human weakness, as the Mayor said, may be driving Cordelia rather
than a
desire to be supergirl. However, I don't think I was too harsh
on Angel.
"I'm sure someone else has already pointed this out and I
haven't read the
rest of the posts to check but this quote:
'He wanted to be a superhero more than he wanted to be with Buffy.'
isn't true. He was informed that if he stayed human he wouldn't
be able to
protect Buffy. So he gave up his free life, his new beginning,
to keep her
alive and well."
maddog
Here's a quote from Buffy from "I Will Remember You"
when Angel tells her
with less than 5 mintues before the deadline that he's decided
unilaterally
to erase the last 24 hours of their lives:
"You just took a whole 24 hours to weigh the ups and downs
of being a
regular Joe and decided it was more fun being a superhero?"
Yes, the Oracles told him that Buffy's lifespan would be shortened,
but less
than two years later, Buffy is dead anyway. How much would her
life ahve
been shortened? Would she have exchanged the last 3 or 4 months
of anguish
for 18 months of bliss with Angel? Assumming, of course, that
the Oracles
were correct (after all, they could not even predict their own
deaths) and
not speaking metaphorically or in riddles. I cannot think of a
single
instance this season where having human Angel alongside Buffy
would have
made Buffy less effective. I think the real problem for Angel
is his ego --
he was not willing to sit on the sidelines with Xander while Buffy
did the
real fighting. IWRY illustrates this point when Angel heads off
to battle
the Mohra demon without Buffy, risking his life and, ultimately,
hers when
she shows up unprepared to save him. Furthermore, even in this
fight with
his limited physical role, Angel was quite useful -- he was the
one who
figured out how to kill the demon.
We saw in Pylea how much Angel loves being the hero. He is always
quick to
rescue the damsel in distress (although, as others have pointed
out with
Lindsey, not so quick to save men). A secondary role was not one
he wished
to have. I see very little difference between how he acted and
how Riley
did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cordelia - Hypocrisy?
-- maddog, 09:21:44 05/31/01
Thu
Mind you that was Buffy's initial view of why he did what he did.
Not
Angel's. Neither of them had any way of knowing that she would,
in the end,
take her life to save others. It's very easy to now say that it
wouldn't
have mattered...20/20 hindsight and all. Your whole explaination
is in the
same vain, "well it wouldn't have mattered anyway".
How exactly is he
supposed to know this? I mean, you make choices in life, hoping
that you've
made the best ones for all involved. He really thought that his
human form
would be useless to save Buffy, among others, when it came down
to fighting
for their lives. He made a sacrafice for what he thought was the
greater
good, not because he wanted to be the hero.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel - Hypocrisy?
-- Malandanza, 12:46:39
06/01/01 Fri
"He really thought that his human form would be useless to
save Buffy, among
others, when it came down to fighting for their lives. He made
a sacrifice
for what he thought was the greater good, not because he wanted
to be the
hero."
Your principle argument seems to be that Angel was trying to preserve
Buffy's life when he gave up his humanity -- based on what the
Oracles told
him.
My feeling is that prophesies on BtVS and AtS resemble the ambiguous
riddles
of Delphi, the equivocation of Macbeth, or the self-fulfilling
prophesies of
Oedipus Rex. Simply put, predictions are not to be trusted. And,
in general,
the characters ignore the prophesies and save the world in spite
of them.
Some examples:
The Master had a big book of evil prophesies, yet he is dead and
Buffy
lived.
The Annointed One -- destined to lead the vampires after the Master's
death
-- yet Spike killed him.
Angel was supposed to play a part in the end of the world -- and
he did, but
not in the manner in which Whistler, and agent of good, anticipated.
Dawn's death was required to stop the gateway Glory was opening
-- except it
really wasn't required -- Buffy was able to substitute her own
life.
Angel tells Lindsey not to "believe everything that is written"
after
lopping off Lindsey's hand.
In Pylea, the priests created their own ancient texts to support
their
politics.
How much faith can you really have in Oracles that cannot predict
their own
futures (or lack thereof)?
It seems to me that characters believe predictions only when the
prophesies
support their own desires. I think Angel had already decided he
wanted to be
a superhero again before he ever spoke to the Oracles and their
comments
only served to bolter his confidence. Also consider that it was
Buffy's
future, so she should have had a say in what was going to happen.
Angel did
not even discuss the issue with her, he decided for her. And 24
hours was
not enough time to weigh the pros and cons of being mortal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: No-so-reluctant Heroes (Gift Spoilers) -- maddog, 20:26:09
05/30/01
Wed
I'm sure someone else has already pointed this out and I haven't
read the
rest of the posts to check but this quote,
"He wanted to be a superhero more than he wanted to be with
Buffy."
isn't true. He was informed that if he stayed human he wouldn't
be able to
protect Buffy. So he gave up his free life, his new beginning,
to keep her
alive and well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: No-so-reluctant Heroes (Gift Spoilers) -- Naomi,
00:31:56 05/31/01
Thu
I can see the point that he wanted to be a superhero otherwise
why not take
Buffy along. Killing demons is her job after all and he should
have realised
that killing demons wouldn't be so easy as a human. There are
more
similarities with Riley than we might think. Angel seemed thrilled
to be
offered the gift of humanity at the end of season 1 and made no
mention of
the fact that he had already turned it down once which I thought
was
interesting. I'm willing to bet that Angel has a fantasy of what
being human
again is like and the reality won't live up to the dream.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Angel's Future -- Brian, 14:02:17 05/31/01
Thu
I think what made Angel smile at the idea of being human at the
end of the
battle is that when the battle is over, he would able to be with
Buffy as a
human, and she, since there would be no demons left etc, could
put down her
weapons and just be a girl again.
I see that rose-covered cottage, white picket fence, and several
blonde,
blue-eyed children running around giving Uncle Giles all sorts
of
bedevilment, and Auntie Willow and Tara taking them for rides
up in the sky,
and Uncle Xander and Aunt Anya baby sitting, and building lots
of wooden
toys for them. Of course Aunt Cordelia would wisk them off for
exotic
vacations while she was between shoots for her very successful
films, and
Uncle Oz would show them how to track bunnies in the woods, which,
naturally, would really creep-out Anya.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Angel's Future -- Sam Raimond, 18:08:11
06/03/01 Sun
I think the bottom line is really that the true reward isn't his
humanity,
its being able to be with Buffy.
Current board
| More May 2001