November 2001 posts
Question for fellow Catholics (or anyone from a religious family)
-- Lost, 05:13:54 11/01/01 Thu
On Thanksgiving, most of my mom's side of the family gets together
at our house. Traditionally, after dinner we go see a movie together.
This year I made the suggestion of Harry Potter, and was immediately
shot down by my mom. When I asked why, she said it was because
it deals with witchcraft, and my grandma and aunts, who are very
religious, would think it blasphmous (sp?).
Also, I was talking to my cousin this week, and found that she
and her brother and sister are aren't allowed to watch shows like
Buffy because of the supernatural element.
So my question: Anyone else have family like this, and if so,
do you think, like me, that it is the stupid? I mean, Harry Potter
is one of the best book serious out there, and Buffy is one of
the best shows on television, and just because they have some
supernatural stuff in it, they are banned from places in my family.
Man, it sucks, since I don't have anyone to talk scifi with.
ANyway, thanks for the rant
Lost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question for fellow Catholics (or anyone from a religious
family) -- Zoey, 05:38:03 11/01/01 Thu
I'm not a cradle Catholic - I'm a convert. But thru all my religious
education classes (which were detailed and deep), no mention of
witchcraft or supernatural stuff was made.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question for fellow Catholics (or anyone from a religious
family) -- JM, 05:38:48 11/01/01 Thu
Am Catholic, but don't think it's actually specifically denominational.
I think a lot of strict Baptist families have similar rules. There
are mentions in the bible condemning witchcraft, spellcasting,
and such and some people consider it as a serious invocation of
dark powers. I don't think the Church has any rules regarding
sci-fi of fantasy entertainment, though it has fairly strict positions
on not engaging in the occult, even fortune telling. Remember
the Church still performs exorcisms, if very rarely. Calling on
magic in the real world is considered invoking the devil, and
he is not just considered a metaphor.
That said, I agree that Buffy and Angel are the best out there
and those kids are missing out on something great. However, I
think that religious freedom is probably the most important right
we have in America and toleration and respect for even those we
disagree with is vital. (Makes being a grown-up great. Then you
can do what you want.)
Hope this helps without offending any. Thank you and good night.
Good morning actually.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question for fellow Catholics (or anyone from a religious
family) -- Juliette, 06:40:56 11/01/01 Thu
I'm Catholic and so are my dad's side of the family, but none
of them seem to object to my sci-fi and fantasy addiction. My
mum's side are Presbyterian, though my mum converted to Catholicism,
and I don't think they object on religious grounds either, though
my grandma isn't too keen on violence in general (except in war
movies!) My dad doesn't like Buffy, he thinks it's creepy and
I think he vaguely disapproves of all the occult stuff and the
demons, but he's never tried to stop me watching it, and has been
very good about sitting through episode after episode on the only
tv in our house with cable!
I'm British, and I know some people over here - Anglicans I think
- objected to Harry Potter being filmed in a cathedral. But for
most people, I think, what matters is that the characters are
Goodies, fighting other characters who are Baddies, regardless
of the actual nature of the characters.
Although on a side note, I wouldn't ever practice witchcraft or
even do Ouija (how do you spell that?!) boards or tarot cards.
Too scary. No offence intended to anyone who does, I'm just a
little too paranoid!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> that's how (ouija, that is) -- anom, 16:11:48 11/03/01
Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question for fellow Catholics (or anyone from a religious
family) -- grifter, 07:03:53 11/01/01 Thu
I´m not religious, and neither are my parents (my mother´s
theoretically catholic and my dad and I are protestants)
so, of course, I have no trouble with that kind of thing...I´m
even watching buffy/angel with my grandmother on tape when I visit
her, she really likes it ;)
I think the religious people in europe are generally more tolerant...I
could be wrong though...
especially the protestants are very liberal (hey, I might not
believe in their "version" of god, but at least they
have cool points of view on subjects like science, homosexuality
or human rights ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> That's weird I thought the Catholics were much more
liberal -- Charlemagne20, 09:04:41 11/01/01 Thu
For years I considered becomming a convert from Presbyterianism
to Catholicism and becomming a priest because I felt the Catholic
church had a much more proactive and honest opinion on homosexuality,
science, and human origin.
As opposed to the nutters who profane my religion down here in
the Bible Belt.
-Charlemagne
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Catholicism is not liberal -- Whisper2AScream,
09:42:00 11/01/01 Thu
A lot of Catholics are open-minded, but the Church itself isn't.
This is the same Church that put forward the Inquisition, and
labeled forward-thinker Gaileo as a heretic. This is likewise
the same Church that began the Crusades, a violent political campaign
against Islam.
Homosexuality is still considered a sin, though homosexuals are
allowed as along as they don't engage in same-sex relations. Divorced
Catholics are forbidden to celebrate the Holy Eucharist if they've
re-married, or have had sex with people other than their ex-spouses.
This is because such actions are considered adultery in the eyes
of the Church. (The Church only accepts annuled marriages, and
this is typically only allowed once, and on a case to case basis.
In other words, you better have a good reason for wanting to dissolve
the sanctioned by God union, or else.) Pre-marital sex is also
forbidden, and abortion is always considered murder, even if the
mother's life is endangered. The Pope himself, despite his own
advanced bout with Parkinson's, has spoken out against stem-cell
research. The Church has been become open-minded slightly, only
because it's had to modernize, lest it faces the loss of more
followers. However, except for Vatican II's modernization of church
services and such, the Church has changed very little since its
establishment in the First century. And such changes were only
through a lot of kicking and screaming on the Church's behalf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> The good thing in Catholicism's favor...
(still OT) -- Solitude1056, 09:46:57 11/01/01 Thu
Is its position that the bible is not a literal word-from-God
transmission, but a series of stories, metaphors, memoirs, fables,
and histories. I've yet to meet a Catholic who agrees with the
predominantly-protestant-style fundamentalism where the bible
is taken literally.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Hmmm... -- RabidHarpy, 11:00:22
11/01/01 Thu
"Is its position that the bible is not a literal word-from-God
transmission, but a series of stories, metaphors, memoirs, fables,
and histories. I've yet to meet a Catholic who agrees with the
redominantly-protestant-style fundamentalism where the bible is
taken literally."
Any legitimate scientist and/or historian will confirm that the
Bible is an historically accurate document. Yes, there are poems,
allegories, metaphors, etc. (in fact, I am currently in the process
of reading through, and marking them in) - however, the fact remains
that the bulk of it is literally accurate as well. Many details
that scientists and historicists had thought were inaccurate have,
in recent decades, proven to be true.
To each his/her own - everyone will get out of it what they are
willing to put into study of it. Our personal truths are often
subjective, but The Truth IS, (whatever it may be)...
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Not what I meant. -- Solitude1056,
12:09:51 11/01/01 Thu
There is a difference between saying that "this story, from
two thousand years ago, is a metaphor where the grapes mean such-and-such
and the field means such-and-such, and was told by so-and-so to
these people with the point of illustrating this or that point"
... and saying, "this story was divinely inspired so what
it means is only what it says, literally" ... OR: "since
it's in here, there must have really been a vineyard manager,
somewhere, who really planted this or that and ended up with whatever."
On a personal level, I don't dispute that the majority of the
bible is a wonderful poetic and powerful history of a people,
even if my studies in historical forgeries opened my eyes to a
few of the more questionable "prophetic" texts. But
there's a difference between saying "it's the truth,"
as in, "this is a history," versus saying "this
is literally true" when so much of the oral tradition lends
metaphor and hyperbole to story-telling prior to the canonization
of the Talmud or the New Testament. And it's another whole step
from the 'facts equal truth' position to the moralization of that
history into a philosophy of living where one concludes that therefore,
for instance, women should cover their heads and never speak out
in religious groups, because some ex-tax collector named Paul
said so.
Blah blah blah. Here ends the explanation. (Heh.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreed - thank you for
expanding... -- RH, 12:18:21 11/01/01 Thu
...many of the laws and ordinances were the traditions of the
culture and that particular time.
I'm right with you...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sol...not nice making
Rufus incontinent........;) -- Rufus, 17:23:57 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> uh... hunh? ;-)
-- Solitude1056, 19:19:54 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Even more OT: Biblical literalism
-- Tanker, 14:32:36 11/01/01 Thu
The Protestant-style fundamentalism referred to tends to concentrate
on a very few things:
1. The universe was created in 6 24-hour periods, no more than
10,000 years ago.
2. The story of the Great Flood is literally true in all details.
3. Homosexuality is an abomination.
4. If even one word of the Bible is not literally true, then none
of it is true. Therefore, every word is literally true (spot the
logical fallacy, kids!).
They pretty much ignore the rest of the Bible. Especially all
the "love your neighbor" stuff. Sorry if I sound bitter.
I live in Dallas, the Bible Belt Buckle. I don't even want to
get into how they belive modern science is a pack of lies devised
by Satan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Even more OT: Biblical
literalism -- Dedalus, 14:41:05 11/01/01 Thu
One thing that makes it hard to disprove Biblical literalism -
at least for the people who can't figure it out for themselves
- is that you can always qualify your position - whatever it is
- with a quote from the Bible. Of course, another person can come
along and justify any position they come up with with yet another
quote from a different part of the Bible. The conclusion I've
come to is that it is simply impossible to prove that any book
with as many contradictions in it as the Bible is fallible. I
think it is that simple.
You so need to read some John Shelby Spong - "Rescuing the
Bible from Fundamentalism," "Why Christianity Must Change
or Die," oh yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> or even thwack
yourself over the head with Jacques Ellul -- Solitude1056, 19:23:55
11/01/01 Thu
Author of The Subversion of Christianity. (Okay to use for thwacking,
since it's not a big book.) Ellul isn't a theologian; he's an
anthropologist and sociologist, and some of his essays are fascinating.
Some of the others ones leave a taste of revisionist or apologia,
but not as badly as other authors I've read. All in all, thought-provoking,
and good even if you're not necessarily xtian but just want to
get a better handle on the historical developments and some of
the reasons & ways it ended up where it is now. ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks
for the tip - sounds interesting -- Dedalus, 08:03:05 11/02/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> ot? is that "off
topic"...or "old testament"? -- anom, 22:39:54
11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> The Inquisition -- Malandanza, 12:18:17
11/02/01 Fri
"This is the same Church that put forward the Inquisition..."
The Inquisition wasn't as bad as the legends make it out to be.
Certainly, by today's standards of tolerance it was a bad thing,
but taken in the context of the times, the Catholic Church wasn't
any worse about anti-Semitism or other forms of intolerance than
were the Protestants. Remember, our Puritan forefathers came to
America so they would have the freedom to persecute unbelievers.
Many of the stories about the Inquisition were part of the "Black
Legend" that grew up about the Spanish after their conquest
of the New World. Much was propaganda put forward by Spain's Protestant
enemies. Yes, the Spanish performed evil deeds in the New World,
but look at the Aztecs -- genocide back before Hitler popularized
it. There is a reason that Pizarro was able to conquer the Inca
Empire with 200 conquistadors -- the people subjugated by the
Incas hated them more than they hated the Spanish. Life under
the Spanish was bad -- but at least you didn't have to be worried
about being sacrificed to the sun god. Part of the problem with
the Spanish and the New World was that the New World was so far
from Spain that local despots had carte blanche to act as they
chose -- Queen Isabella's edicts went unheeded.
Similarly with the Inquisition -- there are many exaggerations
and inconsistencies. The Inquisition used torture to force confessions
-- in about 5% of the cases. Under the King's Law (or Duke, Baron
or other petty noble) torture was almost invariably used. Conditions
in church prisons were remarkably better than state prisons (a
bit like the Federal vs State prisons in the US) and people charged
by the secular authorities would often commit heresy in order
to be transferred to church jurisdiction.
Anyway, all this happened centuries ago -- to blame the Catholic
Church of today for the Crusades, autodefes and the Inquisition
is a bit like blaming modern white Americans for genocide of the
indigenous people, the Salem Witch trials, Japanese internment
camps (of WWII) and slavery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> The inquisition and the witch-craze:
Catholicism against superstition -- Rahael, 12:32:44 11/02/01
Fri
Much of the bad press against the Inquisition comes from Protestant
sources.
And of course one must remember that there were TWO inquisitions
- the inquisition proper, at the Vatican, and the Spanish one
which the Spanish crown copied from the Catholic Church.
A plus point in there favour was that during the witch hunt crazes
which plagued Europe in the early modern period, the Inquisitions
invariably stopped innocent people being burned as witches. They
demanded a higher burden of proof than local trials did, and did
their best to bring rationality into a irrational and deeply unjust
situation.
They thought that those who hunted witches were as credulous and
superstitious (and thus ungodly) as the victims themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The inquisition and the
witch-craze: Catholicism against superstition -- Tanker, 17:18:59
11/02/01 Fri
Not only that, the Church didn't (and couldn't) execute anyone
for witchcraft. That was strictly the work of the civil authorities.
Mostly in Germany (about 29,000 documented executions for witchcraft).
Finding witches was never the main focus of the Inquisition anyway.
They were after heretics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The inquisition
and the witch-craze: Catholicism against superstition -- Rahael,
17:55:30 11/02/01 Fri
Tanker, I think the legal situation varied in different counries.
Witchcraft prosecutions definitely ended up in Church courts.
'Malleus Maleficarum' by bring the devil into witchcraft belief,
necessarily involved the the accusation of heretic into the mix.
And remember that this 'hammer of witches' was written by two
Domincan priests attending the Council of Trent.
And in fact, in Switzerland (the Jura region to be precise), heretics
were labelled as 'witches' - and for that reason, that region
had a unusual number of men prosecuted for witchcraft belief.
In some of the nastiest examples, local religious figures were
involved.....Nicholas Remy of Lorraine, Pierre de Lancre of the
Pays de Labourd, the Archbishop of Trier and his suffragan bishop
Peter Binsfeld....
Areas of Europe which were fragmented politically and judicially
provided the arenas for some the worst hunts - the best example
being the arch-bishoprics of the Holy Roman Empire and the Swiss
cantons.
But I would agree that the witch hunt was a judicial operation,
and the intensive prosecution of witches was facilitated by a
number of legal developemnts which took place between the 13th-16th
centuries. Both Secular and Ecclesiastical courts adopted a new,
inquisitorial system of criminal prosecution that made it far
easier for witch craft accusations to flourish.
At the end of the day, the important distinction to be made in
this matter is not between secular and ecclesiastical but between
local justice networks and central ones. The Inquisition, being
a centralised system of justice was less likely to fall victim
to the witch craze/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: That's weird I thought the Catholics were
much more liberal -- grifter, 10:48:11 11/01/01 Thu
I guess it depends on the kind of protestantism
I was referring to (north european) lutherism, I´m sorry
I didn´t make that clear
in the end it just comes down to the common sense of individuals
I guess...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question for fellow Catholics (or anyone from a religious
family) -- Whisper2AScream, 07:22:43 11/01/01 Thu
My family's not quite this bad though parents are Catholic (Dad
born and raised, Mom converted), they both like science fiction
and fantasy. My dad's got more problems with Willow and Tara's
relationship than the fact they're witches. Though, my mom wasn't
big on the game, Doom, since it included stuff like pentacles,
and she gave my copy of Diablo odd looks. (Though I explained
that the creepy demon guy on the CD cover was a bad guy, and you
play a character who fights them, she seemed to calm down a little.)
And I agree that it is stupid, if you really took a look at the
so-called forbidden programs, and tried to understand what they
were about, you'd realize that they're make-believe, and don't
come into play when religion's involved. Sheesh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question for fellow Catholics (or anyone from a religious
family) -- CaptainPugwash, 07:37:45 11/01/01 Thu
I'm an ex-religious type from a religious family (Anglican); my
mother is still wary of Harry Potter and anything else involving
'Magic'. She has a thing about Witches too.
In many cases its simply the parents preventing their children
from being exposed to another world view (paganism etc). Think
of Ned Flander's and his kids.
However (and I can understand this), many Christians don't like
seeing supernatural 'evil' trivialised (its part of their belief
system which they take very seriously). Buffy does this to some
extent, even though the show has a very serious moral/thinking
content.
I am concerned about people getting involved with something which
they think is 'fun' or 'harmless'. It IS harmless if you are a
devout materialist/sceptic, but it may be harmful if you are not
(and therefore more likely to be interested in it in the first
place). I know very few true sceptics.
I used to know someone who had her cards read on a regular basis.
I was concerned for her in the way I'd be concerned about someone
seeing a mad therapist. Its not the actual cards that are dangerous,
but her belief in them.
'Black Magic', Tarot, and Ouija et al feed on people's paranoia
and other anxieties. Its the Blair Witch effect; if ANY part of
your mind, no matter how small, is open to the possibility of
the supernatural, then you are vulnerable. It doesn't really matter
if there's anything in it or not; it can harm you in some very
real psychological ways.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 12 years of Catholic School, going to be a minister -- Charlemagne20,
09:01:01 11/01/01 Thu
You might want to make the arguement (if you are so inclined-it
will be a long road ahead and this is your family) that the shows
involved are about valuable lessons against fighting darkness
and the 'magic' they do is clearly fictious/no sign of actual
polytheistic/darkness content.
A show about a young boy who fights evil with a wand is far less
digusting to watch than the vast majority of movies currently
on the market and the fact it contains little to no violence,
no profanity, and no sexuality at all should be massive points
in it's favor.
The fact many households restrict those (as if restriction ever
did anything but weaken resistance) but not the other types of
movies have always struck me as more than slightly hypocritical.
You could also use the C.S. Lewis Arguement that manifestations
of the supernatural used by creatures of Good can never have any
source but from God just as the same for any actions that are
done in evil can have sources but from the Devil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question for fellow Catholics (or anyone from a religious
family) -- Rendyl, 09:40:36 11/01/01 Thu
You did not say how old your cousins were. I have a six year old
and she is rarely allowed to watch Buffy. Many of the episodes
late in last season were just too intense for someone her age.
She has watched a few of the lighter ones this season and will
probably watch the musical next week with me but many of the other
episodes deal with themes beyond her comprehension. (Willow and
Tara loving each other is easy to explain, Joyce dying and leaving
her little girls alone is not)
Buffy is a great show for parents to watch with their teens however
because it is sooo (maybe a little overboard even) good at showing
the consequences of the actions the characters take. Instead of
the "oh I slept with and now I may be pregnant" storyline
or the "look how mature I am..we used a condom" storyline,
from BtVS we get ALL the repercussions. Feeling lost, hurting,
lonely, happy, loved, betrayed, etc. Love and sex are not movie
of the week topics and the characters deal with them a little
more realistically.
As for the supernatural elements and religious concern over them,
BtVS is not about promoting the occult. It is just a story about
a girl and her friends "holding back the night".
Buffy and Comp are aligned on the side of Good and they work to
protect that good in themselves and others. The same could be
said for the Harry Potter kids.
On a side note, if the whole family would not be comfortable with
the Potter movie maybe just you and your parents could go?
Ren
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> <>< -- RabidHarpy, 10:45:20 11/01/01 Thu
I was raised in a fairly strict Baptist household/church - and
we were not allowed watch Star Wars, or programs with occult/witchcraft,
etc., (we were, however, allowed to watch "I Dream of Jeannie",
and "Bewitched" - don't ask me what the distinction
was, I really do not know!) Obviously by the time I hit high school
I was making my own decisions about these sorts of things, but
basically, I think our parents were concerned with not wanting
to expose us, young, impressionable children that we were, to
things that could frighten, or leave a negative imprint on us,
(or confuse us theologically).
As a Christian, I absolutely believe that there are spiritual
forces of light and darkness that are subtly trying to influence
us as human beings. I believe in Eternity, Heaven and Hell, and
follow the teachings of the Bible which clearly states that all
these things exist. I have felt peace and joy, and I have felt
the presence of evil, so I know that they are real. Perhaps it
is this confidence in the spiritual that lends itself to my fascination
of the supernatural/fantastical, but it is my faith which keeps
me from exploring the darker side of the supernatural. The Bible
indicates that before Christ, God spoke through prophets and oracles,
(who were sometimes given visions of the future), yet it also
indicates that we are not to seek the advice of fortune tellers
because it is not for us to know the future - we are to trust
ourselves to God, (hence the "faith" aspect of Christianity).
Biblical teaching also warns against pride - the first of the
10 Commandments is "not to have any other gods before the
One True God" - that is, we are to put our faith, our futures,
our desires, our worship, our hope, our energies onto Our Creator,
rather than objects, others and ourselves, (or, as the case may
be - magic). Free will allows it, but God's command forbids it
- we are not to "play" at being gods because there are
serious, far-reaching consequences which we, as human beings,
are not equipped to handle.
At some point in our adolescence, I believe each person becomes
aware enough of themselves to be able to gauge what they can and
cannot handle exposing themselves to. Most of us are also sensitive
enough not to flaunt our opposing beliefs or discriminate against
others for theirs.
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: <>< -- grifter, 10:51:27 11/01/01 Thu
well said, if only all religious people would think like you...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: <>< -- Deeva, 11:25:06 11/01/01 Thu
That was very well said. My parents are both Bhuddhists and I
was raised that way, too, but not strictly. My parents allowed
me and my siblings to explore our friends religions by letting
us go to their churches and events. It was probably the best thing
my parents could've done for us. Some people were kind of scary
in their strict beliefs and others were very welcoming. I wish
that most religious people could have your attitude.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: <>< -- JM, 13:47:04 11/01/01 Thu
From the religious right (much of the time), thank you. That was
eloquently, piously, and respectfully stated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: <>< -- bible belt, 16:15:52 11/02/01
Fri
"...We were, however, allowed to watch "I Dream of Jeannie",
and "Bewitched" - don't ask me what the distinction
was, I really do not know!)."
Because Elizabeth Montgomery and what's her name were so cute,
even when they were being disobedient to their masters/husbands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Well, what do you expect? -- vampire hunter D, 12:33:32
11/01/01 Thu
Yes, the church does consider Buffy, Harry Potter, Dungeons and
Dragons and anything with a supernatural basis to be satanic.
I'm not guessing, I was told this by a priest.
And why are you surprised. The Catholic Church is still stuck
in the Middle Ages. It was only within the last decade that they
officially accepted that the Earth revolves around the Sun. And
they still havn't disbanded the Inquisition (no, I am not making
that up. The Inquisition still exists in Rome to this day). They
even continue to push those way too outdated attitudes toward
women that Billy was so fond of.
And they wonder why noone wants to be a priest anymore.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Well, what do you expect? -- Dedalus, 14:30:38
11/01/01 Thu
You actually made me laugh vampire hunter D. Maybe you shouldn't
have, but you did.
You bring up a good point about the Church and Galileo's radical
heliocentric vision. I was just reading something from 1630 about
his trial, and about how his findings were heresy because they
contradicted the Bible. It's funny. This is what I want to know
- the fundamentalists go on and on about Darwin and evolution
and how horrible it is ... why not astronomy? Galileo completely
and irrevocably destroyed the old Christian medieval cosmology
centuries before anyone had even heard of Darwin. Shouldn't HE
be the one the church should be after? Shouldn't they be passing
out tracts arguing that the universe is made up of seven crystalline
spheres instead of whether or not man came from the mighty ape?
I can just see someone on the 700 Club arguing that the sun really
revolves around the earth in accordance with scriptures. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Well, what do you expect? -- mm, 15:00:12
11/01/01 Thu
This is what I want to know - the fundamentalists go on and on
about Darwin and evolution and how horrible it is ... why not
astronomy? Galileo completely and irrevocably destroyed the old
Christian medieval cosmology centuries before anyone had even
heard of Darwin. Shouldn't HE be the one the church should be
after? Shouldn't they be passing out tracts arguing that the universe
is made up of seven crystalline spheres instead of whether or
not man came from the mighty ape?
Strictly speaking, because human origins hits closer to home than
the "heavenly spheres." Evolution bothers and challenges
them, just as heliocentrism bothered/challenged the Ptolemaic/Aristotelian
scholastics of the 16th/17th centuries, so they go after it tooth
and claw. To the Catholic Church's credit, it's never really had
any problem with Darwin's theory. I first learned about evolution
in Catholic elementary school, and over time I've come to find
it fascinating, elegant, compelling, and pretty unassailable.
(Dunno if that makes me as a historian illegitimate, though I
am by all accounts a "bastard." ;)
Totally OT, but I spent part of the morning held hostage in a
barber's chair by a Messianic Jewish hair stylist who was nothing
less than determined to give me the Good News. (She did give me
a great haircut, so that's something.) Needless to say, I didn't
buy her sales-pitch, but out of pure curiosity could any of the
theologians around here explain what Messianic Judaism is? Whenever
I hear something new, I just gotta know what it is. (Ah, the joys
of free and guiltless inquiry....;););)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Well, what do you expect? -- Dedalus,
15:26:05 11/01/01 Thu
Messianic Judaism? Sounds like maybe Jews who accept Christ to
me.
I have mixed feelings on Catholicism. Makes sense, since I have
mixed feelings about all things religious. They do have some great
theologians, but they still have some awfully funny ideas about
birth control and the like. Still, I visited a Catholic monastery
once for a day, and it was cool.
My halfway humorous point about Galileo was ... well, just what
I said. I don't understand how human origins could be more upsetting
to them than the systematic unraveling of the very universe they
live in. They should deny astronomy in the same way they deny
biology. Logic has to apply equally.
Seriously, I want to see the fundamentalists get REALLY fundamental.
Just for a sociological experiment. Why not go all the way? If
they really believe in a literal Bible, they have to believe that
the earth is stationary, and has four corners, much like the good
book says. I can quite easily imagine *experts* coming on Trinity
Broadcast Network and arguing that the earth is flat and that
it doesn't turn on its axis. And that airplanes don't really fly
because, much like the tower of Babel, they would be struck down
for getting that close to heaven, and that aviation is actually
some mass demonic mind game the liberal humanists are playing
on everyone.
And I'm sure countless Americans would believe it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Well, what do you expect? -- Ryuei,
15:39:10 11/01/01 Thu
Far as I can tell, Messianic Judaism is an attempt to show that
since Jesus supposedly fulfills the Jewish scriptures and is therefore
the Jewish Messiah, there is no necessary contradiction between
being an observant Jew and being a Christian. Remember that the
original Christians were observant Jews and that there was a big
argument between Paul and Peter over whether gentile converts
needed to also observe the Torah. Paul won that round. The Romans
won round two when they wiped out the Jewish-Christian community
in Jerusalem along with all the other Jews and Jerusalem itself
in 70 A.D. after the Bar-Kochba rebellion.
Also, Karen Armstrong's book The Battle For God discusses the
routes of Protestant Fundamentalism (arguing that it is in fact
a modern movement - but you'll have to see what she means by that)
and in particular discusses the implications of the Scopes Trial
which is when funamentalist Christians started making Darwin the
focus of their attacks against secular humanism.
I would also recommend Ken Wilber. His book Sex, Ecology, and
Spirituality is not a great summary and attempt at systematizing
the findings of anthropologists, developmental psychologists,
and philosophers. In that book he argues that the whole world
went through a period of mythic-imperialism before being able
to enter into a more rational worldview. In fact, most of the
world has still not made the transition from a mythical to a rational
worldview. I am grossly oversimplifying the very good case he
makes. At any rate, the mythic-imperial mode is not confined to
any one religion. Not only that, but those within the same religion
may be at different stages of cultural, spiritual, psychological
development. I know this for a fact. Most of my high school and
college teachers were Christian Brothers and Dominicans who were
teaching me about Zen, Liberation theology, and existentialist
Jesuit theology. This was way beyond the mythic worldview. On
the other hand, I have know more fundamentalist Buddhists than
I can shake a stick at. So religion and even denomination alone
will not suffice to determine where a person is at developmentally.
I should also mention that Catholic fundamentalists do obviously
exist, but they do manifest differently than Protestant ones.
They tend to buy into the absolute authority of the hierarchy,
creeds, and dogmas and not so much on the literal meaning of the
Bible. It is still a theology of reactionary fear however.
Also, I should note, when I was first getting involved in Buddhist
practice, Catholic fundamentalists told my parents that by meditating
one could get possessed by the devil. My parents just rolled their
eyes at this. They are way beyond that stage of literalism and
fear. It is sad though that these fear-ridden Catholics seems
totally ignorant of the grand mystical tradition of the Catholic
Church - namely Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Nicholas Cusanos,
Pseudo-Dionysius, and even the interiority of Augustine. Truly
a shame.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Question -- Dedalus, 16:19:33
11/01/01 Thu
First off, I have to recommend the last of Joseph Campbell's Mask
of God books, Creative Mythology. He has some very good points
about how we currently have to be the makers of our own mythology.
He traces this from the twelfth century all the way down to Joyce
and friends. In a way, this is a very exciting time, if a dangerous
one.
Second off, the question. What exactly is a fundamentalist Buddhist?
I know there is a hierarchy, both social and metaphysical, but
since the whole thing is pretty much based on impermanence and
personal experience, how could that be a breeding ground for fundamentalism?
I mean, I guess anything could, but the Dalai Lama seems pretty
certain Buddhism doesn't have too much in the way of fundamentalism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Question -- Ryuei, 10:28:22
11/02/01 Fri
The Dalai Lama doesn't think there are fundamentalist Buddhists?!
LOL.
That's funny considering the problem he has had with the New Kadampa
movement - who are reactionary Gelukpa purists (though I am not
sure if they are fundamentalists so maybe I should take that back).
There are indeed Buddhists (and I have met them) who believe that
every word of the sutras is true and to be taken literally. If
the Lotus Sutra says a huge tower half the diameter of the Earth
rose up out of the ground and floated into the air then that is
exactly what happened. If the Buddha predicted that his Dharma
would only last 2,000 years before the age of corruption and infighting,
then that is exactly what will happen (or has happened) as soon
as the calendar marks off the correct date. (In East Asia this
date was believed to be in the year 1052 - they were a bit confused
about the Buddha's actual dates and to be honest scholars are
still guessing). Then there are those who, while not as literal
minded as Protestant fundamentalists, are just as rigid and triumphalist
in their adherence to certain sutras and/or founders of the various
sects. There are even those who mix such reactionary interpretations
with nationalism as in Sri Lanka, Thailand, China (before the
Communists), and Japan.
I should also mention that in fuedal Japan the temples even raised
armies of monk-warriors called sohei, who marched on each others
temples and burned them down. They even marched against and sometimes
for the daimyo (fuedal lords). The peasants often rose up against
their oppressors under the banner of thier Nembutsu practice (calling
on the name of Amida Buddha) and the townsmen of the Imperial
Capital of Kyoto for a brief period took over the city to restore
order under the banner of the Nichiren sponosored town militias.
In China, the infamous White Lotus Society was basically a Buddhist
terrorist group which attempted to take back China from the alien
Manchu dynasty. In Tibet you also have "secondary monks"
who acted as temple warriors and of course the various temples
and lineages were directly running the country.
So fundamentalism, nationalism, and the use of religious rhetoric
for political ends is not alien to Buddhist cultures. One thing,
however, is true, Buddhism itself has never sponsored forced conversions
or crusades. And for the most part in Asia it has acted more as
a counter-culture rather than as the religion of empire. This
is one of the main reasons why on the whole it has a more peaceful
record than Christianity or Islam. It just doesn't suit itself
very well to empire building or maintenance. But then, neither
do the Christian or Muslim contemplative traditions.
Bottom line is - human nature is human nature no matter what the
religion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Absolutely right on
Sri Lanka -- Rahael, 19:17:41 11/02/01 Fri
That's exactly what's happened - religious fundamentalism, plus
nationalism = some buddhist monks carrying guns and going on marches
demanding the death of Tamils.
bitterest of bitter ironies.
btw I am half Sinhalese/Buddhist and half Tamil/Christian
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks, Ryuei -- mm, 19:56:17
11/01/01 Thu
I've read Armstrong's History of God, which covers some of the
same ground. Good stuff, even if she overcompensates a bit on
some of the Islamic material (and I say this as a semi-Islamist).
Buddhism anecdote: My mother once met the Dalai Lama. Actually,
she was forced to "wand" him when she worked in airport
security a few years ago, after he beeped while passing through.
She was utterly embarrassed, but typically he found the whole
thing amusing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> "messianic judaism" --
anom, 18:23:20 11/03/01 Sat
"Far as I can tell, Messianic Judaism is an attempt to show
that since Jesus supposedly fulfills the Jewish scriptures and
is therefore the Jewish Messiah, there is no necessary contradiction
between being an observant Jew and being a Christian."
Not only that, they say Jews are not "complete" until
they accept Jesus as the Messiah. They have a mission to convert
Jews, & to do it they imitate Jewish institutions & practices,
incl. calling their places of worship synagogues instead of churches
(& getting them listed under Synagogues in the Yellow Pages, leading
to controversy w/real synagogues), having services that follow
the structure of Jewish ones (but using the name of Jesus in the
prayers) & having Passover seders in which the various symbolic
foods on the seder plate are reinterpreted as Xtian symbols. Basically
they're "Jews for Jesus" under a more acceptable-sounding
name. For several years now, there's been an organization called
Jews for Judaism that combats their efforts.
The Wilber book sounds interesting. I hadn't seen the term "mythic-imperialism"
before, & it kind of surprises me, because I don't connect the
2 ideas. What does it refer to beyond the ancient idea of kings
being gods or their descendants? I'm also not clear on what it
has to do w/sex & ecology. (I know, I should just read the book,
but I don't know when I'll have time to.)
"...Catholic fundamentalists told my parents that by meditating
one could get possessed by the devil."
I saw this on a list of several innocuous things that supposedly
could lead one away from the One True Path. Seems like anything
that could encourage opening one's mind to anything but what they
decide you should believe.
BTW, someone else (I think) referred to the use of the idea of
the devil in Xtianity. In Judaism, Satan (in Hebrew, often "the
satan"--"hasatan") is far less powerful. The word
literally means "accuser," although it is often translated
as "adversary"; I'm trying to remember which writer
compares this figure to a prosecuting attorney (w/God the judge,
& I don't know who if anyone was arguing for the defense, although
I think on Yom Kippur the person leading the service is supposed
to play this role). In any case, the most powerful Satan is shown
as being in the Hebrew scriptures is in Job, & even there he has
to get God's permission to do anything to Job & his family & can
only act within the limits God sets. He is nowhere near being
a pretender to God's throne & as far as I know isn't portrayed
as trying to overthrow the heavenly hierarchy. The much greater
power attributed to him in Xtianity (at least the more fundamentalist
denominations) seems to me, as Ryuei says, to stem from fear,
& perhaps also acts as a way to convince people they need the
Church's protection against him (kind of the other side of the
coin).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks for further clarifying
-- mm, 19:13:52 11/03/01 Sat
Speaking of the devil, Bill Moyers tells a nice story in "The
Power of Myth." In a Persian myth, Satan loves God, so much
that he refuses to bow to His creation: Man. For refusing, God
casts Satan out of heaven. And that's a metaphor for hell, in
a way; for what greater hell is there than to be away from the
one you love?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question for fellow Catholics (or anyone from a religious
family) -- maddog, 16:10:50 11/01/01 Thu
For a very strict religious family that makes sense...it's all
too common unfortunately. I think they skip the main idea of fantasy...it's
to stimulate the imagination. And if the parents do their job
and teach the difference between fantasy and reality there wouldn't
be a problem. Or at least, there shouldn't be
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Question for fellow Catholics (or anyone from
a religious family) -- grifter, 09:37:45 11/02/01 Fri
It´s quite the reversal I´d say (but then, I´m
a sarcastic asshole ;)
The religious fundamentals DO realise that fantasy stimulates
imagination...that´s why they don´t like it ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wesley and Angel -- the corruption of false responsibility, attractive
faults. -- SingedCat, 07:50:06 11/01/01 Thu
OK, once again paralelling Wesley and Angel, this time with the
guilt.
It has been pointed out before that Angel's suffering from the
guilt of all the deeds of the demon that possessed him was unreasonable--that
this was not evil he in fact committed, or which any amount of
his own self-improvement can prevent in the future or expunge
from the past. His journey these last two seasons has taught him
that, and while the essential dilemma of his exsistence still
makes him prone to brood, I believe the counterproductivity of
feeling guilt for sins that are not yours and therefore can never
be atoned for has been vividly demonstrated to him-- that it can
only create endless grief and despair that will corrode the rest
of your personality and destroy your character.
So now Wesley has the same problem, and I don't think his fear
of losing control will let him easily let go of the guilt-- it
would mean fundamentally acknowledging his powerlessness to prevent
what happened.
This is where I switch to my own personal head-cam, and from this
perspective I see this happening a lot in our society. Our social
structure is built on the idea that you are who you make yourself,
and that certain charatcer flaws that carry this idea to extreme
are more acceptable, even kind of--attractive. In some facet of
the social eye Wesley is proving himself worthy, nailing himself
on the cross of self-determination.
To run with that idea for a moment, we see these attractive faults
in many of our archetypes-- those who overwork themselves to exhaustion,
or refuse to allow themselves to relax, or to let their guard
down among friends. It's easy to take these images as bad role-models,
opting for these attractive problems instead of confronting our
own messiness, laziness, foolishness or short-sightedness....Like
my sitting here writing this as a way to get out of working out
this morning and writing music.
Right-- that's the view from the personal headcam, back to you.
:D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Wesley and Angel -- the corruption of false responsibility,
attractive faults. -- JM, 08:24:02 11/01/01 Thu
Some great points. I think that was the message of last season
and of last week. The last scene with Wes is contrasted with the
scene of Angel and Cordy training together. Angel has done very
evil things, he's even talking about them. He shares some responsibility
for the women who died or were beaten. Sure, he's sorry, he feels
bad, but he's moved on. He's not going to indulge in it or let
it lead to self-destructive behavior or cut himself off from the
people he cares about. I also agree that social, culture forces
elevate behavior till it tends to become a vice. Part of our agressive
national character I suppose. Seems that ever virtuous characteristic
has a potential darkside.
I think you also hit on a major point of the ep, responsibility.
It was an episode about taking appropriate responsibility and
action, not a PSA on woman battering. I think ME uses issues as
back drops, canvases, dramatic fodder. Joss has said he's not
interested in preaching, creating role models, or sending messages.
Plus, everyone knows violence against women equals bad. Probably
even the abusers.)
What I think Angel has really let go of is his tendency to indulge
in self-punishment. Wes is new at this. This is probably the first
truly horrible thing he's done, and he hasn't had 247 years to
develop a healthy philosophy. Plus an epiphany. He's going to
be hard on himself (and we'll enjoy it dramatically) but he'll
pull through. He usually gets up after you knock him down.
I'm going to cut him some slack though, he's not just wallowing
in the guilt and the shame, he's terrified of himself. I'm not
sure primal misogyny is right, but some of the stuff he said was
out of his own psyche. It's clear that his notions of manhood
are strongly influenced by a rejection of feminine characteristics.
The emphasis on strength, bravery, and lack of weakness twisted
into contempt for both the feminine and the female. Self-restraint
twisted into a desire to dominate. He's having to reexamine who
he is, and the source of the man he is. Not having a real nice
time right now.
So, um basically using many words to agree with you. Think ME
agrees with you too. And yay to less broody Angel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thank you, both -- Rahael, 08:43:36 11/01/01 Thu
You've given me lots of great points to think about.
Is Wesley's rejection of the feminine connected to his desire/ability
to make 'hard' decisions as apposed to 'emotional' ones? Such
as wanting to destroy the box of gavroch rather than exchanging
it for Willow, and also being able to sacrifice some of the rebels
in Pylea for the ultimate good.
I admire the way the writers have built up a consistent character
over so many seasons. Also, Wesley's strong identification and
need for approval from the Watcher's Council in BtVS seems to
be reflection of his attitude to his father.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BtVS vs. The Princess Bride?! ("All the Way" - Spoilers)
-- RabidHarpy, 09:10:21 11/01/01 Thu
For some reason, the exchange between Buffy and Spike in the basement
of the "Magic Box", reminded me the scene in the hovel
of "The Princess Bride"...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Buttercup: "Fetch me that pitcher...?"
Wesley: "As you wish..." (hands it to her).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The narrator informs us that Buttercup's recent haughtiness towards
Wesley, (a poor farm-boy who loves her), has changed and she has
just discovered that she loves him. When he enters the hovel she
asks him to fetch an empty pitcher that is hanging from the shelf
above her head. Buttercup can easily reach the pitcher herself,
and has no need of Wesley's assistance, however, her request is
not really for his help - she asks to see if, a) he cares enough
to do it for her; and, b) to test/confirm whether he will respond
positively to her newly discovered feelings for him. Wesley's
answer ("As you wish"), we are told, really means, "I
love you", and so the courtship begins.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Buffy: "Where's the mandrake root?"
Spike: (Takes it off the shelf and shares about the best way to
store it...)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When Anya asks Buffy to get more mandrake root from the basement,
she assumes that Buffy knows where it is based on her prior experience
working in the shop. Buffy makes a comment that recalls her brief
working stint, (fetching goods from the basement), and we presume
that she must have some idea of where the mandrake root is kept.
Enter Spike. His comment about the "rough and tumble"
throws her completely off-balance - (it seems as if she has just
been caught having secret thoughts about Spike?!)
Buffy's next request is to ask him help her get the item which
she (presumably) already knows the location of. He responds by
getting the item for her and sharing his knowledge of it's storage.
A unique courtship ritual indeed - Buffy is not just playing the
"helpless" damsel, but is also testing/confirming Spike's
reciprocation of her newly-discovered feelings, (ie. "Does
he still like me?/Does he really like me?")
Spike responds in kind by locating the jar of mandrake root and
giving it to her, (a symbolic "offering" of himself).
Not only that, but he imparts his wisdom about the keeping of
the roots to her - this, in essence, says to her that he is knowledgeable
and has a care for such simple things as the proper storage of
the roots, (ie. he notices details - he is willing and cares enough
to share even simple insights with her). This entire scene is
very subdued and surprisingly, and subtly tender. Although no
specific declarations of their feelings have been made, they have
both stepped onto equal footing - the first step in their relationship
has been established.
This is further witnessed when Buffy visits Spike's crypt to tell
him of the vampire attack. She decisively seeks Spike's aid, (they
are now partners), and he responds by relaying the message from
Giles, calming her fears about Dawn, and proving that his concern
is active, ("I've already checked all the tunnels and Giles
is checking out the cemeteries...") Buffy shows that their
relationship is secure enough that she can just walk into his
crypt, dig through his things and borrow weapons - she also knows
- without hesitation - that if she gives him a weapon, he will
help her without having to be asked, (although, at first, this
whole exchange is lost on Spike - "You're not going to find
her in there..." - he is still, perhaps, expecting that he
will be accused of hiding Dawn, or of somehow being involved in
her disappearance? He has become used to Buffy's usual attitude
towards him.)
Again, Buffy seems to unconsciously be confirming Spike's feelings
for her - his response is again positive. When they enter the
cemetery, Spike takes complete control of the situation from the
start. He reassures Giles by grabbing his shoulder, and addresses
the group of vampires - he is taking the lead and has no qualms
about showing the other vamps where his allegiance stands. As
soon as Buffy enters the picture, he defers to her - letting her
take over and address Dawn, but as we watch, he is seen sizing
up the threat around them, and silently/non-verbally communicating
with Giles as to the next course of action, (ie. "I've got
your back, love.") One of the vampires asks if "we can
fight yet?" - Spike gives him that "Idiot!" look,
and on Buffy's cue the fight begins.
The communication between Buffy and Spike in this episode is delightful!
It's like a little dance, or a conversation - each little question
by one partner is answered by the other, and back and forth they
go... Spike treats her as an equal because Buffy treats him as
an equal, ("You treat me like a man..."). They know
each other's strengths, and they are each beginning to learn the
other's rhythm.
I am looking forward to the day when they will seriously "Tango"...!
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Great Observations! -- Brian, 12:24:24 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Great Observations and mandrake root -- Fred, the
obvious pseudonym, 17:49:39 11/01/01 Thu
I may not remember correctly, but wasn't mandrake root a common
component of fertility and/or love potions? This would give the
exchange more symbolism.
Of course, vampires are NOT supposed to be fertile (haven't been
watching AtS.)
Comments from those who know more about this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: BtVS vs. The Princess Bride?! ("All the Way"
- Spoilers) -- Ada, 19:25:51 11/01/01 Thu
And may I add to your wonderful description this one little thing?
At the end of the episode, when Spike says good-bye and leaves,
Buffy's glance lingers after him until a word from Willow brings
her back . . .
Sigh. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> er, ahem...coupla things -- anom, 22:37:12 11/01/01 Thu
"... that if she gives him a weapon, he will help her without
having to be asked, (although, at first, this whole exchange is
lost on Spike - 'You're not going to find her in there....')"
She goes for the weapons because she saw the victim of the vampire
carjacking & knows what they're up against. Spike is surprised
because he doesn't know--he thinks they're just looking for Dawn
wandering around on a night vamps usually take off.
"He reassures Giles by grabbing his shoulder...."
Reassures him? He's off the edge of the screen when he does this,
so all we see is a hand clamping down on Giles when last we knew
he was surrounded by (hostile) vamps. The obvious assumption is
that this is an attack, until we see it's Spike. And Giles is
far from reassured--he gives a start, since Spike is behind him
& he makes the same obvious assumption.
Methinks you're trying a little too hard to make things fit the
way you want to see them....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: er, ahem...coupla things -- RabidHarpy, 06:12:11
11/02/01 Fri
"Methinks you're trying a little too hard to make things
fit the way you want to see them..."
...what can I say, I'm a hopeless romantic! ;)
Besides, Giles was pretty freaked out to be surrounded by vamps
- obviously he was startled by Spike, but I don't think his first
assumption would have been to think that Spike was spear-heading
the group, (especially seeing as Dawn was involved, and given
the close relationship between Dawn and Spike - he was her babysitter
for the last 3 months!) Not only that, but from my recollections,
Spike has never actively "attacked" on Hallowe'en, (apparently
because there are "rules" against it).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: er, ahem...coupla things -- random visitor, 06:53:22
11/02/01 Fri
In regards to Spike startling Giles, I don't think that Giles
assumed Spike was with the gang because Giles doesn't back away
from Spike when he sees him. A possible reason that Giles was
not reassured was that it was now only 2 against, I think, maybe
10 vampires, plus they had to save Dawn, and Buffy wasn't there
yet to help even the numbers. Also, Giles went to Spike earlier
in the episode for help, so why would he assume that Spike was
with these other vampires; especially since we never see Spike
hanging out with other vamps.
Also, I think Spike might have wanted to freak Giles out. Spike
found enjoyment in the biker demon's rampage, and this might be
his only source of "fun," temporarly scaring the Scooby
Gang with thoughts that he might be another evil vampire. I think
that is just Spike's personality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O/T Post. Fine Art and A Quandary of the Heart... -- AngelVSAngelus,
10:07:11 11/01/01 Thu
I'm going to scan the slides of my entire portfolio of paintings
soon, and I thought perhaps someone here might be a collector
willing to give them a once over?
So as not to hog any more unnecessary space on the board, I'll
include my other off-topic subject within this same post...
I wanted to ask you all, anyone, what the components for a relationship
are. I ask as much because I want to know what's missing. Allow
me to explain:
I had been "going out" (and I hate to use such a trite
sounding term for our relationship) with the most wonderful girl
for seven and a half months, and they brought me a great deal
of happiness. She and I have an understanding of each other that
no one else has of either of us, we talk for hours on end, but
we don't even have to to know what the other is thinking. We have
a great deal of commonalities, we love the same books, we listen
to alot of the same music, and we have differences that just make
things that much more interesting. I can share with her my every
thought and passion, all my geeky uber-knowledge of movies or
my latest idea for a painting or my problems with my father, ANYTHING.
I'm incredibly physically attracted to her, and while this is
a plus and an afterthought to me (so many things take precedence
over physicality), its a strong feeling nonetheless.
Recently Claribel broke up with me, and it wasn't about a disagreement,
any kind of argument, her losing interest or care in me. She considers
me her best friend in the whole world, the only person that knows
her intricacies and intimacies, and she'd never let me go. However,
right now, at this point in her life, she's not ready for a relationship
of the romantic kind.
Naturally, though I understood and respected her wishes, this
devastated me on an emotional level. Initially I thought I was
rejected, that I'd done something wrong. If I was really a good
boyfriend she'd be so happy that she'd be ready, right? Self blame,
self doubt, and lack of self esteem plagued my thoughts every
waking hour, and I literally had a period of two weeks where I
was able to do NOTHING but cry. My art, writing, school, work,
family, friends, everything grew dark in the shade of pall of
darkness that had come over me. Things don't seem as meaningful
when their center of gravity, the thing that they revolve around,
shifts.
Then, I came to my senses, with a little help from her. The combination
of her reassurance that I was perfect and that no one else would
have even convinced her to TRY having a relationship, and the
happiness that I experience when spending time with her, even
as her friend, canceled out all of the sadness that I felt. I
still love her. So I came to a conclusion.
If she's not ready now, then I will wait. She's the only one for
me. Now, I know some people will think I'm insane for that decision,
that's not my question.
My question is about love and relationships. What ingredient was
missing there? I like to believe that I'm really mature in the
way of understanding what should be a foundation of such a thing,
trust, understanding, consideration, care, and committment. I
really want to understand, in depth, what it is that may be preventing
Claribel from being ready for a relationship. I hope no one misconstrues
that as my not respecting, or even questioning it. I genuinely
just want to know, for the sake of putting the last bits of that
pain and confusion to rest and peace.
Sorry if I rambled,
AngelVSAngelus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: O/T Post. Fine Art and A Quandary of the Heart... --
Rendyl, 11:06:01 11/01/01 Thu
I am not sure how to put this and I do not wish to insult or influence
you or Claribel so if I overstep just whap my toes a little.
Love (much like life) happens. It does not follow a timetable
or a schedule, nor does it brake for things like "it is not
the right time for this in my life" or "I was not looking
to fall in love" etc, etc. Love is sort of there whether
you wish it or not.
You did not give your ages. (and no I am not stereotyping but
your problem is different depending on whether you are in your
teens, twenties, thirties, etc) Is this a case of she is not ready
for your relationship to become more physically intimate or is
it a case of she is not ready for a commitment to you and the
relationship? They are very different things and come from different
places. The first is just a matter of patience and support but
the second is a serious problem.
As for what was/is missing, only Claribel can answer that. Her
(and your) thoughts, feelings and perceptions led you to this
place and she is the only one who can give you the answers you
are looking for.
Ren
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> IMHO - Springboard for your Thoughts... -- RabidHarpy, 11:20:41
11/01/01 Thu
Hi AvA - for starters, I don't claim to be an authority on relationships,
however, I would gently remind you that everyone's ideas/ideals
of love are different - they are often based on the relationships
we have had and seen throughout our lives. Each person handles
love in their own way - some people jump in immediately, give
100%, and are deliriously happy! Others are more cautious because
prior experience has taught them to take their time and test whether
this time it's the "real" thing. Still others need to
step back and examine if this is really the kind of love they
are looking for, and whether or not they are able to make the
commitment they believe this relationship deserves.
I would advise friendship, patience and support - if you are prepared
to wait, give her the time and space she needs - if you two are
"meant to be" together, you will be. If not, you will
have gained a wonderful friend and learned a lot that will benefit
your future relationships.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: O/T Post. There Can Be More Than One..... -- sasha,
12:05:34 11/01/01 Thu
I'll just add to the previous posts that IMHO, there can be one
or many reasons why a seemingly perfect relationship doesn't work.
Some of the reasons I have seen are:
1) the 2 people are at different phases of life, example: one
is in college while the other is at a full-time job and buying
a house and settling down, one is a vampire and the other is the
slayer...
2) one person is having personal issues which have nothing to
do with the other person, example: at war with their parents,
death of a close friend, stressed out by debt, illness, being
the slayer, etc.
3) one person does't know what they really want out of life having
not discovered yet who they really are (need more time to grow
on their own) during which what they say they want and what they
actually do are completely different things
4) one person may have unfullfilled dreams or goals they need/want
to complete before settling down, example: study abroad, travel,
devoting a year to volunteer work
5) one person may have relationship issues based on their past
history and be afraid of committment
6) one person may not care for the other as much, example: one
person thinks they've met their ideal person but the other is
still looking for their ideal person
7) one person may really want the relationship but doesn't choose
to make the relationship a priority because of external forces,
example: money or lack thereof, different religions or culture
or race, family disapproval, in love with someone else
YMMV.
You have lots of choices here. You can:
1) accept it when she says it has nothing to do with you
2) talk it out
3) be friends
4) not be friends
5) be patient
6) move on
.
.
x) anything else you can think of
Its all up to you, dude. I think anyone who writes posts like
you will be able to organize your thoughts (maybe by writing them)
and logic this problem out.
Good Luck!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> To answer some questions from before... -- AngelVSAngelus,
12:40:11 11/01/01 Thu
I'm eighteen, since June, and she'll be seventeen in March. I
graduated this year and have since started at art school, and
she's a Junior in highschool right now.
I believe that in this case it would be a combination of external
forces and her need to grow into herself as a person. The external
forces being school and responsibilities associated with it at
this time.
Perhaps I need to grow more into myself as well, in a different
way. I think I have a very good definition of my being, but I
think maybe its unhealthy to be so uncomfortable with solitude
as I am. I think I've gotten much better than I used to be (two
years ago there wasn't a day that went by that I didn't lament
my not having found someone special), but I still feel like something
is... missing, every once in a while. Now that feeling can be
worse, having actually experienced that for a number of months.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: $0.02 worth from an old(er) woman -- WW,
13:30:42 11/01/01 Thu
AvA, I'm surprised to learn that you're 18. You do seem very mature
in your posts.
I don't know if you'll be able to do this, but please try to take
into account that a lot of the frustration you feel with not being
with a special someone is based on biology. (I know I would have
been really ticked it anyone had said that to me, when I was 18!).
Looking back on it now, and hindsight being 20/20, I can see that
for years the biological imperative led me a merry chase, of which
I was totally unaware. I thought I was basing my behaviour on
things like love and companionship, but in retrospect a lot of
it was totally beyond my control. I can recall so clearly the
discomfort with solitude that you speak of, the overwhelming need
to be part of a couple. It's not something that goes away until
you're much older. It's necessary for the survival of the species,
after all.
Believe me, I don't want to offend you or belittle the depth of
your feeling for Claribel. I just wish I had been able to realize
when I was 18 just how much of what I was feeling was owing to
hormones. I think I would have been able to relax and enjoy myself
a lot more, and been happier to be on my own occasionally. Maybe
it's just something everyone has to go through at that stage of
life. I wish you all the best!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I Do Understand That... -- AngelVSAngelus,
14:41:13 11/01/01 Thu
I appreciate your advice, and the compliment. I know that you're
right about some of it being biological, though its hard to fathom
so when it brings forth such emotional responses.
To return to a question of far less import to me from the past:
Um... anyone interested in buying a painting?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Not a collector, but I'd sure be
interested in seeing them! ;o) -- WW, 15:47:57 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> well, question answered, problem
solved... -- AngelVSAngelus, 16:21:50 11/01/01 Thu
You all gave me food for thought, and a sense of non-closure,
so I had to ask her, I had to know if there was a possibility,
a chance in the future. She said no, in essence. She told me she
doesn't want a boyfriend, that things are easier when people are
just friends.
Can someone tell me why I am always JUST a friend? What unholy
virus I must have contracted that has afflicted me with an impossibility
for a romantic relationship?
Please don't think that I belittle the meaning of friendship and
devalue what it is to be her best friend, but I do honestly consider
friendship to be on a lower pedestal, because, to me, a romantic
relationship is a transcendent form OF friendship. Someone LOVES
you.
I'm sorry for this post. I know its self indulgent, and its moany.
I just felt the need to say something somewhere...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Problem definitely NOT
solved... (O/T) -- WW, 17:59:40 11/01/01 Thu
Of course a loving, romantic relationship is a different thing
than a friendship. And of course you want one. And you'll find
one.
Your friend said she didn't want a boyfriend. Okay, take that
at face value and it doesn't say anything about you and your ability
to attract a loving partner.
As someone else said above, when you find the person you love
who loves you back, there isn't a lot of hesitancy and negotiating,
it just is. Buffy told Dawn the hardest thing in this world is
to live in it, but I sometimes think the hardest thing is to be
patient!
"Impossibility for a romantic relationship?" I don't
think so. Again, from an older point of view, every person I have
been in love with in my life has been absolutely the only one
in the world for me...my perfect soul-mate...until the next one
comes along and I fall in love with them. I went from one relationship
that lasted 20 years, spent a year alone, and then found my partner,
with whom I've been blissfully happy for the past 5 years. But
hey, I'm not dead yet. Who knows what will happen in the next
10 or 20 years?
I once played a nutty psychologist in a play called Beyond Therapy
(I think it was even made into a movie, eventually) and I've always
remembered one of my lines to a patient who was bemoaning her
inability to find the "right person:"
There is no "right person!" Everyone is limited and,
depending on your perspective, they're either horrible, or okay.
The good thing is there are a lot more people out there who you
will think are okay and who will think you are okay than otherwise.
(Just ignore the horrible ones, anyway!)
This is so hard, because I still remember so clearly how I felt
when people said things like this to me when I was younger. And
maybe there really is no way to make it all right, right now.
Maybe everybody just has to live through this stuff, before they
become who they're meant to be.
Seems to me you've made a darn good start at becoming, AvA.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: All Threads Lead to Campbell,
even the Mushy Ones -- Dedalus, 17:46:47 11/01/01 Thu
Okay, it all comes down to what Campbell always talks about. And
he talked a lot about love. What a wonderful subject he wrote,
and what a wonderful world of mythology that centers around it.
He defines three types of love -
Eros - this he defines as the zeal of the organs for each other.
This is what the oh-so-wise WW was talking about. And to be sure,
it does drive adolescent love to a significant extent. Whether
it is that way in your case or not, I wouldn't dare presume to
say.
Agape - ah, this is spiritual love. Love your neighbor as yourself,
all that kind of thing. Much like Eros, it doesn't really matter
who the person is. You love them just the same.
Amor - the good stuff, the left-hand path, etc. This is the way
of the troubadours, the way of the heart. This is the meeting
of the eyes, the dizzy rapture, the butterflies in the stomach.
This is Dante seeing Beatrice for the first time, or Angel watching
Buffy being called that bright sunny afternoon. This is the person
to person love that defies both dogma and creed if necessary.
This is what you seem to believe your relationship with C is all
about, and if it is, that's cool. You just got to say yes to the
heartbreak and the pain, and if possible, spin off a few poems
about it. The agony of love is the agony of life, after all.
Not sure any of that helped, but I just wanted to bring in a Campbell
reference. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Free Advice, and Worth Every
Penny -- Fred the obvious pseudonym, 18:12:28 11/01/01 Thu
As OnM said, there is a certain temptation to see oneself as somehow,
if not divine, then wise and powerful in these posts; we have
the virtue of anonymity. We are shielded from repercussions.
An elaborate way to lead up to the point that I might be the last
person to give advice on matters of the heart -- but I won't let
that stop me. I trust you will take these comments with a grain
of salt the size of Nebraska.
I think that you've received some very good advice in these posts,
particularly from Sasha, Wisewoman, Dedalus, and RabidHarpy. You
also deserve substantial credit -- you controlled yourself despite
the very powerful blow you received and did not injure yourself,
Claribel, or the relationship. As such you showed far more maturity,
responsibility, and strength than I did at 18. (I should point
out I am much older now.)
I knew one couple that moved in together one week after they met
for the first time. She was 18, he was 19. They recently celebrated
their twentieth wedding anniversary.
This is just to say that such an outcome is not impossible. I
should add, however, that for every one like that I've seen I've
seen five, perhaps seven, where people form a permanent attachment,
even marry, too young. Then, some years later, when the fires
of that first passion fade, they realize that they do not have
the needed compatibility for a lifetime commitment. I've seen
so many divorces of friends.
I would suggest that you go on as you have begun. Be strong enough
to take and maintain that step back from lover to friend, and
preserve your hope that you can one day return. The friendship
and trust that follows is, I think, a needed (but perhaps not
sufficient) first step for a lifetime commitment. If you try to
rush through this stage I think it will do you both more harm
than good.
If this advice does not meet your needs, discard it freely. If
any others on this net disagree, please let AvA know quickly.
I hope to do no harm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Apologies to Dedalus
-- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 18:15:20 11/01/01 Thu
I realized only after I posted that the title of my last post
might be read as a snide comment on the post by Dedalus. This
was not my intent; I wanted to say that MY advice was free and
worth no more than the price.
Sorry; it was not my intent to send an inadvertent flame.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: LOL -- Dedalus,
20:01:54 11/01/01 Thu
Thanks, Fred. I'm sure my post was worth about what it cost, though.
I was merely trying to tie Campbell in where no one but me would
have thought to stick him. :-)
Ah well. Thanks for being so considerate anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rebellion (spoilers for "all the way" "fool for
love" and "the gift") -- Sheri, 11:24:08 11/01/01
Thu
In "All the Way," Spike tells one of the vamp delinquents
that he is the rebel, while the other is simply an idiot.
So what is it that makes Spike a "rebel"?
True, he doesn't fit the mold of your average vampire--fighting
along side the slayer and all--but I believe his rebellion goes
much deeper than that.
From the episode "Fool For Love", we learn that Spike
considers himself to be "Love's Bitch", and he lives
up to this title every chance he can get.
He gets his feeling stomped on my Cecily's little pointy shoe...
so what does he do? He gets himself killed. But what do you expect?
He is love's bitch, after all.
Dru cheats on him, so he gets royally drunk off his keester and
heads for Sunnydale--a town that he loathes. He's love's bitch,
gosh darnit!
Buffy tells him that the only time he ever had a chance with her
was when she was unconscious... well isn't that typical? So, being
love's bitch, Spike goes for the shot gun... only this time he
isn't able to let his own insecurities govern his actions.
When Spike stopped allowing his insecurities about love and women
to govern his actions, he became a rebel against his own belief
that his problems resulted from rejection from women.
Let's take a look at the Spike we see at the beginning of "The
Gift". He says that he knows that Buffy will never love him.
Now, when he realized this, did the world suddenly come to an
end? Did he become less of a person, simply because a girl didn't
like him? Nope! In fact he appears to be extremely greatful for
the fact that Buffy treats him like a man. Buffy doesn't love
him, and Spike's ok! It still sucks, but it's ok.
Looking at the delinquent vamps, I think that Spike has a valid
point. In the vampire world, they are not rebels. Causing general
mayhem is what's expected. There's nothing rebellious about it.
Is Dawn a rebel because she brags about stealing lipstick--nope,
she's just being an idiot (please don't kill me! I love Dawn to
pieces, but she was doing some really really stupid things in
that episode). Doing stupid things in order to fit in with the
"in crowd" is not being a rebel, it's being an idiot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Viewer Rebellion -- RH, 11:30:48 11/01/01 Thu
"He says that he knows that Buffy will never love him. Now,
when he realized this, did the world suddenly come to an end?
Did he become less of a person, simply because a girl didn't like
him? Nope! In fact he appears to be extremely greatful for the
fact that Buffy treats him like a man. Buffy doesn't love him,
and Spike's ok! It still sucks, but it's ok."
La-la-la! I can't hear you! La-la-la! Buffy WILL love him! She
MUST!!! AAAAAHHHHHH!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Viewer Rebellion -- Sheri, 11:47:23 11/01/01 Thu
Don't worry... I'm not saying that Buffy would never love Spike.
I'm just saying that it's a good thing that Spike could come to
that conclusion (which from the look on Buffy's face may or may
not have been an accurate conclusion) without doing the whole
"I'm love's bitch" routine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Viewer Rebellion -- Dedalus, 14:14:33 11/01/01
Thu
Very insightful, S. My thoughts on the matter never actually got
that far. It seems both he and Angel have perhaps made it past
that annoying "I need to be rewarded for everything I do"
phase.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Viewer Rebellion -- Ramo, 14:55:36 11/01/01
Thu
I think Spike going out of that "Love's Bitch" thing
may actually allow Buffy to love him, since I think it's made
him more normal and less obsessive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Spike is still "love's bitch."
-- Dariel, 22:09:02 11/01/01 Thu
I think that Spike's actions are still governed by "What
will Buffy think of me?" and not by his own compass/feelings/wants.
Maybe his part in the "Oh, Grow Up" theme is to finally
get past that.
As for Buffy loving him, well....If we do get there, I bet the
ride is going to be very bumpy. Mean Joss!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike is still "love's
bitch." -- Morgane, 12:14:28 11/02/01 Fri
Hey guys, can I asked you something!
I'm not so bad in english (even if it's not my first langage)
and I usually understand everything when I watch Buffy, but what
the hell, "love's bitch" means! I didn't look but I'm
sure it's not in the french-english dictionary!
The first time I heard it in Lovers walk, I thought Spike was
saying that he loves a bitch (Drusilla who had cheated on him)!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Definition to being "Love's
Bitch" -- Sheri, 12:30:33 11/02/01 Fri
I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that being someone's
"bitch" comes from prison lingo. How to phrase this?
Well, let's say there are two guys in a prison cell. We'll call
them "Bubba" and "Tiny". One day, Bubba says
to Tiny, "I'll make your life a wonderful thing, but you'll
have to do something for me." And then Bubba lists a miriad
of things that Tiny has to do for Bubba (both sexual and non-sexual).
In exchange, Bubba promises to not allow the other guys in the
prison to gang rape Tiny. In prison lingo, Tiny is now Bubba's
"bitch".
Ok, so to Spike, Love is a lot like Bubba. Being without Love
sucks to Spike--no companion can make a person very open to attack.
But just like Bubba, Love can be a little rough on poor Spike.
He keeps falling in love with women who ultimately treat him like
crap (Cecily brakes his heart, Dru cheats on him, Buffy rejects
him--hopefully, for Spike's sake, the Buffy situation has changed),
but the idea of being open to the dangers of the prison population--i.e.
the world--by himself is even more frightening.
Did that help, Morgane? Or did I confuse you even more?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Rebellion (spoilers for "all the way" "fool
for love" and "the gift") -- maddog, 15:10:49 11/01/01
Thu
I wouldn't call her an idiot...I'd call her a typical teenager.
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I thought that they were one and the same :) NT --
Rynn01, 20:58:08 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primal Misogyny revisited -- yabyumpan, 11:16:24 11/01/01 Thu
I'm posting this as a reply to Rahael's Essentializm and social
Darwinizm post on the Primal Mysoyny thred, my comp wouldn't let
me post it as a reply
RE:"Do apes exibit signs of misogyny" actually they
do, it's recenly been discovered that Chimpanzes, those lovely
sweet apes, take part in gang rape, even from their own troop,
they are also capable of gang warfare and murder so maybe "Primal
Misogyny" isn't so far off the mark. Personally, I prefere
to think I'm decended from Bonoboes(wrong spelling, sorry), they
just seem to shag all day and if there is a dispute the females
step in with some hugs and lovin'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Primal Misogyny revisited -- JM, 13:32:53 11/01/01 Thu
I'm not quite as bothered as others by the concept of a primal
aggression aimed at women. Some of our nature is biologically
influence, and I buy that some of the common differences between
men and women are as well. At one point in a very distant past
dominating women was probably an important part of protecting
bloodlines. There's a reason why sex and violence are kinkily
linked in many people's minds. That said, it's a tiny, tiny part
of the make up. There are many, many other impulses influencing
action, and the much more important layer of culture that downplays
and rechannels all our primal urges: from hunger to fear to aggression.
Billy turned off rational thought and all the other competing
urges and left the men with only one overriding urge. I could
find this scenario plausible and not degrading to men or humans
in general. Just an opinion though, I wonder if we'll ever really
know if we're driven or programmed. Nature or nurture. Can understand
why the issue is hot button though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Non-sense, some female apes kill the babies of others, both
genders can be "bad" -- Bob Bob, 18:34:15 11/01/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Giles a sorcerer? Uh... Since when? -- Lucifer_Sponge, 11:55:19
11/01/01 Thu
There are lots of posts which adress the following issue, and
I sort of figured the best way to put in my opinion would be by
starting a whole new thread, rather than responding to half a
dozen already established ones.
Giles, unlike what some people have been infering, is not a sorcerer.
He's a watcher... he's well versed in occult subjects, but not
in occult practice. Yes, he dabbled a bit with some friends in
his youth. That was a form of rebellion, though, not honest-to-god
study and practice.
Giles knows about certain magical sects, texts, and rituals. He's
able to make use of some of those rituals, but that means little
to nothing. Dawn was able to use a ressurection spell. Jonathan,
before he became an aparently gifted sorcerer, was capable of
casting an augmentation spell.
What can be gleaned from this information, is that certain rituals
carry power in and of themselves, and will work regardless of
who uses them. Giles has no real powers... just knowledge.
Giles can undo certain witchcraft spells (The Witch) only because
the counterspells function like computer programs... anyone with
the right know-how can pull them off. He can preform a binding
ritual and speak to spirits (The Zeppo) because those are age-old
rituals which possess their own power. Giles isn't capable of
restoring a vampire's soul, casting paralyzation spells, teleporting
people, or raising the dead. Those sorts of things require natural
talent, which he does not have.
Anyway... just wanted to offer my view on the subject, because
people keep refering to Giles like he's an accomplished magician,
when he's not... he just knows about things magicians can go.
But then, this is just how I've viewed the information we've been
presented about Giles. Other people have obviously come to their
own conclusions.
~Sponge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Giles a sorcerer? Uh... Since when? -- grifter, 12:03:49
11/01/01 Thu
I guess it depends on how you define "sorcerer".
1. It is enough to just have the knowledge on how to use (some)
spells. (Giles, Dawn) or 2. You have to have a certain "talent"
for magic. (Willow, Tara)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Magick: Teachable or a "Gift"? -- RH, 12:13:33
11/01/01 Thu
"Giles has no real powers... just knowledge."
Knowledge IS power.
Anyhoo, quick question - are most people here of the opinion that
magick is teachable, (anyone can do it), or a "gift",
(there are some magicks that only the "gifted" can perform)?
If you are "gifted", is it nature/TPTB that choose to
gift you, or is it genetically passed down, (ie. Would Willow's
mother also possess powers)?
Just curious...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Magic and Chess -- Humanitas, 12:30:27 11/01/01 Thu
I think it's like playing chess.
Oh, I'd better explain that, hadn't I? ;)
Ok, I know how to play chess. I know the rules, I understand the
object of the game, how the pieces move, I can even castle when
I need to. But I would never say that "I play chess."
My brain doesn't work the way a seroius chess-player's does. I
can dabble, but I'll never get beyond the first round of a tournament.
Similarly, Giles understands how magic works. He can say the words,
perform the rituals. But he doesn't have The Gift.
So if Giles' ability with magic is analogous to my chess-playing
ability, does that make Willow Bobby Fischer?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I'll go with Humanitas. -- SingedCat, 14:52:45
11/01/01 Thu
I'm not sure a 'gift' for something is anything more than a natural
inclination which you then pursue. I don't think magic is any
different from that in the Buffyverse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> OK, spooky coincidence time. -- Humanitas,
15:36:59 11/01/01 Thu
So, today, for no reason I can think of, I post about chess. And
now I'm watching Killed By Death, in which Xander makes refernce
to The Seventh Seal:
Xander: Ooo, if he [Death] asks you to play chess, don't even
do it. The guy's, like, a whiz.
To heck with Bobby Fischer, is Willow Death?!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Bogus! *cough* Whoops, wrong version.
Ahem. -- Solitude1056, 18:21:00 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Best 2 out of 3? -- RH, 06:23:47
11/02/01 Fri
What happens if you play "Twister" with Death? (I don't
imagine he's very limber... LOL!)
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Gift... -- Lucifer_Sponge, 12:37:26 11/01/01 Thu
I'd say that magic is a gift, but not one bestowed by the Powers
That Be. I like to think of it as a talent... like painting, or
poetry. Lots of people can do it, but only some of them reallllllyyyy
have it in them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Magick: Teachable or a "Gift"? -- Deeva,
12:54:50 11/01/01 Thu
I hadn't really thought about this until now. And what I came
up with is that maybe magick it is "teachable". The
way I see it is that it's a bit like being a genius or prodigy.
Doesn't happen to everybody, just some, and others can only take
it so far. One can argue that certain prodigies are nurtured and
given the opportunity very early on so that they have accomplished
what many would view as "genius". I think that Mozart
might be a good example. I don't deny that Mozart is brilliant
because he is. But his father saw that Mozart had an inclination
towards music at a very early age and nutured it. He only accelerated
what might have happened inevitabley, that Mozart would become
a great figure in music and history.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Magick: Teachable or a "Gift"?
-- Solitude1056, 14:46:33 11/01/01 Thu
I agree in part with what you're positing, Deeva, and also with
the idea that some folks have what is colloquially called, in
the US, a 'knack' for things. I'd say that Giles does have the
knack for magick, as evidenced by a number of things he's done,
and his easy manuevering through its world. But having a knack
doesn't mean one also has the passion for it, which is what gives
you the 99% perspiration to achieve a high level. I have a knack
for art, as does my sister, and both of us were trained at an
early age by our grandmother, also a marvelous artist. But while
I can sit down and draw plenty, I just never had the passion for
it that my sister has. That's why I can do more than the average
bear but hardly as much as someone who's put hir whole force behind
it.
I don't think when a person starts cultivating their natural knacks
makes a difference - there are artists, writers, actors, teachers,
sculptors who didn't start such cultivation until mid-life or
sometimes later and are still head and shoulders above the rest
of us. It's the force one brings to bear, and the amount one invests
in the action. Giles' identity and self-worth are garnered by
his knowledge of various arts - from the martial to the magickal
- while Willow's are more clearly contained under the heading
of 'magickal' and 'computery' ... I'd say technical but I've never
seen her build anything, and technical can also connote engineering
like Fred or carpentry/construction like Xander. Each person finds
their knack(s), but beyond that, one has to find a knack that
one loves above all else. For Giles, I don't think it was magick,
even if it comes easily to him on some levels.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I would add that Giles seems to have a
special respect for magick... -- A8, 18:47:28 11/01/01 Thu
...that makes him reluctant to use it except when absolute necessity
requires it. Some people have such respect for a certain skill,
craft or art, that they try not to sully it with anything less
than 100% commitment(even when they possess a natural talent).
Two modern examples that come to mind are Jerry Garcia and George
Harrison. Jerry Garcia was a naturally talented pedal steel guitar
player, but chose not to record with the instrument after the
early seventies because he could not devote the amount of practice
time he considered necessary to do the art justice. George Harrison,
though a tasteful lead guitarist, eschewed playing straight up
lead after the emergence of Beck, Clapton and Hendrix, and chose
instead to develope a new skill as a slide guitarist.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Magick: Teachable or a "Gift"? -- Earl
Allison, 04:01:13 11/02/01 Fri
I think you need both to truly excel, but that knowledge and time
and make up for raw ability.
ANYONE can do magic, there's no way ANYONE is going to tell me
Johnathan has a natural aptitude for this stuff :) No matter his
actions in "Superstar."
However, someone with serious natural ability (like Willow over,
say, Tara) will excel and progress more rapidly -- and as we see
with Willow now, that might be a BAD thing, as learning and experience
bring more maturity, maturity Willow seems to lack.
It's like (IMHO) people with naturally fast metabolisms versus
those with slower ones. Those with slower metabolisms can stay
as slim and active, but it requires more work on their part over
those who have naturally faster ones. One group works harder,
but with that work they CAN be as good as the others.
Personally, Giles COULD be as powerful as Willow, but he'd need
to devote far more time and energy to it, which would detract
from being a Watcher.
Look at Angel -- he's shown an ability to work magic, as has Wesley.
Neither would seem to have a natural aptitude in the arts, but
both have worked some serious spells.
So knowledge is needed to teach, but natural talent goes a long
way towards levelling the playing field for the less experienced.
Take it and run.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Magick: Teachable or a "Gift"?
-- celticross, 09:51:57 11/02/01 Fri
Hmmm...good theory. A couple of other examples to back that up:
Dawn successfully casting a spell to raise her mother's body,
Jonathan's "magic bone" spell in Life Serial. You can't
tell me magick requires that much when Jonathan could hardly say
the Latin right. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Giles a sorcerer? Uh... Since when? -- Mazumdar, 12:43:00
11/01/01 Thu
I think it was established early on that Giles was capable of
manipulating magic in a fairly advanced way. Perhaps he does not
have the level of innate ability that Willow does, but "sorcerer"
hasn't been given a specific definition in the show, so there's
nothing concrete to contradict the proposition that Giles might
be a sorcerer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Giles a sorcerer? Uh... Since when? -- maddog, 15:04:08
11/01/01 Thu
I think most of the people are just phrasing it wrong...I think
they're trying to defend Giles's position on Willow's overuse
of magic. What I believe most people are trying to say is that
Giles has more experience around magic(remember he was a watcher
from very early on) and therefore knows more about the EFFECTS
of all types of magicks and knows that the kind Willow is using
has serious side effects and/or consequences.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Think of Giles as John Constantine from DC's Hellblazer
-- Trelane, 18:31:23 11/01/01 Thu
nt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> More like a reformed ConJob -- Whisper2AScream, 12:49:53
11/02/01 Fri
John's still pretty nasty and sneaky at times. Giles is a bit
milder than that (with a few exceptions here and there), plus
he's better with physical combat than ol' Johnny. Experiance-wise,
he is like Constantine, though think John's a bit more powerful
with magick. Personality-wise, Spike's the closest match to JC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Since the Dark Ages -- Malandanza, 22:44:28 11/01/01 Thu
Giles: (calming down) I'm gonna feel like hell in the morning.
Ethan: Relax. Enjoy the night. We're just a couple of sorcerers.
The night is still our time. Time of magic. A New Man
And, of course, back in The Dark Age, Giles tells us about his
demon-summoning youth:
Giles: I was twenty-one, studying history at Oxford. And, of course,
the occult by night. I hated it. The tedious grind of study, the...
overwhelming pressure of my destiny. I dropped out, I went to
London... (exhales) I fell in with the worst crowd that would
have me. We practiced magicks. Small stuff for pleasure or gain.
And Ethan and I discovered something... bigger.
Buffy: Eyghon.
Giles: Yes. One of us would, um... (nervously pours a drink) go
into a deep sleep, and the others would, uh, summon him. It was
an extraordinary high! (smiles nervously) God, we were fools.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Sorcerer?! I'm more shocked at... (spoiler) -- RH, 06:54:02
11/02/01 Fri
...the fact that he wasn't knocked unconscious in the last episode!
(I'm still not completely convinced that all of this season isn't
happening in an alternate dimension - Willow bad? Tara angry?
Spike good? Giles conscious?!?!)
I was very surprised at Giles' competency in defending himself
and Janis against the vamps - I don't think we've EVER seen him
this active! Obviously there's something to be said for the ferocity
of a parent "protecting their young" (Giles motivated
to protect Dawn), but he also showed exceptional skill in fighting
- something that we have never before witnessed from him.
Giles usually lasts 12 seconds in any fight situation before he
is knocked out, yet, here he not only holds his own but is able
to cause some substantial damage! We saw some impressive (for
Giles) martial arts skill - kicks, throws, punches, etc. - and
the way he tackled two vamps at once? The finesse with which he
caught the stake Buffy threw to him? Wow! When did Giles learn
all that? One would think he'd been training for the last 3 months
if not for the fact that he was knocked unconscious in "Flooded".
Perhaps this is the pent-up "Ripper" side of him coming
out?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sorcerer?! I'm more shocked at... (spoiler) --
OnM, 07:12:57 11/02/01 Fri
Giles has exhibited good fighting skills in the past, but you're
right, there usually is an element of 'Ripper' that needs to come
out before he does so.
The gender may be different, but think of Selena Kyle/Catwoman
for an analogy (at least in the Tim Burton take on the mythology).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sorcerer?! I'm more shocked at... (spoiler) --
Kimberly, 07:31:19 11/02/01 Fri
In addition to the "parent protecting his/her young"
factor (possibly the strongest force in the universe), it may
also be some repressed anger coming out. Although he's thrilled
beyond belief that Buffy's alive, and apparently well, he's still
been pulled back out of the life in England he's been making for
himself (and, yes, I just caught the parallel between him and
Buffy on that), and his feeling trapped may be giving him the
subconscious permission to fight effectively.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ultimate Existential Scooby
Project - The Proposal -- Dedalus, 16:11:38 11/01/01 Thu
Well, and a one, and a two, and a way we go -
Well, the Ultimate Project I guess might be funding and constructing
a grand dining hall for Buffy Symposiums, but you get the idea.
Me, myself, and several other posters were discussing this a week
or so ago in chat, and since some interest was expressed, this
might actually be a workable thing.
Now that all of you are salivating with interest, the project
would involve ... well, in its most basic and purest form, this
forum, only in book form. The posts would be longer and better,
of course, but that's the basic idea. The tentative working title
for said project is Buffy 101, as opposed to other suggestions
such as The Case for Buffy, or The Complete Idiots Guide to BTVS,
or Chicken Soup for Angel's Soul. Buffy 101 will do for now.
What I'm proposing is an Existential Scooby Publication. A no
holds barred, bad to the bone, beans don't burn on the grill analytical
critique of all things Buffy. Well, maybe not all things, but
you get the idea. It would be a collection of academic style essays
on Buffy, not necessarily just philosophy, but basically a collection
of literary criticism from the academics, psuedo or otherwise,
that haunt these parts. It would be like The International Journal
of Buffy Studies, only better. The running joke around here is
burned out printers, and this would be one way to alleviate that
problem.
I am beginning to get an idea about how all this could break down,
but I need to know who is on board and who isn't first. The interest
may be far too much or just not enough. I have talked to Masq,
and she doesn't have a problem, not to mention some other parties.
The absolute best case scenario, we actually get an endorsement
from Joss and Mutant Enemy, though that is certainly not anything
to be counted on. And when all is said and done, since this is
non-fiction, we probably wouldn't need it anyhow. But we may have
a way in to them that is best left obscure for the moment. Obviously,
since we will be dealing with a variety of authors, this could
spin into an out-of-control legal nightmare quite quickly. There
are already those of you among us researching such problems. Still,
the best Buffy ideas I've heard are on this forum, and the Buffy
fans seem to be into this sort of thing, especially the college
ones. I believe Buffy is a great show and an important one, and
like any great myth, it will gain much from competent interpreters.
Buffy 101 will not be exclusively philosophy, as I have mentioned.
Basically, I doubt anyone here besides Masq would be competent
enough to do it anyway. :-) No, this will cover a whole hosts
of topics to your choosing, hopefully in at least a semi-coherent
manner. Everyone here is reasonably bright and articulate, but
this is where it all comes down. This will seperate the men from
the boys, the Slayers from the Slayerettes. The format will probably
be like the ones airing over at Fictionary Corner, only again,
better and longer. Although I admit, I'm sending in a couple of
mine from there that are already long. :-)
I know I'm on board here, and I think Sheri and mundi are as well.
We will need at least six or seven other writers here, each composing
roughly three or four essays each, probably around five or six
typed pages at least. I was wondering if we should do this theme
by theme or season by season or whatever, but I think we should
just let each author have a little section, and a running theme
or tone should present itself. And these are not going to be any
of those sissy five paragraph essay jobs you did in middle school,
these are going to have to be Kaboom level works. Like on our
forum scale. Kaboom. So rich in philosophical goodness, the reader's
head implodes. Literally. I mean, where there was once a head,
after reading these essays, there will only remain a bloody stump.
They should be academic enough to be serious, but mainstream enough
so that your average local yokel Buffy fan might want to pick
it up.
Again, none of this is set up yet, except in its most embryonic
stages, and it could fall apart at any stage of the game. Publication
is of course very dicey on any project. But this is not impossible,
and we may have a few tricks up our sleeves before it's all over.
Needless to say, this could be really, really cool. Best case
scenario, we get Joss' approval and go down in the history books
along with Buffy. Worst case, we just develop some kick arse essays
for Fictionary Corner.
Let me know who is interested down below. I hate to start imposing
qualifications, but you do need to be a competent writer, needless
to say. Any backgrounds in English or editing or journalism a
plus. I will do a series of instructions from here on out to help
guide this thing. Each author at the very least will probably
need to do an essay before any book proposal can be gotten together
for a possible publisher. It's still being organized, so any helpful
hints would be ... well, helpful.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Wow, that's scary symmetry, Dedalus! (see above) --
mm, 16:20:58 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Wow, that's scary symmetry, Dedalus! (see above)
-- Dedalus, 17:33:59 11/01/01 Thu That is freaky. Okay, this would
be an extension of that then. A Buffyversity Publication. Sort
of like our very own literary journal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Ultimate Existential Scooby Project - The Proposal
-- Lucifer_Sponge, 16:51:34 11/01/01 Thu I'd be interested in
taking a crack at it. Though to be far, and truely honest, I'm
not sure I'd be able to come up with something worthy of such
a work. I'm willing to try, though.
I'm not sure what topics I'd want to cover, but something Tara-related
would be severely fun for me. I'm also interested in taking some
sort of look at witchcraft or even magic in general in the BTVS
world... possibly by linking it with related culture, philosophy,
and mythology within the real world. Though I do remember you
weren't too thrilled with that idea the last time it was presented.
But yeah... I'm willing. If it gets to a point where you simply
have too many offers, I'll probably back down to make room for
some brighter individuals. There are a lot of people on this board
who can really blow people's minds to a much greater extent than
I ever could, and I'm perfectly fine with that. Something like
this deserves the best of the best of us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Ultimate Existential Scooby Project - The
Proposal -- Dedalus, 17:28:50 11/01/01 Thu Okay, so I wasn't too
thrilled with the idea of magic in the real world last time. I
don't know. My main issue with that would be the taking of a work
that is meant to be nothing but metaphorical and giving it a literal
inflection that was never intended. Still, if it could be academ-y
enough, who knows. What with the world the way it is, I just have
this not-so-latent horror of all things literal in the myth department.
But Tara is a bigger topic than that.
This is what I want everyone who is even marginally interested
to do, though. Just weigh in, now, and feel free to weed yourself
out later.
The best of the best of us, indeed. Sort of like Top Gun, only
we're writing essays instead of flying F-14's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Ultimate Existential Scooby Project
- The Proposal -- JM, 17:41:10 11/01/01 Thu i would love to participate.
I know that I'm not a very regular poster, but I've been bursting
with essay length commentary lately. I've got a couple of topics
that have been comsuming me lately: some characters I'd love to
talk about Wesley and Giles especially, and also Anya. Topics
are the significance of consequences and the inability of current
generations to handle a discussion of serious issues without an
infusion of irony. I'd also like to do an exploration of family
issues and abuse. Although I don't have any personal background
that gives me insight, I'm facinated by the dramatic attractiveness
of issues that would make all of us ill in the real world.
However, I don't know that I have the requisite academic background.
I think my writing skills are more than competent, but my background
is a BA in History, and I purposely shied away from literature
and philosophy. Tell me if you're intersted in my contribution.
Also, I would be interested in exploring the methods ME has used
to grow their characters. No one is who they were first season,
or even last season, and the effect is phenomenal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The Ultimate Existential Scooby Project
- The Proposal -- Dedalus, 17:55:42 11/01/01 Thu "Bursting
with essay length commentary lately"?
Sounds pretty good to me. The family stuff would be nifty, and
we have yet to get that much commentary on Wesley and Giles. Character
development has been amazing.
As for the prerequisite stuff, that is not going to be a major
issue. I would like everyone to at least have a college degree,
but it's not a major thing. That's why we're doing this, unlike
Slayage that says everyone writing about Buffy needs a PhD. Hell,
if someone is the greatest writer in the world, nobody here is
really going to care if they just have a GED, you know? Many of
our best and brightest seem to be self-educated, and to a major
degree, because you know, you have to keep up your education,
even after graduation.
We'll see.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Ultimate Existential Scooby Project - The Proposal
-- Humanitas, 17:56:03 11/01/01 Thu Well, count me in, but I'm
not sure what I want to write on at the moment. I sort of wing
it from week to week, working on whatever inspires me.
Hmmmm.... now I gotta go think about this...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Ultimate Existential Scooby Project - The Proposal
-- LadyStarlight, 18:14:33 11/01/01 Thu I'd like to be involved
in some way with this. Is there an opening for proofreader/editor??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Count me in as a proofreader, maybe essayer --
zargon, 21:53:43 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'll go you one better, and maybe a bit more manageable.
-- Solitude1056, 18:17:39 11/01/01 Thu I've edited several independent
magazines, and when I heard from Liq that you folks were discussing
this a week or so ago, I kept thinking about it - just been too
busy to post the notion. Curiously, I started a draft of such
this very afternoon. Synchronicity abounds, indeed.
The word I got was just what you've posted: a book of some sort.
However, based on my experiences, I'd suggest a quarterly magazine
instead - not only would it be a bit more manageable (and less
intimidating for folks not used to the idea of high academia & what-not)
but also quite a bit more feasible in terms of distribution and,
uh, actually having it not only pay for itself but also potentially
pay the writers. Okay, not by much at first, since the first go-round
would pay back the editor for shelling out the money and I was
about to start explaining it but since I'd guess not everyone
here is a businessperson, I won't belabor the way it works, here...
but it does work, and it also helps that I've still got tips and
leads on who would distribute such a thing.
See, magazines aren't like books. Magazines we print and get together
on our own, and then send to the distribution companies - they
don't care whether we spell everything right or number the pages
backwards. If it sells, they'll buy more. (Some of them don't
even care about that, they'll just buy a basic amount - 300 to
600 copies, usually - flat off simply as a means to offer strange
and little-known magazines in their distribution line.)
The best size would be roughly 5-10 articles, or about 40 or 50
pages total. Artwork is simple, since we only need to write Joss
& company and ask about royalties on a low-level magazine, and
then get permission to reuse UPN or WB publicity. If we knew we'd
have a distribution of several hundred thousand, there might be
bigger bucks involved. A distribution of a few hundred? Naw. No
sweat. Okay, so that's the cover art. I doubt there'd be advertising
since a nationally distributed magazine of low-distribution just
isn't appealing in a marketing scheme... and advertising is the
*real* bucks in magazines. No advertising makes it rougher to
pay each author as much as we'd obviously all like to get. (But
whatever, a few bucks is small pleasure compared to discovering
your article selling in a Borders somewhere in Wichita. ;-)
The idea of a quarterly might be more feasible than a book since
it also reduces the issues of rights, permissions, and payment
(if any). Basically, first rights go to the magazine, but copyrights
are held by the individual authors. (That translates to roughly
- very roughly - if someone xeroxes a page, it's a violation of
the magazine's copyright, but if someone types up your words and
uses it without the magazine's presentation, it's a violation
of your right since the magazine's design isn't involved.) I doubt
it'd be an issue but in case, there ya go - also good to know
that in case anyone else says, hey, we read your article & want
to reprint it somewhere else. That's a lot less complicated than
a book, where publishers are going to approach it in a more complex
matter, and are also going to stress ahead of time as to expected
sales and what-not.
I also figured that a quarterly would mean there'd be room for
folks like our intrepid essayists to pull out all the stops...
but we might also look to some of our thought-provoking non-philosophers
to tackle a topic and present a round-table essay. A cross between
a conversation over dinner and the posting board here, if you
will. And on top of that, my suggestion from past experience says
that idea of a theme for each issue is an excellent one. Planning
the themes in advance also lets writers know so they can start
working on an idea way in advance, and send it in with plenty
of time for the review group for that issue.
It'd also mean that if someone had a great short essay but didn't
want to flesh it out (or wasn't up to it), they could either contact
other folks for a round-table essay... or just leave it and submit
it as-is. Naturally, spelling and grammar would be important,
but otherwise, whatever. (Hm, maybe we'll rope anom or one or
two other folks into being last-minute readers to check for minor
spelling/grammar problems, but it's not a major stress.)
Two things about this, then: I'd suggest essays would be reviewed
by three or four people who aren't writing for that edition. I'd
cull the names & info off the essay & send it around, and then
put the critiques or responses back with the essay and send it
to the author (that way no one can say, "I got told No because
they knew it was me," or whatever, just because I'm fair
like that). On top of that, doing the first edition with no expectation
of profit means that we'll have seed money for the second-edition,
and the profits of the 2nd will pay the writers from the first
- by word. That may sound funky to those of you new to such, but
that's the fairest method, especially if it's a roundtable discussion
amongst six people... just go by word, five cents per or whatever.
Yes, it's arbitrary, but failing a better method... unless someone's
got one, out there (and if the 'zine did turn a profit, having
it worked out now would prevent major disagreements later).
The business side gets a little more complex for other reasons,
but I've explained enough here, I think (and probably rambled,
too). But I think the writers here could way kick ass and it'd
be way popular... it's just a matter of:
1. decide on a theme 2. get volunteers for the review group 3.
submit, review, and select essays 4. lay it out 5. determine size
(and either cut or add) a rough rule of thumb now of 40 pages
gives me a basis for getting quotes on printing & distribution
as well as figuring out reasonable cover price 6. send to printers
7. ship to distributors
And lastly, no, I wouldn't recommend subscriptions. Unless a bunch
of you are going to show up at the editor's house to help stamp
and address, I'd say no-go... except for paying authors with a
copy (which is a hassle but not impossible). Make it over-the-counter
only - there's benefits from sending direct but it's a huge time
issue and that's just way too much hassle. (If you're wondering,
I wouldn't mind doing editor, but that means I won't decide whose
stuff gets added or deleted - I'd rather a review group take over
that, with Masq having final say on any controversial articles
or themes. And again with the themes, I'd suggest nominations
from the board, with final choice by Masq, natch.)
See, and that way, Dedalus, you're freed up to write your heart
out, along with d'Herblay, Mundusmundi and OnM. Hm. Maybe we should
have one quarterly for each of you, and then another one for the
rest of us mere mortals. Heh, just kidding... I think!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Possible title? -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 18:23:03
11/01/01 Thu A minor suggestion:
"The University of California/Sunnydale Quarterly Review?"
Of course, the UC system would not permit this, even if they did
not have a Sunnydale campus -- but it does capture a nice academic
tone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: My thoughts, and also another possible title.
-- OnM, 06:52:06 11/02/01 Fri As usual, leave it to Sol to come
up with a practical means of realizing the germ of a good idea.
Big opposable digit extended upwards towards the quarterly mag
idea from yours truly!
Obviously, count me in, although I have some doubts about whether
my sort of natural gonzo writing style would blend into a scholarly
series of articles, but even if I could only contribute occasionally,
I would certainly be glad to help with reading over submitted
texts and offering pre-publication thoughts thereon.
As to a possible title, I think it's important to make a clear
reference to how this all got started, so I suggest:
The ATPo Quarterly ( the actual font might be the one Masq uses
on her home page )
With a subtitle of:
The Common Philosophers Buffyverse Journal
I prefer 'ATPo' instead of 'ATPoBtVS' because 1) It rolls off
the tongue more smoothly, and adding a melodic quality to a title
never hurts, IMO, and 2) 'All Things Philosopical on' with the
end left hanging suggests the sense of open-endedness and variety
our writings tend to illustrate.
As to the subtitle, The use of the word 'common' sets us deliberately
apart from the 'doctoral' category that is already being covered,
and it is my understanding that this is what Ded and others are
trying to achieve. There is also the small degree of irony involved
in that for many people, 'common' and 'philosophy' are mutually
exclusive concepts, and of course we wish to prove otherwise.
'Buffyverse' is succinct. 'Journal' suggests an ongoing series
or journey, which is the idea.
So anyway, there ya be. Whaddaya think?
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Au contraire, your stuff is perfect....
-- mundusmundi, 12:52:38 11/02/01 Fri And I'll tell you why: It
has personality. Seriously, look in most any magazine and you'll
find a personal "column" or two (an "As I see it"
section or equivalent). I see your writing as being along those
lines, and a welcome addition to the 'zine.
Good title idea too, BTW.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Good point, OnM - Personality
is just the right word -- Dedalus, 18:26:44 11/02/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> i like "common philosophers"
(& atpo, 'cause you can pronounce it!) -- anom, 18:31:27 11/03/01
Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> You could print it at... -- vampire hunter D, 19:03:16
11/01/01 Thu The printing company I work for. It's fry Communications
(see the website at frycomm.com it might have details)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> wooo, awesome... sure beats the old days of
cut & paste... on paper! -- Solitude1056, 19:17:28 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: You could print it at... -- Humanitas, 12:14:05
11/02/01 Fri VhD, are you in Mechanicsburg? That's my hometown!
There's a Fry Communications there, or there used to be back when
I lived there. That's just too bizzare. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I'll go you one better, and maybe a bit more manageable.
-- Dedalus, 19:44:33 11/01/01 Thu That's fascinating, Sol. I had
never thought about that. You actually seem to know what you're
talking about. Damn, you sound so organized already. I'll print
all that off and read it a few times. I have no idea how to start
something like that, but it sounds pretty damn good.
And from what Liq tells me, you are a brilliant editor, so that
is certainly a possibility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> wow, sol, you really know your stuff -- anom, 21:00:31
11/01/01 Thu "Naturally, spelling and grammar would be important,
but otherwise, whatever. (Hm, maybe we'll rope anom or one or
two other folks into being last-minute readers to check for minor
spelling/grammar problems, but it's not a major stress.)"
I was already thinking of chiming in on this, so no rope is necessary,
OK? We'd need to decide what level of editing is appropriate;
we got some deep thinkers here whose sp./grammar isn't that great
but have made important contributions to this ongoing oeuvre (to
get a little pretentious). And I wouldn't have said "we got..."
if this were for publication, but others might. Another issue
is how people feel about being edited. My occasional corrections-when-asked
& even more occasional rants may be fine here (I hope), but not
everyone is OK w/having their own personal words changed (even
just the sp./grammar). And finally, is everyone comfortable having
their real name used? Posting names are fun, but the anonymity
they allow makes some folks more comfortable expressing their
opinions (not always an advantage!). Would some of us be less
comfortable about participating if it would be under their own
name? Is there an alternative?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> thanks. done it for long enough! - about that
review... (and copyrights) -- Solitude1056, 06:33:47 11/02/01
Fri Spelling is crucial, but we have the technology for spell
check. Grammar is basic - periods are useful at ends of sentences,
and proper capitalization is key, too. The way I've done this
before is that there's roughly 3 groups at work, in terms of editors:
1. main editor receives submissions, makes a note of whose name
& contact info goes with which. then makes submission "anonymous"
except for a correlating number, and then sends this off to the
review group.
2. review group (different per issue) three or four people who
have stated they won't be writing for that particular issue. they
read the submissions, and send back comments. things like, "grammar
needs so much work that it made me not want to read the rest of
the essay," or "fix grammar, rest is great." [The
editor then strips these comments of names and sends anonymous
comments/critique back to author along with decision of yes, no,
or yes-with-changes.]
3. beta writers/copy editors These are the folks who know their
spelling & grammar yet are sensitive to the fact that each person
has hir own style. The review group's paying attention to content,
but the beta writers pay attention to how it's said. The third
group isn't a formal one - just a list of folks who've said they'll
beta read if needed. An essay with good stuff but needing grammatical
help would be put out there for a beta reader to grab.
As for author names, pseudonymous work is still copyrightable
- if/when an author decides to do the formal approach and send
it in to the Library of Congress (assuming you're in the US),
then there's a line for designating whether the work was published
under a pseudonym. Note: always keep your rough drafts, just in
case you need to prove that you wrote something. Your rough drafts
(even printed early versions or zipped saved files with an old
time/date stamp) are your basis for showing that you created the
piece yourself. As a photog, I keep my negatives as proof; as
a writer, I keep my drafts. Just a tip. ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: thanks. done it for long enough! -
about that review... (and copyrights) -- Dedalus, 07:51:44 11/02/01
Fri Yeah, we would need to have these copyrighted via the formal
approach.
I personally like having my real name on my stuff. I don't see
the big deal. What is going to be the fun of picking up a copy
of this at that Borders in Wichita if you can't even see your
own name? Ah well.
And incidentally, I INSIST on contributing to every single bloody
issue, unless of course I am killed in a tragic blimp accident
or something.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: thanks. done it for long enough!
- about that review... (and copyrights) -- Humanitas, 12:20:14
11/02/01 Fri I'm also more than ok with using my real name. In
fact, if I'm going to be published, I want my real name on it.
After all, anyone can hold up a magazine and say "See this?
I'm Humanitas!" Not that they can't claim to be me under
my real name (it's not that unusual), but still...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> you think spellcheck can substitute for
a real human editor who can spell???!!! -- anom, 13:43:08 11/02/01
Fri HAhahahahahhahahaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah...what,
you never haha typed "that" for "than" hahaha
or "or" for "of" heeheeheeheeeee or--oh wait,
this is the best, hahaha it changes the whole meaning & slides
right through spellcheck--"now" when you meant "not"?
Yeah--hahahahahaha--spellcheck--heehee--right. Not to mention
it'll have you checking 5 things that are right for every 1 error
it catches.
Whew. Thanks for the laugh. And put me down--pant, whoof--for
copy editor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> *cackle* see, I knew that plan would
work! awright, anom, you're put down, err, noted. ;-) -- Solitude1056,
15:46:37 11/02/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> no putdowns, now... @>)
-- anom, 18:40:56 11/03/01 Sat Ya didn't need a plan, Sol, I was
already interested. Maybe even in the review group once in a while.
Depending on my freelance workload, of course.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I guess that shows why I'm a sidekick... -- Isabel,
21:26:03 11/01/01 Thu It looks like something that might be fun
to read, (That is if my head doesn't explode) but I'm pretty sure
I'm not of the right caliber to contribute. There is one thing
I wanted to comment on:
"(That translates to roughly - very roughly - if someone
xeroxes a page, it's a violation of the magazine's copyright,
but if someone types up your words and uses it without the magazine's
presentation, it's a violation of your right since the magazine's
design isn't involved.)"
I had to work on some of the wording of my institution's Copyright
Policy. In the U.S., photocopying a few pages of a publication
for your own use, (scholarship or pleasure not profit) is covered
under the 'Fair Use' provision of the Copyright Laws and is not
a copyright violation. Photocopying a significant portion to all
of a publication is a copyright violation.
That, my friends, is the extent of my knowledge of Copyright Laws.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Ultimate Existential Scooby Project - The Proposal
-- vampire hunter D, 18:59:21 11/01/01 Thu I might be willing
to write ONE essay. But that's all (I'm not as good at writing
like you guys are
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Ultimate Existential Scooby Project - The Proposal
-- Rattletrap, 04:59:29 11/02/01 Fri A good idea Ded, although
I think Sol's suggestion would make it more manageable if someone
is willing to commit to doing it every three months for a while.
I have some ideas I'm working on writing up, but those are little
more than ideas at this point. I'd also be willing to help as
a pre-reader/reviewer if those are needed.
'trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Ultimate Existential Scooby Project - The Proposal
-- Kimberly, 07:26:31 11/02/01 Fri Count me in. I don't have any
ideas for essays right now, but I'd be willing to help on proofreading,
spelling, grammar, etc.
(The History of the Slayer? The History of the Watchers' Council?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> A better organized, and hopefully relatively short, way
of doing this. ;-) -- Solitude1056, 07:45:16 11/02/01 Fri Okay
folks, give feedback. After dealing with Dark Alchemy & that whole
crew, I know the best way to handle this is to jump right in and
say, this is what I'd suggest. Can't start a conversation unless
someone starts talking, and can't do much of that without some
concrete notions.
All essays. Each issue'd have one or two long ones, maybe four
or five short ones, and one round-table discussion.
Long essay: 2000 to 3000 words.
For an idea of what that means, see Mundusmundi's essays on history,
or OnM's recent review titled "Are We Not Gods." In
MS Word, this comes to about four pages, single-spaced without
extra lines between the paragraphs. (Round Tables would fall in
this category.) Short: 800 to 2000 words.
Roughly 1-2 pages, single-spaced, no extra lines between paragraphs.
See Dedalus' thread that started all this for an idea of what
900 words looks like. Possible Themes?
- recreating the identity - social construction - power (physical,
mental, &/or magickal) - history Possible titles?
The ATPo Quarterly: The Common Philosophers Buffyverse Journal
Journal of Buffyverse Studies ATPoBtVS Quarterly Existential Scooby
Quarterly Editor: The sucker, err, Sol.
Review Pool:
Lady Starlight OnM Rattletrap Anom Humanitas Purplegrrl* Round
Table
Rufus Wisewoman* Beta Group:
Marie* Zargon Anom Rattletrap Kimberly Lady Starlight OnM Humanitas
Writers: Everyone else!
[The asterisk indicates that the person hasn't really popped up
& nominated hirself... but I'm nominating hir anyway. That's not
an order, mind you - just stating my observation that some folks
are worth their weight in pixels when it comes to the supporting
roles.]
As for the folks in italics? See, rather than dump this all on
one person's shoulders, each group has their own kinda leader
person. So if I sent an anonymous essay to Lady Starlight, she'd
be in charge of who's doing review for whichever issue the essay's
for, and she'd make sure it got to the right people. And if I
sent something to be proofed to Marie, she'd go down her list
& see who's not been swamped with a bunch of proofing & can take
on a short essay and help out. No one could keep track of all
of this, all by themselves, which is why extra group leaders are
very important. And Rufus? Rufus got nominated for round table
because no one can cut through the philosophical hooey like Rufus,
straight to the heart, and that's kinda the point of some of the
round tables we have here. ;-)
Alright, take it and walk nonchalantly!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A better organized, and hopefully relatively short,
way of doing this. ;-) -- Kimberly, 07:54:12 11/02/01 Fri I'm
on board. I also wouldn't mind writing, with long lead times;
I just have a hard time coming up with appropriate topics. Or
not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sigh -- Dedalus, 08:00:51 11/02/01 Fri The only
problem is length. I doubt any of the ones I've written thus far
would fit even in the long essay range. I wouldn't be able to
write my heart out ... I would have to reel it in, and possibly
throw a lasso around it, and drag it kicking and screaming to
the ground like an angry bull. Length would be where a book could
come in awfully handy.
Also money. For those of us already over the passing thrill of
seeing our name in print, turning a profit at some point would
be nice. A book would be better for that too.
Ah well. It's still a great idea for the group, probably much
better than mine when all is said and done.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Actually, not quite. -- Solitude1056, 12:49:45
11/02/01 Fri Based on what you've written in the past, Ded, you
could double in length and still be within range. And if the review
editor & company okay'd it, then I can't see a problem with one
major-focus article and two others instead of 4 long ones (in
other words, having a long-long article).
As for money, honestly, we're more likely to make money from a
magazine than from a book. On average, first time around, we'd
be lucky to get 10 cents going to the writers; the rest goes to
the publishing house, distributors, and publishers. Multiply that
ten cents by number in first printing (with no promise of second),
and then the issue of dividing that amount up between folks. Oh,
and add a year or two while we shop it around and try to convince
someone to publish a collection of unpublished authors on a very
niche topic! Doing a magazine - once we get past the first issue
hump o' printing costs & it can cover that amount - there's the
chance of more for the writers. The only key is that the review
group may also be writers, and so it's only fair that folks who
are taking an issue off would then provide peer review for the
others, and so no one is stuck always reviewing and never writing.
;-)
And lastly, the issue of seeing your name in print still stands.
The distributors I know of who'd pick this up are national bookstores
and music stores, so there's a better chance of seeing your name
in print that way than with a book, all things being equal - but
we may want to turn things over to anom (the professional editor)
for an assessment on the book world. My experience with it is
predominantly as a bookseller.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> sorry, not my area--anyone else? -- anom,
18:53:54 11/03/01 Sat "...but we may want to turn things
over to anom (the professional editor) for an assessment on the
book world."
Me? I just make 'em succinct. I'm more the nuts-&-bolts type--I
work w/the words long before anything sees print (well, not so
long in these high-tech days). I have nothing to do w/distribution
or marketing, & I don't have that much experience w/books, at
least not compared to the other things I work on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Not sure what Review Pool, Round Table or Beta Group
are. -- Sheri, 08:50:24 11/02/01 Fri But I do have editing experience,
so if you guys want help with this project on that end, I'm here
to offer my assistance. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Whoops, should have read the other posts in
this thread -- Sheri, 08:53:25 11/02/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A better organized, and hopefully relatively short,
way of doing this. ;-) -- grifter, 09:10:05 11/02/01 Fri Although
I have absolutly no qualification for it apart from being a (hopefully)
semi-intelligent being, I´d be really happy to "beta-test"
the articles/essays.
And, of course, I´d buy the magazine or book. ;)
Although, without any kind of mail order, that wouldn´t
be possible since I live in europe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> For you? We'll make sure you get a copy. ;-)
-- Solitude1056, 12:51:01 11/02/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> thanks a lot, just wasn´t bold enough
to ask for it ;) -- grifter, 13:42:15 11/02/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Me on the Roundtable staff -- Liq, 09:28:56 11/02/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I am SO in! -- Humanitas, 12:27:24 11/02/01 Fri And
put me down for round-table stuff, too. I actually work much better
when I have other folks to collaborate with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Just read this now.......nice to see I have one Gift........;)
-- Rufus, 02:31:44 11/03/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Ultimate Existential Scooby Project - The Proposal
-- verdantheart, 07:46:06 11/02/01 Fri I'd be happy to contribute
if you'll have me. I think I could come up with something in 3
months. I'd also be happy to do some reviewing if needed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Ultimate Existential Scooby Project - The
Proposal -- fresne, 09:23:20 11/02/01 Fri On one hand I want to
say, me too, me too. The group mind here is so incredibly rich,
it would be nice to see our thoughts in print (and not just on
our printers.)
And yet, (because I have hands numbering two) I am just happy
when I can keep current on all the wonderful posts here, much
less write multitudinous eloquence.
A theme is a great idea, and might be a good aid to those less
prolific writers, who have ideas to contribute, but need a little
help to get started.
My only concern would be that we don't stop posting essays to
the Fictionary Corner. Perhaps that would be a good location for
back issues of the magazine, once we are in production.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Good idea about back issues... now we just need
to decide on the first theme! -- Solitude1056, 12:52:51 11/02/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Ultimate Existential Scooby Project - The Proposal
-- Tillow, 09:03:48 11/02/01 Fri
I'm new here and not a board heavy weight BUT... sounds interesting.
I'm currently a copywriter so I'd be happy to help in whatever
way I can.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Ultimate Existential Scooby Project - The Proposal
-- Whisper2AScream, 12:30:49 11/02/01 Fri Be more than happy to
lend a hand with what's needed. I can write essays, proofread,
and/or help with research if you want to include footnotes and
a bibliography for sources. I have access to a couple of libraries
near me, plus there's a plethora of sites online that I know links
and URL's for. (Including topics such as psychology, physics,
and the occult.) Most of my publications, particularly online,
are fan fiction, or the mini-essays I have presented here and
other forums. I worked on a student creative writing newsletter
in high school, and have had work published there. I have taken
courses in English, and gained high marks in said courses, though
my major is Computer Science, not English, Communications, or
Journalism. Hope you consider me, and my assistance in this endeavor.
Sounds like an excellent idea.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> My dilemma -- Rahael, 12:45:41 11/02/01 Fri I'm in
a bit of a quandry about this.
I would love to contribute. I can write - I got several prizes
for my essays while I was at Oxford and some of them have been
published in journals.
The only thing is that without a title to write toward, I'm pretty
useless. The Buffyverse is huge. And I've never written about
a tv programme before. Literature, history and politics yes, but
these are new waters.
If someone could get me to work on something, I'll write it, and
perhaps if the editorial team could give me some pointers on how
to improve it?
Also, I'm totally thickskinned when it comes to my writing - I
would have absolutely no problem if it were not included for publication
or whatever. But it would be kind of interesting to have something
juicy to sink my teeth into apart from writing boring old press
releases about the state of the public sector in Britain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Count me in too! -- Lunarchickk, 13:42:06 11/02/01
Fri Well, I work in advertising (experience with copywriting,
layout (Quark), and the inevitable proofreading) plus I was an
English major (and write fiction in my "spare time"
-- no fanfic though, to contribute to the Fictionary) -- and I'd
love to help out in any way I can. Proofing, reading, layout,
etc.
Plus I'd love to write, as well, and I second Rahael in hoping
for a topic to get me started! (And no hard feelings here either
if I don't cut it for publication.) But feel free to recruit me
for other stuff as needed, and as for writing, I'll work on coming
up with something that's worth reading. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Theme idea... -- Solitude1056, 12:59:07 11/02/01 Fri Rather
than suggest "philosophy of such-and-such," I figured
I'd go a bit more cryptic. Let's see:
eye ... eye
as in, "eye for an eye," or "eye to eye,"
or "the ay's have it" - perhaps the philosophy of retaliation
& vengeance, or the importance of group perspective, or the common
bonds between two characters taken from a variety of philosophical
perspectives? or a comparison of the various visuals in each show?
or something... Such types of themes are more my style, because
not only do writers get a wierd jump-off-point, but it also frees
them up to show the rest of us how they'd interprete that phrase,
comment, or quote in light of the Buffyverse.
Ideas, comments, complaints?
(And yes, I'm making notes on what each person has volunteered
for...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Theme idea... -- mundusmundi, 13:36:36 11/02/01
Fri I like the idea of having a "theme"; however, if
possible, I'd prefer for each issue to allow a little leeway for
the kind of informal, off-the-cuff dissertations everyone does
so well around here. Maybe we could keep things thematic in the
main "Philosophy" section (I'm generalizing here), all
the while allowing some creative freedom in the other sections
around the edges (History, Poetry, Humor, Discussion Threads,
whatever). I've written for The Chronicle Review, and they do
something similar to this. Seems to work out well.
Just throwing ideas out. Feel free to thwack 'em back.
-mm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Another thought -- mm, 14:29:23 11/02/01
Fri For a title, I think something along the lines of Existential
Scooby Quarterly would be terrif. It's the perfect combination
of highbrow and lowbrow, seriousness and silliness, that this
board provides, and that the 'zine should aspire to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> i dunno... -- anom, 19:07:02 11/03/01
Sat ...there's something to be said for a title that doesn't have
to be explained. We want people who see it on the newsstand to
know what it is. I used to edit stuff written by committees, & a
common problem was the development of in-group-speak that most
readers wouldn't understand. If we called it "Existential
Scooby Quarterly," we'd definitely need an explanatory subtitle.
Preferably in a font almost as large as the title.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> dat's called "running articles" --
Solitude1056, 15:51:23 11/02/01 Fri As was pointed out to OnM,
someone who's relatively prolific and can come up with a series
of interesting essays on a thread would do best with their own
"corner" each issue. The rest of the issue would be
on a general theme, but if the running article author had something
else on hir mind, go for it. Of course, the problem with that
is that if I rely on folks to send me so-big-an-article every
quarterly and they fail out on me, I will get cranky. Sorry, it's
just an editorial pet peeve o' mine (and most zine editors)...
we tend to count on certain spaces being filled, and when they're
not, it can mess things up. So beware: if you want to do a regular
article, brace yourself for agreeing to at least 4 issues before
being able to bow out, and give me at least 2 issues warning if
you're going to leave a big hole. ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Solitude ... -- Dedalus, 18:54:00
11/02/01 Fri Okay, Sol, you're coming dangerously close to selling
me on this. I think. I think this is absolutely a brilliant idea
for the board, I've just been sort of wondering where I personally
would fit. The big thing was the length, but if my essays - including
the long last one that no one has yet to put up a link to - could
fit, well, super-cool. I haven't counted words, but I'm fairly
certain they're over your general specifications. One I'm doing
now is pushing twenty-something written pages (yes, I still write
rough drafts long hand). A thousand words is very short for me,
though I did do it working for Space.com for nine months. I try
and stay organized with notes and even the occasional outline
for this long stuff, but I needs my elbow room.
As far as a book goes for us, that was probably altogether undo-able.
Which is fine, I have another book to work on anyway. I had no
idea something like this could even be done, but this group could
make it so great, as I think we all know. And the fact that we
wouldn't make much on the first go-around is fine, but I think
the things we could come up with would require payment after that.
It is work, after all. Last time I got paid for writing it was
thirty cents a word, but hey, that was a sixty million dollar
company. I could certainly live with lower, provided we were all
getting paid something.
I also pretty much totally agree with everything mm said. I would
love to see the title Existential Scooby in there somewhere. Brow
high and low, just as intended. Of course, I came up with it,
so maybe I'm just being snooty. Also, I think a theme would be
great for the roundtable thing, but it might be too constrictive
as a whole. I know Parabola and certain other publications do
it, but most literary journals don't.
Basically, if push came to shove, just like I told Liq, I could
produce a book myself. May not be very good all the way through,
may never get published, but nevertheless ... rest assured four
essays a year is nothing to me. You've read what I've already
done at Fictionary Corner over a span of five or six months. I
would like to see perhaps Buffy and the Beast, and certainly The
Goddess and Her Gift, and the one I'm working on now soon to be
submitted up in lights before it's all over, so that's three possibilities
right there. Most of the year.
As for a personal author corner, all mine center around Buffy
as modern myth. That could be an angle I could be quite happy
with, though I certainly wouldn't want to stop others from going
that route.
If you are serious about this, feel free to just take it over
and go with it. You certainly are more knowledgeable about it
than I am. Next we'll just have to iron out some specifics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Otay! -- Solitude1056, 19:03:32
11/02/01 Fri Well, there's several possibilities.
One, you could take an extra-long essay and print it in several
parts. Not out of the quesiton, y'know, especially if it you can
break it into free-standing but continuing parts.
Two, after we have several issues, we just compile the best and
submit it for publication. That way, we already have it worked
up as to who-wrote-what and who-gets-paid-what, and there's possibly
less stress for all concerned. That, I dunno, but I know it's
been done with several magazines (as well as graphic novels) when
a certain number have been done, to compile the best into a full-book
format.
But then again, I'm not into counting chickens, so I'd suggest
we just go with it & see what happens. And btw, about those links
- Liq sent me a reminder this morning but I was out of the office
most of the day, so I won't be able to fix that glitch in the
page until Monday. Hang tight until then, it'll be up as soon
as I do the jpg and send it off to Liq. This cross-country time
thing screws us up plenty sometimes. ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Otay Buckwheat -- Dedalus,
19:30:30 11/02/01 Fri Well, just go with it and see what happens.
I highly doubt I will ever have anything longer than my Goddess
dissertation, but it could probably be fit into a single issue.
A lot of people around here apparently don't like to write really
long things anyway, so maybe that won't even be an issue. That
was one of the things the members of our fair forum were saying
when I was talking about a book.
If I can be fit in somewhere with my own little corner, I will
be a most happy little Buffy scholar.
And don't worry about the links. As long as they get up there
some time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> could they run a relay? -- anom, 19:50:39
11/03/01 Sat If some writers don't want to contribute this type
of article to every issue, maybe 2 of them could alternate. If
they deal w/complementary themes, so much the better.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to Buffyversity! (OT) --
mundusmundi, 16:18:54 11/01/01 Thu
(Disclaimer: The following is a total joke, meant to add a dash
of humor to these stressful times. If you don't laugh, well then,
in the words of "Good Morning Vietnam's" poor, maligned
Lt. Hauk: "In my heart, I know I'm funny!"....)
A couple weeks ago, in response to my last essay, our presently
inconspicuous d'Herblay coined the immortal term "Buffyversity."
Then last week in chat, a choir of us led by Dedalus were griping
about Slayage, Marquette's recent call for papers, and the requirement
for Phd.'s in what could only be deemed hifalutinly "Buffy
Studies."
Then it occurred to me: What do we need snobby doctoral degrees
for? We can found our own Buffyversity here! Ergo, with Jossverse
accredidation pending, I propose the following in the development
of our campus:
President/Philosopher-Queen/Head Imam: Masq Dean: Liq Provost:
Sol Information Desk: HelloBot Ministers of Puns: anom, bible
belt, Humanitas Philosophy Dept: OnM (tenured) Campbell/Lucas
Studies: Dedalus History: Rattletrap, Humanitas, Me LitCrit: Sheri
Fiction: Cactus Watcher, John Burwood Poetry: Brian, Humanitas
Science/Skepticism: d'Herblay, Cygnus, bb, change Theology: A8,
Ryuei, spotjon (sabbatical) Greek: Cleanthes, kostadis roussis
Chipology (Spike Studies): Rufus, rowan, Aquitaine Trollopism:
Wisewoman, Liquidram, Lady Starlight Haunts the 5th Floor: Riley's
Ghost Security: Trollbot (retired; emeritus)
There's plenty more of you out there I didn't name out of pure
amnesia or laziness -- Malandanza, Deeva, Dreaded Dawn, Earl Allison,
Fresne, gds, grifter, Helen, Marie, Rahael, pocky, RabidHarpy,
VampRiley, verdantheart, vhD, Whisper2AScream, and countless others
-- who are equally welcome to join and impart their wisdom. (As
you can see above, poor Humanitas has an overloaded schedule;
but then he is union.) All full-time positions are available;
no adjuncts will be enslaved here! Rejoice.
Suggestions or modifications are welcome. In vino veritas (or
whatever the hell it reads on our currency, I forget. ;), -mm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Some students obviously need to be enrolled......... --
Rahael, 17:06:37 11/01/01 Thu So, can I perhaps be the first?
I find all the courses to be both well taught and very interesting...but
I would like most of all to concentrate on the following: History,
Philosophy, LitCrit, Campbell, Trollopism and chipology.
And I have one more course that I would be interested in attending
.....staff for which have not yet been appointed. Angel studies
(Angel Agonistes).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Angel Agnosties it is! -- mm, 19:44:25 11/01/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Can we start with Angel & the gypsy curse....how
many years ya think we'll need for that course? -- sasha, 10:11:59
11/02/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Some students obviously need to be enrolled.........
-- Juliette, 07:46:44 11/02/01 Fri I would like to sign up for
History, Poetry, Greek, Theology and Trollopism, and where is
the bar? On every uni prospectus I read last year, the first piece
of information on the first page was the location of the student
bar!
NB: I'm British, so drinking at 18 is entirely legal. I have a
theory that not drinking would be a betrayal of my cultural heritage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Trollopism courses will be held in the bar!!
;o) -- WW, 11:24:41 11/02/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> May I suggest we consider the chat room a coffee
shop? -- Humanitas, 12:37:36 11/02/01 Fri Based on the conversation
we had in there last night, I'd say that was the atmosphere. I
kept thinking of all those late-night coffee-and-dessert-and saving-the-world-conversation
sessioins I had when I was in college.
BTW, to those of you who were there, I appologise for disappearing
so abrubtly. I got bumped, and then couldn't get back on. Hope
you all had a pleasant rest of the evening.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> You missed my department of Smart Ass Remarks......... --
Rufus, 17:25:43 11/01/01 Thu Or my other one on Feline Studies.......:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sorry, lack of funding...Metaphysics of Kitty
Poker would work, though. ;) -- mm, 19:45:46 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> You do realize I'm putting this on my resume? ;o) -- Wisewoman,
17:34:57 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> What, me provost? I think there's a double meaning in that...
-- Solitude1056, 17:40:43 11/01/01 Thu Hm, it's been a few years
since I was in academia, and I'd've figured I'd get stuck in CPR
(Classics, Philosophy & Religion) as my Alamo Matter called it...
but provost? So I look it up, and it says:
1 : the chief dignitary of a collegiate or cathedral chapter 2
: the chief magistrate of a Scottish burgh 3 : the keeper of a
prison 4 : a high-ranking university administrative officer
Oooh, #3, how appropriate if I'm gonna keep my rank of Second
Evil! Yippee! Do I get cool toys, too, and maybe a whole bunch
of keys, lock everyone in at night, maybe a little bit o' the
ol torture & interrogation bit? Woo hoo! ;-)
*grooving*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Next thing you will be guest starring on OZ.................
-- Rufus, 17:47:37 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Hummmm... methinks he doth provost too much... ;)
-- OnM, 18:57:38 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Wait a minute, OnM...you're not in the puns
department! :) -- celticross, 09:31:41 11/02/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Speaking of prisons, you can also teach Faith
101, if you like ;) -- mm, 12:41:58 11/02/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Keeper? We don't need no keeper. The inmates run this
asylum!! -- d'Herblay, 20:02:24 11/03/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Under Trollopism, might I suggest a minor in Leather Studies
and Chocolate Fetishism? -- A8, 18:21:20 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Hmmm, maybe save those for graduate work. -- mm,
19:47:18 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Under Trollopism Chocolate is so uh, intense,
it needs to be a seperate concentration.... -- sasha, 21:42:48
11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hey, some of us have snobby doctoral degrees and chose to
use them at the Buffyversity... -- Dr. Masq, 18:22:02 11/01/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Yes, but you're "One of us! One of us!"
;) -- mm, 19:48:42 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Welcome to Buffyversity! (OT) -- vampire hunter D, 19:05:22
11/01/01 Thu Split up the Cambell and Lucas studies into separate
departments. Then I could take Lucas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Oh, I also have a doctorate in alcohology -- vampire
hunter D, 19:22:09 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Works for me, but you and Ded'll have to fight
over the light saber. -- mm, 19:50:07 11/01/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Works for me, but you and Ded'll have to
fight over the light saber. -- Dedalus, 20:07:05 11/01/01 Thu
*Dedalus, dressed in Jedi robes, strides up to mm. Waving his
hand in front of his face, he says "Dedalus needs to have
Lucas and Campbell. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Move along, D, move along."
*Looking dumbfounded, mm repeats, "Dedalus needs to have
Lucas and Campbell. There aren't the droids you're looking for.
More along, D, move along."
*Dedalus then glides off the board as swiftly as he appeared*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Works for me, but you and Ded'll have
to fight over the light saber. -- Rendyl, 08:25:55 11/02/01 Fri
My sympathies to Vamphunter D but at least this way I can take
the class and not worry about scheduling conflicts that might
occur if it was divided between instructors.
Assuming the class IS an afternoon one? (I am legally brain-dead
until after 10am)
Oh, will there be a coffee pot in class Dedalus?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Does that make Rufus and me assistant provosts????
-- LadyStarlight, 05:20:30 11/02/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> We could be Co-Pros...................
-- Rufus, 10:04:24 11/02/01 Fri Do we have to appear intimidating?????
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> if you knew what that means in greek,
you wouldn't want to be! -- anom, 20:01:50 11/03/01 Sat ...nah,
it's more fun if you look it up yourself! ]@>)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> How about electives in Fashion Symbology, or 'Dressing to
Kill'? or... -- Isabel, 21:54:46 11/01/01 Thu Physical Education
studies in Vampire Martial Arts and/or Sensual Swordplay?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ahhh...now I'm up for all those electives! -- Deeva,
22:54:48 11/01/01 Thu Plus (need I even say this?) Spike-ology.
4 whole years of it. Dear old Mom would be proud.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ahh...leather -- fresne, 08:26:12 11/02/01 Fri Excuses
to discuss, and write papers on, the diffentiated symbolic whose-it
(technical word) of red vs black leather pants.
Hands in pockets, innocent expression, yeah, sure, okay.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Whips are to be left to the expert in the field...WW.....:):):)
-- Rufus, 09:58:39 11/02/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Can we have a Cordy Only semester or 2 or 3 or
.....? -- zargon, 10:15:55 11/02/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Now you're talikn' my language! ;> -- Humanitas,
12:31:18 11/02/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Thanks much! -- Earl Allison, 03:54:10 11/02/01 Fri A very
entertaining joke indeed for these dark times. Should anyone take
offense to it, feel free to invoke the Pug Cudgel of Pummelling
and Face-Mashing (TM!) to change some opinions :)
Take it and run.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Oh, no. Was only afraid of offending those I forgot
to mention! -- mm, 12:44:03 11/02/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Shouldn't there be a cat department? -- verdantheart, 07:49:24
11/02/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I suggested a department of feline studies.........
-- Rufus, 10:03:09 11/02/01 Fri We could smoosh it together with
a primer on Chocolate. Of course we would have to have a special
course on Worldwide variations in taste and texture of Chocolate.
Canadian chocolate appreciation, Hershey....not just a hug and
kiss......the subjects are endless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Not to be confused with "Cat o' Nine
Tails 101" ;o) -- WW, 11:27:29 11/02/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Let's not forget Jersey Milks... -- Isabel,
17:25:40 11/02/01 Fri I went on vacation in Ontario and because
of the recommendations of the Canadians on the board I HAD to
try one. I can see how they'd grow on you. Now if they made Dark
Jersey Milks I'd be emigrating.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: OK, but I need some assurance that posting lame puns
won't endanger my pun post. -- bible belt, 09:02:36 11/02/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> You are making it VERY HARD for me to focus on work -- Liquidram,
09:24:53 11/02/01 Fri Although currently taking my sabbatical,
I accept my post with grace and thank you for the honor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Welcome to Buffyversity! (OT) -- Kimberly, 11:58:44
11/02/01 Fri I'm in. I'll sign up for Philosophy, Campbell, History,
Thealogy, and Chocolate. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> How about a Department of Useless Facts? -- Whisper2AScream,
12:43:13 11/02/01 Fri Or would that be the umbrella "Undeclared"
major option? ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> A Department of Useless Facts? Absolutely! -- Cactus
Watcher, 16:12:51 11/03/01 Sat I'd also be willing to teach Sumerian
for Beginning Spellcasters. I don't know any Sumerian, but I had
more than one class in college, taught by people who knew nothing
about the subject of the course.
I think we can probably find enough qualified people willing to
teach an upperclass series on Daydreaming about Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Does plot-holes fit under Science/skepticism? -- zargon,
12:56:57 11/02/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Maybe "Buffy Maintenance" (aka "Plot
Repair") -- mm, 13:03:14 11/02/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angel and true happiness -- Rynn,
21:43:03 11/01/01 Thu
This is something that bothers me everytime it comes up. OK, we
know the details of the curse that keeps Angel good. Can't experience
true happiness so he's celibate.
What I don't understand is, Buffy is his "soul mate".
Even if he did have an intimate relationship with anyone else,
would he experience "true" happiness? It seems to me
that he would not because the person, while being someone he loved,
would not be Buffy. So why can't he have a relationship?
Darla at first seems like a good example. Sex yes, Angelus no.
However, that can be explained very easily - he doesn't love her.
True, there is no one on the show that I would want him with.
Fred should be with Wes or maybe Gunn. Depends on how "cutesy"
Fred and Wes are. Don't want to see a puke factor, but so far
like F&W pairing. Cordy has become to much like a sister figure
to Angel IMO. Much closer than friends, but no romance. But I
regress.
So, why is it SO unthinkable that he could have love w/o turning
evil?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> True Happiness and Love: Interchangeable in Jossverse? --
pocky, 21:58:20 11/01/01 Thu Well, the purpose of the Gypsy curse
was to give Angelus excruciatingly painful guilt, which apparently
is what the soul is. I don't think love is what Angel is looking
for, because he has them. He loves Buffy, and I'm pretty sure
he loves his the rest of Angel Investigation. I think Angel is
looking for redemption, and redemption is what would bring him
"true happiness." His night with Buffy was the only
time when he felt forgiven, when the weight on his shoulders were
lifted and were forgotten because of her.
As for Angel not having a relationship...well, I don't think he's
very good at it. It's possible that the curse might apply to sex
(even with the sex-with-Darla issue), so he might be playing it
safe. Or, a less shallow assumption would be that Angel doesn't
want to fall in love again. By falling in love he's at risk of
experiencing the happiness he had with Buffy, ergo Angelus re-emerging.
And the celibacy issue? Well there's always masturbation...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angel and true happiness -- Isabel, 22:13:46 11/01/01
Thu Maybe he can. They're going on a bunch of assumptions based
on past experiences. To quote Cordy, "He knows perfect happiness,
he goes evil."
Plus, 'Perfect Happiness' need not only be defined by orgasms
or afterglow. Angel could know happiness without the use of his
reproductive organs. Since that's how he lost his soul last time,
that's what we (and they) think of.
Also, is there any Proof that the Happiness Curse was reapplied
with Angel's soul? It was my understanding that no one could translate
the Gypsy words, Jenny had to use a computer to translate the
spell. Perhaps the computer didn't translate that section right,
or when Willow was resouling Angel she obviously received 'outside'
help. Perhaps the PTB, or whomever, left that part off the spell?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Angel and true happiness -- Leaf, 03:26:10 11/02/01
Fri In an ep (can't remeber it's name) in season one of AtS, with
the actress who wanted to stay young forever, anyway ahe gave
him a drug which simulated happiness/bliss and he briefly turned
to Angelus till the drug wore off. Althought that always bugged
me cause it wasn't perfect happiness it was fake bpught on by
the drug.
I never believed that sex was his trigger it. I remember that
when Jennys uncle came he said (very rough paraphrasing) that
his pain was lessening that he should not go a moment with out
thinking of the ones he killed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Angel and true happiness -- Carmina, 16:15:07
11/02/01 Fri I always felt that it wasn't so much that Angelus
came back, rather that because Angel's inhibitions were lessened,
he be came the nasty beast he is underneath. I don't think he
'lost' his soul anymore than any one would using that drug. He
just didn't care, which is really the point of that kind of substance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Have you ever heard of Self Fulfilling Prophecies?
-- Isabel, 18:02:27 11/02/01 Fri Maybe I'm not remembering my
Psych 101 right, but if someone thinks something will happen enough,
they can subconsciously cause it to happen.
An example from my life, the first 3 car accidents I was in, I
was in green cars. They were totalled, btw. My sister and I (being
kids) kept telling our father not to buy green cars cause he'd
crash them. (He told us we were idiots.) Now, I won't own a green
car. It's not because I consider them unlucky per se, I just remember
me and my sister saying again and again that we crash green cars.
No, it's not logical. And it stinks because I like green.
Anyway, it's like giving yourself subconscious permission to do
something, because in certain circumstances you 'couldn't help'
what happened. In the episode Eternity, Angel knew he'd been given
a happy drug. He was frantic and then he felt the drug kick in.
He became 'happy' so Angelus was let out. When he regained consciousness,
he was chained to the bed and probably had one hell of a hangover,
he was not happy and Wesley had explained that it was temporary,
so he was Angel.
I think that Angel's curse might be like Spike's chip. People
have speculated that Spike's chip may have been damaged in his
fall and isn't working anymore.
I've started wondering for the last several episodes of Angel
that maybe he isn't constrained by his curse either. Is there
any proof the curse is on him? Angel's learned that Angelus isn't
a separate entity inside of him. Angelus is always there because
he's part of Angel, but Angel keeps a tight grip on all Angelus-like
impulses. The only time Angelus comes out is when Angel gets happy,
and Angel 'can't' help that.
Does this make any sense? It's just something that occurred to
me late at night and I can find no evidence to refute it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angel and true happiness -- Rynn01, 23:22:42 11/01/01
Thu What both of you said is kind of my point. Everyone does seem
to associate his happiness w/ sex. And only Joss knows if the
clause is still part of the curse. I think that it would be a
great point to explore. All the relationship issues. Can we or
can't we?
I don't like the playing it safe bit, although that is probably
the closest thing to the truth. Just no potential conficts there.
As far as feeling forgiven, I would think that either 1)he feels
forgiven by AI, so there's an opening gor the happiness or 2)he
has to forgive himself and in the afterglow he "let up on
himself" at least for one moment, that combined with being
with his true love set Angelus free.
OTOH, he does have the masturbation option and emotional closeness
w/ Cordy especially, so I guess it could be argued that he has
all the great aspects of a relationship w/o a chance of (further)
heartbreak.
Just something I would like to see explored in more depth instead
of it being so cut and dried.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angel and true happiness -- Jen C., 08:59:34 11/02/01
Fri Angel didn't know the particulars of his curse when he lost
his soul the first time. He gave himself over 100% to the experience
with Buiffy - lost his angst and the rest is history. Now he knows...I
don't think that he'll ever be able to give himself over like
that again - the conditions of the curse will always cause him
some worry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Angel and true happiness -- Lunarchickk, 14:01:19
11/02/01 Fri That's how I've always felt. With Buffy, Angel allowed
himself for one moment to forget everything he's done, all the
guilt he's carried since being cursed. One moment of perfect happiness
in which he wasn't a monster. And it tore his world to shreds.
I've always thought that it's rather pointless to assume that
Angel ever having sex again would automatically turn him evil
-- even when we saw him with Darla at the end of "Reprise,"
all that went through my head was, "Not a chance." After
everything he's done, Angel's never, ever going to have another
moment of perfect happiness. It's about the loss of innocence,
in that way, although I always thought the episodes "Surprise"
and "Innocence" were more about Buffy's innocence. Now,
I think he's hanging on to that soul for good. How can he ever
be happy, with anyone, knowing that with pure joy comes such horror?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Angel and true happiness -- maddog, 12:46:54 11/02/01
Fri Maybe he's worried that it could happen with someone besides
Buffy...it's kinda like a safe sex talk. If you never have sex,
then you don't have to worry about pregnancy, STD's, etc. If Angel
never gets romanticly close to anyone, there's NO possibility
of Angelus(as far as we all know). Kinda like the better be safe
than sorry approach.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> You're all missing the point -- vampire hunter D, 13:58:23
11/02/01 Fri I bring this up evertime this subject is discussed,
and still noone takes notice. So, once more, with feeling: Angel's
cuse has NOTHING to do with sex. He just needsto experience happiness.
And happiness can come from other sources than romantic love.
We still have the possibility of seeing Angelus again, even if
Angel were to be castrated. Did anyone get the message this time?
Sometimes I wonder why I try.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> It's not even"happiness" - it's peace ...
-- Shiver, 09:06:45 11/03/01 Sat Peace of mind ... escape from
guilt ... the gypsy said that he had to experience a moment of
peace, when the soul was no longer plagued with feeling from the
actions of the demon it shares the body with, then the soul would
be released.
You can certainly have wild sex with someone and not feel very
peaceful afterward. His love for Buffy and their coming together
in recognition of that - NOT the physical act - was what gave
him that moment of comfort and released his soul.
On the one hand, the gypsies gave him an out - reform yourself,
work through the remorse, find a moment of guilt free existence
and you can go back to being floaty ether soul. But on the other
hand, and more realistically - they cursed him doubly - because
after such reform, who could live with the knowledge that the
release of their soul would set forth Angelus on the world again?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hate Dawn so much right now
-- Yellowork, 06:24:40 11/02/01 Fri
Lets face it, she's one more cast member than is needed. Remember
Season 1, where Charisma was in the credits but still she didn't
turn up for a whole episode? It was great they could have that
then, it gave greater scope for the plot and the other characters
(Even though I am a fan of Cordelia). Now it's all so 'give me
my twelve per cent'; so you get your Spike bit, your Anya bit,
your Xander bit, your Dawn bit and so on. I like the development
with Spike on the one hand; on the other, I preferred him as a
recurring character who surprised you with some hearty chunks
every now and again. Thank God Giles is being relegated to a recurring
character is all I can say (I do love him though).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I hate Dawn so much right now -- cjc36, 07:25:04 11/02/01
Fri Yeah, but Life Serial contained very little, if any, Dawnie.
It was a Buffy-centric episode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I hate Dawn so much right now -- Dedalus, 08:12:42
11/02/01 Fri I could never hate the Dawnster. Well, I take that
back. I probably could, you know, if she went on a mad killing
spree and axe murdered Xander and poisoned Buffy and the like.
Dawn rules, MT is awesome, and she is a welcome part of the cast.
The reason we have to have "bits" as you say is simply
because of the size of a cast that inevitably has to get bigger
with the passing years. You didn't need bits in season one, because
it centered around three or four people, tops. I personally love
all the characters, even the new ones.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I hate Dawn so much right now -- Rob, 08:23:25
11/02/01 Fri I agree. Part of the development of a show includes
the expansion of its scope and the amount of characters. And I
also don't think all the shows are reduced to "bits"
with each character. In some episodes, some characters get more
screen time than others, but that is normal. The only episode
recently that I could see as having "bits" with each
character was "Life Serial," but that episode was deliberately
structured that way, so that Buffy interacted with only one or
two characters in each act. That four act structure is, actually,
what I liked most about that episode, and the fact that it was
so Buffy-centric. But not all episodes are, of course. "All
the Way," for example, spent more time with Dawn, Willow
and Tara, and Xander and Anya than Buffy. I love that the cast
is so large, because I don't think the show ever would have lasted
this long, with the same high level of quality, if it remained
focused on the same people each week. A cast of this size allows
different people to shine in different weeks...And it looks like
in the musical, everyone will get a chance to shine in the same
episode, so that should be really interesting as well.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I love Dawn -- darrenK, 09:21:24 11/02/01 Fri
I'm a Dawn fan.
MT is a supernaturally talented actress who has real, powerful,
honest-to-god chemistry with most of the cast, especially James
Marsters and SMG.
And, I'm still so impressed at how they took the "add a relative"
cliche and made it work so smoothly and naturally that I sometimes
forget and ask myself where Dawn is when I'm watching episodes
previous to Season 5.
She's just a natural Buffyverse actor and character.
Not only that but it gives them a chance to stay in touch with
the teenage world and comment on the progress of Buffy's maturity.
dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I love Dawn -- Cleanthes, 12:59:36
11/02/01 Fri Me too, Dawn's the most powerful addition to the
cast of an ongoing story since Alcibiades showed up in the last
couple of pages of `The Symposium`.
Re-watching the first and second seasons, I notice that Joyce
has such a careless, only-child-parent attitude about her. Buffy
stood "older" and "wiser" than her mom from
the beginning. By the time we see Joyce hiding inside the wall
in `Restless`, the entire dramatic potential of that mother-daughter
relationship had been used up. Joyce could no longer play the
innocent with regard to Buffy's wisdom.
Of course, there remained the important (in Aristotelian terms)
aspect of Suffering. So, we had that in season 5, and, finis Joyce.
Now, of course, we have the whole relationship in a new and stimulating
form, made more excellent by MT's acting talent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I love Dawn -- Dedalus, 18:21:49
11/02/01 Fri "Dawn's the most powerful addition to the cast
of an ongoing story since Alcibiades showed up in the last couple
of pages of The Symposium."
See, only here would you ever come across an allusion like that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I love Dawn -- vampire hunter
D, 18:42:25 11/02/01 Fri Dawn's the most powerful addition to
the cast of an ongoing story since Alcibiades showed up in the
last couple of pages of `The Symposium
yeah, couldn't have said it better myself (he said while pretending
to know what you're talking about).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I love Dawn -- John Burwood,
08:53:50 11/03/01 Sat I totally agree - the creation of Dawn was
pure genius, MT is brilliant, and I've never heard of The Symposium.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I hate Dawn so much right now -- maddog, 12:32:31 11/02/01
Fri So what you're saying is that you hate the amount of characters,
not Dawn herself. While I admit there are quite a few characters
I think the show has slowly become an ensemble cast...not just
focusing on one character(yet always making Buffy's storyline
slightly more important than the others, if they aren't already
entwined). If Joss wanted to keep the characters down he wouldn't
have brought on Anya and Tara and Dawn after Angel, Cordy, and
Wesley headed for LA. And let's face it, Joss tends to make good
decisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question for Philosophy Buffs...(no
pun intended) ;) -- Rob, 08:17:29 11/02/01 Fri
I have not done that much reading in philosophy, although I am
aware of a lot of the concepts and have taken a class that focused
a bit on Plato. I am very interested in reading more, however,
and I found the book, "Sophie's World" at Barnes and
Noble. It seems to be half-novel/half-philosophy textbook. It
looked like it might be a good place for me to start, and I was
wondering whether anyone here had read it and can tell me whether
it's worth reading. Thanks!
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question for Philosophy Buffs...(no pun intended) ;)
-- grifter, 08:32:40 11/02/01 Fri Depends on how old you are and
how much you already know about philosophy. It gives you basic
knowledge about the most common schools of philosophy. Also, the
story is quite intriguing, although it was a little longwinded
(to me, at least).
So, if you´re a "beginner" in the field of philosophy,
it is THE point to start.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yeah, that was my starting point -- AngelVSAngelus,
08:38:22 11/02/01 Fri And I found it very informative. I would
suggest that with each different philosophy you finish reading
about you go research some more about it before moving on. That
helped me in retaining the knowledge, but maybe that pneumonic
device is myself-particular.
Hope I helped some,
AngelVSAngelus
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Question for Philosophy Buffs...(no pun intended)
;) -- Rob, 09:09:32 11/02/01 Fri Well, I'm 20 years old...almost
21, and I don't have a great deal of background in philosophy,
although I do know a bit about some of the concepts. I have also
read Joseph Campbell, some Plato and Socrates, and "The Tao
of Pooh" and "The Te of Piglet."
So you could probably say I'm a beginner...so, thanks. I think
I will start there.
Oh, and thanks for the research ideas, AngelVSAngelus. That would
be very helpful to me also, as a device to better remember the
concepts.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question for Philosophy Buffs...(no pun intended) ;)
-- Ryuei, 10:10:54 11/02/01 Fri I would like to recommend the
book "Buddhist Thought" by Paul William. It is a great
survey and very up to date. It is not light reading however, but
I think most of the people who post here would not have too much
trouble with it.
I have also been reading Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality by Ken
Wilber, and I think it is a wonderful survey and attempt at systematizing
the best of Western philosophy, anthropology, and psychology into
a more or less comprehensive worldview. At the very least, Ken
Wilber has caused me to reevaluate Plato and Plotinus. I think
I will have to seriously read Plato and get a copy of the Enneads
of Plotinus.
As a matter of fact, I did read the Republic, and some other dialogues
a few weeks ago (I borrowed them from my sensei who got his M.A.
in Western philosophy when he was the acting priest of the Nichiren
Buddhist Temple in Seattle). I was apalled and horrified at what
I read. It struck me as the archetypal blueprint for a totalitarian
society. And some of the things Plato speaking as Socrates said
in the Republic were absurd and at times I think he was just being
cynical. Anyway, I wasn't very impressed. I tried to read Paremenides
and just couldn't take it anymore. It was struck me as a bunch
of idiotic wordgames. Anway, strangely enough my sensei has a
higher regard for Plato than I do and he reminded me that Western
rationality has its origins in these works and that this was an
important development regardless of the other drawbacks. Wilber
compared the wordgames of Parmenides with Nagarjuna's dialectic
and claims that Parmenides and Zeno were pointing to that which
transcends the rational. Wilber also pointed out that Plato was
not really the dualist he is made out to be. So perhaps I will
try again and read some of the other dialogues as well. In any
case, I want to have a good and more sympathetic grasp of Plato
before tackling Plotinus.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Ken Wilber -- Wisewoman, 10:22:33 11/02/01 Fri
Ryuei wrote: I have also been reading Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality
by Ken Wilber, and I think it is a wonderful survey and attempt
at systematizing the best of Western philosophy, anthropology,
and psychology into a more or less comprehensive worldview.
I agree; I'm a real Wilber devotee. However, I would suggest that
Sex, Ecology, and Spirituality is a bit dense for a newcomer to
the concepts, and that perhaps "A Brief History of Everything"
would be a better introduction to Wilber?
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Thx for the reccos--been looking for a good Buddhism
book -- mundusmundi, 12:37:48 11/02/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Question for Philosophy Buffs...(no pun intended)
;) -- Rattletrap, 13:32:44 11/02/01 Fri A comment on reading Plato:
Bear in mind that Plato almost never uses Socrates as his own
mouthpiece. In his writings you have to read between the lines
a bit, Socrates is almost a foil for the real message of the story.
The Republic is a beautiful example of this: he spends the entire
book setting up this blueprint for this harsh totalitarian society
and depicting that as an ideal. But, in the end, even Socrates
is forced to cop out and admit that it wouldn't really work like
that, hence the inclusion of The Parable of Er in the last chapter.
Most of Plato's dialogues work this way, the point is hidden in
the way Socrates contradicts himself, Plato is saying something
else. Hope this helps your appreciation of his work, Ryuei.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Question for Philosophy Buffs...(no pun
intended) ;) -- Cleanthes, 13:55:28 11/02/01 Fri I agree - the
"real" message of the Republic is contained in the myth
of Er, and even more, in the final bit, book 10, the chapter generally
ignored by poli-sci prof-types who assign this book and then only
see the facile political arguments that appear in the earlier
parts of the book. (I do like the notion that a good ruler is
729 times, exactly, happier than a tyrant, though )
In book 10, Plato has Socrates prove that beautiful poetry cheats
the truth and should be banned. Plato writes this with wonderful
poetic imagery, and, of course, this culminating argument for
the `Republic` comes AFTER the allegory of the cave and the image
of the line and the myth of Er.
Elsewhere today I mentioned the introduction of Alcibiades to
the dialogue in the `Symposium` as another case of the "truth"
coming in out of left field toward the end. That's the true Socratic
irony, IMO. Socrates really was the smarted guy in Greece because
he knew how ignorant he was.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Once again, ATLtC -- mm, 14:33:39
11/02/01 Fri Socrates really was the smarted guy in Greece because
he knew how ignorant he was.
Or, to put it another way: "He who thinks he knows, doesn't
know. He who admits he doesn't know, knows."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Good point. Thanks for the tip. -- Ryuei, 15:00:48
11/02/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffy and Season 3 re: Dawn --
Jennifer, 09:29:55 11/02/01 Fri
I was watching a Buffy commercial on FX and it said that throughout
Season 3 they started dropping hints regarding Buffy's upcoming
sister Dawn. Did anyone else catch on to this and what examples
are there, if any?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy and Season 3 re: Dawn -- Sister Hints, 10:12:49
11/02/01 Fri Buffy had a recurring dream in which she is in her
room, making her bed. In her dream Faith remarks "--Getting
ready for little sister. So much to do..." OT, In the same
dream she makes the reference "Little Miss Muffett, counting
down to 7-3-0, what I now think is a reference to Buffy's death
in 2 more years (730 days)
I'm sure others will quote more accurate chapter & verse, but
that's the quick response.:)
Niggling problem on the subject
of vamp creation -- vandalia, 15:07:25 11/02/01 Fri
We see an awful, awful lot of vampires pop out of the ground in
Sunnydale and elsewhere. These new vampires tend to be stupid
and congregate in groups, often serving as minions to 'master
vampires.' To me, it seems like there are way too many vampires
to be deliberately 'sired' by master vampires in the way explained
in the metaphysical section of this website. Therefore I present
my personal theory on vampires:
There are two distinct kinds of vampires: your average, run-of-the-mill
disposable minion-type vampire, and your master vampire.
The minion, or lesser, vampire, is created when a victim is killed
by having their blood drained by a vampire and dying of the blood
loss (not blood loss then broken neck before actual death, or
drowning before actual death, or insert other way of death here
that vampires tend to like to inflict upon their hapless victims
after having a drink).
The fact that the victim has to die of the blood loss inflicted
by the vampire is the key, to me, as we've seen vampire victims
in the past done in in other ways before actual death occurs.
These vampires, not having been fed the sire's blood in return,
come out more animalistic, less intelligent, more vicious, and/or
more easily lead (read: less human) than the 'master,' or greater
vampire.
The master, or greater vampire, on the other hand, is specifically
chosen, usually by another master vampire, to be made into a vampire.
These victims are usually chosen with great care, sometimes stalked
for days, before finally being turned. They are not a snack, they
are a deliberate creation, and are fed the blood of the vampire
creating them. These vampires usually wait around for their offspring
to emerge/be reborn, take them under their wing, teach them what
they need to know about their new 'lives,' etc. This gives them
a greater hold on who they were before they died, and being chosen
they do seem to have some quality that makes for a good master:
intelligence, resourcefulness, independence.
To me, this explains the plethora of 'disposable' vampires as
well as the cadre of elite (or would-be elite) that they tend
to gather around. Problem is, I'm not sure if it has any support
in actual Buffy canon. I know we've seen lots of folks bitten.
And lots of folks later become vampires. They have skipped out
on the whole 'feeding the blood back to the victim' thing in at
least two cases that I'm aware of (Harmony and ...Tyler? Buffy's
brain-tumored friend whose name I forget. Oh, and I think Jesse).
Harmony's case is such that I just can't see the vampire who bit
her in the graduation chaos stopping in the middle of a battle
to feed her blood in order to bring her across. Jesse and Tyler?'s
turning could have been offscreen, but again we never see them.
Any other suggestions, I'd love to hear them.
Questions? Comments? Scathing rebuttals?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question -- Wisewoman, 18:17:44 11/02/01 Fri I agree
that this hasn't been explained clearly in the Jossverse. My question
is, could one of your "utility" vampires be capable
of creating a "master" vampire? If a utility vampire
lived long enough to deliberately choose and vamp someone, would
either of them then be a master?
This also brings up something I was pondering today: can a Slayer
be vamped? Has a Slayer ever been vamped? If not, why not?
Maybe we just don't have enough information...
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Question -- vandalia, 18:56:49 11/02/01 Fri In
my mind... maybe. If a utility vamp lived long enough and managed
to figure out that feeding the victim the blood was enough to
do the trick, and they picked someone of ample spirit/personality/intelligence,
then I think yes, possibly, they could make a 'master.' Just not
a very good one. I think the blood makes all the difference in
the turning. Gives it that extra 'oomph' so to speak.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Question -- Coca-Cola Addict, 13:41:34 11/03/01
Sat The problem is that not everyone who gets drunk turns into
a vampire (e.g. Liam/Angel's family). On the other hand, it's
a real problem trying to explain the sheer number of vampires.
Not to mention the people who have been turned. ("I must
have that sixty-year old man. He is perfect for my immortal needs...")
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Niggling problem on the subject of vamp creation --
Cygnus, 18:26:45 11/03/01 Sat Since we're going on personal theories
here's my attempt at reconciling what we've seen with what we
know
Ok this is the difference between consciously creating a new vampire
and unconsciuosly doing so. The blood ritual represents a Vampire
consciously siring a new vampire. The situation with Harmony and
also probably Sandy ( The girl bitten by vampWillow and eventually
dusted by Riley)IMO represent the unconscious creation of a Vampire.
Of course this still means we have to get past the no blood niggle
and this is a possible explanation, back in Season 1 Joyce was
attacked by Darla she was rushed to hospital where her treatment
was a bandage for her neck and some pills. When Buffy told Gile
this he replied something along the lines of " Yes, it manifests
itself as mild anaemia". Now if you can explain to me how
major blood loss can be mistaken for mild anaemia I'll except
that Vampires require a physical transfer of blood to feed. IMO
the bite sets up a mystical link through which the vamp gains
the energy it needs. Vampires actually drink blood because they
like the taste.
So if it's not required in one direction then it's probably not
required in the other, but why is the process unconscious. IMO
The creation of Harmony and Sandy are a result of the demon that
possesses the vampire seeking to procreate rather than the Vampire
(i.e The Demon/Human hybrid) seeking a companion/torture victim/servant
etc.
Now that's my explanation for how and why but I'll admit I don't
like your creation of a vampiric class system. Personally I think
your "Master Vampire" is just, if you'll excuse the
term, a better adjusted Vampire than your utility vampire. It
all comes down to how well they were raised and I think Harmony
is a pretty good example of this, Harmony isn't a poor vampire
because of how she was turned but because of who she was before
she was turned. Sandy is also a pretty well adjusted Vampire by
the time we see her I would imagine she has no real problem operating
in human society certainly her mannerism and responces were very
human.
Ok, all of the above was pretty involved (and probably fairly
unclear) for such meager evidence so I'll except any criticism
you might want to throw my way but as I said at the start just
my personal opinions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Willow and the Black arts -- vampire
hunter D, 17:46:51 11/02/01 Fri
I just watched "Becoming pt. 1" and something jumped
out at me. When Giles said they needed someone familiar with magic
to perform the resouling spell, Willow volunteered, saying "I've
been studying the Black Arts for fun, or educational purposes".
And it hit me, this is why Willow has such a careless attitude
toward magic. She sees it as something to do for fun. Whereas
Tara and Jenny Calendar see it as a tool to be used when needed
and used responsibly. Did anyone else catch this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow and the Black arts -- Lucifer_Sponge, 08:47:21
11/03/01 Sat I saw it... or, rather, I remember seeing it when
it first aired. I assume what she meant by it was "Hey, the
Black Arts are kind of interesting... it might be fun to do some
experimenting." ... much in the way that she, probably, at
one point said "Hey, computers are kind of interesting...
it might be fun to do some experimenting."
Let's not forget that Willow likes to learn new things. She thinks
it's fun. That's not just her attitude towards magic... it's her
attitude towards everything.
The way I see it... or saw it right up until the end of last week's
episode... was that her interest in magic had evolved. It went
from being something fun and interesting to play with (floating
feather, fire out of ice... even some of the little spells she
pulled to help Buffy), to something she (mistakenly) thought could
be used to sooth her own pain and ego (never-completed hex on
Oz, the I Will it So spell), to a useful tool she could weild
to really contribute to the gang's efforts (teleporting Glory,
beatin' up Glory, creating force fields, drawing Buffy out of
a catatonic state, reversing brain sucks, etc).
And yet here we are, back at the begginning with Willow again.
It seemed, towards the end of last season, that Willow's magic
was coming from a sense of maturity. She was even humble about
her powers. Remember this scene from The Gift?
BUFFY I need you, Will. You're my big gun.
WILLOW I'm your -- I was never a gun... someone else should be
the gun, I could maybe be a cudgel, or pointy stick ...
BUFFY Willow, you're the strongest person here. You know that,
right?
WILLOW Well, no ...
She doesn't even see it, at that point. Oh, she may have gotten
a little cocky and tried to kill Glory after Tara got hurt...
but hey, who wouldn't. That wasn't real arrogance... that was
anger, blind rage. At that point, she just thought she had something
useful to contribute. In no way did she realize she was the most
powerful in the group.
That ressurection spell warped her brain, somehow. Or, rather,
the reality that she actually raised the dead warped her brain...
not the spell itself, but the fact that she was actually capable
of performing the spell and succeeding. But now I'm just repeating
things I've said one too many times already. So I think I'll stop
typing now.
~Sponge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buffy Stealing -- rpcvc76, 21:04:22
11/02/01 Fri
I saw Becoming Part 1 today on FX and I noticed that when she
was still in Emery High School and her watcher approached her
for the first time, she thought he was the owner of some shop
or something and said something to the effect of being sorry for
not buying the lipstick, that she meant to pay for it. Now if
the monks made Dawn from Buffy (her essence), then it seems like
Buffy was a bit of a klepto herself, so maybe it's just in Dawn's
blood, (genes) to have those impulses to steal. Just a thought!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy Stealing -- Malandanza, 06:29:59 11/03/01 Sat
"I saw Becoming Part 1 today on FX and I noticed that when
she was still in Emery High School and her watcher approached
her for the first time, she thought he was the owner of some shop
or something and said something to the effect of being sorry for
not buying the lipstick, that she meant to pay for it. Now if
the monks made Dawn from Buffy (her essence), then it seems like
Buffy was a bit of a klepto herself, so maybe it's just in Dawn's
blood, (genes) to have those impulses to steal. Just a thought!"
There's a scene from consequences that supports the Buffy-as-miniklepto:
Buffy's at the counter, breakfasting on toast and juice, as she
peruses the newspaper. JOYCE (O.S.): Buffy! Buffy stiffens as
JOYCE enters. JOYCE: When were you going to tell me? Buffy reaches
up to the earrings she's wearing. BUFFY: Okay, busted. Didn't
think you'd miss them. Here's me taking them off. Joyce holds
up an open piece of official looking mail. JOYCE: You were accepted
to Northwestern University? (hugging her) Honey, I'm so proud
of you. That's wonderful. BUFFY: Oh. Right. Wonderful. JOYCE:
I mean, it isn't cheap, but I know we can make it work if your
Father pitches in. Not that Northwestern's your only option; it's
a great school, though. I'm so proud of you. ... JOYCE (cont'd):
Buffy... BUFFY: (turning back) You're proud of me? JOYCE: Don't
forget to put my earrings back in my dresser before you go out.
(from Psyche's shooting scripts)
Also, I liked the similarity between a scene from The Witch and
Dawn's scene in The Magic Box where she began doing research (the
"That's not a horn" scene, when she immediately picks
up the book a second time):
[Joyce] goes back to the crate and partially lifts out a statue.
Joyce: Oh, dear. Buffy: What? Joyce: The fertility statue, you
don't need to see it. She replaces the crate's lid and goes back
to her clipboard. Buffy: Y'know, there's this girl, Amy, and,
um, she trains with her mom, like, three hours a day. Joyce: Uh-huh.
Buffy: Sounds like her mom's pretty into it. Joyce: Sounds like
her mom doesn't have a lot to do. She walks out of the kitchen
with a piece of art. Buffy lifts the crate's lid a little bit
and looks in. Buffy: Jeepers! (Psyche's transcripts)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Buffy Stealing -- John Burwood, 08:39:03 11/03/01
Sat Opening Joyce's box was more like curiousity to me, borrowing
your mother's ear-rings hardly counts as theft, and Buffy's reaction
to the her Watcher's first approach was a staggeringly fast guilt
reaction. For her to have instantly jumped to the fear that the
man was approaching her about a theft meant guilt over the incident
must have been preying on her mind. Constant thieves do not feel
guilt about stealing. Maybe she took it for a dare, due to peer
pressure, or out of genuine absent-mindedness - valley-girl style.
There is no slightest reason to call Buffy klepto. Kleptos do
not feel guilt about stealing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy Stealing -- rpcvc76, 17:26:38 11/03/01
Sat I didn't really mean to call Buffy an actual kleptomaniac.
I just meant that she seemed to have those tendencies (granted
it was based on a very short scene) but she did take that lipstick,
before she became aware of the fact that she was the slayer and
had to deal with her new slayer duties and responsibilities. I
just noticed the similarity between her and Dawn, of course Dawn
has kept on going taking things and not feeling any remorse (although
we don't really know that she doesn't)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classic Movie of the Week - November
2nd 2001 -- OnM, 05:14:00 11/03/01 Sat
*******
The menfolk aren't always gonna be around, you know.
............ Cordelia Chase
*******
One hell of a morning has turned into a bitch of a day!
............ Jack Colton
*******
Just like most people, I seldom remember my dreams after I wake
up. Maybe that's a good thing, since also just like most people,
my dreams tend to have a repetitive theme, and unfortunately it's
a rather annoying one.
Take this morning, for example-- as I drifted slowly back upward
into semi-consciousness, I could clearly recall the last few minutes
of my dream state, where I was walking along a sidewalk, and then
turning a corner onto the street where I used to live until I
was about 15 years old. Now, the street didn't look exactly the
same, because for some odd reason when I dream I am almost always
in what appears to be an alternate universe, with strangely different
colors and moods and ambience. (For a while, I even had a theory
going that I was somehow ending up in some parallel Earth, a la
Sliders perhaps, except via some wonky astral projection thing.
Not much real proof of this though, and I do demand objective
evidence to support my theories).
It was definitely my old block of my old street, however, no question.
The odd, very intense colors everywhere, the cat jumping out of
the 2nd floor window of one house and the fact that the house
next door to mine had built on an addition upstairs and had a
neon sign in a window advertising pinball machines did nothing
to make me think otherwise. As I kept on walking down the block,
I passed my own childhood home, looking at it fondly, realizing
that you can't go home again. Seconds later, I was inside a pizza
parlor at the next corner (alternate universe for sure-- the actual
pizza parlor was around the corner and down another half-block!)
and finding out that the shop didn't officially open for another
15 minutes, so if I wanted a pizza, it would be at least a half
hour wait.
Frustration.... it always ends in some diabolical vector of frustration,
whether I'm dreaming of getting laid or just trying to get a pizza,
I always get stymied, and then I wake up. But, over time, you
adapt and you accept your destiny, depressing though it may be.
If you are lucky, you can even make art out of it, like Baltimore
born-and-raised John Waters, who turned his own personal oddness
and quirky upbringing into his even more bizarre films, like Pink
Flamingos and Hairspray.
I'm not as odd as John is, which in truth is pretty darn... odd.
What can you say about a guy who once publicly stated that he'd
probably be an axe-murderer or something if he hadn't gone into
making movies? Now, me, I'm merely slightly quirky and as far
as being a potential murderer-- axe or otherwise-- I will on occasion
look at the Thanksgiving turkey with a modicum of sadness in my
heart, and wonder why him?
But we're not here to talk about John, or me, or the existential
sadness of the turkeyverse. We are here to talk about a great,
classic film about a very ordinary young woman who was living
an equally ordinary, very nondescript life, and then an extremely
surprising thing happened...
OK, it is about me, except for the fact that I'm not a young woman,
and I hate surprises, because they're usually unpleasant ones,
and the film actually ends on a happy, upbeat note, and in my
case I'm still boring. Other than that, it's also a story about
writing, and how it changes people's lives, how you find fans
for your work in some of the most unexpected places, and how you
can take a conventional, severely overworked genre and give it
a little twist and breathe new life into it. It's also about good
and evil and learning about saving yourself instead of expecting
someone else to always be rescuing you from danger. Last, but
hardly least, it stars a very hot babe as the lead actor, one
who was almost not picked for the role because she was considered
'too glamorous'.
What, you say? He isn't talking about the original Buffy the Vampire
Slayer movie, is he?
No, of course not, people, I'm just playing with your heads, like
usual. Nevertheless, this week's Classic Movie does have some
serious resonance with our Buffyverse, as you will come to comprehend.
The main inspiration for choosing it came about because twice
in the same week, first on Angel and then on BtVS, we were treated
to scenarios whereby the traditional 'woman in peril' managed
to save herself, by herself, and thus managed to tweak the patriarchy
in its collective cultural norms. (Oww!) First we have Cordy,
then Fred, then Lilah, and finally Dawn all striking a blow both
figuratively and literally against the 'helpless female' oeuvre.
It's very telling that we still find such an act unusual enough
to write about it in the depth that we do, but after all, it was
just 17 years ago, back there in 1984 when a relatively unknown
director named Bob Zemeckis helmed this nifty little fable based
on a script by a relatively unknown writer named Diane Thomas,
and it very unexpectedly became a pretty decent box-office success.
Unexpectedly, because even though both director and writer were
enthusiastic about the project, a number of industry people said
it would never work, citing as Reason One that 'you can't make
a film that mixes all these disparate elements-- comedy, drama,
action, adventure, writers, drug lords, jewel thieves, etc., then
give it all a feminist spin while attempting to retain a traditionalist
romance novel motif. It'll never gel, you'll just have a big,
unworkable mess. Worse, you want slinky bombshell Kathleen Turner
to play a role as a scruffy, plain-jane-looking novelist? Gettouttahere!!
Yes, by now you know that I am speaking of the one and only Romancing
the Stone, a film that was released in the face of dismal expectations
by the studio, with little advertising and media support, and
suddenly took off big time in the wake of great critical reviews
and extensive public word-of-mouth recommendations. Turner, partnered
with Michael Douglas, as writer Joan Wilder and adventure-seeker
Jack Colton, had wonderful on-screen chemistry. There was equally
wonderful supporting work by Danny DeVito and Zack Norman as a
pair of backbiting jewel thieves and Manuel Ojeda hamming it up
as the evil drug lord whom the formerly nebbishy Joan cleverly--
and unexpectedly, given that this is supposed to be a 'romance
novel' brought to life-- manages to defeat near the story's end.
I don't think I'm spoiling very many folks out there by giving
that ending away, I imagine that most if not all of you have seen
this film before, but consider this a good invitation to check
it out again. Yes, it isn't 'deep' and it isn't intended to be,
so you can Bogart the popcorn to your heart's content. Depth isn't
really necessary to get this particular story told, but that doesn't
mean that the film isn't beautifully layered and worthy of deeper
study. There is a real intelligence displayed throughout every
frame, and the writing sings, just as it does in the Buffyverse.
I mean, 'Joan Wilder', a WoodyAllenesque name if ever there was
one, starts off by narrating the closing passages from her most
recent novel, all passionate melodrama and outrageous over-the-top
dark humor, and after the camera cuts from the visualization of
her narrative to a shot of the geeky writer herself weeping tears
of joy and muttering 'God, I'm good' to her typewriter, you know
you're in for a ride.
So this weekend, pay tribute to one of those who did it first,
and paved the way for the ones who came after, by renting or buying
Romancing the Stone, since those who fail to learn from herstory
are doomed to make really crappy sequels!
E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,
OnM
*******
Romantic Technical Materiel:
Romancing the Stone is available on DVD. The review copy was actually
on an old Beta videotape. I thought I had a laserdisc copy of
this in my movie library somewhere, but I couldn't find it, and
I didn't want to go buy the DVD if I had the laser already. Swell...
The film was released in 1984, running time is 1 hour and 45 minutes.
As previously mentioned, direction was by the now justly famous
Robert Zemeckis, with the screenplay written by the brilliant,
and very sadly, now deceased Diane Thomas. The original music
score was by Alan Silvestri, with cinematography by Dean Cundey,
and editing by Donn Cambern & Frank Morriss. The soundtrack is
normal Dolby stereo, although the DVD may have a remixed surround
soundtrack. The original theatrical aspect ratio is 2.35:1, according
to a DVD review site I found, which means that quite a bit of
the film will be visually missing in the normal TV pan'n'scan
format.
Cast overview:
Michael Douglas .... Jack Colton Kathleen Turner .... Joan Wilder
Danny DeVito .... Ralph Zack Norman .... Ira Alfonso Arau ....
Juan Manuel Ojeda .... Zolo Holland Taylor .... Gloria Mary Ellen
Trainor .... Elaine Eve Smith .... Mrs. Irwin Joe Nesnow ....
Super José Chávez .... Santos
*******
You'll surely understand why I would use the words 'justly famous'
when I speak of Zemeckis' work over the last few decades, when
you consider he is responsible for the following:
Cast Away (2000) What Lies Beneath (2000) Contact (1997) Forrest
Gump (1994) Death Becomes Her (1992) Back to the Future Part III
(1990) Back to the Future Part II (1989) Who Framed Roger Rabbit
(1988) Back to the Future (1985) Romancing the Stone (1984) Used
Cars (1980) I Wanna Hold Your Hand (1978) Field of Honor, A (1973)
Lift, The (1972)
I've seen all of these, except for The Lift, Field of Honor and
What Lies Beneath, and there not only isn't a weak film in the
bunch, most of these are superb, 3 1/2 to 4 star works. Damn!
*******
Miscellaneous Addenda and the Question of the Week:
~~~ Didn't know this until I did the research for this week's
column, but the phrase 'romancing the stone' is a bit of jewelers'
jargon, referring to a step in preparing a gemstone for use in
jewelery. I recall that at the time the film was released, many
critics who otherwise really liked the film commented that the
title was 'silly', but to go see the film anyway-- another similarity
to Buffy.
So it wasn't really silly after all, considering that you could
make a pretty good analogy between the idea of taking a gem that
is still 'in the rough', and prepare it for an enhanced presentation,
and what happens to Joan Wilder in the story. Layers, damn!
~~~ New DVD release alert: Shreck and Final Fantasy are out, I
do believe, and both are eminently worthy of adding to your collections.
I may have some specific comments in a week or two after I get
a chance to purchase them myself, so stay tuned.
~~~ End zen, Zee Questionne:
What is the most 'layered' film you can recall seeing that wasn't
marketed as a thematically rich creative work?
Post 'em if you got 'em, and see you next week. Take care!
*******
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Problems with the Voy server last night? Couldn't post the
column at usual time. -- OnM, 05:34:20 11/03/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Ah, what a great flick
-- mundusmundi, 06:50:07 11/03/01 Sat Unfairly stereotyped as
an "Indiana Jones" ripoff, Romancing the Stone is a
completely different kind of movie, a romantic comedy adventure
with a distinctly feminine (not feminist) perspective. It was
the first and only script by Diane Thomas, a waitress who died
in a car accident not long after. What a shame. She had a fresh
and funny voice, which is evident all throughout the picture.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - November 2nd 2001 -- Humanitas,
07:28:45 11/03/01 Sat What is the most 'layered' film you can
recall seeing that wasn't marketed as a thematically rich creative
work?
Off the top of my head, I'd say Big Trouble in Little China. Marketed
as a comedy kung-fu flick, it not only deals with themes of bravery
and friendship (which you'd expect), but also switches the usual
roles of hero and sidekick around.
Now I just have to wait for someone else to post their answer,
at which point I'll smack my forehead (as I do every week, it
seems), and say to myself, "Of course! Why didn't I think
of that one?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - November 2nd 2001
-- bible belt, 09:01:13 11/03/01 Sat "Now I just have to
wait for someone else to post their answer, at which point I'll
smack my forehead (as I do every week, it seems), and say to myself,
"Of course! Why didn't I think of that one?"
Me too! I usually draw a complete blank, like now. I'll think
of something after the thread is gone.
I never thought of Romancing the Stone as having any similaraties
to Buffy, but I haven't seen the movie since it came out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - November 2nd 2001 -- Rattletrap,
07:29:04 11/03/01 Sat Thanks for a great review OnM. I haven't
seen Romancing the Stone in years, but you made me remember what
a great flick it was. While not exactly an Indiana Jones ripoff,
it had that same sort of tongue-in-cheek, almost self-effacing
humor characteristic of the Indy movies (and BtVS, come to think
of it). Also, both (or all 3...) have pretty broad appeal to both
high- and low-brow audiences, I'm just not sure which category
I fall into.
'trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - November 2nd 2001
-- Brian, 08:31:28 11/03/01 Sat How about The Hitcher? Humor and
Horror, obsession and love, an ultimate road picture. As I recall
S & E hated the film, and gave it a big thumbs down, but I thought
they had missed the main point, that given enough provocation,
every one of us has a killer inside.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - November 2nd 2001 -- Andy,
09:41:26 11/03/01 Sat I always really liked Romancing the Stone.
It's my uncle's favorite movie and whenever he comes to visit,
we *always* watch it at least once. No one ever tires of it :)
As for the question, Die Hard often comes to mind. It was a critically
acclaimed movie, but mainly for its exciting action sequences.
If you try to talk to people about what an intelligently made
film it is, I find that they tend to react with disbelief. On
a subconscious level, I think they're aware, since part of what
separates most good movies from crap is that they have this depth
lurking within them, but most people aren't willing to look that
deeply at summer popcorn flicks. But I think Die Hard has some
things to say about human ingenuity and how it comes into play
in the situations in the film that echo frontier spirit or the
war in Vietnam, or any other similar situations that demand wits
as much as detailed planning :)
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - November 2nd 2001 -- Wisewoman,
12:22:10 11/03/01 Sat I loved Romancing the Stone from the very
first moments when Joan is rummaging around her apartment trying
to find tissues and can only come up with dozens of post-its reminding
her to buy tissues! The film took the whole Harlequin Romance
genre and turned it completely on its head.
One film I can't seem to get enough of is Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome.
I find something new in it every time I watch it. At first I thought
of it as two distinct movies, one taking place in Bartertown and
one at the Utopian camp of the orphans, but then there are the
layers of Bartertown itself, from Auntie's aery, to the bustle
of the market, to the Thunderdome, to the hellish methane works
below the surface.
The other example I can think of is Titanic. I am of the opinion
that the actually story at the heart of the film, Rose's story,
got lost in the midst of all the hype and effects. A young woman
raised in the upper class in barely-post-Victorian Britain who,
because of a life-altering event, ends up as an trick rider in
an American rodeo? And for me the life-altering event was not
falling in love with Jack, not the sinking of the Titanic, but
Rose's determination first to save herself, then to reinvent herself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Titanic -- Brian, 12:47:23 11/03/01 Sat Absolutely,
WiseWoman, you are so on target! Did you ever wonder how she did
it? Without cashing in that jewel? Maybe she had other jewelry
that she pawned to begin her new life of adventure. I imagined
she used the money to go to steno school( I assume she had no
business skills), got hired for an air firm, and the rest was
history.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Titanic -- WW, 18:48:07 11/03/01 Sat Exactly
my thoughts, Brian. Rose 'Dawson' was the hero of that story,
and somehow that seemed to get lost. Maybe because the whole film
seemed to be set up for Jack to be the hero?
Y'know there's an idea--maybe some day James Cameron will do another
film about Rose's life *after* the Titanic?
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> That's wierd....... -- Rufus, 13:03:57 11/03/01 Sat I happend
to see Shreck and Final Fantasy last night. I loved the musical
number at the end of Shreck. My husband thought if they had used
the same format to do "Battlefield Earth" as they did
for Final Fantasy it wouldn't have been such a turkey. He also
asked "who the hell is Gaia?"
Romancing the Stone was a great movie that they should have just
left as a one of. Hated the sequels. I thought of all the women
out there that are the female equivilant to a geek would see something
in this film. Joan had the choice of just caving in when she found
out her sister was in trouble or doing just what she did....something
out of one of her own books. It also proved that strength isn't
just something that comes in a clearly identifiable package.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anybody feel sorry for Darla?
(spoilers) -- Sheri, 15:28:12 11/03/01
It must be tough. You go your entire unlife (both of them) and
you think, "ok, this is how my life--figuratively speaking--is
going to be." But all of a sudden, the PTB give you the big
whammy and you've learn your going to be--at 400 or so years old--a
mommy. Talk about having your whole world turned topsy turvy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Guess I'm the only one -- Sheri, 11:18:02 11/05/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Guess I'm the only one -- Shaglio, 11:50:15 11/05/01
Mon
Yeah, pretty much.
I find it hard to sympathize with someone as cruel and heartless
as Darla. After all, she teased and seduced Angel in his dreams
to the point where he had so much sexual tension built up that
he couldn't help but give in to her temptations when he saw her
in person. She made her bed, now she'll have to lie in it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> this could be completely obsolete in an hour,
but... -- anom, 17:55:53 11/05/01 Mon
...it occurred to me earlier today that having a baby (if that's
what she turns out to be carrying!) might have a parallel effect
on Darla to what Angel's soul & Spike's chip induced in them.
If having an "inhibitor" of whatever kind allows a vampire
to get in touch w/the feelings of the human s/he once was...well,
who knows. Darla had accepted her situation just before she was
vamped--maybe she could accept the situation of being a mother
to...uh, whatever it is. (Seems to me it can't be entirely human,
since Mama's heart isn't pumping any nutrients to it.) Anyway,
maybe there'll be all sorts of conflict btwn. the acceptance she
found in her 2nd human lifetime & her attitude during her 1st.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Darla and villainy -- matching mole, 08:44:39
11/06/01 Tue
What I think was done brilliantly last night was once again showing
monsters as complex beings. Darla was never more clearly a monster
- her attempt to feed on Cordelia was all the more shocking because
of their interactions just second before. And yet Darla was shown
to have the emotions of the vicitimized as well - fear and helplessness.
Darla is out of control of herself - just as she was in season
2 when she was a dying human and, as you point out, just as Spike
and Angel are.
It also struck me that Angel and Darla's battle was very similar
to the last battle between Faith and Angel. Angel's attempts to
save Darla in season 2 are an unsuccessful mirror of his reversal
of Faith's self destructive behavior.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Does anybody feel sorry for Darla? (spoilers) -- bible
belt, 17:58:36 11/05/01 Mon
I haven't felt any sympathy for her in her current situation.
However, and people will think I'm nuts for this, I felt sorry
for her and Dru when Angel set them on fire. I know they don't
deserve it, but I can usually feel some sympathy for almost anyone
sometime, except maybe Hitler. I always cave in and let people
off too easy. And then I do the opposite to myself. I'm easily
manipulated that way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> That's not a flaw-I love Darla -- Charlemagne20, 19:43:34
11/05/01 Mon
She's one of my favorite characters on the show.
-Charlemagne
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> lol BB...I concur -- Rahael, 05:53:42 11/06/01 Tue
I think I feel the same way too...
I don't know how sorry I feel for Darla...I feel sorrier for Angel
(though it could be because something about Julie Benz annoys
me).
Isn't there a poetic connection here? In Season 2 Angel was prepared
to give up his life in a series of challenges in order to give
Darla life...and he failed.
But...now, that attempt has rebounded in the most unbelievable
way. Angel has succeeded in giving Darla a life...but its not
her own.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> also, darla isn't souled, but... -- anom, 16:06:07
11/06/01 Tue
"Angel has succeeded in giving Darla a life...but its not
her own."
Depending on when you think the soul enters a body, Darla may
have a soul inside her too...but it's not hers. On the other hand,
can we assume, as Angel does, that a heartbeat implies a soul?
The boy in I've Got You Under My Skin didn't have a soul, but
he presumably had a heartbeat.
Anyway, stand by for the custody battle...it's likely to be all
too literal! Think Wolfram & Hart might represent Darla? @>)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dedalus does it again! WOW!! (Rufus,
unplug the printer!) -- Liquidram, 01:37:09 11/04/01 Sun
To Heaven and Back - The Return of Buffy the Vampire Slayer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Like that is going to happen.........:):):) -- Rufus, 03:40:35
11/04/01 Sun
I always did wonder how you would establish a bit of heaven on
earth without the experience of the real thing. Now Buffy has
had that. She just has to get over losing it and realize that
it is still there in her. "You think you know...what's to
come.....what you are.....You haven't even begun..." Do those
sound like the words of someone who thinks Buffy was going to
leave this mortal coil forever?
Wonderful essay again Ded.......:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I am speechless. Wonderful essay, Ded. -- Rattletrap, 04:14:35
11/04/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Living in two worlds -- CaptainPugwash, 04:44:54 11/04/01
Sun
Coo.. nice essay.. was working on something involving the Judas/Satan/Willow
parallel myself, but you beat me to it.
I've learnt to watch BtVS in a weird with Buffy/without Buffy
now; I always believed that Buffy's Slayer destiny (the epiphany
Dedalus brilliant described) was defeating Glory, but its hard
to believe that now she is actually back. Resurrecting her was
wrong, but there must have been a PTB/Providence reason that we
don't know about.
The only convincing reason for bringing Buffy back is that she
was not *meant* to die at the end of Season 5, i.e. she has another,
bigger destiny to fulfil. What I find deliciously ironic is that
this destiny probably involves defeating Dark Willow who was 'born'
during the resurrection spell. Thus, Season 6's (& 7?) problem
(Dark Willow) and solution (New Buffy) are created in the same
act.
So, in the end we have two equally plausible worlds - one where
the SG (and the viewers) got on with their lives (I'm sure Angel
& Spike could have sorted out the Demon Gang; Buffy isn't the
only supernatural warrior for Good), and the one we have at the
moment. I'm still not convinced that Buffy's resurrection was
'right' because its made the world much more dangerous. Ok, so
Buffy is here to sort out the danger, but the danger wouldn't
exist if she had been left to rest in peace (and her final wishes
respected).
Willow's role in all of this is fascinating. Providence/PTB/God/Whatever
have always needed agents of evil to bring about their ultimate
goals, i.e. someone HAD to betray Jesus, and someone (Satan) HAD
to tempt Mankind. They may have chosen their roles in the Great
Plan, but their necessity of these roles opens up a whole can'o'philosophical
worms.
Willow makes this much more complicated. If Buffy needed to be
brought back (like Christ) to fulfil another destiny, then Willow
is an agent like Satan or Judas (with all the attendant philosophical
complications). However, if Willow is THE thing that Buffy was
brought back to fight then it the weirdness thing goes off the
scale.
Anyhow - I don't seem to able to organise my ramblings in the
way that Dedalus can (yet).. hehe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Superb essay, Dedalus. -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 04:47:47
11/04/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Superb essay, Dedalus. -- DEN, 17:00:40 11/04/01
Sun
The original was so good, I hesitate to comment. But I was attracted
by the issue of Willow's guilt that Dedalus raises. On one level,
she seems to carry a strong sense of guilt/responsibility from
the show's beginning--"I'm very seldom naughty." "I
flog and punish" (myself) for even thinking about any boy
other than Oz. At the same time that guilt, far in excess of anything
actually justified by her behavior, becomes a justification for
bending and breaking rules about computer hacking, magic use,
and even boyfriend poaching. But at the end of "The Gift,"
Willow has something to feel really guilty about: Buffy's death.
Soldiers, police, firefighters, experience a similar phenomenon.The
circumstances, even Buffy's willing sacrifice, do not matter.
What matters to Willow is that Buffy was counting on her. She
was her friend's "big gun"--and her friend is dead.
IMO, that would generate more than enough guilt to generate either
denial and emotional collapse, or action--like a resurrection
spell.
Willow even has a precedent. Tara was violated by Glory after
a fight Willow feels she started and kept going. Willow took direct
action. She attacked Glory, survived herself, and eventually brought
Tara back from what to Willow, who lives so much in her mind,
would be the worst kind of living hell. Is it so remarkable that
she assumes the same kind of thing happened to Buffy, and sees
resolving it as a way to deal with her guilt?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Very good thoughts Den -- Dedalus, 12:49:52
11/06/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Fantastic essay, Ded! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 17:25:21 11/04/01
Sun
...and welcome to the New Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Excellent work, Ded! Great job! -- OnM, 19:53:08 11/04/01
Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> major KABOOM - I'm still processing! ;-) -- Solitude1056,
23:19:59 11/04/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Dedalus does it again! WOW!! (very mild spoiler for
next ep) -- Rahael, 12:36:03 11/05/01 Mon
And yet again, I say *grr* I can't wait to see Season Six. Hopefully,
my tapes are only a week away.
This was another great essay, that brought up a zillion thought
provoking ideas. I too feel hesitant to comment, cos I try not
to read more than the bare bones of the wildfeeds for these eps.
I really liked the way you pointed out the theme of the destruction
of the past, in the shape of Sunnydale High, and the Tower, the
arena of Buffy's greatest deeds, and as you point out, she is
compelled to move forward, because none of us can go back.
In the Buffyverse, nothing is static: relationships, reality,
time, all are in a state of flux.
You also make a beautiful point about the Stone Angel - now Buffy
has been made Solid again, dragged down to earth. Contrast that
with the images of fluidity that seem to be apparent in the early
episodes - the water in the basement, the time distortions, the
plasticity of her newfound reality.
As for going back to Restless, and Buffy's trenchent comments
to the First Slayer "After the floods recede........"
Contrasting that with the title of her song "Walking through
the fire". Buffy is increasingly being associated with *elemental*
things. Fire, Water, Earth, Stone Life and Death.
This identification seem to marry with your final comments hinting
at the boundless possibilities that lie ahead for our heroine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: You almost have me convinced she was really there...awesome!:):):)
-- bible belt, 18:13:18 11/05/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Thanks all. Always a pleasure to write for such an audience.
-- Dedalus, 12:55:40 11/06/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joss's commentary on 'Innocence'
(Buffy DVD S2) -- Rahael, 18:19:04 11/04/01 Sun
Best thing about my season 2 dvd's is Joss's very funny, and very
informative commentary on the ep. I did a rough transcript. Its
Joss basically speaking over the episode extempore, commenting
on scenes as they appear. If the transcript is disjointed, its
down to this. Might be usefully viewed together with the ep. Very
funny joke all the way through about Tony Head's pants or lack
thereof.
So here it is - one hour of my life spent on this - hope someone
else likes it!!
Joss Speaking: I'm going to be discussing in one might say obsessively
minute detail what went into the creative process in making of
this show. Couple of disclaimers before we start. I realise that
this is not Citizen Kane. Citizen Kane is a black and white film
about bald guys. During the creative process, one tends to feel
as though one is making Citizen Kane because of the difficulty
involved you have to get yourself into the mindset that everything
you're doing is incredibly important and genius, so if I discuss
this as thought it is the greatest work of fiction in the history
of America its because I had to feel that way, and because every
decision you make as an artist is important to you at that time
even if doesn't amount to a famous black and white movie about
bald guys. The other disclaimer is funny anecdotes. If your looking
for the wacky tales of the crazy behaviour of my funky stars there
aren't any. The show is very hard to make and the cast is very
professional., except for Tony Head who is frequently without
pants.
We are currently making season five, so I have very dim memories
of three years ago, so large portions of this commentary may be
me yawning and coughing up phlegm so fasten your seatbelts.
I created BtVS to portray the blond girl in the alley who got
killed. One of the features of that blonde girl was that she always
had sex. She always seemed punished for it, and that didn't seem
fair. So Buffy was created as a stereotype buster on that level.
However, when we went back to create the series, we knew we had
to keep her in High School for a while. So the issue of sex was
one we had to deal with on the series.
What we wanted to show was a horror movie version of the idea
of I sleep with my boyfriend and now he doesn't call me and also
he's killing hookers in alleys.
I pitched it as the ultimate high school horror show, basically
taking the pain humiliation and alienation and all the problems
of high school and ballooning them into horrific proportions the
show works only if it resonates. That's the most important thing
in the show....the fact is that the only thing that separates
this show from other shows is the kind of emotional resonance
we can get to by playing it as true life, just a little bit wonkier.
The two things that matter the most to me in the work that I do
is emotional resonance and rocket launchers. Party of Five - brilliant
show and often made me cry uncontrollably suffered ultimately
from the lack of rocket launchers which Innocence doesn't have
a problem with.
This episode in a sense is and probably always will be the most
important episode of Buffy that we did. We were moving to a new
night and this was the episode we were going to show in our new
slot. And important to me and the other writers because it fulfilled
the mission statement we first came up with, the idea of the emotional
resonance of horror the idea of the High School experience, and
also showed how much the show had evolved in the season and a
half that we had done.
Clearly the important thing being that our actors were able to
go to such deep levels of pain and the intensity that we knew
we could tell a story like this. It's a harder edged story than
we were used to telling and quite frankly, an uglier story and
all of my actors were able to go to whatever place we needed them
to and we realised that by this time.
And while I believe that actors are rabid feral animals who must
be put down, I think that these are amongst the finest I'm ever
going to get to work with. And of course in this episode, so much
of it rests on Sarah and David. Sarah taking her performance onto
a new level in terms of the depth and pain and complexity, and
David of course is going to a place we've never seen him before
which was exciting for him and a little nerve wracking for us
because we didn't know if he would become arch and ridiculous
but we found that there is a real monster in him and we were very
happy to meet it.
(Joss discusses a scene that was subsequently cut, straight after
the library scene.) Buffy sitting in class, while the teacher
is droning on. Camera goes in on Buffy who just sort of remembered
that she had sex last night. The lighting around her disappearing
- very artsy and surreal. Had to be cut because of length - didn't
add to the narrative, and weren't sure if people would get it.
When I try to be an artiste I just end up confusing people.
Joss goes on to discuss the villains. Wanted to have some villains
who would actually be a part of Buffy's life, and have an emotional
effect on her. Angelus (should be pronounced with the stress on
the An - as it is in AtS.) We didn't want the audience to think
we were faking - that's why the Judge was there, and that's why
the girl was killed in the teaser.
Joss also talks about how much he likes doing the long sustained
take (as seen in the shot of Angelus sparking up a match, and
on to Dru, then Spike) Not often seen in Television, but because
Joss is the writer and producer, he gets to do these. They give
you a much better energy, make the actors work together, use the
frame cinematically. That's very exciting to me. Of course I spend
a lot of time in a dark room watching these films and have very
few friends.
Joss then goes on to discuss the library scene with Giles, Willow
and Xander, trying to discover where Buffy is. (Joss remarks -
Giles clearly angry at having to wear pants). This is where Willow
finds out about Xander and Cordelia. One of the other exciting
things about the show for me is the changing relationships. Triangular
nature of relationships in Season 1 - Willow loves Xander, who
loves Buffy, who loves Angel who is unobtainable. We wanted to
shake that up. The idea that Cordelia would end up falling for
Xander (who obviously played by Nick Brendon way too hunky for
the role) that would be a perfect romance because they are so
very wrong for each other. That's one of the realities of High
School. Nobody is what they are forever. They change, their lives
change, and sometimes dissolve. There is nothing more painful
in the world than Aly when she makes her big hurt eyes.......it
just kills you. She can also play extraordinary pathos and huge
comedy at the same time. I loved shooting this scene (Xander and
Willow arguing in the corridor).
The Angelus meets Buffy scene was originally meant to be shot
in the front lawn of Buffy's house (the next shot we see). But
it didn't work. Sarah thought it was her fault, Joss realised
it was his, but didn't tell her. It was transposed to his bedroom.
She had to see him in the bedroom, she had to see him with his
shirt off. It had to be as intimate a scene as possible when Angel
tortures her by pretending he just doesn't love her any more.
It was one of the most pivotal moments, and one of the most interesting
for me as a writer. When I wrote this scene, I actually felt like
an ugly person I didn't know how I managed to write this scene,
and for it to come so easily. It felt icky, icky and kind of powerful
that I could make him say these things. Very uncomfortable and
very exciting for me. Considering that David is about as nice
a person as you could ever hope to work with he plays a bastard
with extraordinary aplomb. Sarah breaking my heart in this scene.
Possibly the best scene we've ever done.
Interestingly enough, the next scene (Jenny and Uncle Enyos) is
even more of an achievement for me as a writer. And your probably
saying "Hey, this is the boring gypsy scene where the guy
is talking pompously". Incredibly important to me because
I had to take a lot of disparate elements that just didn't work.
The fact is that Jenny had been sent there as a gypsy but had
never done anything had never accomplished anything. The gypsy
curse didn't make sense he'd become a monster and kill more people
- that's not a good plan! In this case, what drew it together
was the idea that veangence is a living thing. The idea that they
serve an arbitrary god that was itself irrational. Completely
justified the idea that nothing we had written before made that
much sense. I probably shouldn't be telling you this.
Some say that the gypsy curse is a hokey concept, but Danish curse
just doesn't sound as good. I love the classics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> And Part 2: -- Rahael, 18:23:06 11/04/01 Sun
Next scene - corridor scene, where Angel reveals himself as a
bad guy. Working on the concept of "When in doubt, put Willow
in danger". Don't know why people think Willow's always going
to die, because I'm never going to kill her. Shot this as a horror
scene, but also a Western to give it a epic feel a Sergio Leone
feel. A stand off. Very big fan of the epic.
Next the library scene - yet another long take to find Buffy at
the end. Emphasises how alone she is. Politics of the thing is
complicated. I said I didn't want to kill the girl who had sex
yet I punish the shit out of her. I didn't like the reactionariness
that everything you do must be punished. Angel and Buffy were
in love. Yet I didn't want to say "Okay, you must boff, you
must boff each other. Do it! (v. funny). But inevitably in a horror
show you end up punishing people for everything that they do because
you must find the horror, the real emotional horror. The important
thing is to make the punishment emotional, and to let her grow
from it. Let it resonate on a normal level. Willow is the only
one who understands what Buffy is going through. I find her bond
with Buffy transcendent, even when they don't get along at all.
Back to the Vamp Factory. Love and Pain. The big contribution
of Marti Noxon. She brought a lot of cool twisted sexuality to
the characters that fit really well. The idea that Angel had driven
Drusilla mad and wanted to do the same thing to Buffy is a good
character thing, and it also saved us from the Sam and Diane problem.
Which was a big issue in this whole romance. We knew that Angel
and Buffy were going to get together, and the moment they did,
people would become bored with it. That's why we came up with
the idea of Angel becoming the main villain of the show.
Next shot - Buffy crying in her bedroom. Sarah is really crying
there. Next scene - Buffy remembers the sex. Artsy, a Lynchian
feel to it. I wanted to get into the sexuality of this girl and
her memory of what happened. First sexual scene I had shot. Sarah
and David were great. I was too embarrassed to get them to vocalise
at all. The heavy breathing on that scene is me and Cindy Reverter
(?) the Sound Editor.
Classroom scene where Buffy confronts Jenny. The clueless father
figure of Giles again, as he realises his charge is growing up,
and he becomes very British.
Army wharehouse show.....it's the crappy wharehouse where we shoot
Buffy. Pivotal moment in the evolution of Nicky being cool guy...Xander
being cool even while he's being a complete dork.
Willow and Oz in the van. Yet another important scene. People
not loving Oz, people are very angry that Willow isn't with Xander
because she was so clearly into him. Oz is based on an actual
guy I knew in college. Somebody just so cool, that he would just
see how cool Willow is, even when she was wearing an eskimo outfit.
In fact, because she was wearing an eskimo outfit. People not
responding, so I wrote this scene very specifically so that they
would love Oz, because this is where Willow starts to love Oz.
Again gauging the audience reaction is a very big part of the
show, not just accepting a character or a plot twist, but making
you need them. Seth is so beautifully restrained, so completely
charming. Look at Aly, falling in love with him, right now.
Next scene - Uncle Enyos discovered dead by Giles, Buffy and Jenny.
Very ugly. So disturbing.
Back to the Vamps. We get a sense that Angelus is going to take
Dru away from Spike a little.
Buffy and Giles in the Vamp factory - Spike in the shadows. Heading
for our great big climax at the Mall. Killing extras - funny every
time.
Again the epic, the western, people far apart, the big showdown.
When she picks up the rocket launcher, I have never loved her
more. Here comes a lot of fast editing with slow motion which
is my really low budget attempt to be Sam Peckinpah for five seconds.
Angel and Buffy have their show down. Really cold water showered
all over the actors. Pretty game about it. This fight means more
than any other fight we've ever had. The stuff that Angel says
to her is mean, all boyfriend stuff, sexual stuff. The fight epic
again, but the pain intimate. And of course, Buffy's response,
more intimate still. This show was designed to be a feminist show.
Not a polemic but a very straight on feminist show. For her to
be so abused, and for her response to be to kick him in the goolies
is very primal, very important. Its kind of important, and I kinda
love it.
Scene of Buffy and Giles in the car.........real tears there.
And she was upset because of course, Tony wearing no pants. Greenwalt
watched this scene and said "Oh my god, she has the best
father in the world" and watched the next scene, and said
"Oh my god, she has the best mother in the world".
Old movie clip - so sweet, so comforting. Poignant loss of innocence.
Not only because innocence is lost, but also because it hasn't
been lost. Buffy is still an innocent. That's why her mother says
" You don't look any different to me" that's just a
way of stating that. She's still the person that she was. This
scene made me happier than the rocket launcher scene. Regret,
love and loss.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Innocence regained - my own comments -- Rahael, 18:54:01
11/04/01 Sun
Basically, I loved Joss's commentary. Worth the expense of the
dvds alone.
Lots of little facts that I learn't which were really useful,
like Oz being based on a real person, Joss admitting that the
gypsy curse made *no* sense whatsoever.
Liked the commentary on the shooting of the ep, and the cinematography,
not all of which I transcribed because it didn't make that much
sense without the episode playing at the same time. Also, I had
never noticed the 'western' theme running through this ep before.
Will certainly be keeping an eye out for it in future.
Great insight into Buffy. I had never thought about Buffy *still*
being an innocent after the ep, which of course she is. Loved
Joss's description of Buffy kicking Angel in an very *ahem* intimate
place, and his emphatic statement that Buffy was very much a feminist
show.
I liked his discussion about 'emotional resonance' and the role
that horror played. You've got to love his comment about Party
of Five lacking that essential ingredient, 'the Rocket Launcher'.
Joss's running joke about ASH's pants is *too* funny. I hope it
comes across in the transcript. I missed a couple of them out
(too complicated!).
Loving Joss at the moment. The commentary emphasises how Joss
is not all powerful, or all-insightful. Some of the stuff I didn't
put in is the places where he discusses what he did wrong, but
I left some stuff in. But what comes across is how seriously he
takes this, and how much thought goes into the writing, the lighting,
the acting, the shots, the energy of the shot, and the story line
etc.
Sorry about the incoherence...my fingers are quite tired!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Thank you SO much, Rahael...that was wonderful!
;o) -- Wisewoman, 19:12:30 11/04/01 Sun
I have no idea if or when I'll ever see the DVDs, but I feel as
if I've heard the voice of Joss.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Danish curse..... -- Rufus, 21:45:17 11/04/01
Sun
What does he mean that a Danish curse wouldn't have been the same
thing......hey....I could have had Angel eating eel and washing
it down with gallons of Cherry Herring......his breath alone would
force him to brood....:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Danish curse..... -- Cactus Watcher,
07:45:36 11/05/01 Mon
Don't forget Denmark (at Odense?) is home to the world's only
life-size statue of Hans Christian Andersen in MARZIPAN! Where's
my pie plate, Bingo? ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Mmmmm Marzipan...errr exactly HOW
old is this statue???? -- Rufus, 09:27:34 11/05/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> I don't know, but decades
for sure. -- Cactus Watcher, 06:43:29 11/06/01 Tue
It is in a glass case, and if you can keep mice and other sizable
critters away, sugar is actually an effective preservative.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The most interesting comment, for me... (SPOILERY)
-- Marie, 03:55:21 11/05/01 Mon
... in the light of Season 6 spoilers, is this one:
Working on the concept of "When in doubt, put Willow in danger".
Don't know why people think Willow's always going to die, because
I'm never going to kill her.
Do you think he will have changed his mind over the succeeding
seasons? Willow seems to be one of JW's favourite characters -
it just seems so unlikely to me that he would decide to make her
'bad' and kill her off (unless he does something like he did with
Buffy in S1, and kills Willow for a short time only. That might
seem repetitive, perhaps, but, as always, hey! gotta have faith
in Joss.
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The most interesting comment, for me...
(SPOILERY) -- vampire hunter D, 13:06:30 11/05/01 Mon
Actually, I think that he could do without Willow now. Why? Because
his attitude seems to have changed to "when in doubt, put
Dawn in danger". Think about it. Putting Willow in danger
is just the old damsel-in-distress routine. Put a sweet, innocent
girl in danger and the hero must rescue her. But now Willow is
no longer sweet and innocent, and is quite powerful in her own
right. In fact, the only time during all of season 5 where Willow
was put in danger was when she tried to take on Glory singlehandedly.
So to make the damsel-in-distress thing work, we need a new girl.
Again, one who is sweet and innocent. Enter Dawn. This is also
why I don't belive that Dawn will manifest any useful power, because
then they'd need another girl for Buffy to rescue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> That's a really good point.... -- Rahael,
05:12:20 11/06/01 Tue
She always seems to be saving "innocence" doesn't she?
In whatever guise it takes, be it Willow or Dawn.
Anyway, I've got my hands on DVD3 today - Commentaries for Four
Eps there - Helpless, Consequences, Earshot and BadGirls.
I'll let you know if they are any good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: And Part 2: -- Juliette, 08:38:27 11/05/01 Mon
Thank you so much for posting that, it's so cool to hear what
the writers were thinking, plus Joss is really funny!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> He's hilarious -- Rahael, 05:18:18 11/06/01
Tue
I've never heard him speak before ....only read interviews.
The pompous voice when he says " I don't to say 'You must
boff. Boff now! Do it!"....oh how I laughed. ahem.
Marti Noxon comes across as really sweet....she sounds as if she's
completely scatty, and then right out of the blue she comes with
some remarkably insightful, sharp comment. I warmed to her. David
Greenwalt seems to have an obsession with corporate power and
patriarchy.....did anyone else see his earlier tv show Profit?
I saw it on BBC2 many years ago.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Beck -- AngelVSAngelus,
22:02:51 11/04/01 Sun
Does anyone know what on Earth happened to that wonderful composer?
It seems his tenure on Buffy ended with Season 3, but he had the
most wonderful arrangements. Also, are they ever going to release
a Buffy Score, as opposed to the already available Soundtrack?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Christopher Beck -- Andy, 13:42:12 11/05/01 Mon
I don't know about releasing a score, but he is still around here
and there. He came back to score The Gift last season, and he
apparently helped Joss out with the musical episode. Not sure
why he decided to leave the show.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Christophe Beck -- Tanker, 23:50:31 11/05/01 Mon
Nitpick: I fixed the spelling. It's "Christophe"
He's said he prefers the more relaxed pace of movie work to the
frantic pace of tv. I could be bitter about this, but I'm pretty
much a slacker myself, so I'm not one to talk. I can understand
where he's coming from.
It would be easier to take Beck's absence if Thomas Wanker's scores
were anywhere near the level of Beck's. But they're not even close.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Yeah, Wanker doesn't even compare... -- AngelVSAngelus,
12:08:32 11/06/01 Tue
He tends to reuse that same "action music from Nocturne"
piece ALL THE TIME. That and Spike would have a field day with
the guy's last name.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Yeah, Wanker doesn't even compare...
-- Dedalus, 13:48:15 11/06/01 Tue
Actually, there was going to be a soundtrack score but it was
canceled. Apparently, TPTB didn't think there would be enough
interest. There is a protest page about floating somewhere around
the internet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darla's (rather cliched) attitude
toward children -- RichardX1, 19:09:25 11/05/01 Mon
Hexadecimal phrased it better...
"I adore children. But I could never eat a whole one."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> "I love children. Preferably boiled." - WC Fields
-- Solitude1056, 19:19:13 11/05/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> For more on this topic, I suggest you read Jonathan
Swift's "A Modest Proposal"... -- Rob, 13:05:59 11/06/01
Tue
For those of you who have not read it, it is a brilliant and funny
3 or 4 paged satirical essay that suggested that the Irish cure
the devestating effects of their famine by eating the children.
This is one of my favorite pieces of writing...and very fitting,
considering the subject of this post. :)
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I didn't like Darla getting hit while pregnant-sends the
wrong message -- Charlemagne20, 19:41:10 11/05/01 Mon
I as a man do not get angry easily but Joss is really starting
to tick me off. After last weeks Billy where we have men portrayed
as having something satanic against women inside themselves we
now have Angel our "hero" striking a pregnant woman
on national prime time television.
Also who did Julia's makeup? The girl is one of the most attractive
girls on the show...now was the perfect time for some maternal
glow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Exactly the right message, methinks. -- Tanker, 00:00:28
11/06/01 Tue
We saw Angel strike a pregnant *evil vampire.* Who bit Cordelia.
The message being, "Thou shalt not suffer an evil vampire
to live." Angel should have taken her out last season.
"Don't we kill 'em anymore?" -- Gunn
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Pregnant glow-- -- SingedCat, 04:45:58 11/06/01
Tue
I agree with Tanker-- this wasn't a "message" action.
Darla is evil, immortal, and apparently unable to rid herself
of the child no matter what she does-- not to mention stronger
than any of them. It was a daring move in terms of the imagery,
but I think it made sense in the context of the plot. And as always,
whenever they do something that dares to be non-PC, I applaud
just on general principles.
I could go on, about the show commenting on the pregnant mother's
fears of having a freak or a monster, but that's a whole other
thread...:D :D :D
And the pregant glow is mostly 2nd trimester-- See Cordy's pre-attack
sympathetic speech; even the most willing and happy pregnant women
I've known (and mothers on the board will agree I'm sure) are
tired, wrung out, and dying to get rid of the little beast by
the time it happens. And remember Darla has not exactly been taking
care of herself.
Byt the way, just for the record, can anyone figure the period
of gestation? Is it 9 months? It seems less to me-- they didn't
make it in mid-February, did they?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Pregnant glow-- -- verdantheart, 06:08:04
11/06/01 Tue
Vampires aren't supposed to get pregnant in the first place. There
is no reason why this pregnancy should be in any way "normal."
Does it have to be 9 months? Not really. And as to the "pregnant
glow" -- pregnancy is an unnatural condition for Darla whatever
trimester we're talking about. I'm positive that they made her
haggard for this very reason. She's supposed to be a travesty
of the stereotypical pregnant woman.
I certainly agree with you on the violence toward a pregnant "woman."
It was meant to roust us out of our complacency & make us think.
(As were her actions.)
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> About that gestation period -- Solitude1056,
06:20:03 11/06/01 Tue
Byt the way, just for the record, can anyone figure the period
of gestation? Is it 9 months? It seems less to me-- they didn't
make it in mid-February, did they?
I did notice that one of the first things Fred mentioned was that
she got a date for "last March" - wouldn't that be about
eight months ago..?
Hmmm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: About that gestation period
-- dsf, 10:05:11 11/08/01 Thu
Well, see the Host's comment that Darla looks about 18 months
pregnant -- she's carrying awfully large. I wouldn't be surprised
if she doesn't quite make it to term. Heck, I've been on bed rest
for weeks to hold off preterm labor, and I'm only carrying twins.
dsf
p.s. Mine look perfectly normal on ultrasound, thanks. There's
nothing like having a certain condition to make it seem like it's
everywhere on TV, usually in some hideously scary form...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> hope it all goes fine! (as
much as it can) -- anom, 22:01:32 11/08/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Pregnant glow-- -- JM, 08:04:54 11/06/01
Tue
Lord, I do too. (Applaud the non-PC stuff.)
Although much of what falls under the label of PC is good and
admirable, it's stultifying to have all artistic expression conform
to it. Dramatic tension is all about challenging conventions.
That's why I loved Angel's warning to Cordy and Fred at the end.
Yes, it was a mixture of gallantry and condescension. It was also
emphatic, revealing, and in character.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Pregnant glow? Says he who has never been pregnant,
LOL -- Shiver, 07:55:55 11/06/01 Tue
I spent the first two trimesters giving back most of what I ate
and the only thing glowing about me were my knees red from the
bathroom floor. "Pregnant Glow" indeed. Another mancentric
myth!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Absolutely! -- Marie, 08:06:48 11/06/01 Tue
And let's not forget the delights of sore boobs, heartburn, mood
swings and the eagerly anticipated passing of something the size
of a watermelon!
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I didn't like Darla getting hit while pregnant-sends
the wrong message -- Humanitas, 15:34:10 11/06/01 Tue
At least now we know why they spent last episode going out of
thier way to show that Angel doesn't harbor violent feelings towards
women in general.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Good point. -- Solitude1056, 08:46:08 11/07/01
Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> yeah? what about when cordelia hit her? -- anom, 15:56:12
11/06/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cordy's reation to Darla.........spoilers
for "Offspring" -- Rufus, 19:25:02 11/05/01
I was looking at some posts that were questioning Cordy's reaction
to Darla.....I think it's quite easy to see why Cordy took Darla's
side.
First, Cordy said it best when she described Darla as looking
helpless and like a mother. Cordy was in the same postition as
Darla in "Expecting". Cordy knows what it's like to
be slipped the magic bone and have a guy go all male on her and
disappear. Cordy was left pregnant with a demon litter by a guy
who used her to get financial and sexual perks, not caring what
happened to Cordy.
Angel lied to Cordy after she specifically asked if he had been
intimate with Darla. So Cordy sided with the person who brought
back memories of desertion with a baby bonus. The thing is that
Cordy is a caring person and Darla is ...well... a monster. A
deceptively petite, pregnant, but really strong monster. Cordy
came back to the present when reality bit her.
Now, to the bigger question. Cordy got a message from the PTBs
in that she knows that this child that shouldn't be has a heartbeat
and a soul.....so....who is the evil that could destroy humanity.....the
child of Angel and Darla...or the newly risen Holtz who may have
become evil in his quest to avenge his wife? Remember what the
Host/Lorne said...it wouldn't be fair to have Angel as a Warrior
for good produce an evil child.....but on the flip side Angel
has a right to worry.....what good could come from Darla?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darla-negative female stereotype?
-- Charlemagne20, 19:48:39 11/05/01 Mon
I'm a big Julia Benz fan but her character Darla really comes
off as the antithesis of what is good in femininity it seems.
First she's a prostitute in her first life and while said profession
has traditionally been an aspect of Vampiresses in storytelling
(The double meaning of the word Vamp is no coincidence) the fact
remains it is rightfully associated with the worst voluntary debasement
of the female. Second of all she now this episode shows the worst
traits of a woman scorned by a man and left pregnant which while
understandable and the desperation I know from experience (a friend
went through a terrible trial similar to Darlas) her act had uncomfortable
overtures as "girl from the wrong side of the tracks messes
up heroe's relationship with good girl" overtones. Furthermore
she's almost wicked witch style evil in her hatred of children
this episode....
A negative stereotype of women since Lilith
-Charlemagne
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I believe that's the point Char. -- SK, 20:46:53 11/05/01
Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
did dawn already know...(SPOILERS
for all the way) -- anom, 21:10:13 11/05/01 Mon
..that Justin was a vampire? I mean, he gave her his jacket to
keep her warm, but usually when a live human being takes off s/his
coat, it's already warm from s/his body heat. Justin's wouldn't
have been. And come on, the kissing! Wouldn't she have noticed,
even in all the excitement of her 1st kiss, that his lips were
cold?
One more thing that's been bothering me: when it looks like he's
going to bite her & says "It'll only hurt for a minute,"
Dawn tilts her head back like she's not resisting. Was she really
ready to let him bite her, or did she already have the stake/stick
ready that she uses later?
BTW...what would happen if the Key were vamped????
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: did dawn already know...(SPOILERS for all the way) --
Cleanthes, 21:48:00 11/05/01 Mon
Buffy kissed Angel without knowing he was a vampire.
I think they can stimulate mystical blood flow to their lips to
make them warm.
Also, recent feeding might add to their body temperature.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: did dawn already know...(SPOILERS for all the
way) -- Calluna, 22:26:08 11/05/01 Mon
Didn't she notice that his breath (?) smelled like blood? I know
whenever I've had a tooth pulled, my breath smells awful from
the blood. She must've noticed. Maybe she was trying too hard
to be like Buffy: Get a vamp boyfriend at 16.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> They're room temperature...that's not cold -- Charlemagne20,
22:28:22 11/05/01 Mon
Traditionally vampires are not cold as they are dead but they
are cold because they hang around in the night air with no blood
works inside them to make them warmer. Thus when a vampire walks
into a room from the night he's freezing in the Old movies. However
a vampire in the Summer's household or with a person who is already
cold...the contrast is likely far less.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> True, *and* he'd recently fed. It makes you
warm. -- SingedCat, 04:50:53 11/06/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: They're room temperature...that's not cold
-- Rob, 12:33:30 11/06/01 Tue
Didn't she notice that his breath (?) smelled like blood? I know
whenever I've had a tooth pulled, my breath smells awful from
the blood. She must've noticed.
I don't think there's ever been a mention on the show about "blood
breath." That's kind of an odd idea! I would assume that
there would be some metaphysical or mystical way that the vampire's
body would cover up "blood breath" so as not to have
other victims be clued in to who or what they are. Remember, although
vamps in the Buffyverse look like humans and can copy human bodily
functions (i.e. exhaling cigarette smoke, having sex) they are
not human at all . Thus, I doubt that "blood breath"
would ever be an issue.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> My guess is that they gargle -- Charlemagne20,
15:15:37 11/06/01 Tue
Justin: "Oh man Spike, the girl smelled blood on my mouth
and ran before I could bite her"
Spike: "Two words...Tick Tak."
Another point is that I doubt many Vampires have recently fed
when hanging around mortals. Seducing a mortal also might be construed
as "playing with your food"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> yeah, but it was cold out! -- anom, 15:51:17
11/06/01 Tue
I don't know if vamps drink enough to warm up their whole body.
Justin didn't drink too long from the old toymaker guy, since
he knew the noise they'd made would attract the others' attention.
And as for blood breath, they don't need to breathe, but if he
was trying to pass for human w/Dawn, maybe he deliberately breathed.
But that might have been even more of a clue. Breath is usually
warm, & moist, too, because the water vapor in it condenses when
it goes from a warm environment (your body) to a cooler one (almost
anywhere outside it, even if it's not that cold). Justin's breath
probably wouldn't have felt that way. But then again, Dawn hadn't
had any experience with what the breath of someone you're kissing
feels like, so maybe it didn't mean anything to her.
Oh, & Spike recommending Tic Tacs to Justin? Not if he knew it
was Dawn he was going after! Although actually, he didn't seem
to react that strongly to the whole Dawn/Justin thing, either
the kissing or the possible biting. (Guess he left that part up
to Buffy!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: did dawn already know...(SPOILERS for all the way) --
Rattletrap, 11:01:29 11/06/01 Tue
It seems like Dru made a comment in one of last year's episodes
about being "warm and well fed." This might mean that
vampires who've fed recently (as Justin had) retain the body temperature
of their last meal for a while, so he might feel fairly normal.
This is just pure speculation on my part, I have no other evidence
than what I gave, but it seems plausible enough.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life's a show, and we all play
our parts... -- penjorgensen, 22:47:16 11/05/01 Mon
I know I risk joining the ranks of the spoiler-trollops for admitting
this, but I did indeed listen to the actual songs from the musical
coming Tuesday night earlier today and I must say, I was VERY
impressed. I was expecting a quality episode as usual, but the
degree that Joss and Co. have adapted a musical model and integrated
it into the framework of the existing show and storyline really
blew my mind. For those of you more disciplined folk who have
not yet bespoiled yourselves, I think you are in for a real treat!
It seems that this endeavor is far from gratuitous, but rather
complements and even very cleverly furthers the storylines that
have captivated us all thus far.
Maybe it is just that as a gay man I have an inherent love of
musical numbers, but I think that this ep really lives up to the
acclaim a few critics have bestowed on it. From the brief video
clips I have seen, it looks like the choreography is equally impressive,
which is yet another kudo to Joss and Co. for managing to integrate
seemingly unrelated mechanisms into an engrossing and thought-provoking
show. Any other spoiler-fiends like myself have an opinion?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Life's a show, and we all play our parts... -- Deeva,
23:16:48 11/05/01 Mon
I've always liked musicals and there are some that I just absolutely
love (RENT comes to mind right now). I had no doubt in my mind
in trusting that Joss would be able to pull off a musical. If
you've seen any of my posts in the last few weeks, you'll know
that I've been positively bouncing of the walls waiting for this
baby to roll around. My friends are all now used to hearing me
clap and do a little dance everytime I see the promos for the
episode. I know I have a problem but there doesn't seem to be
a help group for people who are just too enthusiastic (my friends
say the word is more like perky) for their own good. But admittng
that there is a problem is the first step I'm told. :oD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Life's a show, and we all play our parts... --
penjorgensen, 23:37:29 11/05/01 Mon
True enough there are no support groups for us, but I am glad
to hear a kindred soul speak up - perky-power :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> My shameful admission........ -- Rufus, 23:50:39
11/05/01 Mon
I actually have a copy of Disneys Beauty and the Beast......I
have no doubt that I will like this musical as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> *Gasp*... -- Tanker, 23:54:27 11/05/01
Mon
... you too??
Heh. I loved "Beauty." Better than "Aladdin."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: *Gasp*... -- Rufus, 23:57:35
11/05/01 Mon
Same here......it just had the feel of a Broadway musical...so
I just had to have a copy....Of course tomorrow I will make a
seperate tape of the Buffy Musical on a better grade tape on Standard
Play as well as one in sequence for the tape library...(I see
the show twice tomorrow).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Taping the musical -- Tanker,
00:49:42 11/06/01 Tue
I went out today and bought a professional grade tape just for
the musical. I will also make an SP recording (which should look
really good; I love my Sony VCR), then dub it onto my next S6
archival tape, and watch *that* tape most of the time. Speaking
strictly hypothetically, this would preserve the good tape for
any other dubbing I might happen to do. In fact, I like dubbing
so much, I might just make some tapes of the musical for fun.
I can't imagine what I might do with them, though. I don't suppose
I could just *give* them away. ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Hey, I liked Beauty & the Beast - breath-taking
animation! (and the music wasn't bad.) -- Solitude1056, 06:00:10
11/06/01 Tue
But my favorite is still Mulan, though I just bought Shrek and
it's every bit as great as I'd heard... ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> ahem, shameful admission to follow --
fresne, 09:19:52 11/06/01 Tue
Well, as long as we're being all obsessive compulsive movie musical
secret sharer sharee', ahem, looking quietly chagrined...
During my hard core Fred Astaire phase, I read that he had a collection
of just his dance numbers for choreography purposes, which I thought
was quite cool. So, I dubbed all of my favorite dance numbers
(mostly Fred) onto an 8 hour tape. I really like musicals.
And I've got to say, it's quite nice to watch when you're feeling
depressed and you don't even want to mess around with the paper
thin plot of a musical. You just want emotion expressed in song
and dance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> You, too! -- Deeva, 11:49:20 11/06/01
Tue
Beauty and the Beast was amazing! The singing, the songs, the
visuals. Same goes for Mulan. I liked Mulan also becasue it wasn't
heavy on being stereotypically Chinese but they were very aware
of time period. They also tried to cast Asian talent for the voice
overs! It was a nice touch. It's really too bad that some people
relegate musicals to animation or regard it as "kids stuff".
Sometimes I wish that I lived in New York just so i can catch
all the great Broadway shows. I really, really, really wanted
to see Alan Cumming in Cabaret. LOVE him!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Wait a sec, are you also from the Illout board? --
Whisper2AScream, 09:44:07 11/06/01 Tue
Keri? That you? If not, I know of another Rent nut on the Buffy
Spoiler board on Illout.com by the handle, Willow_rulez!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Nope, that's not me. But maybe I'll swing by
over there. -- Deeva, 11:27:37 11/06/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Guilty musical pleasures... -- Wisewoman, 08:02:55 11/06/01
Tue
Hey, I loved "Paint Your Wagon!" I figure all the Buffy
cast has gotta sound better than Lee Marvin, LOL.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> yow! -- verdantheart, 09:12:55 11/06/01 Tue
They sound way better than the cast for the movie version of "Man
of La Mancha," so I'm happy. Of course, MOLM had about the
worst casting you could have if you didn't want to do any dubbing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Wow, that really IS a guilty pleasure... -- A8, 10:53:36
11/06/01 Tue
...and yet I can't get "I Was Born Under a Wandering Star"
out of my head now. Not to mention The Simpsons version (which
had only one song in which the cast, for two hours, merely repeats
variations on the phrase "I'm gonna paint my wagon"
and then everybody shoots everybody a la 'The Wild Bunch.'). Now
if you want to talk about sick pleasures, how about that late
70's Sgt. Pepper movie with Peter Frampton and the Bee Gees (okay,
Aerosmith doing 'Come Together' was pretty cool)? I feel guilty
even mentioning it, and must be shunned immediately!
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I loved the "SPLHCB" movie! -- Masq,
13:22:44 11/06/01 Tue
I got the album and sang along!
Me = big Frampton, Bee Gee's, Beatles fan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I saw it 3 times! Like I said--an exceedingly
guilty pleasure. -- A8, 17:26:36 11/06/01 Tue
Saw it at the old Northpoint Theatre (now demolished) near the
Cannery with a bunch of friends who could never get enough of
anything related to The Beatles. Back in the magical pre-VCR/DVD/CD
days, you actually had to go out, to a public place, risking substantial
ridicule and possible shunning, to enjoy guilty pleasures. Ah,
nostalgia. Sheesh, I'm getting old!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Beatles tunes + BeeGees, the horror! Beatles
+ Aerosmith, cool! -- Whisper2AScream, 10:41:59 11/08/01 Thu
Yipe! Seen parts of Sgt. Pepper when they aired it on VH1 one
time. Very painful, but giving it the MST3K treatment helps immensely!
;) Felt sorry for George Burns... maybe somebody laced his cigar
to get him to agree to this? But Aerosmith's cover of "Come
Together?" Oh yeah, very cool! Best part of the movie. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Slightly OT: What are your favorite musicals? -- Rob,
10:57:38 11/06/01 Tue
I am a huge fan of musicals, which I'm sure most people have guessed,
since I have been posting non-stop about "Once More With
Feeling" for the past few weeks!!! LOL.
I was wondering, for the musical fans here, what your favorites
are.
Mine are: Into the Woods, Rent, Little Shop of Horrors, Les Miz,
Sweeney Todd, and the brilliant new off-Broadway show, Bat Boy:
The Musical.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Slightly OT: What are your favorite musicals?
-- fresne, 16:08:39 11/06/01 Tue
Well, thats a tough call
Off the top: The Gay Divorcee, Band Wagon, Simply Ballroom, The
Tango Lesson, and if only it existed Batman the Musical (as seen
on Batman Beyond - Criminals are a cowardly, superstitious lot.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Slightly OT: What are your favorite musicals?
-- Rahael, 16:10:54 11/06/01 Tue
I love musicals too. I've just seen Kiss Me Kate, which is one
of my faves, and anything by Cole Porter and the Gershwins is
heaven for me. THe best of the best has to be An American in Paris.
Got to agree with you about Into the Woods too. Musn't forget
Singing in the Rain.
What I really, really hate......anything by Andrew Lloyd Webber.
And the Sound of Music.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> "Singing in the Rain" another
favorite.......... -- Rufus, 16:35:46 11/06/01 Tue
And in Vancouver it is quite literal a good portion of time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Some strange choices . . . -- d'Herblay, 10:36:23
11/07/01 Wed
Not much of a musical fan. But I do ecstatically love 1776, and,
with less rapture, Little Shop of Horrors, The Mikado and most
G&S, and, um, The King and I. I've seen South Park: Bigger,
Longer, and Uncut four times; does that count?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Other guilty admission...... -- Rufus,
02:49:12 11/08/01 Thu
I loved South Park and have seen it more times than you have...I'm
a big fan of Satan....:):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> LOL.........even I sound better than Lee Marvin......;)
-- Rufus, 13:21:45 11/06/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question regarding "Offspring"
- Spoilers -- Marie, 07:08:52 11/06/01 Tue
Having read the synopsis of 'Offspring', can anyone tell me why
all concerned seem so convinced that Angel is the father of Darla's
'child' (if that is what it is)? It seems to be taken for granted,
without question, that Angel is the proud papa. How do we know
that? You all know how evil these writers are! Never take anything
for granted!
Darla could've slept with anyone; she was once a whore, and well-used
to using her body for gain of one sort or another. She wouldn't
think twice about using, say, Lindsay, in this way - and he has
to be a strong contender, doesn't he? Could this storyline be
a red herring, do you think? Is it going to turn out that Darla
actually got pregnant before she was turned by Dru?
Are the writers going to have us (and Angel and his crew) get
all fluffy bunny feelings for 'Angel's baby' - only to confound
us after it's born?
What do you all think?
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question regarding "Offspring" - Spoilers
-- CW, 07:35:04 11/06/01 Tue
I think you're right. They are playing it out as if it has to
be Angel's child, but there easily could be other explanations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Previews for Quickening (SPOILERS) and discussion of
Offspring (SPOILERS) -- zargon, 08:02:57 11/06/01 Tue
Seeing the previews for the Quickening, where we got even more
of "its definately Angel's baby", I was reminded of
the completely misleading preview for The Thin Dead Line, where
we got "when Angel turns against the law, his friends have
to pay the price". Needless to say, I was very surprised
in that ep to see
1) A Cop attack Angel, while Angel defended himself and only took
out the "cop" after he didn't quit coming, no matter
how much damage Angel did to him (turned out he was a Zombie)
2) AI did not get back together in the this ep.
3) Angel taking out Zombie Cop was not in any way related to Wes,
Cordy, and Gunn checking out reports of police brutality
4) Wes being shot by another Zombie Cop was not in any way related
to Angel taking out the first one
So, in response to your question, I think the previews are just
there to shock us or grab our attention. They may or may not have
anything to do with the actual plot.
For Offspring, the previews did follow the actual plot. But then,
the plot hasn't been fully revealed yet.....and may not be for
a few eps. I think the previews for Offspring were to make us
buy into the idea that the child is Angel's. As you said, yes,
it was heavily implied in the ep, everyone seemed to buy it, especially
Angel himself, but I didn't see any empirical evidence.
For contra evidence we have:
1) Vampires cannot have children (stated by Angel in Offspring
(and previously on BtVS), verified by Wes)
2) Darla and Angel were both vampires when the boning occurred
in "Reprise"
3) Darla and Angel were together previously when Angel first was
cursed with his soul as shown "Darla" when Angel finds
Darla in China 1900 (and she throws him out again when she finds
out he's saving babies not eating them). So, if a vampire with
a soul can have children, there was opportunity for her to get
pregnant here, but she didn't, perhpas because of the timing or
it wasn't convenient for the plot, but still....
4) Darla was human for the eps "To Shanshu in LA" through
"The Trial". We know Darla was a prostitute before she
became a vamp the first time as related in "Darla".
We also know she spent a lot of time with Lindsey during these
eps, specifically kissing him in "Darla". In "The
Trial", Lindsey tells Angel he loves Darla. We also know
her mission was to make Angel insane.
5) The only ep in which Darla is human and Angel vamp, and a lot
of intense kissing occurs is "Dear Boy", but nothing
else is shown. Angel leaves her at the end of the ep.
For me, I'm taking the "wait and see" approach. I really
don't think its Angel's, and that they're just trying to convince
us it is because:
1) They really like to mess with our minds
2) Darla needs help and since Angel "helps the hopeless",
he is the logical choice. However, Angel's first impuluse on seeing
Darla would be to stake her, as he promised at the beginning of
"Ephiphany", and now even more so since she bit Cordy,
so to overcome that, it is necessary to make him believe the baby
is his. For whatever reason, they needed some way to get Angel
near the baby (though we don't know yet if he will help it be
born to save the world or take it out to save the world).
Just my $.02.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Maybe missing the point...? -- Wisewoman, 08:42:30
11/06/01 Tue
Whether the child is Angel's or not (and I tend to think it is),
Angel and the AI Team will have to believe it is in order for
the season arc to work.
After all, they just brought back Holtz last night. And what's
Holtz' big beef with Angel? Angelus killed his wife and child.
Don't you think the dramatic possiblities are much greater if
Holtz can threaten Angel's child in return?
Just my $.02 worth. ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Maybe missing the point...? -- Marie, 08:47:39
11/06/01 Tue
I don't think we're missing the point, WW. My point was only that,
while the child may be Angel's (and I agree with what you mention
re. Holtz), there are some wicked writers on these two shows and
that you need to be aware that you need to beware, if you see
what I mean!
Makes for interesting viewing!
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> One other possibility -- Sheri, 09:18:20 11/06/01
Tue
When Darla was coming into Angel's bedroom in the middle of the
night/day/afternoon/teatime/etc., she wasn't just slipping him
some "dream about Darla nekkid potion", she was getting
rather touchy-feely. I think it's entirely possible that Angel
could have been boinking Darla while on the roofies-for-vamps.
Does that mean that the baby is Angel's? The heck if I know!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: One other possibility (SPOILERS) -- zargon,
11:37:39 11/06/01 Tue
Good point, Sheri! I didn't think about the dream boinking!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: One other possibility (SPOILERS) --
Sebastian, 13:37:51 11/06/01 Tue
We know that Darla was dying from syphillis when the Master vamped
her in the 1600s.
When she was restored as a human - she was restored to the same
health condition she was *prior* to being vamped.
She wasn't re-humanized to a 'clean bill of health' - she was
brought back to the *exact same* health condition to when she
first died.
Could it be possible that Darla was ALREADY pregnant at the time
she was *originally* vamped - but the child was not fully developed
enough for it to grow to term (in other words, it was still a
week(s) old foetus)? Could it possible she was pregnant IN ADDITION
to having syphillis?
When she was brought back as human - she was human for what we
can assume was several weeks and/or months. That could have given
the gestating child enough time to develop from an embryo to an
infant.
Thusly, it was nearing its "infant" stages when she
was revamped by Drusilla.
I admit that the concept of Angel "almost human" enough
to sire a child is cool - but like everyone has said - it is way
too obvious. Aside from Lindsay - there is no one else.
And I find it a little hard to believe that Darla was 'sleeping
around' with random people when she was brought back as human.
Her primary - her ONLY - focus was to revert Angel to Angelus
and to have him her revamp her.
It could very well be that Darla is having some human/vampire
hybrid. We have never heard of what happens to a woman who is
vamped when she is pregnant.
And would that throw a wrench into the works for Angel and Co.
to somehow have to take care of a child with such a dramatic dual
nature?
It makes for a much more interesting moral conundrum than 'Angel's
baby'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: One other possibility -- Masq, 13:25:48
11/06/01 Tue
And they did mention the roofie-drug in the episode last night
for no reason in particular (if they wanted to black mail that
guy into giving them his scroll, the writers could have used any
illicit substance)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
getting a little millenial (SPOILERS
for last night's Angel) -- luminesce, 07:37:18 11/06/01 Tue
So last night on Angel, when the cigarette smoking demon (and
you just *know* he's evil, because he's smoking) goes through
the ritual to revive Holtz he said (referring to the year 2001)
something along the lines of "It is written that in the first
year of the final century..."
Are we swinging into end times theology/philosophy here? Are the
PTB as interventionist as they are right now because everything's
about to wind down (or up?).
Will Angel get back his humanity only to die in an Apocalypse
he can't subvert?
Is Buffy the Slayer to end all Slayers?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: getting a little millenial (SPOILERS for last night's
Angel) -- Wisewoman, 08:12:51 11/06/01 Tue
Well, he might have meant that it's the first year of the final
century for demons on Earth, rather than for everyone.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: getting a little millenial (SPOILERS for last night's
Angel) -- matching mole, 08:20:27 11/06/01 Tue
I hadn't thought of this before your post but Cancer Demon's statement
stands in contrast to Fred's 'screw destiny' speech. I can only
echo Lorne's response. Fred is my hero this week.
It also brought up an interesting (if somewhat disturbing) contrast
between BtVS and AtS. Two characters in Angel (Angel and Cordelia)
have had heavy mystical responsibilities dumped on them without
their consent. However both of them have been given clear opportunities
to divest themselves of their power and have rejected those opportunities.
I may have forgotten something but I don't think that Buffy has
ever been offered the same kind of choice. She can certainly always
walk away from slaying but she will always be the Slayer until
she dies. Perhaps this has been discussed before?
On the other hand Willow has become a mystical superhero completely
voluntarily and her power is now corrupting her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: getting a little millenial (SPOILERS for last
night's Angel) -- Percy, 06:48:36 11/07/01 Wed
*There was something of an option when Kendra and then (pre-dark
side) Faith made the scene. She could have passed on the slayer
hat at those times if she had wanted. Still, she never had a situation
where she wouldn't feel obligated protect because she didn't have
her gifts. Wait, maybe in the episode, Helpless, but that was
her mother.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-trollop metanarration alert!
(No spoilers) -- Wisewoman, 08:10:30 11/06/01 Tue
Provided tonight's episode sticks close to the various spoilers
and summaries that have been posted, I believe I've isolated *two*
instances of metanarration that will occur, so be alert for them!
Of course, they might have ended up on the cutting room floor...
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I don't mean to seem clueless, but just what do you mean
by "metanarration"? -- RH, 08:58:33 11/06/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Oops, here we go again... -- Wisewoman, 09:06:58
11/06/01 Tue
There's a big long discussion of metanarration in the archives
somewhere, but the best and possibly only example on Buffy so
far is when Tara got Giles the little monster finger puppet in
Bargaining, and then said "Grrrr. Aaaarrrgh" exactly
the same way the ME logo does.
It's a reference to BtVS as a television show, made within BtVS.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Thanks... for the first while I kept mis-reading
it as "meta-tarnation" - lol! ;) -- RH, 09:23:07 11/06/01
Tue
...sounds like some hilly-billy slang...!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Speaking of "Grrrr. Aaaarrrgh" --
Shaglio, 11:42:35 11/06/01 Tue
Last night I saw Becoming Part 2 for the first time and afterwards
they had the ME ghoul thing go by, but instead of "Grrrr.
Arghhhh," a wimpy sounding voice said "I need a hug."
Was that the only time they did that? I haven't paid enough attention
to the ends of the reruns to notice if they did it before.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Speaking of "Grrrr. Aaaarrrgh"
-- Rob, 11:52:43 11/06/01 Tue
Yeah, that was the only time the "Grr Aargh!" was ever
changed. It was a joke by Joss, since the events at the end of
"Becoming" were so gutwrenchingly sad.
The only other time the Mutant Enemy monster ever changed was,
I believe, at the end of "Amends," the Buffy Christmas
episode from Season Three. The monster still said "Grr Aargh"
but was wearing a Santa hat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Speaking of "Grrrr. Aaaarrrgh"
-- Michael Van Hoek, 12:46:33 11/06/01 Tue
At the end of "Graduation Day Part 2", the monster wore
a graduation cap.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Keep your eye on him tonight...;o)
-- WW, 13:30:17 11/06/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re:I don't mean to seem clueless but what do you mean by
trollop? -- matching mole, 09:15:04 11/06/01 Tue
I have been wondering about this for several days since I came
across Trollopism in the list of courses taught at the Buffyversity.
My first thought was that this referred to the study of the works
of Anthony Trollope but that seemed very unlikely. It doesn't
seem likely that you are referring to 'women of easy virtue' either.
I found troll and troll-bot in the list of board slang but not
'trollop'. Anyone willing to enlighten me?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> We used to be called "Spoiler Ho's" or "Spoiler
Whores..." -- WW, 09:17:46 11/06/01 Tue
But we voted on Spoiler Trollop as being slightly more refined.
LOL!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> m. mole, a person after my own heart!! -- Rahael,
09:34:28 11/06/01 Tue
Now how many people would look at Trollop and think of Anthony?
;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Thanks -- matching mole, 09:45:53 11/06/01 Tue
to you both for the explanation and the appreciation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> OT: Sort of related: Reference to Buffy on Roswell -- Dichotomy,
09:48:34 11/06/01 Tue
Just a little tidbit for you all:
In last week's Roswell, Max (who is an alien, in case you aren't
familiar) goes to Hollywood in search of a shape-shifting alien,
and is mistaken for a aspiring actor. He ends up on a studio lot
reading for a spot on "Enterprise" with Jonathan Frakes
(who, I think, also produces "Roswell" BTW). After his
horrible reading (Frakes thinks he's not believable as an alien),
his agent says something like "You got the part, I know it!
And if not there's always 'Buffy".
As longtime Buffy fans know, Jason Behr, who plays Max, did appear
on one episode of Buffy as an old friend of Buffy's and a vampire
wannabe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Hmph! Are they saying Buffy is second banana to Enterprise?!?
-- Sheri, 10:08:27 11/06/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Of course they are, this is -- Vickie, 13:57:05
11/06/01 Tue
U! P! N!
We may love them for how they are treating Buffy. But they are
still the home of Trek and professional wrestling (a combination
I have never understood).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who else loved the demon in OMWF?
SPOILERS! -- Simplicity -- who's still swoooning!, 20:31:28 11/06/01
Tue
Was it just me or was the dancing demon awesome? The singing,
the dancing, that voice! Wow! I'll be his queen, no problem. I'm
going to put in my vote right now -- I think he's the coolest
villian we've ever seen (not counting Mr. Trick).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Me! Me! Who was that? -- Dichotomy, 20:43:03 11/06/01 Tue
I want to find out what else he's done and what he reeaallly looks
like. Besides ASH, he appears to be the only one who was actually
a singer and dancer by trade. Very smooth and cooool!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Me! Me! Who was that? -- Dariel, 21:39:53 11/06/01
Tue
His name is Hinton Battle, and apparently he works on Broadway.
He really was something.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Best Singing Voices SPOILERS! -- JBone, 21:35:37 11/06/01
Tue
as a non-gay critic, this is how I see it
1. Amber Benson (who knew that the doe-eyed babe had pipes?) 2.
Anthony Stewart Head (he hung around long enough to be showcased
for his musical talent.) 3. Sweet (I guess he's from Broadway,
he did well.) 4. Emma Caulfield (she did great, and could have
done even better; she wasn't tested.) 5. Sarah Michelle Gellar
(with a limited range for singing, she overcame it for an awesome
performance.) 6. James Marsters (I expected more out of a real
life rock-n-roller like him. He did well though.) 7. Nicholas
Brendon (good job.) 8. Michelle Trachtenberg (they had her dance
and not sing for a reason.) 9. Alyson Hannigan (she was hidden
in group sing-a-longs for a reason.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Good Calls, JBone -- Cactus Watcher, 04:06:22 11/07/01
Wed
Frankly, Tara's first number didn't sound like AB. If it was her,
wow! Even if it wasn't her, AB's singing later in the show was
as good as JBone says.
I was surprised SMG can sing so well, and that AH apparently can't
sing. NB was as good as could be expected, although he wasn't
helped by engineering that made him sound exactly like he was
singing in a studio. I expected more from JM, too. Just shows,
being a rock-and-roller doesn't mean you're a great singer.
Dawn's dance, easily made up for MT not singing.
JBone's comment about EC is interesting. She didn't steal the
show like AB, but she did seem capable of it!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> It was Amber - Joss gave her the love song for
that reason -- verdantheart, 06:07:45 11/07/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Good Calls, JBone -- Rattletrap, 09:03:38
11/07/01 Wed
Someone pointed out in chat last night that Tara's first number
actually did sound like AB, just not like AB's "Tara"
voice. I was a bit shocked by the high alto/soprano thing too,
but it worked. I still liked the lower register song later.
Marsters did OK with his song vocally, but he doesn't really sound
like Spike, and that was made worse because he was trying to sound
like Spike and still didn't. Also, I found his lipsync to be the
most unconvincing of the bunch, probably because he's used to
really singing.
Both MT and SMG have got some serious dance moves, wow!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Best Singing Voices SPOILERS! -- Andy, 06:12:01
11/07/01 Wed
I pretty much agree, although I'd rate Trachtenberg a bit higher.
She didn't sing much, but when she did I was left wanting to hear
more from her. Sounded like she had a sweet voice.
I was also a little disappointed by Marsters. It sounded to me
like he was trying to maintain his accent too much while singing,
when he really should have gone the other direction and used the
song as an excuse to drop it for awhile.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Best Singing Voices SPOILERS! -- RH, 06:54:30
11/07/01 Wed
I've found that you can almost never tell if someone is British
when they sing - they tend to sound more "North American",
if that's possible... (the same is true of Australians - you can
definitely tell if someone is Swedish or Norwegian, though...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Best Singing Voices SPOILERS! -- Shaglio,
08:54:42 11/07/01 Wed
Maybe it's just me, but when I listen to British singers I usually
don't hear their accents anyway. It usually not until I hear interviews
with them that I notice they have an accent at all. The most recent
example I can think of is Shirley Manson from Garbage. Her actual
voice sounds so American, but I was shocked to hear how thick
her Scottish accent was when I heard her speak.
I recently heard an interview with Ozzy Osbourne on the radio
and I couldn't make out a word he was saying. Someone called up
afterwards and suggested that the next time they interview him,
they should have him sing his answers since you can always understand
him when he's singing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Best Singing Voices SPOILERS! -- Rattletrap,
09:06:46 11/07/01 Wed
Good points, the only singer I've ever been able to clearly identify
as British while singing is Mark Knopfler, most others the accent
disappears (like Tony Head's did). That was one of my problems
w/ JM, is he was trying to work too much of the accent in, and
it just sounded wierd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Shaglio - are you in the O&A Army? --
Shiver, 09:44:41 11/07/01 Wed
Did you hear the Ozzy interview on O&A show? :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Shaglio - are you in the O&A Army?
-- Shaglio, 10:24:08 11/07/01 Wed
"Did you hear the Ozzy interview on O&A show? :-)"
Yes, it was a couple Monday's ago while I was on the way to my
bowling league with my dad. I must have been around 5:30ish on
the 22nd of October (It scares me that I can remember useless
stuff like this). I just happened to be flipping stations and
heard the interview. I didn't even know Opie & Anthony worked
for WBCN. Last time I heard from them, they had gotten fired from
WAAF.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Cool -- Shiver, 11:01:57 11/07/01
Wed
They're syndicated now in 13+ cities, BCN snatched them up pretty
quickly. They've been down here in NYC since they left WAAF and
have been #1 in afternoon drive for 3 years. I hated them for
the first week that they came down here, but they have grown on
me :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> British voices -- d'Herblay, 11:32:29
11/07/01 Wed
My singing voice doesn't sound like my speaking voice; it's less
nasal, thankfully. And I'm an American trying to sound like myself.
When you get to Brit singers (and the only Brit non-rocker whose
singing voice I'm familiar with is Benny Hill, so I'm not one
to judge), you have to remember that many of them are singing
in an American idiom. In fact, in the first fifteen or so years
of British rock, most of them were trying to sound American--they
were imitating their Muddy Waters and Little Richard records.
That doesn't mean that they didn't sound imitatably different
from Americans--I have a recording called "Testify"
by the Isley Brothers on which they imitate the Beatles circa
1964 dead-on, and there's a Funkadelic song called "Miss
Lucifer's Love" I could swear Paul McCartney moonlighted
on--but it does mean that they were softening the distinctions.
I'd say that the only pre-1977 Brit rock recording which sounds
British is Peter Noone's music-hall-style performance on "I'm
Henry the Eighth I Am." This leads to some bizarrely anxious
influences. On some Ramones songs, Joey Ramone imitates the Beatles,
which means he is a New York Jew trying to sound like a New York
Italian trying to sound like an Englishman trying to sound like
a Southern African-American.
When the Sex Pistols broke, they changed the target accent from
that of poor Americans to that of poor Britons. Johnny Rotten
sounds veddy veddy Brit--but not like the sort of Brit who would
say "veddy." Pete Shelley of the Buzzcocks is distinctively
British, as is, in today's music, Damon Albarn of Blur and Gorillaz.
This situation has its own mind-benders. For example, in the Clash,
Joe Strummer, the son of a diplomat, affects a lower-class accent
while the working-class Brixtonian Mick Jones softens his to sound
poppier. The fact that neither of them would have minded being
audially mistaken for Peter Tosh just complicates matters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Best Singing Voices SPOILERS! -- RH, 07:00:10
11/07/01 Wed
I'll agree with your assessment of JM, and for the same reasons
- although, rock'n'roll is known for being "gritty"
not "pretty"! This didn't detract from my enjoyment
of JM's performance, (especially all those little Spike-isms that
I adore so much! Sometimes I wonder if they are intentional or
not...?)
I am going to have to disagree on your assessment of MT - she
has tremendous potential! By the age of 16, most girls' voices
have just stopped growing - professional vocal coaches, (for the
most part), won't even begin training until the girls reach 16-18
years of age, (except for the Britney Spearses of the world -
but then, most of them fade out quickly because they've ruined
their voices - and she's a performer, NOT a singer!) IMHO, MT
could only benefit from professional training - it would certainly
be an excellent addition to her already well-rounded resume!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Best Singing Voices SPOILERS! -- Solitude1056,
08:31:33 11/07/01 Wed
As someone who grew up listening to opera, Porgy and Bess, and
has a mother with a four-octave singing range... gotta say, ASH
ranks head and shoulders above the rest of the group. He's got
the range (did you hear how he dipped into a low baritone on one
song?), and the power. SMG's voice is a bit thin, but she's able
to carry a tune. AH's voice wasn't necessarily bad, nor was MT's,
but neither has much power. For that matter, MT's voice was way
too soft, which indicated to me that she may needed to have dropped
down to a lower range. She might not have gotten too much more
power, but I would've given it a shot if I'd done the arrangements.
That said, she's an excellent dancer, and built for the balletic
moves even if she's not trained.
Nicholas Brendan's getting panned, but I loved his voice - it's
a warm, rich singing tone. JM disappointed me - he didn't pack
nearly as much of a punch as I expected, for whatever reason.
Perhaps, as others have mentioned, he was too busy keeping his
accent & acting the song instead of just singing it.
Emma is the one that really shocked me. Still not the strongest
voice, but musically she could hit the notes and emote at the
same time. And Amber, of course, has the sweetest soprano. I wouldn't
put her on Broadway, unless I stuck her in a slightly lower range,
but she nailed every note. Didn't hurt that it's a gorgeous song,
too.
Thinking about it (even while watching it), seemed to me that
the only place Joss went wrong was in giving all the women soprano's
parts - and I doubt they're all sopranos. It's just not necessarily
true that the average woman is a soprano. My mother, for instance,
has power as a soprano, but she can double that if she drops to
alto-soprano. And trying to sing that high, for someone not naturally
suited, ends up making the person go nasally. It's a natural instinct
to pitch the voice higher by singing "higher" in the
throat, and up into the nose.
As for Hinton Battle? Wow. Much as I hate Andrew Lloyd Webber,
and fell asleep during Chicago even with the Fosse routines...
I just might see any shows under that category again, just for
Battle's groovy moves and wicked smooth voice. Now that was a
Sportin' Life if I've ever seen one - a much uglier, more demony
Sportin' Life, but still. Well, now that I think about it, I'd
skip the Andrew Lloyd Webber musicals. I'll wait until Battle
shows up in the revival of The Oz, or maybe Hair. Hell, I'd even
go see him in Godspell, and that's saying something about how
impressed I was!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Who else loved the demon in OMWF? SPOILERS! -- Deeva,
22:55:51 11/06/01 Tue
He was fabulous! I loved how smooth he was. Everyone did a great
job! I watched the entire thing with my mouth open. (Someone pointed
that out to me) I'm just overwhelmed by how good this was. I'm
definitely watching this one many times over. Now I gotta wait
for the cd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> About that demon... -- Solitude1056, 07:23:58 11/07/01 Wed
For more info, this was all I could find on the web:
bio http://www.clark.net/pub/rsjdfg/Hinton.Battle.html
pix http://www.clark.net/pub/rsjdfg/BuiDoi.html
incomplete filmography: http://www.tvtome.com/servlets/PersonDetail/personid-57064
http://us.imdb.com/Name?Battle%2C+Hinton
You can also hear him singing on the original Broadway recordings
for The Wiz and Miss Saigon. He was also in Ain't Misbehavin'
and Dreamgirls, but I don't know if he's on those recordings.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Hinton Battle's AMG listing -- d'Herblay, 09:59:46
11/07/01 Wed
According to the All Music Guide, Hinton Battle also performs
on the soundtracks for Sophisticated Ladies and Playing for Keeps.
He also recorded a Quiet Storm/Urban Contemporary album under
the aegis of Quincey Jones in 1986. The album went nowhere and
is currently out of print, but maybe someone will capitalize on
the bounce from his moment in the hellmouth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was this an instance of metanarration,
WW? (Spoilers) -- Dariel, 21:48:39 11/06/01 Tue
When Buffy starts singing her last number to Sweet, Giles says
something like "Anya, Tara, she needs backup." Said
characters then move behind Buffy and begin to sing.
Funny line, in any case.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> A better example -- Tanker, 22:28:01 11/06/01 Tue
"Dawn's in trouble. Must be Tuesday."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> As well as . . . -- d'Herblay, 23:01:32 11/06/01 Tue
. . . Anya, in the scene with Giles after her and Xander's big
number: "It's like we're being watched. Like there's a wall
missing. Like there were only three walls, and not a fourth wall."
Anya also is the most concerned with the quality of the numbers
she is in: "Clearly our number is a retro-pastiche that's
never going to be a breakaway pop hit." Which suggests that
there are two forms of metanarration happening. One, a conscious
form where the characters comment on the musical (also evident
in Willow's line in the big ensemble piece: "Why are my lines
mostly filler" or somesuch). Two, the unconscious form where
the characters voice Joss's words about the television show, as
in the two quotes mentioned in this thread.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Also... -- WW, 07:55:08 11/07/01 Wed
An easily-missed reference in the "Where Do We Go From Here?"
number: as the singing faded out when Buffy ran after Spike into
the alley, one of the last things you can hear them sing is something
like, "..and the curtain always closes on a kiss," which
is of course exactly what happens seconds later!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Also... -- mundusmundi, 12:44:35 11/07/01
Wed
Another ref: During the terrific "Walk through the Fire"
number (or something), Willow's verse goes something like, "Isn't
this just filler?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was anyone else pissed off by
Xander -- change, 03:53:19 11/07/01 Wed
One thing that really bothered me in OMWF was Xander's actions.
He summonned a demon so that there could be "singing and
dancing" at his wedding. Then, when people around him start
bursting into song and dance, he doesn't tell anyone. This even
though some people are being killed.
This is a big step backwards for Xander's character. Way back
in BBB, when Xander made Amy cast a spell, he was mature enough
to tell Giles everything when things started to go wrong, and
that was when he was a teenager. Now, he's doing the same sort
of thing again, and letting things get way out of hand without
telling anyone what's going on. The Xander character is suppose
to have matured a lot since BBB. He has a steady job where he
is a superviser, he provides emotional counsel to Buffer, he has
been in a long term relationship, and is getting married. To have
him go off and do something like this is very bad writing.
I hope the writers have Xander deal with the consequences of his
actions. After all at least two people have died because of him,
Dawn was abducted and almost taken to a hell dimension, and Buffy
was almost killed. Some troll posters have been posting that the
show has "jumped the shark". Well, when main characters
who know better do something like this (for the convenience of
the writers in setting up the plot), and then don't deal with
it, the show is dieing. I hope the writers do something with this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Was anyone else pissed off by Xander (spoilers) -- CW,
04:25:05 11/07/01 Wed
I think it was a case of Joss seeing the demon had to be summoned
by someone within the group. To me Xander got picked because his
motives for doing so would be the LEAST questionable. It's too
bad we were left with the impression that Xander's attitude is:
So people died, and Dawn almost got dragged off to be a demon's
bride in Hell? Hey, I thought we'd have fun. I goofed!
But, imagine how bad it would be if ANY of the others had done
it. And imagine how much less permanent impact there would be,
if this had been done to them by someone outside the group, say
the three Buffoons. Each of the Scoobies has to feel alienated,
and most cases ashamed after this one. Don't be too hard on Xander.
It looks like he's going to takes some licks in the near future.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Speaking of the Troika... -- RH, 07:18:56 11/07/01
Wed
I would have liked to see them doing a little soft-shoe number
last night - LOL! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I don't think there won't be repercussions -- verdantheart,
06:16:07 11/07/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Xander's "Willow-esque" Leanings -- RH, 07:13:27
11/07/01 Wed
I was surprised that Anya wasn't more upset about him trying to
"create", (much as Willow does), artificial happiness
and joy. Is the prospect of marrying her not joyous enough? Why
does he feel he needs to manipulate the SG and himself using external
forces? This runs parallel with Willow's "forgetting"
spell...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Xander's "Willow-esque" Leanings --
Malandanza, 07:23:41 11/07/01 Wed
I was surprised that Anya wasn't more upset about him trying to
"create", (much as Willow does), artificial happiness
and joy.
I don't think any of them have had the time to think about what
he's done -- they may be angry with him in future episodes. Also,
the revelation that they dragged Buffy out of Heaven overshadows
the singing and dancing a bit.
Finally, I don't think Xander was trying to "Create artificial
joy" -- I think it was meant to be a spell more in line with
Willow's party favor spell: innocuous window dressing for the
big event.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Real world Artificial pleasure -- darrenK, 10:50:37
11/07/01 Wed
As we all know, supernatural in the Buffyverse is metaphorical.
The "artificial happiness and joy" created by magic
has a direct parallel with the "artificial happiness and
joy" that we get from consuming alcohol, uppers, pot, ecstasy,
acid, cocaine, heroin and even the legal pleasure boosters--anti-depressants.
And some of these are perfectly acceptable in our society. Well,
the alcohol and anti-depressants are anyway. As we all know, the
illegal drugs have varying rates of acceptability depending on
what kind of crowd you hang out with.
We've all known the stoners and the acid heads. Some of us have
been at parties where coke is snorted at the coffee table with
no negative implications.
In Buffy's group, magic is a perfectly acceptable stimulant. Think
of them as the magic stoners. dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Was anyone else pissed off by Xander -- Shaglio, 08:25:26
11/07/01 Wed
What bugged me was that, while everyone was focussing on Xander
using the necklace, it didn't seem as if anyone cared that Dawn
had pilfered it. I thought at least Anya would have reacted more
to it since it was stolen from her store and Dawn didn't contribute
any money to Anya's ever growing greed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Was anyone else pissed off by Xander -- Rattletrap,
09:13:00 11/07/01 Wed
I'm not sure anyone really realized Dawn pilfered it. She never
exactly used the word, and there were at least three or four other
big revelations going on in that scene, so that seems to have
passed unnoticed for the time being.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Was anyone else pissed off by Xander -- Rhys_Michael_,
12:07:17 11/07/01 Wed
I think that maybe Xander was lying to cover for Dawn so that
the demon did not take her to hell. Just one possibility. But
if he is lying to cover for Dawn and Dawn didn't summon him either
then someone else did the deed and I wonder who that could be....
Of course this is all just extreme speculation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deconstructing "Once More,
With Feeling" **MAJOR SPOILERS FROM OMWF** -- Rob, 09:43:56
11/07/01 Wed
Now that we've all watched OMWF at least five or six times (or
at least I have lol), I think it's time to analyze the episode,
and put the songs aside for a second...But I promise, only a brief
second. Right after that, we can go right back to going ga-ga
over the brilliant music!
I think the most brilliant aspect of this episode's plot is how
it echoed "The Gift." Buffy was once again here given
a chance to die, and possibly regain heaven. And once again, when
given the choice, she chooses to take Dawn's place. Of course,
in this situation, that is not truly an option. Once Buffy danced
herself to death, Sweet would have taken Dawn as his bride anyway.
But once Buffy gets to that point, she does not care anymore.
I think that is the main point of this scenario. The last time
Buffy died, it was for a purpose. The direct effect of her death
was that Dawn would live and the world would not be destroyed.
It was a selfless act--a gift. Had Spike not stopped Buffy from
combusting, basically a suicide dance, it would not have solved
anything but would have caused her death. The hardest thing in
life is living it. The situations are different this time. Buffy
cannot just kill herself and get back to paradise. She reached
that as a reward for the gift she had given the world at the end
of last year. She was brought back to life, whether she asked
for it or not, and must now deal with the consequences, and readjust.
Unlike most "Buffy" episodes, there were no winners
here. Yes, they defeated the demon, but the result of what he
had brought to Sunnydale shook them up worse than any demon had
before. How ironic that that was the result of turning life into
a song-and-dance! The other important aspect to the way they defeated
the demon, I believe, is that it was really based on a technicality.
He left because his "bride" turned out to be Xander.
When he found out the mistake he'd made, he packed up his bags
and left town. The only real battle that occurred here was an
internal and psychological one, between the Scoobies. And it is
very fitting that Sweet was not killed. The results of the evil
he brought could not just be destroyed or swept away. Things were
said that can never now be taken back. Revelations were reached
that will have a lasting effect on the Scoobies forever.
I liked the fact that Xander had summoned the demon. It shows
that his doubts about his impending marriage are very real. He
was really shaken up by what Giles said to him in "All the
Way," and he wanted to make everything perfect. It's very
understandable in the way. And what harm could he have imagined
could come from doing a spell that would make everyone happy?
Why did the people combust? Because, in a musical, characters
wear their hearts on their sleeves. Their emotions are all extremely
palpable and overwhelming. Through song, they reveal secrets from
deep within themselves. It makes sense that if this happened in
"the real world" people's emotions would get too strong,
their passion would become so intense that they would dance themselves
to death. It is also similar to the tale of the Red Shoes, where
a dancer receives ballet shoes that will make her dance beautifully,
but once she puts them on, they can never be taken off. And she
continues to dance and dance, incapable of stopping, until she
dies.
The best thing about the musical device is that it forced the
characters into reaching another level. Each of them this year
has been keeping things to themselves. Buffy's kept her time in
heaven secret. Giles has kept his unhappiness that Buffy relies
on him too much a secret. Xander has kept his fears of marriage
secret. Tara kept her mouth shut for a long time about Willow's
overuse of magic, but when she finally revealed her feelings,
Willow erased her memory of it. Thus Willow has a secret as well.
Most of these secrets are things the characters would never have
been able to reveal to anyone. They wanted to keep them hidden.
Here, they were literally forced to bear their souls to each other.
Will it make them stronger friends in the future or break them
apart? That is what "Where Do We Go From Here?" means.
There are quite a bunch of things I am looking forward to finding
out, hopefully in upcoming episodes--(1) Will Xander face any
repercussions for summoning the demon? (2) Will Dawn ever finally
admit to her thefts? And where are the writers going with that?
(3) How will Buffy's revelation affect her relationship with Willow?
(4) Will Spike and Buffy become lovers?
The great thing about "Once More, With Feeling" is that
it was just the beginning. No problems were solved. Actually,
more will created. Magic always has its consequences. And on "Buffy,"
unlike other shows, the events of one episode are not forgotten
by the next week. I am eager to see where the story will go from
here. In fact, I can't wait.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Magical Consequences -- Neaux, 11:14:47 11/07/01 Wed
I seen in more than one movie.. not just "The Craft"
that repercussions of magic come back 3 fold.. yet i dont think
its been addressed in BTVS? Do you think that's a possibility..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Danse Macbre or Totentanz "Once More, With Feeling"
**MAJOR SPOILERS FROM OMWF** -- Cleanthes, 11:34:53 11/07/01 Wed
The tale of the "Red Shoe" probably draws from the medieval
tales of people going into ecstatic frenzy and dancing themselves
to death.
Read more about the: Dance of Death.
Nowadays, we have "grief counselors" and "post-traumatic
stress disorder". The medieval response to the Black Death
seems sensible in comparison.
With regard to this episode not solving any problems, well, of
course not - it's the first November episode! I loved the musical
expression of this as Buffy sings the word "heaven"
in an out-of-key modal fashion. Spike sings the word "living"
modally, probably because living may seem like heaven to him.
Schopenhauer discusses exactly this as part of his major tenet
on the philosophical importance of music:
"The effect of suspension also deserves to be considered
here. It is a dissonance delaying the final consonance that is
with certainty awaited; in this way the longing for it is strengthened,
and its appearance affords the greater satisfaction. This is clearly
an analogue of the satisfaction of the will which is enhanced
through delay." [The World As Will and Representation, v.2,
ref. pages 455-456]
Buffy already satisfied her will, but now she's back into the
suspension Schopenhauer mentions. So the music reflected.
One more thing: I really like SMG's voice. Not beautiful, but
very full of clarity which fit perfectly with the Verklärung
she now embodies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> SMG's voice -- Rob, 11:51:22 11/07/01 Wed
One more thing: I really like SMG's voice. Not beautiful, but
very full of clarity which fit perfectly with the Verklärung
she now embodies.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. No, she is not a great singer.
But she is a great actress--a truly brilliant performer. She sang
some lines with wonderful, unexpected nuances, such as "I
want the fire back" and "...And you can sing along."
SMG knows how to use her voice to great effect. You used the word
"clarity" and that describes her voice perfectly. It
is clear and pure.
With regard to this episode not solving any problems, well, of
course not - it's the first November episode! I loved the musical
expression of this as Buffy sings the word "heaven"
in an out-of-key modal fashion.
I thought that was brilliant as well. The way she sang heaven
was so heartbreakingly sad. The off-key tone of that note was
an example of a perfect blending of music, lyric, and theme. You
could hear in this note that Buffy has all but given up on life
and is tormented from having been ripped out of heaven by her
best friends. Kudos to Joss for that great move.
Oh, also, thanks for that link about the Danse Macabre. It was
very informative and helped further my understanding of this incredibly
complex episode
There is something else I noticed upon repeated viewings of "OMWF"--how
often the character's voices when they are speaking overlap. This
happens a few times. Examples include: in the Magic Shop everyone
speaks at once about their experiences the night before; when
Anya and Xander complain to Giles, while walking down the street,
their accounts of their musical number overlap each other completely.
I had to rewind that scene to pay attention to each one of them
individually. I thought this overlap idea was perfect, because
it gives the sense that, even when they are not singing, the characters
are behaving as if they are in song. In a musical number, sometimes
two people do sing two separate verses simultaneously, which creates
a great effect. This happens quite a few times during this musical
as well, most notably during Tara and Gile's duet about Buffy
and Willow and in the climactic "Walk Through the Fire"
number.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Evil Dancing **MAJOR SPOILERS FROM OMWF** -- Malandanza,
22:38:25 11/07/01 Wed
Here's an exerpt from an old version of Snow White where dancing
was featured:
Their wedding was set for the next day, and Snow-White's godless
mother was invited as well. That morning she stepped before the
mirror and said:
Mirror, mirror, on the wall, Who in this land is fairest of all?
The mirror answered: You, my queen, are fair; it is true. But
the young queen Is a thousand times fairer than you.
She was horrified to hear this, and so overtaken with fear that
she could not say anything. Still, her jealousy drove her to go
to the wedding and see the young queen. When she arrived she saw
that it was Snow-White. Then they put a pair of iron shoes into
the fire until they glowed, and she had to put them on and dance
in them. Her feet were terribly burned, and she could not stop
until she had danced herself to death.
The tap dancer and Buffy's dance near the end reminded me of this
fairy tale.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Yes! I read that version of "Snow White"
before but totally forgot it! -- Rob, 09:39:00 11/08/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> dissonant heaven -- anom, 23:00:49 11/08/01 Thu
"I loved the musical expression of this as Buffy sings the
word 'heaven' in an out-of-key modal fashion. Spike sings the
word 'living' modally, probably because living may seem like heaven
to him."
I think the sound of "heaven" as Buffy sings it expresses
how out of joint, out of place, out of key she feels having lost
heaven. Just as the notes are off key, she feels "off."
We all have off days, but Buffy is "off" from life itself.
This may be what is expressed in the way Spike sings "living"--it
may relate more to Buffy than to himself. She can't get back to
heaven, & it seems like she can't get back to living either. "Heaven"
is dissonant because she wants it so much & can't have it; "living"
is dissonant because she doesn't want it but is stuck having it.
And when the song ends, neither the chord nor the plot is resolved,
because neither of these words ("heaven" & "living,"
not "chord" & "plot") sounds like a possibility
to Buffy. She's caught between them, unable to let go of one or
to accept the other...in suspension, as both Schopenhauer & Cleanthes
mentioned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Cool! I'm not the only one who got the Red Shoes thing then!!
-- Rahael, 11:43:16 11/07/01 Wed
My post Hans Christian Anderson is in the archives now. But I'm
glad I wasn't way off beam.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Kate Bush's homage to 'The Red Shoes' off of 'Eat
the Music' instantly came to mind here. -- A8, 11:55:23 11/07/01
Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Deconstructing "Once More, With Feeling" **MAJOR
SPOILERS FROM OMWF** -- mundusmundi, 13:14:46 11/07/01 Wed
Great points all. And Cleanthes beat me to the punch with the
observation on Buffy's out-of-tune "heaven" verse, so
about all I have to add is a word on Xander. Personally, I found
his big revelation a contrived deus ex machina. But then nearly
all classic Hollywood musicals end with contrived deus ex machinas,
so that may have been the point. A breathtaking achievement, what
more can I say?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Deconstructing "Once More, With Feeling"
**MAJOR SPOILERS FROM OMWF** -- Rufus, 14:29:44 11/07/01 Wed
I kinda wondered what Xander would have done if the demon decided
that the job of "Queen" didn't have gender limitations?
Second thought was how many people died so Xander could have a
sing and dance?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Deconstructing "Once More, With Feeling"
**MAJOR SPOILERS FROM OMWF** -- Rob, 14:52:27 11/07/01 Wed
I don't think it was a deus ex machina at all. I think people
use that term way too much. Deus ex machina, or "God out
of the machine" refers to when the audience is completely
thrown for a loop and an unfair ending is made, when it seems
like there's no way out of something. Unfair, meaning, that the
heroes are saved by an external force they had not known before
that point (for example, Sweet's enemy appeared and vanquished
him) or if it all turns out to be a dream, or something like that.
Xander having done the spell may not seem smart to us, but he
did with good intentions, and he did out of fear for getting married.
We already know he was terrified of this, so it doesn't seem completely
out of nowhere that he might try to make things better. That is
not deus ex machina. Sweet leaving with no bride is based on a
technicality, as I said before. I also said, and I still believe,
that one of the main points is that how Sweet leaves them does
not matter. The importance was the effect his being there had
on the characters. If he had been killed, the wrong message would
be sent--that this is "over." But it isn't over. The
revelations are just the beginning. This technicality worked because
(a) he wouldn't ever have left without one of them without being
killed (b) he couldn't be killed.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Okay, Xand ex machina then! ;) --
mm, 15:03:43 11/07/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> LOL! :-) -- Rob, 12:37:58 11/08/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Deconstructing "Once More, With
Feeling" **MAJOR SPOILERS FROM OMWF** -- Dedalus, 19:54:05
11/07/01 Wed
Great anaylsis Rob.
I know very little about musicals, so I'm a bit out of my league
on this one.
I agree about the "deux ex machina" thing. I think some
people just like saying it. :-)
And BTW, did Xander even know he was summoning a demon? I'm thinking
not. He just thought there would be "singing and dancing
and stuff." I doubt he knew Sweet came with the package.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Deconstructing "Once More,
With Feeling" **MAJOR SPOILERS FROM OMWF** -- Rob, 12:36:39
11/08/01 Thu
Great anaylsis Rob.
Thanks! :)
And BTW, did Xander even know he was summoning a demon? I'm thinking
not. He just thought there would be "singing and dancing
and stuff." I doubt he knew Sweet came with the package.
I've watched the ep about 8 times, and my opinion on the matter
is that Xander probably found a spell in a book that would make
everything happy, to ensure a good future for Anya and him, and
for the rest of the Scoobies. I agree with you; in fact, I think
it's ridiculous for anyone to think that he knew Sweet would be
part of the deal. Why would he have done it if the book where
he got the spell said that, in exchange, he'd have to be the bride
of an underworld demon? Come on, people! LOL.
I also read some arguments that Xander should have learned his
lesson from Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered. But there's a
major difference from that situation. There, he was being petty.
He wanted revenge on Cordelia for breaking up with him, and so
did a spell to get her to fall in love with him, so he could,
in turn, break up with her and make her feel miserable. In this
case, he did it because he thought it would make everyone happy.
Of course, it had the exact opposite effect, which also furthers
one of the major themes of this year: the consequences of magic,
despite how well-intentioned it may be.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> inconsistencies (spoilers for omwf) --
anom, 20:21:21 11/10/01 Sat
" This technicality worked because (a) he wouldn't ever have
left without one of them without being killed (b) he couldn't
be killed."
Yeah, but if Sweet doesn't make the rules, as he said only a few
lines before, how can he waive a clause?
And how do we know he can't be killed? Because anyone who tries
will end up singing & dancing about why/how much they want to
kill him instead of actually doing it (& then burning up)?
OK, that was more of an aside. The other inconsistencies I had
in mind were:
Xander says after "I've Got a Theory" something like
"OK, now that was disturbing." Then it turns out he
was the one who wanted it. Yes, right, he would have tried to
cover it up, but usually when one of the characters does that
it shows.
Giles agrees w/Xander when he says they'll be there to back Buffy
up (walking along the street, either before or after the parking-ticket
song). But then Giles tells Buffy she has to face Sweet alone,
& Xander doesn't stand up to him.
I know, musicals have little need for internal consistency, but
this is BtVS. I've been spoiled! (in the usual meaning, not the
one in the subject line)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Deconstructing "Once More, With Feeling"
**MAJOR SPOILERS FROM OMWF** -- Sam Gamgee, 20:59:52 11/07/01
Wed
I agree Xander has blame in this (and now has blood on his hands,
figuratively, as most of the others do), but I do wonder about
an amulet being left in a shop by Giles or Anya without any type
of warning. If it was known to be powerful, I would think it would
be kept in the basement.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Warning Labels on merchandise............
-- Rufus, 21:14:09 11/07/01 Wed
The big surprise to me was that Xander did a spell at all. He
has never seemed that interested in magic unless you count the
"Primevil" spell he was part of. His intent wasn't to
harm but he clearly was negligent in attempting to do magic when
he knows nothing about it. Magic in the Buffyverse has consequences
that seem to be individual to the person casting the spell. I
also think that this was a hint of what could happen with Willow
on a bigger scale. Good intentions may not be enough...things
can and do go wrong. I think Xander learned something, but did
Willow?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Warning Labels on merchandise............
-- Javoher, 21:39:04 11/07/01 Wed
From the devastated expression on Willow's face while Buffy sang
"I think I was in hea-ven", she may have finally got
her comeuppance. Or she'll fall further into denial.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> what's revealed -- anom, 23:23:56 11/08/01 Thu
You know I usually don't do this unless asked, but in this case
it sparked a thought & gave me a starting point I can't pass up.
So I hope this doesn't bother you, Rob.
"Here, they were literally forced to bear their souls to
each other."
It's "bare," as in naked. They're made to uncover--to
reveal--their souls, their deepest feelings. Or as Buffy puts
it, "when the music starts, we open up our hearts."
As she sings this, she opens & takes off her jacket. Underneath
she's wearing a flame-red top. I thought I got the symbolism of
this while I watched it, but Rob's words made me think of something
else: If opening the jacket stands for baring her soul, what we
see revealed is the color of the fire she sang of moments before.
Is everyone's soul a flame, or just Buffy's? Is it her soul that
should warm or even burn her but feels cold, that she can't get
back in touch with even though it's right there, making her alive--is
her soul the fire she wants back?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: what's revealed -- Rob, 08:27:57 11/09/01 Fri
First off, oopsie! on the spelling goof. LOL. Actually reminds
me of a joke...
You ask someone, "You're walking in the woods. Suddenly,
a ferocious bear appears behind you. Do you run home or run to
the bear?"
The other person says, "Run home."
You respond: "With a bare behind?"
I know, I know...Puns are evil!!!
Regarding your post, I think you made a very important point,
about the baring of the soul being visually symbolized through
Buffy taking off her leather jacket to reveal a flaming red shirt.
"Is it her soul that should warm or even burn her but feels
cold, that she can't get back in touch with even though it's right
there, making her alive--is her soul the fire she wants back?"
I believe that, metaphysically, she does have a soul. In other
words, this is not an Angel/Angelus situation. Her soul does reside
in her body. But, symbolically, she feels like it doesn't. She
doesn't feel the spark, the fire, the emotion she once did. She
is completely detached from life. Even slaying doesn't do anything
for her anymore. She seems to be on automatic pilot. In "Going
Through the Motions," she slays vamps and demons without
even looking at them. She frees a fairy tale prince, and doesn't
even look in his direction or wait for his thanks. Does she have
a soul? Yes. But she is not in touch with it.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> No, no, Puns are good! -- Humanitas, 12:30:18
11/09/01 Fri
In fact, the punning sense of "bare" (to expose) and
"bear" (to carry) is quite appropriate here. Anom's
correction is probably to the point of what you mean, but people's
souls are also "bourne" to one another through the songs,
especially Xander and Anya's. They're squabbling now, in the short
run, but sooner or later they will hopefully figure out that their
song also contained expressions of undying love. If everything
in the lyrics can be assumed to be emotionally true, then that
means that they love each other despite their flaws. Of course,
Joss can't "bear" (to withstand) to have anyone have
a happy love life, so they might not ever notice. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The Violent Bear It Away -- mm, 14:46:15
11/09/01 Fri
Had to invoke Flannery O'Connor there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Violent Bear It Away --
Humanitas, 07:26:35 11/10/01 Sat
We're drifting off topic, of course, but is that O'Conner's riff
on Shakespeare's "Alla Stocatta carries it away?" The
line is from Romeo and Juliet, and the reference is to an obcure
swordfighting technique. My knowledge of O'Connor is about nil,
having only read "A Good Man is Hard to Find," and that
years ago in High School. Just wondering.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Violent Bear It Away
-- mm, 08:14:55 11/10/01 Sat
Did a Google search, and as suspected, it's a biblical verse:
"From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom
of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away."
Matthew 11:12
Flannery O'Connor was and remains the master of Southern Gothic.
Highly recommended.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The jacket (Speculation & Spoilers) -- Slayrunt, 20:42:50
11/10/01 Sat
Talking with beekeepr about the musical and she pointed out that
the jacket Buffy opened to show the red shirt you speak of was
a woman's cut version of Spike's black duster. Humm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The jacket (Speculation & Spoilers) -- RichardX1,
07:55:42 11/11/01 Sun
::Talking with beekeepr about the musical and she pointed out
that the jacket Buffy opened to show the red shirt you speak of
was a woman's cut version of Spike's black duster. Humm.::
Making her attire the opposite of Spike's. How appropriate.
Spike's red shirt covers a black shirt. He has a violent, fiery
attitude but is actually cold and black inside (being a soulless
vampire). Buffy's black jacket covers a red shirt. Her internal
fire and passion have been smothered by a feeling of emptiness,
numbness, blackness. And unlike in the song, she can't seem to
shed the black covering. Perhaps she's worried about hurting the
ones she loves? And not just emotionally, either; she may have
some pent-up anger towards them that she's worried about letting
out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is real? (Spoilers and speculation
for OMWF) -- vandalia, 09:57:50 11/07/01 Wed
Might be a little too early for this (I've only watched the episode
three times) but certain little things just kept jumping out at
me and I had to think aloud.
Buffy's take on what's real and Spike
Why does Buffy treat Spike so poorly? Because she doesn't think
of him as a real person? This would explain a lot, from her punching
him out of frustration all last season to her using him as a Dear
Diary (dead men tell no tales) this season to her comment at the
end of the musical 'This isn't real, but I just want to feel...'
Plus, thinking !souled vampires=!real makes her job of slaying
much, much easier. Spike presents a moral quandry in more ways
than one (the ever-popular 'marrying the mass murderer in prison'
problem of dating Spike):
Spike has no soul. Spike does have a personality, likes and dislikes,
thoughts, opinions, he loves, he hates, he cries, he laughs...
Thinking of him as real and letting him live present a lot of
problems for someone whose sacred duty is to kill his kind. If
Spike can change, is it something unique to him, or do all vampires
have the ability to fight their demons, soul or no soul? If they
do, do they know it? If they don't, should they be told? If they
do, should they have a chance to try? Acknowledging Spike as a
real person would complicate Buffy's life purpose to the point
of paralyzation, which would endanger the ones she loves. So its
much easier to just put Spike in the 'not real' pile and treat
him as less than human. Her feelings for him, while there, cannot
be given into or else the very meaning of her existence comes
into question. So she denies them. She denies Spike's reality
as a complex, gray being. He's a thing, an it. This is why she
can tell him all her secrets. This is why she can be herself around
him and let her true feelings show. What he thinks doesn't matter,
so there's no need to hide. Its only when she's in danger of seeing
him as something more than 'it' that she flees from him.
Spike and the problem of reality/living
The irony that Spike is the one to tell Buffy what life's all
about (living) isn't lost on me. His sardonic refrain, 'Life is
about liv-ing/You need to go on liv-ing/So one of us is liv-ing.'
I think perhaps even Spike equates living with being a person.
Look at his comments over the past few years:
"She didn't treat me like a freak" (about Joyce, after
her death when he's trying to leave her flowers)
"I know that I'm a monster, but you treat me like a man."
(to buffy on the stairs in the Gift)
Spike seems to struggle with whether or not he is an 'it.' He
denies it to Xander in 'Intervention,' accepts it in 'The Gift'
and is made to forget it by his summer of fighting alongside the
Scoobies and protecting Dawn and being betrayed by being kept
out of the loop regarding Buffy's return. He thought he had been
accepted by them, one of them, they shed blood together, their
own and others, and he finally felt like he belonged among them.
The fact that the core members (Willow and Xander) of the Scooby
Gang had brought in their significant others but left Spike out
really got to him. He knows they still look at him as a liability.
To me, it seems that Spike equates being alive with being someone,
with existing. When he was actually alive, he was nobody. In Fool
For Love, he tells Buffy that 'being dead made me feel alive for
the very first time.' He clings to those things that connect him
with humanity -- food, television (watching other people living),
booze, a good fight, passion -- because they make him feel alive,
feel like someone, feel 'real.' Feel like he exists, just like
all those other living, breathing people that live and eat and
shag and fight and love. That Buffy denies this even in the face
of overwhelming evidence to the contrary makes Spike wonder if
she's right, if he is just an 'it,' and this angers him. He wants
to be somebody. He wants to exist. He wants to be real. That the
object of his affection denies him his reality not only hurts
him, it makes him doubt his own reality, his construction of self.
Now for some speculation...
Spike's offhanded comment about the lackey of Sweet's that wrests
loose of him and escapes is 'Maybe one day he'll be a real boy.'
This struck me, because it seems that Spike is the one that wants
to be a 'real boy.' He wants to live, or at least feel alive.
There has been much talk about how Spike has no regrets (because
he's evil) and revels in being a vampire, but if being a vampire
makes him feel alive, is it being a vampire that he revels in,
or is it that feeling of aliveness that he's reveling in? Lately
he hasn't had much to feel alive about: after the initial euphoria
of Buffy's return, he's shunned contact with others (at least
from what we've seen onscreen). I think the musical episode is
the first time we've seen him interact with the Scooby gang since
Afterlife. We know that Spike is definitely a people person. He
likes people, as shown as far back as Season II when he lists
the reasons he wants to save the world. "And you've got people...
Billions of people walking around like little Happy Meals on legs."
I think Spike likes people more than just because they're a food
source (which they haven't been for a year now). I think he likes
people in general. He emulates them, watches them live out their
lives, has such cutting observations about them that could only
come from long study. Spike likes the fire, the passion, the humanity
of people. He finds the living fascinating, all the more so because
he can't ever seem to live right himself. So cutting himself off
from those that live, from 'reality,' again means he's wrestling
with the concept of who he is, what he is, or even if he is. If
'you're nobody until somebody loves you,' does this mean that
he's nobody, an it, a monster, a thing, beneath her? And if it
does, and he is, why not embrace it wholeheartedly? Be the monster
everyone thinks he is? Because his feelings are too strong. "I
hope she fries, I'm free if that bitch dies... I'd better help
her out." He's wrestling with the concepts of monster and
man as self-image.
The reality theme also came in with Xander and Anya. Xander wants
to know whether or not their love is real so badly he summons
up a singing/dancing demon to get to the heart of the matter.
Dawn wonders if she's real throughout season five, after her discovery
of her Keyness. Buffy denies the horrors of her reality, retreating
into an emotional numbness. She 'wants the fire back' but not
enough to risk getting burned or consumed by reality/life. Tara's
reality is shattered when she discovers that Willow has been performing
memory-altering spells on her. Giles realizes that instead of
helping Buffy he's just a crutch to her detachment and numbness
and unwillingness to get emotionally involved in life again. Willow
alters reality at will.
"I'm gonna be a fireman when the floods roll back."
-Buffy to the First Slayer, Restless
Well, we've been 'Flooded.' We've watched as Buffy has chosen
to 'Walk Through The Fire.' Is she a fireman yet? Or is she as
the First Slayer described her/them, always alone?
A perplexing example of the 'what is alive?' argument is fire.
Fire consumes, it moves, it has a definite beginning and ending,
it reproduces, but is it alive? In the Jossverse, I think that
answer is yes. Fire is a symbol for life. Spike argues against
Buffy's protestations of love in Fool For Love with the words,
"Heat. Desire." Passion is often described as 'fiery.'
Buffy claims that the fire freezes her and that its black in the
aforementioned song. She says she wants the fire back. She wants
to feel alive again, she wants to be real, but she doesn't want
to let the fire burn her (life hurt her) anymore, especially not
after being in a place where there was no fire, and it was okay.
Life is a struggle, and Buffy thought her struggle was over. She
realizes she's alive again, but that she's not living. She wants
to live again but she's torn. Firemen are often considered heroes
in our culture, which Buffy certainly is. They risk their lives
for others, which Buffy certainly does. They 'put out fires,'
i.e. stop the danger, and try not to get burned, and are always
in the thick of it. But they live in the fire. Buffy hasn't quite
gotten there yet. Real fire burns. Buffy's fire freezes. Really
living life means you risk the pain. Buffy's still just 'going
through the motions.' That she wants the fire to burn again is
a good sign.
Well, no particular ending point. I could go into the whole Buffy/Spike
duality thing, but this is long enough as is. Questions, comments,
rotten fruit welcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What is real? (Spoilers and speculation for OMWF) --
verdantheart, 10:23:52 11/07/01 Wed
Liked your input.
I've been thinking about Buffy's treatment of Spike myself, particularly
since her return. Notice now it's Buffy who can't seem to stay
away from Spike, entering his crypt (without knocking, perhaps
a non-person reference). Spike thinks this is because he's the
only one she can talk to. He's a substitute for her friends, and
a poor one at that. He can't stand being with her and being unable
to get what he needs -- or is it give her what he needs to give?
So he tells her to leave him alone.
But there's more to it than that. Since her return, when Buffy
has felt overwhelmed, particularly by the attentions of her friends,
she has sought out Spike. He's been a stabilizing influence on
her. That's why it was Spike who was able to save her (finally!)
when her friends were standing about in shocked disbelief as she
tried to dance out her emotion.
As Spike saw another "group hug" coming on, he left
only to find Buffy following him. Why would she need him any more
with her secret revealed? But she did follow him and reprises
her "can't feel" song. Is she drawn to Spike because
his passion for her makes her feel real, alive? She seemed hurt
over his pained dismissal of her.
There has always been something running deep under the surface
that wasn't all on Spike's side (I won't go into detail & I've
stated opinions on this in the past). Buffy might not love Spike,
but she needs him.
It'll be interesting to see where this leads. First, judging from
the teaser, it's to regrets and denial.
- vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> What will become of Spike? (Spoilers and speculation
for OMWF) -- Traveler, 11:47:15 11/07/01 Wed
"Buffy might not love Spike, but she needs him. It'll be
interesting to see where this leads. First, judging from the teaser,
it's to regrets and denial."
Considering the absolute selflessness that Buffy is capable of,
it amazes me how selfish and brutal she is with her love interests,
Riley and Spike being the most noteable of examples. Even though
Spike is still "evil," it's hard not to feel sorry for
him. He loves Buffy so much, and she has always treated him like
dirt. The theme of this season is "oh, grow up!" So,
I have some hope that their relationship will be resolved one
way or another by the end of the season. I just fear that there
is a good chance it will end with a Spike leaving the show.
I can only imagine four real possibilities: 1) Spike finally has
enough of Buffy (or finds another love interest) and goes on a
rampage, ending with him being staked or fleeing.
2) He realizes that he can't be happy where Buffy lives and leaves
Sunnydale or commits suicide.
3) He sacrifices his life for Buffy.
4) He somehow aquires a soul a la Angel, or perhaps becomes fully
human.
Of these paths, the fourth seems least likely, considering that
that it would undermine the Angel series if another vampire somehow
aquired a soul. Since Spike is probably my most favorite character
on the show, I find this fact rather depressing. Thoughts? comments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> regarding possible spike outcome (SPOILER for
Nov 20!) -- Iago, 12:21:25 11/07/01 Wed
Check this out:
LOS ANGELES (Zap2it.com) - Anyone who watched Tuesday's musical
episode of UPN's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" knows two
things for certain: creator/composer Joss Whedon has the music
in him, and nothing is going to be the same.
In particular, those who hung in past the hour (the first airing
of the episode ran eight minutes over) were rewarded with a big
"The End" plastered over the busily kissing faces of
Buffy (Sarah Michelle Gellar) and vampire Spike (James Marsters),
whose love/hate relationship appears to have taken a turn for
the love.
"It's a love that dares not speak its name, that's for sure,"
says executive producer Marti Noxon. "It's going to be a
wild ride."
Spike was forced to throw in with the Slayer and her Scoobies
after a government-implanted microchip prevented him from harming
humans (that is, until the Nov. 20 episode, "Smashed"
).
http://tv.zap2it.com/news/tvnewsdaily.html?21768
With the chip coming out, I think things are going to get WAY
more complex.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> ABOVE MESSAGE CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILER SPEC
FOR 2 Eps FROM NOW... BE WARNED -- Tillow, 13:18:50 11/07/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> ... must ... avoid ... being ...
spoiled ... ! -- verdantheart, 06:04:12 11/09/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What is real? (Spoilers and speculation for OMWF) --
Dedalus, 20:00:14 11/07/01 Wed
Beautiful post vandalia. Stretch it out a little bit and it would
make a great essay over at Fictionary Corner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Is the soul the only thing that makes you a person? -- Rufus,
03:12:35 11/08/01 Thu
It's clear that the vampire is the demon infection housed in a
people shell complete with their memories and personality. So,
when you take away the soul does that mean you no longer have
a person? Or do you have a person with an infection? It is, however
a convenient way to say let's kill bunches of beings without guilt.
Killing is hard to do unless you are a total sociopath and get
off on it. The amount of killing Buffy has had to do is mind numbing,
she is like a bomb that has taken out a city worth of demons in
her years as a slayer. But there was always the simplicity of
the whole thing....no soul = kill with impunity. Then Spike got
a chip and his personality was able to show. Buffy found it much
simpler to deal with Spike when she knew that his only function
in life was to kill, specifically her. Now this vampire has the
gall to love her. Now this same vampire is the one who encouraged
her to live, as one of them has to live for him to feel alive.
Boy, that sure takes the fun out of killing the soulless. Can
they all reach the potential where they would no longer be a threat
to humanity? If so is it ethical to kill them knowing that potential
exists?
The existance of Spike threatens the accepted Vampire rules. But
consider Buffy and her role as she described it in Restless.....I'm
gonna be a fireman when the floods roll back. So, what is it about
the fireman that Buffy identifies with. One thing I can think
of right away is that the fireman extinquishes the specific threat.
Puts out the fire that threatens life. Does that mean also that
the Slayer will only slay the specific threat first determining
what actions to take? I think Buffy has already shown that she
does this. In the Halloween ep "All the Way" she asked
if anyone was just there to park......then let those ones leave
before she told the rest that they could scream. She took a specific
action after determining the exact threat level.
I think as Spike has grown into a grey more complex being, Buffy
has adapted and now begun to adapt to the new complexity of the
situation. I think that the role of Spike won't be just a romantic
one. Once you have one anomoly like Spike the potential for more
is there. Is it ethical to kill vampires now that there is even
the remote chance they could change their behavior....Buffy has
already proved the answer is yes, if they are a threat to humanity.
That doesn't make her a murderer but a protector who is forced
to kill to preserve humanity, not because she enjoys killing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Is the soul the only thing that makes you a person?
-- Dedalus, 07:41:33 11/08/01 Thu
Good points, R. It seems to me Spike is a special case. Most vamps
don't seem that bright, or that deep. As the Master said, pretty
much all "hunt and kill, hunt and kill."
Spike is really the only non-soul vamp who has turned a corner,
and that took at least a year after the chip was put in his head.
The other vamps, it just seems too much a part of their nature.
They're always going to kill, even Harmony and pregnant Darla.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Is the soul the only thing that makes you
a person? -- vandalia, 10:17:34 11/08/01 Thu
Thanks, Ded. Glad you liked it. You said...
"Spike is really the only non-soul vamp who has turned a
corner, and that took at least a year after the chip was put in
his head. The other vamps, it just seems too much a part of their
nature. They're always going to kill, even Harmony and pregnant
Darla."
Harmony, however, did try to be one of the good guys, and it wasn't
anything evil that changed her mind (well, yes, it was a vampire,
but more importantly, it was a cult-like Ponzi scheming vampire
who preyed on Harmony's lack of self-esteem). So it seems that
the desire to do good wasn't thwarted so much by her vampiric
nature as it was by her weak-willed nature. Harmony is another
vampire with potential, to my mind. She still retains lots of
her personality quirks (her love of kitschy unicorns, for example)
and she tried to be one of the good guys. Was this Spike's influence?
How did Harmony come to the conclusion that she should fight on
the side of good? By following Cordy's example. Cordy used to
be Harmony, and very well could have ended up like her had it
been Cordy who'd been vamped on Graduation Day. But Cordy grew
beyond her high-school self, while Harmony never got a chance
to leave it. Harmony saw what Cordy had done with her life and
was inspired to try as well. She wanted to be someone important,
like Cordy. But when she had her chance to prove herself to the
AI group, she failed, instead being swayed by the psychobabble
of the charismatic Ponzi vampire. Again, it wasn't necessarily
evil that Harmony couldn't resist, it was a quick and easy way
to achieve what she wanted (to be somebody again, to be important,
to be part of a group).
Darla, on the other hand... Darla's more complicated. She got
a chance most vampires will never get -- she was alive again.
She was souled _and_ breathing. And she hated it. She hated being
alive, being a person, caring. She liked the freedom from conscience
being a vampire gave her. Darla was one of those who was never
given a chance to be someone in life. She was a whore. Even with
her status as a 'woman of some property, no husband, no inheritance'
in her previous (living) life in the Colonies, she was never accepted,
and knew her state in life, cutting through the Master's sugarcoating
of her status ('I'm a whore.') I'm sure the hypocrisy of her fellow
man disgusted her, that they looked down on her in public with
their wives but apparently made use of her services enough to
allow her to live in relative luxury. Darla strikes me as someone
who hates people, hates living. She's almost the polar opposite
of Spike/William, who always wanted to belong, to be someone,
to live. She not only knew she could never be accepted in life,
she had grown past the point of caring. She hated people long
before she was turned into a vampire. Her attitude towards life
was much harsher than Spike's.
Angel You have no idea the gift you've been given. To feel that
heart beat. To know you're alive. Really and for once -- alive.
You're human again, Darla. Don't you know what that means?
Darla Of course I do. It means pain and suffering and disease
and death...
To Darla, there is nothing good in life. Why on earth would she
want to be alive again? As a vampire she's in control, she has
the power, she doesn't feel, doesn't age, doesn't care, doesn't
die.
Yet even Darla could've been saved. She almost was. When Angel
was willing to sacrifice his life so that she might live (during
The Trial, season two), when someone cared that much for her,
is when she realized that it was okay, even if by winning he didn't
get her her life back.
Darla Angel, I see it now. Everything you're going through, everything
you've gone through. I've _felt_ it. I've felt how you care --
in a way no one's ever cared before. Not for me. That's all I
need from you.
and
Darla Maybe this _is_ my second chance... to die. The way I was
supposed to die in the first place.
Darla accepts her coming death. She's finally at peace with the
idea of death (something she has feared above all else, even after
dying once). Of course, Drucilla ruins all that... I think Darla's
given up. Child or no child, she can't seem to escape her destiny
with Angel. But it may be too early to write Darla off just yet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsibility _ Spoilers for
"once more w/feeling" -- Brian, 11:00:59 11/07/01 Wed
Xander may have been responsible for summoning the demon, but
it was Giles' responsibility for allowing that amulet to be used.
He had been warned by the Watcher's Council in Checkpoint that
he had dangerous stuff for sale to the public w/o warning labels.
Xander probably thought "A dancing and singing demon? How
can that be dangerous?" He didn't realize the ultimate consequences.
But Giles should have known, and have taken steps to make sure
that it didn't get misused.
I think that Giles still feels that he is in the library where
few strangers intrude. So, let's cut Xander some slack. His marriage
jitters probably have him a little wacked out in the "thinking
it through" dept as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> but what was curious to me... SPOILERS for OMWF -- Solitude1056,
11:18:11 11/07/01 Wed
...was that everyone seemed to turn and look at Willow, although
she still seemed to be in shock at Buffy's revelation and didn't
appear to realize she was being targeted by everyone else's immediate
suspicion.
Was that just me, or did anyone else notice?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: but what was curious to me... SPOILERS for OMWF
-- Rob, 11:20:39 11/07/01 Wed
Yes, I did. I also noticed that she seemed the most shocked by
Buffy's revelation. There were tears in her eyes, and she looked
almost physically ill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: but what was curious to me... SPOILERS for
OMWF -- verdantheart, 12:13:33 11/07/01 Wed
Willow should be the most shocked. She hasn't let herself contemplate
the possibility that Buffy was in a Heaven dimension. She is also
the one who brought her back -- the instigator not a mere accomplice
as everyone else was. She's got a lot of guilt to deal with --
not to mention the fallout of her treatment of Tara.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: but what was curious to me... SPOILERS for
OMWF -- maddog, 13:17:36 11/07/01 Wed
I saw that reaction from the longer preview on the UPN website...you
could see that look she had on her face, it was the same one when
she stood there at the end of last season looking at Buffy's body.
She's devestated...I mean, wouldn't you be?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: but what was curious to me... SPOILERS
for OMWF -- Calluna, 19:01:30 11/07/01 Wed
I think that Willow needs to be cut some slack about Buffy's ressurection.
Sure she could have scryed out where Buffy was, but let's look
at this logically. The only other mystical death on the show was
Angel's. It involved a portal to a hell dimension and the now-good
Angel being sent there. Same situation with Buffy's death: Hell
dimension portal, the only way to close it was with the blood/life
of the person who opened it, etc. Willow made a mistake, but it
was an easy mistake to make. Angel's death and his "eternity"
in Hell was all she could connect Buffy's sacrifice to and Willow
couldn't stand to have Buffy be stuck in Hell when she (Willow)
had the ability to get her out. I tend to think that someone needs
to straight out (no dancing around the subject, no vague hints)
tell Buffy that if she hates her life in "Hell" so much,
why doesn't she kill herself (be it through her own hands or "accidently"
through not fighting well enough) and make sure no one brings
her back.
I'll stop ranting now. I've always been a Willow fan. I WAS Willow
in high school:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Yes, cut Willow some slack! -- WillowFan,
22:55:18 11/07/01 Wed
Oh, I so agree. Willow was just trying to help Buffy, not to mention
Dawn, the Scooby Gang, and everyone in Sunnydale. Without Buffy
-- and if something had gone wrong with the unreliable BuffyBot
-- Dawn may have been placed in foster care, and we all know how
bad that is. (_White Oleander_, anyone?)
And why did Tara keep harping on Willow for "overusing"
magic? Until she altered Tara's memory with the "forgetting"
flower, I had no problem with all that magic, even for trivial
purposes. She's a witch, after all! Tara was acting like Darren
Stevens from "Bewitched," always demanding that Samantha
tone down the magic. Of course, I would have preferred that Willow
assert her right to use magic as long as it didn't hurt anyone
instead of trying to mess with Tara's memory. Being assertive
is always preferable to questionable scheming.
Overall, I just adore Willow and Tara. I hope they can work this
out. (Or I should say, I hope Joss has them work it out.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry folks -- CW, 05:55:33
11/08/01 Thu
Willow is a far cry from that shy gawky high school girl we once
knew. Willow has been growing up, and the path she has chosen
isn't one of innocence. She's literally played god and decided
that she had the right to reverse death. We can understand that
she would sincerely worry about Buffy's fate. But, as several
have mentioned on this board, the intelligent thing would have
been to use her power to find out where Buffy was, maybe a very
difficult task, but surely no more difficult than bringing her
back. Willow is rash and flippant about using her magic. Until
she learns her lesson, Willow and her most ardent fans are in
for some hard times.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> No, I won't <>
-- CaptainPugwash, 07:10:43 11/08/01 Thu
Willow has been using magic all her life to change things she
can't accept; she will never grow until she appreciates the consequences
of her actions instead of just changing them (with magic).
Guess what Willow is going to do next? Well, she is going to 'do
a Tara' on Buffy and make her FORGET that she was in Heaven. Willow's
solution to a bad spell is another bad spell; will she ever learn
when to stop?
I'm a Willow fan too, but nothing can justify the path she has
chosen. Don't give me all that 'she was needed to fight the Demon
Bikers & stop Dawn from going into care' nonsense. With a little
courage, and a little ingenuity they could sorted things out (Buffy
isn't the ONLY demon killer, what about Spike & Angel & Black
Ops Brigade?). No, instead of moving on and being brave (like
Buffy told them to), they sat around and moped.
Furthermore, when Willow resurrected Buffy she 'became' Dark Willow
- it was a defining moment. All of benefits of having Buffy back
(just ignore her own happiness for now(sic...) are vastly outweighed
by the threat that Willow now presents.
I used to cut Willow a LOT of slack, but now she is becoming the
child (she always was a child) that refuses to grow up. Unforgivable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't forget, the rest
of the Scoobies went along with it... -- WillowFan, 09:59:24 11/08/01
Thu
Willow didn't resurrect Buffy alone. She needed help. The other
Scoobies helped her do it. Willow didn't make them help her. They
agreed to help her. Aren't they just as guilty, as accomplices,
despite their private feelings of ambivalence? If Willow's guilty
and "childish," then they all are. That's why I think
they should cut Willow some slack.
Having said that, I think your idea of Willow using her magic
to find out where Buffy's soul was is a good one. I guess she
and the gang were desperate to get Buffy back. Taking care of
a teenager (not to mention an entire town) is a huge responsibility.
Of course, it was a bad idea for Willow to mess with the laws
of nature like that, but the rest of the Scoobies are just as
guilty.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: but what was curious to me...
SPOILERS for OMWF -- RichardX1, 06:46:27 11/08/01 Thu
<>
It wasn't a Hell dimension portal. It was an omnidimensional portal.
It literally connected to *everywhere*, and that was part of the
problem.
So, it's possible some Heavenly being recognized Buffy's sacrifice
and snatched her soul away to a proper reward before anyone from
the less desirable afterlifes (yes, I'm intentionally spelling
it that way) could get to her.
Look at me, I'm postulatin' crazy-like!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Responsibility _ Spoilers for "once more w/feeling"
-- neaux, 11:35:15 11/07/01 Wed
and what about the many things that Dawn is Collecting /stealing..
are just lying about in the store anyway.. either on the floor
or randomly on the counter.
what about that responsibility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Responsibility _ Spoilers for "once more w/feeling"
-- neaux, 11:35:16 11/07/01 Wed
and what about the many things that Dawn is Collecting /stealing..
are just lying about in the store anyway.. either on the floor
or randomly on the counter.
what about that responsibility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Responsibility _ Spoilers for "once more w/feeling"
-- RichardX1, 06:48:40 11/08/01 Thu
I'm still not convinced that Xander really did it. He could have
been covering for Willow (not that she'd tell him if she did,
but I think he could've figured it out).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mocking Disney (OMWF spoilers)
-- Shiver, 11:04:40 11/07/01 Wed
Can we count how many times they made fun of Disney in OMWF? Spike's
comment about puppet boy (Maybe one day he'll be a real boy).
The opening number where Buffy gets backup from the demons in
the graveyard and sings out "ALIVE" as the vamp bursts
into dust - very disney-like. I only got to watch it once, so
I know I'm missing more.
This also makes me believe that Joel Grey is never coming back
as Doc, because why would you not bring him back in the musical
if you were going to!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> They also made fun of Elvis -- Charlemagne20, 11:27:55 11/07/01
Wed
These demon child bride things never work out..
Save maybe once.
-Anya
It was very funny to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I was thinking Jerry Lee Lewis. -- Solitude1056, 12:14:05
11/07/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Also the Rolling Stones -- Rattletrap, 04:30:43 11/08/01
Thu
Spike's line: "Shouldn't you be in there getting your Kumbaya-yas
out" was probably a reference to the old Stones album Get
Yer Ya Yas Out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Tara's bodiced dress in her number with Willow was very
Snow White -- d'Herblay, 11:47:34 11/07/01 Wed
And the magical sparklies were kind of Tinkerbell. I expected
an animated bluebird to land on Tara's hand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Words from the Almighty Joss... -- Rob, 12:13:50 11/07/01
Wed
About the Disney references, here's what Joss had to say about
"Going Through the Motions" in Entertainment Weekly...
''Buffy's first number, 'Going Through the Motions,' is a straight-up
Disney production number -- wicked Disney,'' says Whedon.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Words from the Almighty Joss... -- Shiver, 12:35:42
11/07/01 Wed
Right ... it was, especially the very opening montage with everyone
going about their daily business and the camera following through
from person to person, now it reminds me of the opening scene
in Beauty and the Beast when Belle is walking through the marketplace
with her book. Same can be said for when G, X and A walk through
the street past the dancing sweepers and Marti trying to get out
of a ticket.
And then there is Anya's worrying about their song not becoming
a major pop hit, in homage to the soundtracks :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> okay, so if that was Marti... *spoilers* --
Solitude1056, 13:12:51 11/07/01 Wed
Which one was David Fury? Wasn't he supposed to have a cameo?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: okay, so if that was Marti... *spoilers*
-- Lucifer_Sponge, 13:16:56 11/07/01 Wed
Fury was the guy who was positively elated with the fact that
the cleaners got the mustard out of his shirt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Mocking Disney (OMWF spoilers) -- J, 12:50:30 11/07/01
Wed
Forgot the "Whistle While You Work" line when Buffy
hits the puppet guy in the Bronze.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Mocking Disney (OMWF spoilers) -- sanjerine, 09:22:50
11/08/01 Thu
... and Spike's throwaway comment about "Seventy-six bleeding
trombones" is a direct reference to "The Music Man."
--sanjerine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> That was the 2nd "Music Man" reference
this year... -- Rob, 10:11:59 11/08/01 Thu
The first was in "Bargaining, Part 2," when Xander says,
"We've got trouble here in Hellmouth City."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spike, addicted to abuse? -- Charlemagne20,
11:33:04 11/07/01 Wed
Does it cross your mind that Spike may actually be displaying
that (know that I know it isn't realistic but being a demon I
think we can make an exception for spike) classic tv representation
of abuse victems that are addicted to their spouse's behavior?
Drucilla obviously abused him mightily and Angelus/Darla (it's
possible Spike had a relationship with Darla as well) and before
that abuse at the hands of mortal women. It might be that Spike's
demonic side gets it's "kumbayayas" by being kicked
around by those he adores. It might explain by Buffy's constant
defeat of him transferred itself into the obsessive devotion that
it manifests as. I think they did an Andy Griffith episode on
this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I would guess that he is addicted to love -- Traveler, 12:01:03
11/07/01 Wed
I'm not sure that Drucilla or Darla abused Spike more than any
vampire would. Furthermore, I haven't seen any evidence that Spike
likes to be hurt. Rather, he allows himself to be consumed by
love until it pushes aside all of his other interests. Finally,
he feels that there is nothing left of him except for that love.
It is interesting to note that he didn't have nearly the difficulty
getting over his past loves that he has with Buffy. Then again,
none of them toyed with him the way Buffy has. (She was firm in
her feelings at first, but more recently that hasn't been the
case...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I would guess that he is addicted to love -- verdantheart,
12:39:10 11/07/01 Wed
Even when Buffy's feelings seemed firm, she did things like beat
him up for "no reason" and ignored signs of his obsession.
It wasn't until Spike's feelings were forced into the open that
Buffy objected, and very strenuously. She said something like
"I beat him up a lot, and to Spike that's like third base."
On some level she must have had some idea that she was teasing
Spike. Spike enjoys fighting -- and he especially seems to enjoy
fighting a woman who can give him a good fight. It's not that
he enjoys being hurt; it seems to be the physicality and the challenge
or risk of it. He gets off on it (as he admitted in Fool for Love)
and doesn't mind saying so. Buffy gets something out of her interactions
with Spike that she doesn't want to admit -- something that she's
gotten almost from the time he was chipped and they were thrown
into closer contact. Buffy doesn't want to face whatever it is
that is driving this behavior, but it's going to be harder and
harder to ignore it after they shared their first real kiss. As
long as she represses whatever these feelings are, she'll continue
to treat Spike badly. It's interestingly perverse that we in the
audience are encouraged to sympathize with "evil" Spike
(constrained though his evil tendencies might be). It's really
hard for some of us to be unmoved by an incurable romantic.
I think it's an interesting side note that Buffy was searching
out Spike for a little Q&A and fisticuff even when Riley was around.
Any parallel to Riley's little vamp-sucking obsession?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> It's really hard for some of us to be unmoved
by an incurable romantic. -- cat, 11:28:42 11/08/01 Thu
And that is what he is. Not neccesarily addicted to abuse or love,
but to romance. After all, he was a poet, even if he was a "bloody
awful" one. The poetry of an unrequited love is what draws
him. In life, his unrequited love spurned him. In death, with
Drusilla, he found a love which was returned, and he got bored
with it. Now he finds Buffy, again, a love who spurns his advances,
and he's hooked! The utter impossibility of the match entraces
him. I wonder if he will get bored with her if she DOES give in
to his advances.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: It's really hard for some of us to
be unmoved by an incurable romantic. -- verdantheart, 06:08:04
11/09/01 Fri
It took him over 100 years to get bored. Not bad! Plenty of time
for Buffy to die of old age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: It's really hard for some of us to
be unmoved by an incurable romantic. -- Malandanza, 11:41:26 11/09/01
Fri
Spike has had a few good romantic lines. But then so did Parker.
In Parker's case none of us are arguing that he was good for Buffy
or that his love for Buffy was pure -- his actions belied his
words. With Spike, we see a similar pattern: he claims to have
these pure feelings for Buffy, but in moments of weakness we see
the real Spike.
Spike: I'm free if that bitch dies. (OMWF)
SPIKE: Small world. Oh dear, if looks could stake. Are you having
fun, pet? Trolling for your next ex?...You think I was gonna leave
town? Free country. Free party. You want me to leave you can put
your hands on my hot tight little body and make me (IWMtLY)
SPIKE: What the bleeding hell is wrong with you bloody women?
What the hell does it take? Why do you bitches torture me? (Crush)
BUFFY: Spike... The only chance you had with me was when I was
unconscious. Spike registers his disappointment. Why hadn't he
thought of that? Then, his rage building, he ROARS:(Crush -- shooting
script)
SPIKE: Hasn't got a death wish? He snaps the shotgun shut. SPIKE:The
bitch won't need one (FFL)
SPIKE: We have to do something. I can't just sit here watching.
You waste time with kid gloves. I'm willing to wager, when all
is said and done, Buffy likes it rough. (WotW)
Gosh, how romantic! Just like Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy in
Pride and Prejudice.
I agree that there is passion on his side and that he is suffering
the pangs of unrequited lust -- but romance? And remember, he
stalked Buffy and helped destroy her relationship (or helped hasten
its destruction -- it was probably doomed anyway) with Riley out
of jealousy. Spike played on Riley's fears, suggesting that there
was something between him and Buffy, then informed Buffy of Riley's
indiscretions.
And his relationship with Dru? It was fine while Dru was helpless
and had to be taken care of by Spike. It's no wonder that Spike
like the sex-bot: Dru had been his living doll for over a century.
Which is why I found this scene from Afterlife so disturbing:
SPIKE Listen. I've figured it out. Maybe you haven't, but I have.
Willow knew there was a chance she'd come back wrong. So wrong
that you'd have to-- that she'd have to get rid of what came back.
And she knew I wouldn't let her. If any part of it was Buffy,
I couldn't let her. That's why she shut me out.
Imagine a damaged Buffy, all but comatose, with no one but Spike
to look out for her, to keep her, to clothe her and bathe her
and whatever else ... until she died. Maybe he'd even vamp her
to keep her around.
This isn't romance (except in the Emily Bronte sense of the word).
This is disturbing, obsessive passion mixed with lust & jealousy.
This doesn't mean I haven't ever felt sorry for Spike -- I have,
in Crush and Fool for Love -- but that doesn't mean I think he's
a good person. Not all the romantic poets were very nice people
either.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Mal, you romantic realist, you have
brought up a good question.... -- Rufus, 19:02:52 11/09/01 Fri
As the Slayer has an expiration date, does Spikes love, though
long lived, also have an expiration date. Furthermore, what may
happen to hasten that date along?
As for poets ect. not always being nice people, I do agree. Love
in print may be eternal, but will it be so on BTVS?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: It's really hard for some of
us to be unmoved by an incurable romantic. -- Naomi, 02:46:59
11/10/01 Sat
If you watch past flashbacks in Fool For Love Spike was turned
on by the healthy Dru as well. Their time together in Sunnydale
was only a short period of their lifes together and Dru was not
always weak. Spike states in What's My Line that he can't stand
to see Dru in such a poor condition and he was activitely seeking
a cure for her. And I don't think he was thrilled at the idea
that Buffy might come back wrong. He was simply stating that he
would accept Buffy whatever the package. In Intervention he tells
the bot to "just be Buffy" and that's all he's really
looking for. He accepts his women whatever their health because
he is a romantic who can be seen to be addicted to love. And it
was Dru who discarded Spike. He was quite happy to stay with her
and his feelings for Buffy were very deeply repressed. If he hadn't
returned to Sunnydale following Dru's rejection then he probably
never would have recognised his passion for the slayer as love.
I'd say Spike feels love rather than lust as we have evidence
of him genuinely caring for Buffy's well-being. He underwent torture
to save Buffy from pain and was utterly devestated at her death.
He also helped the good guyys partly in order to honour Buffy's
memory. If it was just lust he was feeling then it wouldn't have
caused such dramatic personality changes and he would be over
it by now. Spike tells Buffy that what they have isn't pretty
but it's real. Therefore it's not necessarily easy to see B/S
as a great romance. But it is love on Spike's part but as he's
such a grey and complex character it will not be an easy journey
for him to reconcile his conflicting emotions for Buffy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Interesting views -- rowan, 08:20:46
11/10/01 Sat
I always find it fascinating to read posts here because we all
find ways to look at the same thing on the screen and see it differently.
Some of the things that you find sick and disturbing about Spike
are the things I find to be the most powerful and inspirational.
In OMwF, Spike's full lyric about Buffy is: 'I hope she fries/I'm
free if that bitch dies/I'd better help her out'. In FFL, Spike
goes to Buffy's to kill her, and then is moved to comfort her
when he sees her tears over her mother. I see in this the universal
struggle to overcome one's nature. Spike's nature is demonic.
His impulses are demonic. Every time he recognizes them for what
they are and acts in direct contradiction to those impulses, it's
a victory for every person who has every felt that they can't
be more than the lot they've been given in life.
I saw the scene in After Life totally differently as well. It
didn't appear to me that Spike was looking for a doll. He had
a doll and it didn't please him in the long run. I thought at
that point in the story, Spike was really speaking with the ethical
voice of the show. His point IMO was that there were consequences
to this resurrection: who was going to be the one among them to
judge whether the reborn Buffy was good enough to live or not?
He obviously thought Willow would feel confident to make the choice,
but his point was that once she was back, none of them would have
the right to take that away. Spike was defending Buffy's basic
right to live. If Spike had wanted to have Buffy back on any terms,
he certainly knew enough about magic (see Forever) to find someone
to resurrect her for him. It spoke volumes that the only resurrection
Spike planned was the 147 nights he relived how to save her from
death.
I agree that Emily Bronte heroes can be uncomfortable; I wouldn't
want to be married to one! But then I don't think I'd want to
live in the Buffyverse, either. It's alot harder, brighter, and
louder than the Realverse. I have trouble taking a character like
Spike and faulting every one of his violent impulses, because
every character's violence level is high. I just saw Xander kill
innocent people with his happy spell in OMwF. I saw him know this,
then continue to conceal his part in the spell, even though he
knew this would put Buffy & Dawn in danger.
I see Spike as a metaphor for elements of Buffy's own personality
that she needs to acknowledge, understand, and integrate. Spike
is violent, but so is Buffy. It's the edge between uncontrolled
violence and useful violence that she needs to understand. Spike
is about passion, lust, love -- all those emotions. Those are
things that Buffy has cut herself off from (especially connecting
the emotional and the sexual) since the Angel/Parker relationships.
Her interactions with spike have more to do IMO with Buffy coming
to terms with how to incorporate passion, a little hedonism, and
love into a life of duty, responsibility, and work. It's all about
the balance.
rowan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting views -- Malandanza,
19:34:31 11/10/01 Sat
Some of the things that you find sick and disturbing about Spike
are the things I find to be the most powerful and inspirational.
In OMwF, Spike's full lyric about Buffy is: 'I hope she fries/I'm
free if that bitch dies/I'd better help her out'.
I recognize I took that quote out of context, but my intention
was not to show that Spike wants Buffy dead; rather, to indicate
the type of language he still uses to refer to his beloved Buffy.
Objections to Spike calling Buffy a "bitch" in previous
episodes have validity -- it is possible that Buffy's death changed
him. However, in Season Six, he is still referring to Buffy as
a "bitch" -- and these are his true feelings that he
is being forced to sing about. I don't doubt that he is passionate
about Buffy -- I merely object to the use of the term "romantic"
to refer to Spike's obsession with Buffy. Take the most romantic
speech you've ever heard and add the word "bitch" to
it and see if it still sounds romantic to you:
"Soft, what light through yonder window breaks! / 'Tis the
East, and [that bitch] is the sun."
It just doesn't have the same ring to it. There is something of
the adolescent in Spike's passion for Buffy -- he is the boy in
the locker room sulking because she won't "put out,"
throwing tantrums when he doesn't get his way (as in Crush and
WMwF), manipulating her friends (Giles: We are not your friends.
We are not your way to Buffy. There is no way to Buffy), using
and discarding poor Harmony to pass the time until Buffy comes
to her senses -- all the while convinced that he is irresistible
and she is just being coy. Under the "Big Bad" bluster
there is a sensitive poet -- but dig a little deeper and you find
that under the sensitive poet is a creepy, egocentric misogynist.
"I saw the scene in After Life totally differently as well.
It didn't appear to me that Spike was looking for a doll. He had
a doll and it didn't please him in the long run. I thought at
that point in the story, Spike was really speaking with the ethical
voice of the show. His point IMO was that there were consequences
to this resurrection..."
I don't think Spike was looking for a living doll, either -- but
I do think he would have been content to have her helpless and
as completely dependent upon him as Dru had been. And he probably
would have searched just as tirelessly for a cure for damaged
Buffy as he did for damaged Dru. And I agree that I'd rather have
Spike making ethical decisions than Willow, if only because he
has learned that there are consequences to his actions.
"I agree that Emily Bronte heroes can be uncomfortable; I
wouldn't want to be married to one! "
I love the Brontes, but Wuthering Heights is not what I'd call
romantic. Passionate, yes -- and I think Heathcliffe is a good
model for Spike. He has all the twisted passion and obsession
of Emily Bronte's hero.
"I just saw Xander kill innocent people with his happy spell
in OMwF."
I agree with Mundusmundi on this one --it was Xand ex Machina
-- a bad plot device.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting views
-- CW, 20:35:20 11/10/01 Sat
Malandanza, your working defintion of romance seems to be the
problem. You're not using the term the same way as the people
you are replying to. I would suggest that the common use of the
term has considerably broader meanings. You might try looking
up romance, romantic, and romanticism in a good dictionary. Don't
mean to be a pain in the backside, but if you're not speaking
the same language you'll never understand each other. ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Semantics
-- Malandanza, 10:00:28 11/12/01 Mon
"Malandanza, your working definition of romance seems to
be the problem. You're not using the term the same way as the
people you are replying to."
While it's true that I have been using the candlelight dinner
and soft music connotations of the word "romantic" in
my attacks on Spike, I wouldn't consider him a romantic (or a
Romantic) by any definition of the word.
Romance as adventure: is Spike a hero of an old romance -- going
forth and slaying beautiful damsels in distress and rescuing monsters
to prove his worth to his lady love? Actually, Buffy is the one
who does the questing while he occasionally gets to tag a long.
He also violates the conventions of "Courtly Love" with
his less that chivalrous remarks about the object of his obsessions
(who should be so far beyond reproach in his mind that he blames
himself for her failings).
Idealistic? Spike? Machiavellian is more like it. He plots and
schemes to gain Buffy's affections. He befriends Buffy's mother
and sister and attempts to ingratiate himself (belatedly) with
her friends. He systemically works on breaking up Riley and Buffy
(playing Iago to Riley's Othello). Unrequited love is romantic
(if I can use the word :) -- but can Spike's thwarted lust compare
with Riley's one amazing admission: "But she doesn't love
me"? For me, Riley's confession to Xander ranks as one of
the three greatest moments on BtVS (along with Buffy slaying Angel,
then leaving town and Buffy's admission to Spike that she had
been dragged out of Heaven -- right after she had thanked them
for rescuing her). Spike isn't tilting at windmills -- he is the
pragmatic vampire. He works steadily towards his goal of bedding
Buffy. He is no Petrarch or Dante silently grieving over his Laura
or Beatrice.
As far as Romantic in the anti-Classicist sense of the word, I
am at a loss to see how Spike would be part of the Romantic movement.
The natural world was important (at least to the American Romantics)
and a vampire is decidedly unnatural. There were also themes of
the corrupting influence of the city -- but Spike loves civilization
in all its corruption: he is a dog-races and cigarettes kind of
guy. He'd rather be watching Passions than be sitting quietly,
having his soul uplifted as he regards the wonder of nature. Emotions
over logic? Okay, but he's controlled by negative emotions --
rage, jealously, thwarted ambition (I just like saying thwarted),
envy -- there is no "Cross of Snow" on the vampire's
breast.
His obsession with Buffy is just that, an obsession. He has an
idealized, extremely sexualized, view of Buffy that he carries
about in his head -- this "ideal" Buffy is the one to
whom he builds shrines and the one for whom he pines -- he's not
that thrilled with the genuine article.
Don't mean to be a pain in the backside, but if you're not speaking
the same language you'll never understand each other. ;o)
I'm critiquing Spike in an "Isn't Spike Dreamy" thread
-- of course I'm not speaking the same language! My attacks are
not any more like to sway the Spikephiles to my side than their
effusions are to bring me over to theirs -- we might as well be
speaking in tongues. So why do I bother posting such things? Maybe
it's just the romantic in me :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Romantics
and Rebels, and Revolutionaries -- Rahael, 12:01:15 11/12/01 Mon
Maladanza, I would agree with you that Spike is not a romantic
(rather, he is a cynic) with a small r. But I think one could
argue convincingly that he is both a product of the Romantic movement,
and a Romantic himself.
You say that the Romantic movement embraced the 'natural' - I
would agree, but it was more significant than that, and it embraced
a lot more than that. The Romantic movement saw nature as 'violent'
- just see the violent, brooding landscape of Wurthering Heights.
The Romantic/Gothic novel par excellance is of course 'Frankenstein'
which is about an unnatural creature, who is in some senses more
of a 'noble savage' than the 'civilised' world. There is a whole
political subtext to the Romantic movement, which opposed civil
justice with 'natural justice'. Only only has to look at JJ Rousseau,
Shelley, Byron etc to see how radical they were (though JJ R was
pretty backward when it came to women).
Byron - 'mad bad and dangerous to know' and Shelley both treated
the women in their lives pretty badly. Both prided themselves
in setting themselves in opposition the establishement. Byron
died fighting against the turks in the Greek revolutionary wars.
I argue that Spike could be a Romantic himself because of his
posturing, and his flamboyance, his assumption of a made up identity,
his disguise of being more common and unlearned than he was at
the beginning. He was also young and a poet at the right time.
He expressed his real feelings in verse (remember that the Renaissance
love poets did not necessarily reveal their own true lovers or
feelings in their love poetry) and finally, the creature that
he became was the product of the Romantic movement itself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Romantics and Rebels, and Revolutionaries -- Cleanthes, 17:51:02
11/12/01 Mon
Spike seems like a character who would appear in a Coleridge poem
as a supernatural critter, like the Death in Ancient Mariner or
Geraldine in Christabel. Goethe wrote a character or two kinda
on point, too, I think.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Romantics and Rebels, and Revolutionaries -- fresne, 18:02:37
11/12/01 Mon
Hmm...interesting point about Spike's deliberately assuming a
more "naturalized" common, uneducated behavior as a
symptom of the Romantic in him. Somehow it makes Spike like a
Capability Brown park. Yes, it's a lovely wild landscape and look
how naturalistic. Course, we built the pond, moved that oak tree
so it doesn't obstruct the view, installed some waterfalls in
the creek, added a decrepit cottage, and hired an old man to live
there as a hermit. Creating the Romantic 101. Personally, I see
Spike as a product of the Victorian era. (Spike being much more
interesting than Varney) Or rather a reaction to it. After all
he was done living by societies rules. Victorian's hide their
sexuality. Spike flaunts it. Proper Victorian lovers refer to
their fair lady love in flowery language. Spike, well, he still
uses pet names and euphemisms, but they aren't always favorable.
And yet in the reversal, I can still see the form. Stealing objects
of your beloved. The Rape of the Lock (I know not Victorian, but
whatever) comes to mind. Mooning around watching your beloved
from afar (heck my great-grandfather did that).
Spike's pre-Intervention behaviour is full of the forms of romance,
it's just that he isn't really applying it all that well. He is
after all a demon.
I almost see being kidnapped by Glory as that moment in Much Ado
About Nothing, when Benedict realizes that love is not just poetry,
but standing by Beatrice in the tough times as well. Therefore,
I have trouble applying Spike's pre-Intervention behavior as examples
of his worthiness or un-worthiness of Buffy's love.
Of course, I think Rowan made an excellent point elsewhere that
love is not about worthiness, or lack of same. It is about the
act of love. We don't always choose the ones we love. And loving
isn't about deserving love. Love, like forgiveness, is merely
given.
I guess for me a Romantic is someone who desires things to do
with love and emotion. Sense vs. Sensiblity. As opposed to a Roman
(a medieval story) or a Romantic poet (a free-loving, drug using,
rebel).
Hmmm...is Spike a Dante. No. Dante was a god of poetry. William
was bloody awful. Anyway, 147 days cannot be evenly divided by
9. Then again, we'll never know if following Buffy's death, Spike
would have eventually started a torrid affair with a Stone Woman
as Dante did.
Actually, we can't know anything until the story is over.
Will Spike's social behavior be reformed by love ala the dialogs
in Andreas Capalanus' Art of Courtly Love? (gotta love a pick
up line which boils down to, let me love you so I can have better
manners). The point being not to be socialized to begin with,
but to be reformed into appropriate behavior by love.
Will Spike once again go off the deep end after Buffy rejects
him once again?
Can't wait to find out. Don't really, want the story to end any
time soon. So here's to a bumpy sleigh ride, Jack
fresne - who thinks Jack Skellington is very romantic, if somewhat
confused.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Capability William -- Malandanza, 22:47:21 11/12/01 Mon
"Hmm...interesting point about Spike's deliberately assuming
a more 'naturalized' common, uneducated behavior as a symptom
of the Romantic in him. Somehow it makes Spike like a Capability
Brown park. Yes, it's a lovely wild landscape and look how naturalistic.
Course, we built the pond, moved that oak tree so it doesn't obstruct
the view, installed some waterfalls in the creek, added a decrepit
cottage, and hired an old man to live there as a hermit. Creating
the Romantic 101."
I like the image of Spike as a Capability Brown park. I think
that, in life, Spike longed to be Byron, leading a fantastic life
of adventure and romance. As a vampire, he remade himself in that
image. The problem is that he's just so "bloody awful"
at everything he does that he comes off looking more like a Radcliffe
hero (who spends his time weeping while the heroine faces down
the evil, but sinisterly attractive, villian) than Byron.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Capability William -- mundusmundi, 09:20:57 11/13/01
Tue
Mal, I love reading your posts. Even though I don't fully agree
with your Spike assessment, you give some balance to the other
views.
My question is: Where do you see Spike going this year? As I've
written before, I can't really get a fix on his story arc this
season, so I'd like to know what you think is going to happen,
or even what you'd like to see happen. (No spoilers, please; just
speculation.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Spike & Buffy -- Malandanza, 11:32:32 11/13/01
Tue
"My question is: Where do you see Spike going this year?
As I've written before, I can't really get a fix on his story
arc this season, so I'd like to know what you think is going to
happen, or even what you'd like to see happen. (No spoilers, please;
just speculation.)"
Actually, I believe Spike is heading for redemption and will be
Buffy's boyfriend (as much as I hate the idea) -- my rants are
merely the last throes of denial.
I think The kiss in OMwF is largely irrelevant -- it was a kiss
of despair, not love. Buffy has no one to turn to but Spike --
the Scoobies have separated themselves from Buffy because of the
repercussions of the resurrection ritual, Dawn is just a child
and Giles is intentionally distancing himself from Buffy. Spike
is the only other person in Buffy's life -- he's at the right
place at the right time.
On the other hand, if the cemetery scene in OMwF, where Buffy
and Spike are in the grave together, is the harbinger of things
to come, I fear a Buffy/Spike relationship is in the works. That
scene was just too charged with repressed feeling -- SMG looked
flustered and Buffy's flight lends credence to Spike's insistence
that, deep down, Buffy has passionate feelings for him in spite
of herself.
I will be disappointed if Spike and Buffy end up as a couple.
I don't know why she always has to be having sex with the leading
man -- hopefully, Joss will break with this convention as well.
One of Buffy's lines to Xander about relationships was that she
felt "armless" without a man in her life. At the time,
I thought that Joss was headed towards a Boyfriendless Buffy --
independent in her own right, needing a man "like a fish
needs a bicycle," as the saying goes. It will be a shame
to see her slide back into dependency -- especially with someone
like Spike. Hasn't Buffy suffered enough in her personal relationships?
My last hope is that Joss is making it look like Buffy and Spike
are getting closer so he can reverse everything and remind us
that Spike is still a monster, no matter how much he pretends
to be a man.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Chip Psychology -- Kimberly, 12:04:56 11/13/01 Tue
I couldn't resist jumping in here. Something that has been bothering
me since the whole Spike-with-a-chip arc has begun but that I
haven't seen mentioned anywhere is the less obvious effects of
the chip. Obviously, Spike will tend to avoid hurting humans because
it hurst when he does. However, studies have shown that something
interesting is probably happening to Spike in additon to the cessation
of his hurting people.
That something is called "cognitive dissonance". What
this means is that when an entity does something they don't want
to do, their brain is likely to come up with an internal reason
for why they're doing so. So that, subconsciously, Spike is not
just not hurting people because it hurts if he does (this is ultimately
an external reason), but because of something internal: he wants
to please Buffy; it's easier to live when he's not being hunted;
whatever.
In addition, people tend to continue existing habits; it's HARD
to break a habit of any sort. Spike has gotten out of the habit
of hurting people for fun and food.
If (probably when) Spike's chip dies, I would be surprised if
he goes back to "standard vampire" mode for any significant
period of time--if at all. The chip has had two years to change
him; he's no longer who he was. And I suspect that he prefers
it that way.
"I may be a monster, but you treat me like a man.":
Being a man is preferable to being a monster.
"I died so many years ago. You can make me feel like it isn't
so." Spike wants to be alive; he no longer wants to be a
vampire.
I have two possible ideas that keep coming to mind as possible
results for Spike: 1. That he becomes a redeemed vampire, redeemed
through the effects of the chip and his own desires. 2. That the
demon inside is somehow destroyed without killing the body; that
Spike becomes William again. Both would interesting to watch develop.
(Then again, I'm lousy at predicting what Joss is going to do.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Thanks both above for your views -- mm,
12:20:07 11/13/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Chip Psychology -- cat, 13:09:13 11/13/01
Tue
"I have two possible ideas that keep coming to mind as possible
results for Spike"
Or, there is another possibility, being the pragmatic vampire
he is. He could become something entirely new; a neutral vampire.
Angel is a vampire who can be defined as good, having a soul,
and fighting the good fight and all. The Master was an example
of the archtypical evil vampire, existing to cause chaos, and
ruin. Spike on the other hand, is well on the way to being defined
as a neutral vampire - accepting that he DOES like some aspects
of the evil demon inside him (always spoiling for a fight, thinking
of most people as "Happy meals on legs" etc.) yet not
fully losing himself to that evil, AND embracing some traits which
can only be described as good (protecting Dawn after Buffy's death
being a prime example). Instead of gaining redemption through
keeping his chip, gaining his soul, or becoming a man again, maybe
Spike's destiny will be to find peace being a monster, striking
the right balance between man and demon, which enables him to
still be as bad as he ever was, and yet allows others to still
love and be loved by him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Chip Psychology -- Kimberly, 13:56:34
11/13/01 Tue
I think we all need aspirin. My brain hurts. LOL.
Good thought, Cat. I hadn't really thought about him going neutral.
Much fun with greyness there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting views
-- mundusmundi, 07:15:01 11/11/01 Sun
Funny, I think it was Marti Noxon who said they weren't going
to do "Sam and Diane" with Buffy and Spike, yet the
mix of love and hate has definite echoes. (I remember episodes
where S & D slapped each other silly, threatened to kill each
other, etc. 'Course none of those things necessarily made me endorse
their relationship either.)
I agree with Mundusmundi on this one --it was Xand ex Machina
-- a bad plot device.
Yeah, one would think Xander would have had enough sense by now.
Completely out of character, IME, but I guess we'll just pretend
to ignore the elephant in the room. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> bitchin' shakespeare--LOL!!
-- anom, 10:00:33 11/11/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> that is a strange line --
anom, 20:55:43 11/10/01 Sat
" In OMwF, Spike's full lyric about Buffy is: 'I hope she
fries/I'm free if that bitch dies/I'd better help her out'."
Even more important, that's what he actually does. The strange
thing is that he knows the line before isn't true. She did die,
& it didn't free him--he spent every night saving her, & he worked
w/the Scoobies (who I'm pretty sure he still doesn't like) & babysat
Dawn. Some freedom!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> In total agreement with your
take on Spike as a metaphor for elements...*SPOILAGE*... -- A8,
19:35:07 11/11/01 Sun
...of Buffy's own personality. Over the past couple of days, I've
been re-reading through "The Uses of Enchantment" by
Bruno Bettleheim in which the author presents some interesting
theories regarding Little Red Riding Hood's fascination with the
Big Bad Wolf that are on point with what your are saying. I started
to sketch out an essay on the subject as it relates to Buffy and
her men (and Joyce and her men, and even Dawn and her men), but
abandoned it due to short attention span and, well, outright laziness.
Instead, I'll just present the relevant passages for your perusal
without any significant analysis of my own.
Anyhow, we all know by now that Spike fancies himself the "Big
Bad," and Buffy (and now Dawn) throughout the series has
been Little Red (in fact, it was her "fall-back" costume
for in 'Fear, Itself', a costume/persona that was a comforting
memory from her pre-slayer childhood and a nostalgic tie to her
absentee father). To a great extent, Dawn now shares the Little
Red persona with Buffy, but from the perspective of the pre-Slayer
Buffy. Come to think of it, even Joyce flirted, and more, with
the Big Bad (in the form of a delinquent-aged Giles "the
Ripper") in 'Band Candy.' So I don't think it is unreasonable
to see Little Red in all three of the Summers women. Could be
just a case of the apple not falling far from the tree, but there
don't seem to be any unintended coincidences in the Jossverse,
so I'll take a small leap and assume that it signifies something
deeper.
[Okay, now the relevant excerpts from "The Uses of Enchantment":]
"Little Red Cap" in symbolic form projects the girl
into the dangers of her oedipal conflicts during puberty, and
then saves her from them, so that she will be able to mature conflict-free.
The maternal figures of mother and witch which were all-important
in "Hansel and Gretel" have shrunk to insignificance
in "Little Red Cap," where neither mother nor grandmother
can do anything--neither threaten nor protect. The male, by contrast,
is all-important, split into two opposite forms: the dangerous
seducer who, if given in to, turns into the destroyer of the good
grandmother and the girl; and the hunter, the responsible, strong,
and rescuing father figure.
It is as if Little Red Cap is trying to understand the contradictory
nature of the male by experiencing all aspects of his personality:
the selfish, asocial, violent, potentially destructive tendencies
of the id (the wolf); the unselfish, social, thoughtful, and protective
propensities of the ego (the hunter).
Little Red Cap is universally loved because, although she is virtuous,
she is tempted; and because her fate tells us that trusting everybody's
good intentions, which seems so nice, is really leaving oneself
open to pitfalls. [And here IMO is where Bettelheim hits the bullseye]
If there were not something in us that likes the big bad wolf,
he would have no power over us. Therefore, it is important to
understand his nature, but even more important to learn what makes
him attractive to us. Appealing as naivete is, it is dangerous
to remain naive all one's life.
[Bettelheim then spends some time discussing the symbolic references
in Little Red to a young girl's budding sexuality and the resulting
conflicts in her relationships with the more mature and experienced
female figures of mother and grandmother. But the thing that is
once again on-point with the plotlines that are emerging in Season
6 concerns Buffy's use of Giles as a safety net. Bettelheim continues.]
This struggle between her conscious desire to do the right thing
and the unconscious wish to win over her (grand)mother is what
endears the girl and the story to us and makes her so supremely
human. Like many of us when we were children and caught in inner
ambivalences that, despite our best efforts, we could not master,
she tries to push the problem onto somebody else: an older person,
a parent or parent substitute. But by thus trying to evade a threatening
situation, she nearly gets destroyed by it.
Bettleheim further goes on to discuss the significance of death,
transformation, and rebirth in the tale of Little Red, and if
anyone is interested, I'll present it in a subsequent post.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Buffy as Red Riding
Hood -- Rahael, 11:51:11 11/12/01 Mon
A8, you might be interested to know that in 'Helpless' David Fury
deliberately portrayed Buffy as Little Red Riding Hood, and Kralik
as the 'Big Bad Wolf', who awaits kidnaps her mother by disguising
himself in Buffy's red hooded coat. (commentary Buffy Season 3
DVD)
And of course, this theme is picked up again Season 4 in 'Fear
Itself' where Buffy's Halloween costume is Little Red Riding Hood.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> My take... -- A8, 20:04:40 11/11/01
Sun
...is that Spike is, in fact, acting romantically, but in the
most immature way, and understandably so. His vampire existence
was largely informed by a human existence in which he never had
the oppotunity to be a part of a mature love relationship. At
the time Dru turned him, he only had unrealistic theoretical notions
of what love and romance were all about and was spurned rather
cruelly by the woman who had been the focus of a profound affection.
He brought with him into his vampire existence all the negative
feelings associated with a disastrous, unrealized first love--rejection,
resentment, jealousy, confusion, embarrassment, anger and so forth,
and none of the good. It then appears that his only real love
relationship was with another vamp (Dru) who herself had been
turned in a state of stunted emotional development and outright
insanity. Moreover, from the backhistory Joss & Co. provided us
in FFL and Darla, we know that the most dysfunctional and perversely
abusive Angelus/Darla pairing provided Spike with the only real
"parental" model of a more mature relationship. To quote
Ed Grimley, in terms of acquiring the knoweldge and wisdom necessary
to form his own meaningful and caring romantic relationships,
Spike was "doomed as doomed can be,' despite his sincerest
efforts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike, addicted to abuse? -- maddog, 13:00:06 11/07/01
Wed
I don't think he was drawn to Drew because of her constant abuse...in
fact, that's when he seemed the most annoyed with her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Willow's lack of a solo number...(spoilage
for the BEST EP EVER!) -- Rob, 12:06:21 11/07/01 Wed
I was reading the Entertainment Weekly review of OMWF, which,
by the way, was a rave, and said Joss was a genius. Too true,
too true.
But anyway, I know a lot of people have been commenting on the
fact that there was no Willow song, revealing what she did to
Tara. I was wondering that, too...if there was any reason besides
Allyson's lack of singing talent. Well, the reviewer from EW.com,
Jeff Jensen, had a very interesting idea:
"Curious how Willow had no songs of her own. Perhaps this
was due to the fact that Alyson Hannigan can't sing; but given
that her character is a powerful witch harboring dark and powerful
forces in her heart, was Whedon trying to reveal something about
Willow by NOT giving her a number?"
That is a fascinating point, I believe. Could Willow have been
using her powers to keep her secret blocked? Or, possibly, she
has been fooling herself so much that she is in control of her
powers and that it was not wrong to brainwash Tara, that she started
to believe it...thus she did not feel guilty about it, and so
did not sing about it. This may be continuing the symbol of Willow's
magic echoing a substance abuse problem. At this point, she has
not admitted she has a problem. In fact, she doesn't think there's
anything wrong with her behavior. Thus, nothing to sing about.
Rob One of OMWF's Biggest Fans :) :) :)
P.S. If you're interested in reading the rest of EW's GREAT review
it's here:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/commentary/0,6115,183376~3~0~buffycreatorkeepsgang,00.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> ooooh, excellent point & serious food for thought... --
Solitude1056, 12:16:07 11/07/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow's lack of a solo number...(spoilage for the BEST
EP EVER!) -- Lucifer_Sponge, 12:18:37 11/07/01 Wed
Those are pretty sound theories, but I read in an interview a
while back that some of the actors weren't so comfortable with
all the singing, so he tried to write the episode around that.
Joss is actually NICE to his people.
So the lack of a Willow Solo wasn't due to the fact that Aly couldn't
sing... its that she didn't feel comfortable doing it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow's lack of a solo number...(spoilage for
the BEST EP EVER!) -- Rob, 12:40:00 11/07/01 Wed
I understand that there are real-life reasons behind Ally not
wanting to sing (being uncomfortable), but I also think there
may be valid reasons in the story why this works well, as illustrated
by what I said about the covering-up-of-her-addicton.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Willow's lack of a solo number...(spoilage
for the BEST EP EVER!) -- bible belt, 18:12:31 11/07/01 Wed
It seemed all the songs revealed negative feelings, except in
Tara's case. But then her feelings were manipulated by Willow.
Maybe Willow was becoming too comfortable. She didn't have any
bad mojo to reveal until Buffy's big revelation. I don't know
what else that might mean though. That's about as far as my brain
will let me take it at this point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow's lack of a solo number...(spoilage for the BEST
EP EVER!) -- anom, 20:26:54 11/07/01 Wed
"Could Willow have been using her powers to keep her secret
blocked? Or, possibly, she has been fooling herself so much that
she is in control of her powers and that it was not wrong to brainwash
Tara, that she started to believe it...thus she did not feel guilty
about it, and so did not sing about it."
Interesting that this was the one secret in the ep that was revealed
by speech (Dawn's), not song. And Dawn is also the one who keeps
a secret--her stealing.
I don't think guilt is what triggers the singing. Most of the
characters were keeping their secrets to try to spare someone
else's feelings: Xander & Anya about their doubts about marriage,
Giles about leaving Buffy, Buffy about what her friends did to
her. Well, the main characters anyway; mustard, math, & parking
tickets aren't secrets, & nobody's feelings were hurt by those
songs. And of course Tara's "Under Your Spell" isn't
about a secret at all. Hmm...except maybe the part about how low
her self-esteem used to be & still was sometimes, but it definitely
didn't do anything to hurt Willow's feelings. And it had nothing
to do w/guilt. In fact, if guilt were the trigger, Dawn probably
would have sung about the stealing.
Well, no conclusions here. Just some stuff to think about.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow's lack of a solo number...(spoilage for the BEST
EP EVER!) -- jim baird, 21:54:02 11/07/01 Wed
I completely agree. There may have been real-life reasons for
Willow's silence, but Joss has always been one to make lemonade.
I think, in the current context, Willow was the only one without
a "secret"; she doesn't think anything she's done is
wrong - she and Tara had a fight, she casts a spell, she "fixes"
it - no problem, in her eyes.
It's been there all along in Willow's character - the short sightedness,
the self absorbtion. I was just rewatching "Something Blue"
tonight (popped it in because I wanted to see the first Buffy/Spike
"hookup") Two interesting foreshadowings in that ep:
one, the chemistry between Buffy and Spike - even before Willow's
spell - was real. They hated each other, but they were definately
attracted. Also, once Willow's spell - which remember, only was
toe make B and S want to marry each other, not to change their
fundamental character - Spike becomes soliticous, respectful,
helps her friends, etc. All the things Spike has become since
he "came out of the closet" about his feelings for Buffy.
The other thing was Willow's behavior - she becomes so involved
in herself she is unable to think about anything but her pain,
and foolishly casts a hugely powerful spell becasue to refuses
to accept that she can't "fix" her pain. Again, all
things that have become clearer with time.
In retrospect, "Something Blue" - which seemed like
a throwaway at the time - may end up being one of the key eps
of the series in terms of revelation of character. This show never
ceases to amaze...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow's lack of a solo number...(spoilage for
the BEST EP EVER!) -- DEN, 05:08:17 11/08/01 Thu
Watching the reruns in forced-draft sequence on FX highlights
the heavy foreshadowing in the series. From the beginning, Willow
fixes things! At her sweaty-palmed geekiest, that has been her
role in the gang. It's how they define her and how she defines
herself. Is it any wonder that she has sought power in both the
material and magickal spheres (hacking and witchcraft). Her mistakes
in using power, her belief that power is an equivalent to emotional
maturity, are well demonstrated in ep after ep. But check her
face as Tara sings "Under Your Spell." No smugness there;
she's honestly happy for herself, and she's enjoying Tara's happiness.
She's contributing to it as well, if I read the scene's ending
right! Once again, Willow has fixed something.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Willow's lack of a solo number...(spoilage
for the BEST EP EVER!) -- CW, 05:27:17 11/08/01 Thu
Fixing is a good analogy. To Willow Buffy's death was wrong, so
she 'fixed' it. As of OMWF, she's beginning to learn some of her
fixes weren't as good as she thought.
Willow should have learned something about abuse of power from
Something Blue. But, she keeps making the same mistake. Magic
can't fix every problem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Willow's lack of a solo number...(spoilage
for the BEST EP EVER!) -- sanjerine, 09:16:43 11/08/01 Thu
To ramble broadly:
I like the point about Willow fixing things with magic. She IS
a fixer, she always has been -- from hacking, to fixing Angel's
soul, to helping Percy graduate, to helping Oz adjust to his wolfishness...
she's Buffy's big gun and always has been, even before the magic.
The Something Blue parallels -- yes. But even as far back as the
beginning, Willow really refuses to let things go without trying
to fix them. It's a tribute to her great heart and courage, but
the precipice is there from practically the first episode. Because
she's so damned competent, things actually do go as she envisions
them, for the most part.
And I think the main reason Will chose Tara over Oz is that there
was more good for her to do, there. With maybe the second reason
being that she had more control over Tara -- Oz never fell for
her sweet-talking and earnest attempts to fix their relationship.
Certainly Tara *is* some(thing) she's 'fixed' -- she brought her
into the same life that gave Willow so much power and personality.
And magic had a huge amount to do with their relationship from
the get-go, so it's been even harder for Willow to let go of the
magic for that reason. It's no longer one tool in her toolbox
-- it's her only sledgehammer.
And I said Tara is "something" because Willow's spell
in "All the Way" was a complete act of objectification
on Will's part -- but she said it as early as "Who Are You"
in 4th season:
"I just sort of like having something that's just, you know,
mine."
Tara is her biggest, best something. And until she gets that Tara
is her someONE, and that you can't make the universe go the way
you want it to by thinking about it, she's never gonna grow up.
The problem is, for Will ("Buff" and "Will,"
get it?) the universe DOES alter at her will, so she doesn't learn
that lesson. She's psychologically stunted because of it. Don't
want your best friend to be dead? Well, resurrect her. Don't want
to fight with your girlfriend? Well, alter her mind.
Yowch. Joss is EVIL.
--sanjerine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Excellent posts all! -- Dedalus,
09:24:27 11/08/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Willow's Problem With Magic -- vandalia,
13:59:24 11/08/01 Thu
Someone pointed this out in a fanfic (so I can't take credit for
it) but I think it sums up beautifully why Willow just can't seem
to 'do right' by her magical power.
To Willow, magic is just a skill, a tool. Its a science, like
chemistry or computer programming. 'If I just combine ingredient
A with incantation B and make sure symbol C is there as a backup,
we won't have a problem.'
To Tara, magic is a religion. There are certain things you do
and don't do with it, things you've taken an oath not to do (like
resurrect people) because its been decided to be against the 'natural
order of things.' Willow disagrees in her and Tara's argument.
'Well, you could fight demons naturally with sticks and stones,
but you don't have a problem using magic there.' (I'm paraphrasing,
doesn't seem like anyone has a transcript up yet).
Willow takes the practical stance with magic. If you got it, use
it. No big deal. Its like electricity. Noone argues over the relative
benefits of having an electric potato-peeler, even if its something
that could be done just as easily by hand. Same with the decorations.
If you can, why shouldn't you? She reminds me of the scientists
in Jurassic Park, whom Jeff Goldblum's character sums up excellently.
'You were so concerned with whether or not you could that you
didn't stop and think if you should.' Do you really need that
electric potato peeler? What happens when the power goes out and
you need to peel potatoes? The more you rely on something, be
it magic, oil, or a person, the more power you give it over you.
There's an old saying, 'When all you have is a hammer, everything
begins to look like a nail.' Willow has definitely entered the
city limits of Nailsville.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spike and Buffy in the Musical
-- Joy, 12:30:27 11/07/01 Wed
Last night's episode made me reflect on the Spike/Buffy dynamic
of this season. When she first arrived Spike was so happy she
was alive that he didn't mind the way she was using him. At first
it really seemed like Spike was the only one she let see her heart.
When life sucks, Buffy runs to Spike for a reminder of what to
live for.
Spike finally hit the point of saying enough during the musical.
He's been listening to Buffy bitch and moan about life and yet
she has no concept of what Spike might need out of the deal. Having
had one of those relationships I know it sucks. You love someone
and they love you but not the way you want but they depend on
you like they are in love with you so you keep hoping. Spike finally
said 'Until you decide what you want from me- leave.'
This is the part that kills me- Buffy still doesn't get it. She
is still freaked about being left that she doesn't understand
Spike still watching her back. She turns it into a 'you don't
want to be with me' thing. That was not Spike's song at all. His
song was all about how much he wanted to be with her but until
she wanted to be with him she needed to back off.
By the end of the episode, it is Spike that stops Buffy from dancing
to death. Once again is there to give her hope. He begs her to
live so one of them could... She still doesn't get it. He leaves
and she chases behind... not because she wants to check on him
or make sure he's okay but because she wants to feel something.
Being with Spike is all about the quick fix and not seeing what
he really has to offer her.
I bet that by next episode we are into denial city. The kiss will
be written off and Spike will be even more stuck. I so want Buffy
to have a break down where Dawn or Tara is the one to tell her
she has feelings for Spike. She needs some outside help.
Comments- reactions?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike and Buffy in the Musical (SPOILERS) -- zargon,
14:12:58 11/07/01 Wed
I interpreted the Buffy/Spike kiss as:
1) the traditional way to end a musical
2) Buffy just wanted to feel something. Since being resurrected,
she has not been feeling much of anything except loss and regret,
adn what she tells Spike in After LIfe: everything here is cold
and hard and bright. Throughout the musical, Buffy kept singing
about how she wanted to feel, for example in "Going through
the Motions", her ending line was that she just wanted to
feel "Alive". In "Into the Fire", she starts
out with "I touch the fire and it freezes me/I look into
it and its black/Why does my skin not crack and peel/I want the
fire back".
I saw Buffy kissing Spike the same as Angel boinking Darla in
Reprise; the "just wanting to feel something/anyting":
Angel: "I'm not playing. I just wanna feel something besides
the cold." Angel: "It doesn't matter. (Strokes the side
of her face) None of it matters."
I really did see her as torturing Spike more here. That she wants
to feel something is not wrong. That she wants to feel it with
the one person she knows has very strong, expressed, feeelings
for her while hers to him are very ambigious, is taking advantage
of Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spike and Buffy in the Musical -- Langst, 21:06:22 11/07/01
Wed
This is the part that kills me- Buffy still doesn't get it. She
is still freaked about being left that she doesn't understand
Spike still watching her back. She turns it into a 'you don't
want to be with me' thing.
Reply: I think she did get it, that Spike's got her back. If she
didn't think she could trust him, she wouldn't keep approaching
him, and wouldn't tell him her secrets and her frustrations. Buffy's
problem with Spike is that she's not sure that she can give him
what he wants.
She's going through the motions. Spike wants Buffy to love him,
and love is one of the most intense, fiery emotion. She can't
love if she's going through the motions.
>>She still doesn't get it. He leaves and she chases behind...
not because she wants to check on him or make sure he's okay but
because she wants to feel something. Being with Spike is all about
the quick fix and not seeing what he really has to offer her.
Reply: I agree. Being with Spike is wanting to feel. She sings
'give me something to sing about' before she starts combusting.
I interpretted those lines as Buffy acknowledging she's frozen
inside, and now she wants the fire/to live/to feel. Then she does
feel, but she almost implodes with the freed feelings until Spike
stops her. She runs after him because he can make her feel. Her
last lines 'This isn't real, but I just want to feel' could refer
to life--it's not real because she can't feel anything, but she
wants to try it anyway. A starting point is with Spike, the person
she's closest to this season. But I don't think it's a quick fix.
I think it's the beginning of Buffy integrating back into life.
Healing.
After that, she may be fully equipped emotionally to deal with
Spike, and Spike's needs. That is, if she can resolve the whole
falling for a soulless vamp thing. But that's another subject.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike and Buffy in the Musical -- Dedalus, 09:19:05
11/08/01 Thu
Well, I can't go along with the Buffy using Spike thing.
The only time I really felt sorry for Spike was Crush, but then
again, he did zap her with a cattle prod even in that instance.
The first time I loved them together was the scene on the back
porch in Fool for Love. And I thought they had established a little
bit of a truce by the one where she kissed him at the end after
he was tortured by Glory. And you had the scene in the Gift where
she let him back in the house.
I love Spike, but some people do have a tendency to forget that
- even as late as the end of season four - he was still plotting
the death of the Scooby Gang, and he reiterated again and again
how he "hated them all." That is a lot to get over.
If Buffy was real, they should have staked Spike when he first
came to them for help, and it's as simple as that. I'm glad they
didn't, but still, he was a very dangerous vampire that thrived
on torture and destruction.
Also, look at what Buffy went through with Angel. I think that
plays a lot into this how she reacts to Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most horrifying moment...
(****Spoilers for OMWF****) -- Lucifer_Sponge, 13:25:31 11/07/01
Wed
The most gut wrenching moment, in my oh so humble opinion, was
when Buffy finally told everyone where she'd really been over
the summer.
Just the look on Willow's face... that feeling of complete shock
and horror. Imagine how guilty she must feel now. She's the one
who's responsible for tearing Buffy out of eternal rest and peace.
I really want to hate Willow for what she did to Tara, but for
Christ's sake... you've got to feel at least little sorry for
the girl.
I just hope they explore all that guilt and self-blame she must
be feeling. I mean, I hope the next episode isn't just about her
and Tara working through what Willow did... Willow seemed completely
disgusted with herself when Buffy let out her secret, and I for
one think it would be a big mistake to just let that go.
~Sponge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The most horrifying moment... (****Spoilers for OMWF****)
-- Becky74, 14:00:35 11/07/01 Wed
I don't think Willow is going to take this revelation as motivation
to change her ways. I think she's going to decide that even though
she screwed up, she still has the power to fix it, and she will
try to fix it by making Buffy forget she was in Heaven (I think
this was revealed already in spoilers). She is so full of her
power that she thinks she can fix anything. I think it will be
a long time before Willow realizes she has to go cold turkey.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Just a warning...MAJOR SPOILER FOR NEXT EP IN PREVIOUS
POST -- Rob, 14:41:53 11/07/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The most horrifying moment... (****Spoilers for
OMWF& next ep****) -- Joy, 08:16:30 11/08/01 Thu
I'm with you. Willow needs a huge wake up call... like maybe she
should be turned into a rat for a while...
The fact that she is arogant enough to try to erase Buffy's memory
to 'fix' her is insane. I just so want them to let her be the
baddy for this season so we can get on with completely hating
her for being a manipulative little...witch.
So I have real hostility issues with Willow right now. I'm still
so pissed off at her for threatening Giles I can't see her as
a good guy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> In defense of Willow... -- WillowFan, 09:32:02
11/08/01 Thu
Giles did call her a "stupid girl," which is very insulting.
He didn't have to be so obnoxious. I thought she was just standing
up for herself, by saying, "Hey, I'm no longer the nerdy
little high school girl you're used to. Don't think of me that
way anymore, and certainly don't treat me that way." This
seemed to be the only way to get Giles to listen to her. In her
next breath, she did try to reconcile with Giles, and, this time,
Giles actually seemed to be listening to her.
Except for killing the fawn for Buffy's resurrection ritual and
casting a forgetting spell on Tara -- which directly hurt other
living things -- I have no problem with all of Willow's magic.
I don't know why everyone gives her a hard time about it. Is she
any more "addicted" to being a witch than Buffy is to
being a slayer, or Giles to being a watcher, or Anya to consistently
referring to her demon past? Willow is a witch. She's just being
who she is.
Tangentially, I find it interesting that Willow has to be more
"in the closet" about using witchcraft than about being
gay.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> As we've discussed before... -- Solitude1056,
10:12:24 11/08/01 Thu
Giles did call her a "stupid girl," which is very insulting.
He didn't have to be so obnoxious. I thought she was just standing
up for herself, by saying, "Hey, I'm no longer the nerdy
little high school girl you're used to. Don't think of me that
way anymore, and certainly don't treat me that way." This
seemed to be the only way to get Giles to listen to her. In her
next breath, she did try to reconcile with Giles, and, this time,
Giles actually seemed to be listening to her.
Unfortunately, Giles was also upbraiding her for doing something
that in his opinion was as dangerous as driving drunk or shooting
up heroin. Her response was essentially, "I can handle it."
As I've said in earlier posts right after this episode, of course
Giles is going to shut up - she's just demonstrated that she is
not listening, anymore than the idiot with their sixth beer in
one hand and the car keys in the other.
Except for killing the fawn for Buffy's resurrection ritual and
casting a forgetting spell on Tara -- which directly hurt other
living things -- I have no problem with all of Willow's magic.
Those are two pretty damn BIG things, though. One involves killing,
and the other is mind-control. And don't forget her willingness
to "shift everyone into an alternate dimenions except for
15-yr-old girls" - I'd put that down under 'solution out
of proportion to problem.' Willow's magick in & of itself is not
necessarily bad, on average. The point was that she uses it as
a first recourse, instead of a last choice, and way too much.
Like the alcoholic who finds a reason to have alcohol with every
meal & a few in-between, Willow takes every opportunity to suggest
using magick when simple material actions or items would suffice.
Is she any more "addicted" to being a witch than Buffy
is to being a slayer, or Giles to being a watcher, or Anya to
consistently referring to her demon past? Willow is a witch. She's
just being who she is.
Yikes. Are what you eat, are what you do. I won't repeat the thread
here, but we discussed the question of Giles and magick. Many
of us concluded that a 'knack' may lead one to a skill, but that
passion makes us good at it. Willow has a knack for magick, and
a passion for it, but that doesn't make her entire identity that
of this one particular talent. Wrapping her up in that label is
just repeating, IMO, the same mis-step the character herself has
done, so many times: seeing herself, limited, within the labels
she creates for herself or believes others perceive her as.
Tangentially, I find it interesting that Willow has to be more
"in the closet" about using witchcraft than about being
gay.
I'd say that's entirely by Willow's own choice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I'm a huge Willow fan, but ya gotta
admit...she's got serious (disturbing) issues at the moment! --
Rob, 12:28:26 11/08/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Eating crow...it was horrifying for me too... -- bible
belt, 17:49:07 11/07/01 Wed
Willow and I have a lot in common...I feel about as low as she
does. Nether one of us wanted to admit Buffy might have been anywhere
but in a Hell Dimension.
I also feel pretty low because I didn't reprogram my vcr to record
the last ten minutes of the episode. I was convinced she was in
an unknown place and the moment she revealed to the SG where she
thought she was my vcr timed out. Is somebody trying to tell me
something? LOL
I don't have anything clever to say about the episode. I loved
it, at least what I saw of it. I'm sure the last ten minutes of
it was great too.:):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> That's strange . . . -- d'Herblay, 21:42:40 11/07/01
Wed
. . . the same thing happened to me. (I did catch it in time to
see the end of Sweet's swan song, but I was very confused.) Uh-oh
. . .
(sounds of convictions crumbling)
. . . that's it people!! The science/skepticism department of
the Buffyversity is closing up shop!! From now on, we'll be offering
courses in incense burning and tambourine banging!! No prereqs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life........Gift...or....Hell?
-- Rufus, 17:30:27 11/07/01 Wed
The saddest part of last night was that final truth, that nut
crunching admission of where Buffy was....no wonder it was off
key because Buffy doesn't feel that life is a melody.
Buffy: There was no pain..No fear, no doubt.....Till they pulled
me out....Of heaven...So that's my refrain...I live in hell...Cause
I've been expelled from heaven....I think I was in heaven....So
give me something to sing about...Please give me something.........
Spike: Life's not a song......Life isn't bliss..Life is just this...It's
living....You'll get along...The pain that you feel...Only can
heal...By living...Have to go on living...So that one of us is
living.........
Buffy has been in a pain that is indescribable as only she knows
what she lost being dragged away from her bliss. She has been
going through the motions and getting absolutely no joy out of
living.....her actions an approximation of what she remembers
she used to do. She no longer has anything to sing about as this
life is Hell to her....painful...and in our experience of time....eternal.
A punishment given to her from her friends....she gave the world
a Gift....and she was rewarded by a return to the struggle of
life. If she had started to really burn, would she have felt it?
Sweet's last words were as evil as the worst Big Bad....
Sweet: And there's not a one who can say this ended well...All
those secrets you've been concealing....Say you're happy now....Once
more with feeling....
Sweet can't be killed because the truth, once told can't be killed.....it
can be glossed over....twisted..but the truth remains the same.
Willow will eventually suffer every bit as much a Buffy as her
addiction to her Will is the thing that will cause much destruction.
As for Buffy......Spike, the Undead English Patient, is the one
that softly told her the biggest truth....life is what you make
it.....and that is done by living. For some reason Buffy needs
Spike (not just sex here folks), her constant need to go "see"
him confuse her.....it's like he knows something she doesn't or
that he has a part to play in making her whole. Her friends brought
her back to hell, Spike is helping her understand that hell is
only as bad as you make it. Buffy needs something to sing about
and the only one that she sought out at the end of this episode
was Spike...or will she just continue to go through the motions
with him too?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Life........Gift...or....Hell? -- Tillow, 17:50:34 11/07/01
Wed
Sweet can't be killed because the truth, once told can't be killed.....
Good point. Reminds me of Willow's 'Forget' spell. Tara found
out eventually and the damage is worse than the original fight.
For some reason Buffy needs Spike (not just sex here folks), her
constant need to go "see" him confuse her.....it's like
he knows something she doesn't or that he has a part to play in
making her whole. Her friends brought her back to hell, Spike
is helping her understand that hell is only as bad as you make
it.
I read a fan fic where the author used the Orpheus myth to have
Spike lead Buffy out of the underworld and back to life. That's
what's been happening this season I think, culminating in him
telling her "Life's not a song...etc." The demon in
her life is helping her make sense of hell. He's man enough for
her to be comfortable with, he's loyal, he's not responsible for
her current *torture* and he's ok in the hell that Buffy finds
so hard to take. He's done just fine there for over a century.
Where does that leave Spike? *sniffle* I can't bear to think about
it but pragmatically, I don't think he'll leave Buffy because
that's the pattern that the writers need to break. Spike stays.
The question of the chip is the only problem... AH! Such a good
episode... so many questions!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's funny is that everyone
makes a big deal about Willow and Tara kissing... -- Lucifer_Sponge,
18:47:11 11/07/01 Wed
...and yet no one seems to be saying anything about the... err...
the volume. The text.
Or as we realversers call it; oral sex.
Holy Christ. I never thought Joss would dare do something THAT
blatant. But then again, considering all the heterosexual play
and forplay that goes on in the show, it's only fair.
Could this be a result of UPN's decidedly flexible guidlines?
I thought it was the funniest scene ever... funny in a sweet,
romantic way, I mean. Im just a little baffled that when Willow
and Tara kiss everyone makes a big fart about it, and yet Joss
goes and does THIS, and no one says a word.
~Sponge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Who made such a big deal about their kissing? IMO, it has
been very uncontroversial. -- A8, 18:55:13 11/07/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: When I say "big deal"... -- Lucifer_Sponge,
19:05:41 11/07/01 Wed
I mean that it was talked about. I've seen it... on this board
a little bit and in other places a LOT. Joss said he had a little
trouble getting their first kiss past the WB censors, and a lot
of people seem to notice that they've been kissing a lot more
since the show switched networks... calling into to question just
-how- lenient UPN censors are. And you know what? From OMWF, I
think we can say that they're VERY lenient.
This isn't a matter of "oohhh, look what Tara and Willow
are doing". It's a matter of "oohhh, look what Joss
is allowed to make Willow and Tara do without the network getting
all pissy at him."
I was just confused that people have brought up kissing and censors
before, but no one's brought up... umm... volumey texts and censors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: When I say "big deal"... -- maddog,
07:39:40 11/08/01 Thu
I think UPN is thanking their lucky stars that they could afford
Buffy and that the WB was dumb enough not to shell out what it
was worth...with that said do you really think they're going to
say no to Joss on just about anything?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> It's because willows are trees and not... -- Cleanthes,
18:56:19 11/07/01 Wed
The moon to the tide I can feel you inside
I'm under your spell Surging like the sea Wanting you so helplessly
I break with every swell Lost in ecstasy Spread beneath my willow
tree
I know and you know what's "spread", but you gotta pay
attention!
See, if willows were bushes or beavers, well then everyone would
have had a whole lot of big deal to make because they would have
NOTICED. It's surprising how overt one can be when one is just
a little bit scalene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Double entendre was the theme of the night... -- A8,
19:01:30 11/07/01 Wed
...from Tara's tune to Xander's ode to Anya's tight...uh...embrace.
Very clever. Probably too clever for most network censors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Network sensors by definition aren't very bright
-- vampire hunter D, 19:10:45 11/07/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Hmm I would have just thought it was a Canadian production....:):):)
-- Rufus, 21:15:28 11/07/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: It's because willows are trees and not... -- RichardX1,
06:58:05 11/08/01 Thu
And here I thought I was so smart realizing what Tara meant by
Willow making her cum...plete. Yeah, complete, that's the ticket.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: It's because willows are trees and not...
-- Rob, 09:30:58 11/08/01 Thu
Yeah, just for the record...I have to say that the end of "Under
Your Spell" was the funniest...and also sweetest moment I
think that was ever on the show.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Death Wish & The Kiss (Spoilers
for OMWF) -- Malandanza, 10:09:36 11/08/01
Spike: Every Slayer has a death wish... (FFL)
Before this season, Buffy has not exhibited much of a "death
wish," contrary to Spike's ramblings. In fact, Spike recognizes
that Buffy's friends and family have kept her tied to life.
Spike: 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.
At the end of season five, with everything in her life slipping
from her, Buffy's decision to sacrifice herself may have, in part,
been influenced by the first inklings of a death wish. But her
mindset in The Gift was considerably more positive than her post-resurrection
ennui. In fact, if there has ever had a death wish, it is this
season. She has literally lost heaven -- what can her previous
losses have been by comparison? So she sleepwalks through her
life:
Buffy: Going through the motions Walking through the part Nothing
seems to penetrate my heart (Once More, With Feeling)
Even Giles wonders if she has given up on life:
Giles: Is my slayer too far gone to care? (Once More, With Feeling)
Yet she is aware of her condition and wants to change it. She
is numbed to reality; she wants to be able to feel something --
anything...
Buffy: I touch the fire, and it freezes me I look into it, and
it's black Why can't I feel? My skin should crack and peel I want
the fire back
(Once More, With Feeling)
Buffy fights vampires and demons halfheartedly. Giles did a better
job killing vamps in All the Way than Buffy did and in OMWF, the
demons and vamps notice that she "She's not even half the
girl she..." used to be. And the final kiss with Spike wasn't
about passion, love or sex -- it was about sensation. Buffy wants
something to drag her back into the world and make her care again.
But we've seen this before -- with Noir Angel and Faith.
Angel sought oblivion in Darla's arms -- looking for that "moment
of true happiness" (which he had thought was a Gypsy euphemism
for sex :). Faith went on a rampage -- ending locked in a near-suicidal
battle with Angel. Each of them had a death wish; both sought
annihilation of the self. Now Buffy is at (or near to) the same
mindset, as Spike predicted back in FFL:
Spike: Sooner or later, you're gonna want it and the second, the
second...that happens, I pray to God I'm there. I'll slip in -
have myself a real good day.
Or at least a real good night.
Looking back at Faith's collapse in Five by Five, I think we would
all have been shocked and horrified to see Angel carry off a shattered
Faith to his bed for a night of "passion." It would
have been too awful to see him take such advantage of the girl
after her emotional collapse. Yet, people are looking forward
to Spike and Buffy in bed together (and feeling sorry for Spike!
because Buffy doesn't really love him!) Remember: Spike is evil.
p.s. thanks to Cleanthes for posting the lyrics! Other quotes
from Psyche
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> kudos - excellent points! -- Solitude1056, 10:13:51 11/08/01
Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Death Wish & The Kiss (Spoilers for OMWF) -- zargon,
10:43:59 11/08/01 Thu
Malandanza writes: Looking back at Faith's collapse in Five by
Five, I think we would all have been shocked and horrified to
see Angel carry off a shattered Faith to his bed for a night of
"passion." It would have been too awful to see him take
such advantage of the girl after her emotional collapse. Yet,
people are looking forward to Spike and Buffy in bed together
(and feeling sorry for Spike! because Buffy doesn't really love
him!) Remember: Spike is evil.
I guess I'm confused here. Is your point: It's okay for Buffy
to use Spike because he is evil; he's not a person, but an evil
Vamp, so it doesn't count?
I'm not a big Spike fan. I don't care if we ever have Spuffy or
not. BUT I do object to Buffy, who is a human and has a soul (and
by extension a conscience), taking emotional advantage of another
being. That being is Spike, who is a vampire, and by definition
evil (no soul, no conscience, carries a chip), but he does have
feelings, particularly feelings for her. Is it okay for Buffy
to play with Spike, because, after all, he is evil? Have we seen
Spike play with beings emotionally, so that when Buffy plays with
Spike we can call it justice?
I just don't think it is okay or that it reflects well on Buffy
that she chooses to play this game. Reminds me of Darla liking
to play with her food. Yes, Spike is a vamp, and if Buffy as the
slayer chooses to stake him for being a vamp, I would accept that.
But Buffy kissing Spike just because she wants to feel something,
anything, and she knows he won't object or resist because he has
feelings for her, to me, is taking advantage of another's emotions
and to me, this shows Buffy is weak morally (is the proper term
for how I feel about this the Cordy "ewwwww" or the
SG "wigs me out"?).
Would we really wanna see Buffy going out every week and slaying
vamps emotionally as well as physically? I'm sure she could go
kiss them all before she stakes them if she chose. But she doesn't.
Why is that? Perhaps because it would lower her to their level....We
have been shown Vampires playing with their victims, even those
victims which they have just met and for which they have no prior
knowlege or attachment to. We have been told Vamps can smell fear,
and that it makes the blood more tasty; plus there's the whole
vamp mission of wanting to cause as much mayhem and destruction
as possible (Angelus torturing Dru before vamping her comes to
mind).
But Buffy is not a vamp. She's a human being, so she should act
like one. Is Buffy playing with Spike any diffferent than Willow
altering Tara's memories with a spell?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Death Wish & The Kiss (Spoilers for OMWF) -- dsf,
11:23:01 11/08/01 Thu
I think the original post's point was that Spike is taking advantage
of Buffy's shattered state; the really noble thing to do would
be to refuse the kiss until she'd had time to recover. That being
said, one doesn't have to be a conscienceless demon to fall short
of that level of nobility, at least for the duration of a kiss.
I agree that Buffy isn't acting very nobly either. But she isn't
playing with him for amusement. She's desperate, nearly suicidal
with anomie from heaven-withdrawal, and her drive to seek out
some kind of connection with life is not evil; it's just a life-wish,
what she has left of one. Taking advantage of Spike's passion
for her may not be the right thing to do, but she's fighting for
her life. And he isn't quite an innocent bystander. He could say
no. From next week's trailer, it appears that one or both of them
*does* say no before they go any further.
That makes the kiss different from Willow's tampering with Tara's
memories. Willow never gave Tara a chance to say no.
dsf
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Exactly! Couldn't have said it better...:) --
Tillow, 11:28:36 11/08/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Death Wish & The Kiss (Spoilers for OMWF)
-- Rob, 11:38:10 11/08/01 Thu
I don't see Buffy's kissing Spike as using him. Consistently,
throughout this season, he has proven to be the only one she fully
trusts and confides in. Out of all of her friends, he is the only
one who stands in to stop her from dancing to death. He cares
about her the most. I think people are taking Buffy's sung line
"I know this isn't real..." too literally. I don't think
that means that she has no feelings for him, and she's using him.
I think it means a mixture of (a) she can't believe this is happening
and (b) nothing seems real to her at the moment. She wants to
feel love and passion...to feel alive, which she hasn't since
she has returned. Another issue is, remember, this is a musical!
Everyone was under a spell, saying and singing things they had
kept revealed for a long, long time. Buffy's inner feelings for
Spike were brought out into the open. No, I don't think she would
have done this were she not under the spell...(Well, perhaps,
she would have but it would have taken a great deal more time
for her to come around.)But the nature of the spell was to get
the characters to wear their hearts on their sleeves, to be overwhelmed
by emotion, which leads to passion and smoochies. And yes, by
God, I'm Glad Glad Glad she did it!
I also don't agree that Spike is "evil." Whatever one's
own opinion may be about Spike having changed since the series
began, I don't think there is any doubt that now on the show,
Spike's personality is a shade of gray, not black or white. The
rule that all vampires are evil does not apply anymore, and I
believe that makes Spike's story all the more compelling and fascinating.
Even before he was "chipped," he was capable of more
love and emotion than most other vampires, as evidenced by his
love for Dru. This is a further extension of that. But enough
about my "Spike is not evil anymore" rant...
Anyway, not sure how to wrap up, so I'll just stop typing and
sign my name. Heh heh.
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Death Wish & The Kiss (Spoilers for
OMWF) -- Boxdman, 12:02:18 11/08/01 Thu
I don't think Spike is evil either. In the past he has been selfish
and self-involved (I know a couple of people like that) but I
don't think he's evil. Now some people will come out and say,
"He's a murderer." Well, he has killed people and enjoyed
it but that's what vampires do. The only exception to this rule
is Angel. We are all products of society and his societal influences
were Dru (who's crazy), Darla (who is evil), and Angelus (who
was probably one of the most evil vampires ever). I find it interesting
that in spite of these influences he still really fed on humans
for food. Yeah, he would scare people before he killed them but
he explained that one time - the blood tasted better (probably
because of the adreneline in their blood).
Now I think we've seen a change in him. Yes, he likes a good fight
so the fighting of the forces of evil doesn't show that he's changed
since that's all he can do. The big change I see is in him protecting
Dawn while Buffy was dead. It was his first truly selfless act.
No one can say it was to make Buffy love him - she wasn't coming
back - he was doing it out of loyalty to other people (Buffy,
Dawn, and Joyce). And he probably would have tried to keep taking
care of Dawn for the rest of her life. Who knows, maybe he would
have become a sort of family protector with Dawn's children coming
under her protection. But we'll never know.
What I do know is that chip isn't going to be working forever,
electronic stuff ususally goes just after the warrenty, and I
think the warrenty is just about up. Then I think that Spike will
go through a bit of identity crisis but he'll come down on the
right side (whether he'll have done too much for the Scoobies
to accept him will be interesting). Anyway that's my incoherent
rant. Thanks for listening.
Boxdman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> re:boxdman's post on Spike's evil
-- pagangodess, 19:03:17 11/11/01 Sun
your post :"...in spite of all these influences he still
really fed on humans for food."
I believe he got the name 'Spike', because he used to torture
his victims with railroad spikes.
I could be wrong though. pagangodess
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Railroad spikes as Victorian
urban myth. -- Wisewoman, 11:45:45 11/12/01 Mon
In Fool for Love we get to see how Spike chose his nickname, not
because he used railroad spikes to torture his victims, but because
as a human being his poetry was so "bloody awful." Someone
commented they'd rather have a railroad spike through the head
than listen to any more of "William the Bloody's" verses.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Railroad spikes
as Victorian urban myth. -- pagangodess, 19:55:26 11/13/01 Tue
That is why they call you 'Wisewoman'. Thanks for taking care
of me, the newbie. However, in the episode where Spike first makes
an appearance (can't remember which one, and too lazy to look
it up), Giles researches the subject - Spike - and says that is
how Spike got his name. You know, i will take the time and look
into this ( when I find the time, that is).
Thanks again, pagangodess
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Railroad spikes
as Victorian urban myth. -- Rahael, 05:51:51 11/14/01 Wed
I always thought that Spike the Vampire acted on the insult to
his poetry by making the critic's wish come true.
"So you'd rather have spikes through your head than listen
to my poetry? Let me oblige!" and thus his name was born.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Death Wish & The Kiss (Spoilers for
OMWF) -- maddog, 09:09:11 11/09/01 Fri
While it may not be just "black or white" don't think
for a second that if that chip wasn't there Spike wouldn't be
trying to tear their heads off. :(
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Death Wish & The Kiss (Spoilers
for OMWF) -- Deeva, 11:32:14 11/09/01 Fri
Well, I think that all that "conditioning" would cause
Spike to think for a second before "trying to tear their
heads off". And that moment of thought would be all the diference.
In vampire time, that's a huge thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Death Wish & The Kiss
(Spoilers for OMWF) -- AudreyX, 13:01:14 11/10/01 Sat
Spike has always killed for a reason. I just finished watching
seasons 1&2+Lover's walk for the first time and Spike has
always always killed with a purpose whether it be for food, or
love, or simply bordom there's always been a motive. I don't believe
Spike's evil (I don't think Darla or Dru are either) But I do
think for the most part he has "Bad" motives, and that
may not entirely be his fault. I think the most I was ever shocked
or upset or (almost) afraid of his behaivior was in Lover's Walk,
and he was only acting that way because he wanted Dru back. Yeah
he has a demon, but as I've seen with Angel and his time in Pylea,
demons(atleast the one's that inhabit vampire's) arent very articulate
beings, but humans are, and human emotions can cause more damage
than a whole horde of blood-thirsty demons. Love makes Spike do
the wacky, always has. Would we have been more shocked if Spike
had shot Buffy , or if William shot Cecily! Humans committ murders
all the time, and alot more violently than any vampire on btvs.
We so easily say Spike is evil, well is Willow evil? We haven't
quite figured that out yet have we? Well I don't think she is,
and I don't think Spike is either, we all have our weaknesses,
and we can all do horrendous things, and people's conscenses haven't
alway's stopped them from doing them. I think Xander is very much
responsible for those people's death's, but I would laugh at anyone
who ever called him evil. I think Spike can have some awful ideas,
and without a soul he would very likely act upon them, but he
shouldn't be so easily labled, I don't think its right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Rob's post on Spike's evilness --
pagangodess, 10:35:30 11/09/01 Fri
Spoilers for Book Three of Unseen:The Long Way Home In this book
the very last chapter finds Spike in London of 1880, where he's
hiding in the alley after being turned down by his love. Angel
and the gang find him. However, Spike, now given the choice, runs
from them. Leaving me to believe that, if he had to do it over
again he would chose not to become evil and would rather come
back to present day with a chip, than live and evil life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Death wish -- Rufus, 15:27:35 11/08/01 Thu
Spike is evil......sure but just how evil now? At the end of the
show it was Spike that reached out to Buffy to draw her back into
life, into living. I think that is an important moment. What would
an evil vampire do that for? At the crypt Spike tried to get rid
of Buffy before he sang his guts out. Spike is evil but he is
not the evil vampire he used to be. As for the kiss....Spike urged
Buffy to go back to her friends for the final group hug and it
was Buffy who chose to stay with him. She was very involved in
the kiss, it wasn't initiated by one person. I don't think that
either party is taking advantage of the other but acting in the
moment. For some reason these characters are drawn to each other
and relate to each other in a way they didn't before. Who knows
where it will end up. But I think it's a different relationship
now.....I do think that Buffy cares for the former enemy in a
way that she would never have considered before. Spike has become
too complex to simply say he is evil then disregard what he is
doing as meaningless.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Fire Imagery -- rowan, 17:00:45 11/08/01
Thu
I think that perhaps a careful reading of the fire imagery in
the musical might be illuminating. We seemed to have two types
of fire: positive energy and negative energy. Sweet's spell to
'open hearts' results in spontaneous combusion and death to those
who can't handle the truth. That is one type of fire. The other
fire is the spark that Giles' refers to that Buffy is missing
-- the spark of emotional connection to life.
Buffy recognizes that she 'needs her fire back'. But she becomes
confused throughout the course of the musical which type of fire
to embrace: Sweet's (which is another image for a death wish,
or a wish for sweet oblivion) or the fire of life. In the penultimate
scene, Buffy asks for 'something to sing about', reveals the secret
that she was torn out of heaven, and begins to catch on fire.
She is succumbing to Sweet's fire. She is giving in to the death
wish.
Spike comes in and stops her. He represents, ironically, another
form of fire -- the appreciation for life. He feels that fire
of life as a result of his love for Buffy -- it is a torch that
is burning and purifying him from the inside out. Although dead,
he knows the truth about what life is: it's not a song (Sweet),
it's not bliss (the heaven Buffy lost), it's this -- living. He
just tells her the secret to life is just to go on living; the
pain lessens and the connection grows. He puts out Sweet's fire
(the symbolic death wish). Spike's 'one good day' is now transmuted
not into the day he kills Buffy, but the day he saves her from
her death wish. Unable to play the hero in The Gift, he now manages
to assume that role both by the wisdom of his words and the gentleness
of his deeds.
The kiss at the end symbolizes BUffy's acknowledgement of Spike's
words. She's survived the songworld, she's tired of feeling disconnection
since her return from bliss. She knows those things aren't real
-- she just wants to feel. So she throws herself into an entirely
different sort of fire.
Burn, baby, burn.
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Fire Imagery -- Cactus Watcher,
17:14:59 11/08/01 Thu
Question for rowan: Buffy's first lines in the song are - I touch
the fire, it freezes me. Is this 'fire' the one of the death wish,
the fire for life, or both? I'd like to know your opinion, since
I think either is possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Fire Imagery -- rowan,
17:49:51 11/08/01 Thu
I think someone could probably write a doctoral thesis on this
imagery. Joss is using the same image with subtle shadings to
mean entirely different things. It's the same problem with Buffy's
last line. Spike also sings about how she is always drawn to the
fire...which sounds like her death wish.
*sigh*
Okay, back to the question. I think at that point she is talking
about the fire of life and how she feels disconnected. Later in
the song, when Spike and others start talking about being drawn
to the fire, I think that might be the death wish.
All I can figure is that Joss is trying to say that there's a
very thin line between too little, too much, and just enough emotion
-- and a very thin line between a love of life and a wish for
death. There's also a disturbing amount of equating sex with death
in here too.
Confusing...and provocative.
rowan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Fire Imagery --
Rufus, 18:12:22 11/08/01 Thu
Confusing....and provocative.
Now rowan, would we really have it any other way???? ;)
Buffy has less a death wish and more a bliss wish, she just see's
death as a stepladder to the bliss she is now missing in life.
Spike was right, the only way to heal her current pain is to live
on through it and renew that spark she always had. The truth coming
out will be step one. She had to get that one out, so everyone
would know why she is so lifeless. Spike did finally get to save
Buffy, from herself. An hopefully start her back on the path she
was meant to travel. I don't beieve that Buffy would be back if
it wasn't meant to be. She still doesn't know what she is and
I think it's time she finally find out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Confusing
...and provocative -- CW, 19:06:07 11/08/01 Thu
This is certainly a topic where it seems that there is only more
and more depth. Thanks rowan and Rufus!
In Fool for Love, Spike points out that curiousity about what
death is like, is something a Slayer can't avoid. But, now Buffy
knows what death is like. Yes, she'd like that bliss again, but
she'd also like the thrill of risking her life, of being on the
edge death again. It's that danger that Faith loved and Buffy
more than understood. Now even that 'fire' leaves Buffy cold.
She wants something, anything "to sing about," a reason
either to live or die.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "I
fall upon the thorns of life! I bleed!" -- Rahael, 05:02:24
11/09/01 Fri
The quote is from Shelley's 'Ode to the West Wind', and it seems
appropriate in discussing the fire imagery imo.
The fire imagery seems to go back to the vision of the first slayer
that Buffy had. We focussed on the image of a roaring fire, while
the Slayer told her that she 'burns with love'. And of course,
this fire will lead her to her death, which is her gift.
It seems to me that Buffy's lines "I touch the fire and it
freezes me" is a classic 'depressive' line, which as has
been pointed out above, signals her disconnection from life. She
is numb to life. The fire is the emotion that she used to feel
- love,joy,grief anger...now she is emotionless. She wants to
be consumed with emotion, as she had been before.
Of course, too much emotion is also dangerous. Sweet appears to
make people combust with an overabandunce of feeling.....And for
Spike, who is 'love's fool' emotion both makes him feel alive,
and enslaves him.
Going back to Shelley, the Romantic movement prized emotion and
feeling as a way of tuning into the world...pain, joy etc was
natural, even desirable. One could also look at Keat's Ode to
a Nightingale ...."Now more than ever, it seems rich to die........to
take into the air my quiet breath/ while you are pouring forth
your soul in such an ecstasy!" Here again we have the linkage
of an excessive emotion, death, and joy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ecstasy
& death have long been linked -- verdantheart, 06:48:07 11/09/01
Fri
Love Ode to the West Wind ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It
all hangs upon a knife's edge... -- rowan, 06:56:18 11/09/01 Fri
"Of course, too much emotion is also dangerous. Sweet appears
to make people combust with an overabandunce of feeling.....And
for Spike, who is 'love's fool' emotion both makes him feel alive,
and enslaves him.:
Yes, the fire has a duality. Not enough is bad, too much is bad,
just enough is just right (kind of like the temperature of porridge,
in a way, *g*). Also, in the songworld, getting the mustard out
and evading a parking ticket are equally as songworthy as confessing
you've been dragged out of heaven...hence the reason one couldn't
live there. Everything is important and so nothing is important.
It's a world with so much pleasure and no pain, that the pleasure
becomes the pain and we die...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> That isn't real? Or this isn't.
-- Rochefort, 19:12:22 11/08/01 Thu
Rowan,
She says "this" isn't real (what she's doing now). Not
"that" isn't real (where she came from). I was thinking
she meant kissing Spike wasn't real, which is such an ugly sentiment.
I hope you're right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That isn't real? Or this
isn't. -- rowan, 20:14:49 11/08/01 Thu
Well, of course, everyone will debate what that phrase meant for
a long time. Joss is certainly clever enough to devise lyrics
that can simultaneously support both interpretations.
Here's the thing. This is a standard musical convention in which
the hero and heroine reprise their themes before coming together.
Spike feels alive with Buffy. Buffy wants to feel again. The answer
for both is their union. That's why I think the words support
the B/S is *real* interpretation more so than the other. But I
certainly concede the other interpretation is very valid and may
turn out to be true.
Part of the issue is that no one (except perhaps Dawn) treats
Spike as real. That links Spike thematically to Dawn, BTW. No
one (not even Buffy, judging by Spike's song) really sees him.
He is not human and therefore they don't empathize with him in
the same way they do with humans. Note that makes them...no better
than he is when he is preying on humans for food. So Buffy's last
line is also a play on the that theme as well...if we accept she
says the moment with Spike isn't real, then we accept also that
Spike isn't real, either. He is the dead man he claims to be.
But is that true? Since Buffy returned from heaven, Spike is actually
the only thing connecting her to life. She's detached from everyone
(including Dawn) except for Spike. He's the one who gets her trust,
he gets her to laugh, he gets her to go out and get drunk, etc.
Note he is also the one to light the spark of sexual awareness
in her and also the one who hurts her feelings when he sings she
should stay away. So, I think we might be safe to say that Spike's
perceptions in his song are not 100% true. Buffy doesn't see him
as dead. In fact, he's the only one she can stand to be around
(her words) and the one who connects her to everyone else (note
all the symbolism about who is holding hands with whom in the
penultimate scene, etc.).
That's why I don't think embracing Spike means Buffy is embracing
a death wish. I think she was walking away from the death wish,
towards life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That isn't real?
Or this isn't. -- JBone, 20:25:08 11/08/01 Thu
In fact, he's the only one she can stand to be around (her words)
and the one who connects her to everyone else (note all the symbolism
about who is holding hands with whom in the penultimate scene,
etc.).
Did you notice that Buffy and Willow were at opposite ends of
the line? How many interpretations can you come up with for that?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That isn't
real? Or this isn't. -- rowan, 20:40:40 11/08/01 Thu
They (ME and actors) kept warning us that this ep was crucial
for the remainder of the season story arcs. There was also a point
where I think Willow was separating Spike and Buffy. I expect
Willow jealousy over Buffy's involvement with Spike to also get
mixed into this mess.
This ep is almost another Restless in the amount of imagery begging
to be decoded.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Buffy's Shadow.... --
Rufus, 22:47:31 11/08/01 Thu
If you look at Buffy's life as one big search for the self, her
relationship with Spike can take on some meaning. First off Spike
is only seen as the vampire, monster, who's constant presence
is unwanted, rejected. Then starting in season two, Spike slowly
become more human by attempting a truce with Buffy to save the
world for more than his "ho" girlfriend(Buffy's term
not mine). Everytime Buffy turned around in season four there
was Spike, who repulsed her with his habits, his capacity for
evil. But then in Pangs something happens, Spike evolves into
a pitiful person,who many became uncomfortable with because he
was no longer the big bad. Then surprise! Spike loves Buffy and
she is able to overcome her disgust and distrust to slowly become
a friend of sorts to Spike. The next evolution in this relationship
could be that of lovers as Buffy begins to accept her shadow(all
the things she dislikes about herself)Spike, and truly begins
to reach for her destiny to become what she is supposed to be.........Or
the guy becomes evil and they stake him in episode whatever.......;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "Nothing
seems to penetrate my heart..." -- rowan, 06:58:24 11/09/01
Fri
It's not like the staking is starting to get a little sexual connotation
finally, huh? :)
I love that nothing penetrates Buffy's heart...not Giles's heartfelt
song...not saving a life...but notice that Spike's song penetrates
her heart; she heard quite clearly what *he* said to her, both
at the beginning and the end of the episode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> not the
only thing which has a sexual connotation! -- Rahael, 07:23:29
11/09/01 Fri
'dying' famously being Elizabethan slang for orgasm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Glad
to encounter a fellow Med/Ren scholar! :) -- rowan, 09:02:29 11/09/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> not
only elizabethan -- anom, 15:44:14 11/13/01 Tue
how many (few) years ago did that song come out--"i died
in your arms last night"? @>)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
1986 Cutting Crew - Broadcast -- JBone, 21:10:23 11/13/01 Tue
Strangely, I always thought this was a Glass Tiger song. Broadcast
was the name of the album.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> So that was a good-night kiss?(Spoilers for
OMWF) -- Malandanza, 22:41:09 11/08/01 Thu
"one doesn't have to be a conscienceless demon to fall short
of that level of nobility, at least for the duration of a kiss...From
next week's trailer, it appears that one or both of them *does*
say no before they go any further."
Actually, I had been operating under the assumption that the kiss
was a prelude to a night of sex -- if Spike really does call things
off, I'll have to reevaluate my assessment of him -- in fact,
I'd go so far as to say he's noble rather than evil and is Buffy's
best friend. However, I think it would be out of character for
him to do so. He has maintained all along that he thinks Buffy
secretly wants him, but cannot bring herself to admit it. His
song revealed his thoughts about Buffy (You just love to play
the thought / That you might misbehave ) not Buffy's thoughts
about Spike. And Spike has been consistent in believing that Buffy
cannot possibly genuinely not be attracted to him -- we saw it
before in Fool For Love and Crush.
Buffy has also been consistent in her treatment of Spike:
WILLOW: At least you were getting along... BUFFY: We weren't!
It wasn't even nice. The bad boy thing? Over it. I get it now.
I'd be really happy to be in a nice relationship with a decent
reliable oh my GOD Riley thinks I'm engaged Something Blue
BUFFY: What the hell are you doing?! SPIKE: (still holding her)Come
on. I can feel it, Slayer. You know you want to dance. Buffy locks
eyes with him. Feels his intensity, his desire. A beat. BUFFY:
Say it's true. Say I do want to... She shoves him brutally backward,
breaking the embrace. He falls hard to the ground. BUFFY: It wouldn't
be you, Spike.It would never be you. She tosses the wad of money
at him. It scatters over him and the ground. Her expression filled
with contempt. BUFFY: You're beneath me. Fool For Love
SPIKE: Just... Give me something... a crumb, the barest smidge...
tell me someday, maybe, there's a chance... Buffy studies him
for a moment, recognizing the pain this is obviously causing him.
Then, with her head, she beckons Spike over. He rises and crosses
to her. She beckons to him again to come even closer. He does.
Then she whispers to him, intimately. BUFFY: Spike... The only
chance you had with me was when I was unconscious. Crush
If ME had decided to get Spike and Buffy in bed together by having
them fall in love, I would have been disgusted. It's as if they'd
be saying that Spike was right all along and Buffy was just being
coy in the previous seasons. Or that if a woman says no, she really
means "Darn your sinister attraction!" and the guy should
just keep stalking her until she comes around and gives in. But
a Spike and Buffy liaison where Buffy is filled with passionless
despair and Spike is in the right place at the right time to have
his "good day" is totally believable. If Spike is evil,
that is.
"I agree that Buffy isn't acting very nobly either. But she
isn't playing with him for amusement. She's desperate, nearly
suicidal with anomie from heaven-withdrawal, and her drive to
seek out some kind of connection with life is not evil; it's just
a life-wish, what she has left of one. Taking advantage of Spike's
passion for her may not be the right thing to do, but she's fighting
for her life. And he isn't quite an innocent bystander. He could
say no.
(Just so you don't think I'm trying to quote you out of context
-- here's the rest of your remarks -- with which I agree -- even
if they're inconsistent with my previous ramblings :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: So that was a good-night kiss?(Spoilers
for OMWF) -- CW, 10:27:10 11/09/01 Fri
The kiss at the end of a musical usually signifies "happily
ever after." But, what's the chance of that happening on
this show? ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: So that was a good-night kiss?(Spoilers
for OMWF) -- dsf, 21:27:23 11/09/01 Fri
Cool post. Nope, the only reason I have for thinking it *wasn't*
a prelude to more is the trailer for next week, where Spike says
something like, "We kissed -- you can't pretend nothing happened."
I assumed that if he'd had, er, stronger verbs available, he would
have used them. Then again, it was a trailer, so perhaps he was
being euphemistic?
Spike euphemistic? Nah.
dsf
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Death Wish & The Kiss (Spoilers for OMWF) -- Ryuei,
14:01:52 11/08/01 Thu
"Have we seen Spike play with beings emotionally, so that
when Buffy plays with Spike we can call it justice?"
Actually I believe we did in the Yoko Factor when he used the
Scooby Gang's internal conflicts to divide them. However, I agree
that this does not justify using him emotionally. It might be
just rewards, but I think it is also true that two wrongs don't
make a right. Also, the most important thing to me is that Spike
is changing and is trying to change and that redemptive process
should not be thwarted or frustrated by Buffy or anyone else's
selfish gain or need for revenge. To her credit, I don't think
Buffy is exploiting Spike's company on purpose. I think she is
drawn to him because he is the only one she can confide in who
won't be disappointed or hurt by her revelations that she is not
glad to be back. She can be herself around him because he is not
pressuring her to be the same old Buffy. Also, they are both supposed
to be dead they have something that unites them. They are soul-mates
now in the sense that neither feel that they are a part of the
living world anymore.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Death Wish & The Kiss (Spoilers for OMWF) -- Shiver,
07:45:11 11/09/01 Fri
>>Have we seen Spike play with beings emotionally, so that
when Buffy plays with Spike we can call it justice?<<
Yes, and I believe it was called "The Yoko Factor" :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Death Wish & The Kiss (Spoilers for OMWF) -- mundusmundi,
12:15:29 11/08/01 Thu
Spike predicted Buffy's death-wish; what he didn't anticipate
were his own changes over the course of the season. Never would
Spike have dreamed he'd be crying over Buffy's death (who would
have?), yet there he was. IME, nobody was taking advantage of
anybody at the end of "Once More, with Feeling." Heck,
Spike tried to leave, and Buffy stopped him. They were under a
spell, and their duet, an overlapping refrain of their earlier
numbers, shows them propelled by their feelings, by forces beyond
their control.
Both want to feel alive again. If anyone feels sorry for Spike,
it may be because he really is dead. Buffy eventually will have
to return to the living, thus leaving Spike behind. The big question
is: Where will he go from there?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Death Wish & The Kiss (Spoilers for OMWF) -- anom,
22:13:10 11/10/01 Sat
"IME, nobody was taking advantage of anybody at the end of
'Once More, with Feeling.' Heck, Spike tried to leave, and Buffy
stopped him. They were under a spell, and their duet, an overlapping
refrain of their earlier numbers, shows them propelled by their
feelings, by forces beyond their control."
But it's interesting that this happens after Sweet is gone. I
wonder how long the spell's effects linger afterwards? Spike is
able to free himself (or finds himself free) from the group's
finale, & Buffy does the same almost immediately afterwards. So
how much were they still under the spell's control? Notice that
Buffy, w/3 major numbers in the episode, never sings of having
feelings for Spike. In his song to her, he "can see you're
unimpressed." I don't have any answers here, I'm just raising
the questions.
Like this one: why did they sing a whole new song after Sweet's
exit? I thought his departure would free them from the whole song-&-dance,
but there they went! A reprise I could see, but this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Death Wish & The Kiss (Spoilers for OMWF)
-- mm, 06:43:05 11/11/01 Sun
Like this one: why did they sing a whole new song after Sweet's
exit? I thought his departure would free them from the whole song-&-dance,
but there they went! A reprise I could see, but this?
Wondered that myself, but finally attributed it as a lingering
effect of the spell. Metaphorically, I'd say Spike and Buffy freed
themselves first because they see themselves as the outsiders
of the group. (Dawn was probably next, I'd wager.) True, Buffy
hadn't sung to him previously, but then he'd never saved her life
before. Even then, her final lines do not bode well: "This
isn't real/But I just want to feel...." So the ending was
very ironic. And, well, poetry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Death Wish & The Kiss (Spoilers for OMWF) -- o, 18:04:44
11/08/01 Thu
for me, the pivotal moment in this episode was when the soulless,
evil, irredeemable vampire saved the slayer's life, by telling
her to keep on living.
Spike was evil. That much is certain. But to me, shades of grey
have replaced the character we met in 'school hard'. He very well
could have let her die. Take a look at her friends and sister,
who watched Buffy begin to be consumed in her death dance, and
did nothing. Maybe they expect her to be cheerful and excited
and involved. He just expects her to live. "I died, many
years ago... but you can make me feel just like it isn't so."
- this was an odd, lovely verse. Spike, unlike Angelus, loves
Buffy for the humanity she brings out in him. In my mind, he isn't
taking advantage of , but drawing her out of her pain, back into
living. If love can awaken his lost humanity, perhaps it can bring
back her lost fire. What irony it would be, for something dead
to become Buffy's tie to the world...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Death Wish & The Kiss (Spoilers for OMWF) -- verdantheart,
08:16:00 11/09/01 Fri
Gee, what a lot of wonderful discussion! Especially liked contributions
by rowan, Rufus, and o.
Couple of thoughts. It seems to me that there was a huge contrast
between Buffy and Spike in that she can't feel whereas Spike feels
too much. She wants to feel alive/just feel whereas Spike feels
so much that he has to turn away from those feelings (the pain
of his unrequited love is so great that he tells Buffy to leave
him alone). (Ironic, isn't it? The dead feels alive while the
alive feels dead? I don't think this is completely unintentional.)
Is Spike taking advantage of Buffy's emotional state? Not in an
evil way. I think his level of control is limited. In fact, he's
restrained his evil tendencies for her sake. We have seen him
wistful ("that looks like fun") but not plotting. He's
been careful to stay out of her face and not bring up his feelings
about her (until OMWF, when all kinds of feelings were coming
out). Can we really blame him for responding? Remember his discussion
with Riley over who had "the better deal"? After going
back and forth, Spike decided Riley had the better deal, having
Buffy's physical attention and affection if not her love. In fact,
Spike's likely to be in more pain if things go forward because
he has a need to be loved.
On Buffy's side, yes, in a way she's taking advantage of him.
The probability is that she doesn't love him (could she someday
love him? Don't know), but she needs him to feel/feel alive. He
understands her in ways her friends can't. I don't think she even
*consciously* realizes that her actions, even much earlier, draw
him, tease him. It seems that she is playing a game without realizing
it. She's clearly upset when Spike wants to break off the game.
But the game has reached a stalemate, where something must change
before it can proceed. The problem is that for this to happen,
Buffy has to consciously realize that she has feelings for Spike,
whatever they might be, and it's more complex than dislike modified
by forced cooperation -- she has long resisted this realization.
The reason that so many of us tend to sympathize with Spike is
that he's the one in love! It's more difficult to sympathize with
Buffy because any pursuit of a relationship with Spike on her
part is likely to cause more pain for Spike (again because of
his love) than Buffy.
OK, a personal note. Once upon a time I briefly dated a man in
college. It wasn't long before I saw how badly he treated his
friends (he had the most angry ex-friends I've ever met!). He
was a terrible prude and as a result I found myself behaving totally
out of character for me -- not outrageously, but more affectionately
in public -- something unexpected in someone generally seen as
rather reserved. But then I knew almost from the beginning that
nothing was going to happen with the relationship and I didn't
really respect him. Oddly, though, he was quite good at kissing,
which probably extended the relationship, short though it was.
(It was rather flattering when he said "I blew it, didn't
I?" when I told him I was engaged later on ...) I'm not exactly
sure what I'm trying to get at with this embarrassing confessional,
but I can see a few parallels with Buffy, and I think that a lot
of women ought to be able to relate. Like Marti Noxon said, we
all seem to do strange things in college (must be the brain rewiring
that goes on about that age). I was somewhat aware of what I was
doing at the time, but I'm an introvert; Buffy isn't.
Hope this contributed to the discussion!
vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Confessionals...:) (slightly spoilery for 6.8) --
rowan, 17:28:17 11/09/01 Fri
"The probability is that she doesn't love him (could she
someday love him? Don't know)."
Ah, so you don't subscribe to my theory that she already loves
him? :)
For me, the really relevant question about Buffy is not 'Can she
love Spike?' but 'Can Buffy love any man?' Buffy's S5 arc had
alot to do with closing herself off emotionally and becoming hardened.
She overcame that in relationship to love, but perhaps not to
"boyfriend love" (remember how she singled that out
to the First Slayer). Buffy has been seriously hurt now in two
serious and one more casual relationship. It was well-established
with Riley that she thought she loved him and gave what she could,
but it wasn't enough.
Who is going to wake the princess with a kiss? :)
I think it is quite clear given her level of sexual attraction
(check out the promo for Tabula Rasa) to Spike, her deep trust
in him as it relates to Dawn (who represents Buffy as woman versus
Buffy as Slayer), and her new ability to confide in him, Buffy
is on her way to love if she can overcome her trust issues with
*all* men.
After all, the question of whether Spike is evil, grey, or redeemed
isn't really relevant to love. We all know that in real life,
we're capable of loving people who are not perfect. Part of S6's
lesson is growing up and when we grow up, we learn about loving
all of a person, not just the best qualities.
Remember that Joss wrote both The Gift and Once More with Feeling.
In The Gift, although Buffy trusted Spike with Dawn, Joss denied
Spike the hero's role and doomed him to 147 nights of reliving
his failure and its consequences. In Once More with Feeling, Spike
was clearly the hero who tried to keep from burdening Buffy with
his feelings, who saved her with both word and deed. His *evil*
or *greyness* suddenly came off as what someone described to me
as 'impulse control problems.'
I like your idea that Buffy has too little fire and Spike has
too much. Seems to me like they'll both help each other move towards
the middle. Before they dechip him, of course, and drive us all
crazy. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluating the Musical Numbers
(SPOILERS for You Know What) -- mundusmundi, 12:02:58 11/08/01
Thu
I'm not a musician or any kind of expert; I just like what I like.
And I pretty much liked everything that Joss concocted for Tues
night's ep. Here then is a stab at categorization and high praise
(note: I'm not aware of all the song titles, so feel free to set
me straight).
Funniest number: "We'll Never Tell." Was there ever
depicted a more lovingly twisted portrait of love? Xander and
Anya's duet cracked me up all throughout. Honorable mentions:
Buffy's Disneyesque "Goin' Through the Motions;" and
Anya once again, with her bunnies solo. I've come to realize that
Emma Caulfield has a Carole Lombardish, screwball comedienne quality
that's rarely seen nowadays. She's created a one-joke character
who's joke somehow keeps getting funnier.
Coolest: Hinton Battle's big production number, natch, with his
character, Sweet, sort of a cross between The Mask and Cab Calloway.
Battle tosses it off so effortlessly, he's just too cool for school.
Honorable mention: Spike's "Rest in Peace," namely the
bit where he jumps atop the coffin. Effective imagery in that
number.
Most Moving: Too many to qualify here, so let's call it a tie.
First, "Life's a Song," complete with confessional,
proved Buffy's definitive number for the night. Gellar this season
has evolved from being a good actress to being a great one. There's
an emotional purity to her acting that cut straight to the heart
of the song, and makes me ache. Next, Giles's lament about keeping
Buffy from growing up. His lyrics, e.g., "I could play the
father, and take you by the hand," "I could slay your
demons...." also choked me up a little. (I also liked how
Buffy's training sequence was shot in slow motion. out of time,
out of synch, with Giles.) Honorable mentions: both with Tara,
her first ballad to Willow, then later her refrain which gives
new irony to the lyrics "You Cast a Spell on Me," and
morphs seemlessly into a duet with Giles.
Best Group Number: "Walk Through the Fire." Great, stirring
power number. Plus I'm a sucker for overlapping lyrics and split-screen.
Honorable mention: "Where Do We Go From Here?" A lovely
wrap-up underscoring the irony of the final shot, a vampire and
a Slayer locked in a tender kiss, as the curtain falls slowly
down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Grammar check: That was "whose," not "who's,"
duh! -- mm, 13:17:36 11/08/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Evaluating the Musical Numbers (SPOILERS for You Know
What) -- Rattletrap, 14:37:15 11/08/01 Thu
Good choices all around, mundus.
A couple of things have struck me in my re-watching(s) of this
ep.:
Sarah Michelle Gellar is not a great vocalist, but she is a good
performer and that makes up for some of it, she can sell almost
any song. With a little practice/training she could be a good
singer--needs to work on internal consonants and projection. Her
voice has a very Nanci Griffith quality to it.
Xander and Anya's duet gets more fun every time I watch it. They
have such wonderful chemistry, and that song just works for them.
Finally, a little subtlety: The electric guitar intro to "Walk
Through the Fire" is a perfect copy of Paul Simon's guitar
part on "Sound of Silence." At first I had passed this
off as coincidence (after all, musicians--myself included--steal
riffs from each other all the time). But after thinking about
it, I'm not so sure. Consider the opening lyrics:
"Hello darkness, my old friend I've come to talk with you
again"
It almost fits, but it may just be coincidence. Thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Evaluating the Musical Numbers (SPOILERS for You
Know What) -- mm, 15:27:12 11/08/01 Thu
Finally, a little subtlety: The electric guitar intro to "Walk
Through the Fire" is a perfect copy of Paul Simon's guitar
part on "Sound of Silence." At first I had passed this
off as coincidence (after all, musicians--myself included--steal
riffs from each other all the time). But after thinking about
it, I'm not so sure. Consider the opening lyrics:
"Hello darkness, my old friend I've come to talk with you
again"
That's interesting, trap. I'll have to hear it again. And, you've
got me giggling imagining a Buffy-Spike version of The Graduate.
("Mr. Bloody, you are trying to seduce me.")
Another good number I failed to mention: The "I Got a Theory"
group singalong, specifically the part where Buffy chimes in and
shifts the mood and meanings. Notice how her lyrics are all in
the negative tense:
It doesn't matter What can't we face if we're together? What's
in this place that we can't weather?
Buffy's alive, and with her friends. Yet even apocalypses bore
her now. (As an aside, did anyone happen to see what she was sketching
in the opening montage? She had a book open on the table, and
I was wondering if it might have been the Renaissance book with
the St. Teresa sculpture. Couldn't get a good look.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I thought . . . -- d'Herblay, 15:32:35 11/08/01
Thu
. . . (but I didn't look that closely) that she wasn't sketching
so much as just scribbling on a page until either the page was
completely black or her ballpoint went dry. Which suggested to
me that life really bores her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I thought . . . -- Dedalus, 20:55:35
11/08/01 Thu
I've used this Yeats quote before, but it's of particular relevance
now - "Too long a sacrifice can make a stone of the heart."
Or maybe that was more relevant last season.
Great thoughts on her being bored. Where does she go? The slaying
is still easy for her. Even in Bargaining, she was kicking some
arse. I just think she's just life-weary. She's already "complete,"
so what else is there? She's saved not just the world, but the
entire universe. She has put down not only vampires, but an actual
god. Where do you go after you put down a god? The villians will
have to be something like they've never done before.
She just has gotta find - not the fun, as Faith would say - but
just the life.
I loved that "What can't we face if we're together"
- it strikes me as kind of inspirational though she doesn't want
it to be. There is a bit in the Behind the Scenes of Buffy on
E that showed that scene. When she is singing, "Apocalypse
- we've all been there," she actually gives a little shrug.
Bored indeed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Buffy's Sketching -- vandalia, 15:50:28 11/08/01
Thu
This intrigued me enough when I first saw it to watch it really
closely the next two times, and it appears to me that she's not
writing, she's erasing. Either the cover of her notebook is black
and she's erasing in a square shape, or she colored the white
notebook cover black and is now erasing what she'd previously
done (again, in a square in the middle of the page). We used to
do this in high school with dark-colored notebook colors, spelling
out things by erasing the color because pen would not show up
well on the dark surface and well, it looked cool. However, she
doesn't appear to be drawing anything, just erasing. Negative
space?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> LOL!! -- Monique, 15:54:21 11/08/01 Thu
"Mr. Bloody, you are trying to seduce me."
Ok, so now I am not going to be able to get this image of Buffy-Spike
"Graduate"style off my head...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> All art is necessarily derivative in one way
or another... -- A8, 19:09:54 11/08/01 Thu
...and now I can't remember which artist or musician said this,
but the good ones borrow and the great ones steal. (Actually,
for some reason, I seem to recall it was Picasso).
At any rate, I think the Sounds of Silence guitar intro was too
obvious not to have been intentional. In "I've Got a Theory"
I also heard melodic bits from Midge Ure's "Dear God"
and Julian Lennon's "Valotte." The thing is, as musicians
we know there is nothing truly original, particularly when we
consider the limitations inherent in composing popular music.
Poor George Harrison was raked over the coals for purloining the
melody for "My Sweet Lord" from the Chiffons' tune "He's
So Fine." Ironically, Ole' George admitted in court that
he intentionally plagiarized, but by inverting the three note
melodic hook of an entirely different song. So you can't win for
losing. "He's So Fine" and "My Sweet Lord"
are both fantastic and very original songs in their own right.
Sadly, the real issue there was not artistry at all, but basic
greed on the part of the supposed infringees who had ceased to
make any valuable contributions to pop music well before the Beatles
ever hit our shores, and saw deep pockets and easy retirement
in the form of an underrated mop top.
If anybody wants to talk real theft, let's talk sampling, but
then again, better not get me started.
Sermon ended. Nice catch Rattletrap.
A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Great post! -- rowan, 20:23:37 11/08/01 Thu
My favorite number varies with each listening (and there have
been many, and will be more when I get the CD a friend burned
for me).
For outright comedy, I've got to go with Anya's bunnies number.
For stirring emotion, I really liked Where Do We Go From Here?
Dawn's thin, hesitant opening, followed quickly by Spike's husky
uncertainty charmed me, plus I love Giles's voice rising over
the others in this one. I wish Joss has written a few more verses
for that number.
Close second is Walk through the Fire (especially loved Spike's
heartfelt 'I hope she fries/I'm free if that bitch dies/I better
help her out"). As you point out, the blend of everyone's
voices is fabulous, particularly the harmonies that Tara and Anya
get.
AB has a voice like a lark. She sings about being under Willow's
spell, but frankly, I think she put her audience under her spell.
Although I haven't yet seen the ep, the songs only get better
with each listening!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The one I keep listening to... -- Wisewoman, 23:18:52
11/08/01 Thu
...is "Walk Through the Fire." Funny, it didn't stand
out all that much when I was watching the ep, but just listening
to the songs, it's the one I want to hear over and over again.
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Great song -- mm, 06:21:55 11/09/01 Fri
But then I love all the songs. For pure pleasure, I gotta go with
Hinton Battle's performance (the only flaw of which being he didn't
get more screen time). Great to see a pro show his chops.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Great song -- bible belt, 11:04:50
11/09/01 Fri
Battle's performance was the one that gave me that suspension
of time sensation(I never know how to describe it), I really liked
it. But yeah, I loved all the songs too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Should be even better with the visuals (SPOILERS)
-- mm, 06:18:58 11/09/01 Fri
During "Where Do We Go From Here," note how the cast
is stationed to the verse "Understand we go hand in hand...."
Buffy is at one end of the line, followed by her "family"
of Spike and Dawn (how fitting that he's holding hands with and
directly between the two most important people in his life). Next,
at the center of gravity, is Giles, followed by the couples of
Anya and Xander, then Tara and Willow. How appropriate that Willow
is at the opposite end from Buffy, the two most powerful characters
on the show, and going in opposite directions in their lives.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Should be even better with the visuals (SPOILERS)
-- sanjerine, 12:37:39 11/09/01 Fri
That's a great visual around "understand/we'll go hand in
hand/but walk alone in fear."
Anya and Xander form the center of the group and they all hold
hands in a cascading line on the first part of the line: it's
traditional girl-boy-girl-boy as follows:
Buffy-Spike-Dawn-Giles-Anya-Xander-Tara, and Willow on the far
end (despite her not being 'large with the butch'). I might have
Giles and Xander reversed, I don't have it in front of me.
On the next line "but walk alone in fear," they all
shrug off and pull away from each other's hands, taking one step
to the side, front and back so that they're completely scattered.
Those little steps they've all been taking have broken them apart.
*Damn.*
"Walk Through the Fire" is still my huge favorite --
I've been singing it all week. But then, what I love about the
show is the Scoobies -- the family that backs up this heroine
and her important work, no matter what their own fights and pain
are. "We'll see it through/it's what we're always here to
do..." The first time I heard that line I pumped my fist
in the air, and the song won't leave my head.
By the way -- anyone else think Sweet left because he didn't want
to get into it with Willow? Buffy didn't scare him much, but I
think he was backing off a fight, there.
--sanjerine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Should be even better with the visuals
(SPOILERS) -- mm, 13:03:34 11/09/01 Fri
Buffy-Spike-Dawn-Giles-Anya-Xander-Tara, and Willow on the far
end (despite her not being 'large with the butch'). I might have
Giles and Xander reversed, I don't have it in front of me.
You've got it. Giles is at the center, with the two most powerful
characters at each end. There's a symmetry to it that just feels
right.
By the way -- anyone else think Sweet left because he didn't want
to get into it with Willow? Buffy didn't scare him much, but I
think he was backing off a fight, there.
Could be wrong, but is this the first time, or one of the few
times, that the demon wasn't killed? The non-confrontation surprised
me but wasn't unwelcome.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Should be even better with the visuals
(SPOILERS) -- Kimberly, 13:12:53 11/09/01 Fri
"By the way -- anyone else think Sweet left because he didn't
want to get into it with Willow? Buffy didn't scare him much,
but I think he was backing off a fight, there."
I got the feeling that he did what he wanted to do: throw a major
monkey wrench into a family that had been working--secrets, problems
and all--so that they no longer will work as effectively. Maybe
they didn't "kind of win" after all?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Should be even better with the visuals
(SPOILERS) -- Kimberly, 13:14:27 11/09/01 Fri
"By the way -- anyone else think Sweet left because he didn't
want to get into it with Willow? Buffy didn't scare him much,
but I think he was backing off a fight, there."
I got the feeling that he did what he wanted to do: throw a major
monkey wrench into a family that had been working--secrets, problems
and all--so that they no longer will work as effectively. Maybe
they didn't "kind of win" after all?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> "No, I'll save her, then I'll kill her"
-- that's why we love Spike -- verdantheart, 08:33:40 11/09/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Evaluating the Musical Numbers (SPOILERS for You Know
What) -- Rufus, 00:12:25 11/09/01 Fri
I just loved "Going through the Motions" it made me
think of Disneys "Little Mermaid" when Buffy is seen
through the haze of dust singing alive I thought of the same type
of scene with Ariel.
That Battle fellow is in a class of his own.....sorry....never
heard of him before this show....bad Rufus....
Giles, I liked his voice best...with Tara a close second....but
Anya really has me thinking she may be onto something with those
Bunnies.....could it be revenge for all those lucky rabbits feet
that have them trying to take over the world????
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> That whole scene was so beautifully... -- A8, 02:53:42
11/09/01 Fri
...produced down to the sound effects. As the vamp dust burst
into the haze around her and drifts up into the sky in the upper
right of the frame, a magical (dusty?) sound effect follows it
across the spatial field. That's just damned brilliant detail
my friends. Wow!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Goin' Through the Motions (SPOILERS for You Know
What) -- mm, 06:12:04 11/09/01 Fri
I had to choke back my laughter when the vamp/demon chorus chimed
in. As A8 noted, the imagery to that song was just perfect, right
down to Buffy staking a vamp just as she longs for something to
"penetrate (her) heart."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Goin' Through the Motions (SPOILERS for
You Know What) -- CaptainPugwash, 06:26:07 11/09/01 Fri
yaya - I've just saw OMWF for the first time about 5 minutes ago.
The 'Going Through the Motions' sequence is priceless; everything
about is just perfect (esp. the male model at the end).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I thought Disney, too, but....Beauty & the Beast --
rowan, 06:53:23 11/09/01 Fri
I thought of Belle's song...she is walking through the village,
speaking with the various shopkeepers and residents. She sings
of not wanting 'this provincial life' and 'wanting adventure in
the great wide somewhere.' The guy she says on the tree even reminded
me of Gaston.
Buffy is kinda Beauty...she has the adventure in the great wide
somewhere, but she just wants to feel (which I guess is also what
Belle wants at heart -- just to feel something different).
Hmmm...and both end up with the kiss of the beast...
rowan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Good point! -- verdantheart, 08:34:58 11/09/01
Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I thought Disney, too, but....Beauty & the
Beast -- Rufus, 13:55:22 11/09/01 Fri
Buffy sleeps with Angel in season two and a monster is created.......Buffy
kisses a monster in season six and a man is slowly formed?
Plus with the sex aspect. The fellow Buffy saves is quite attractive
and if Buffy only needed sex to "feel" I'm sure there
are many men out there that would be happy to have sex with her.....but
Buffy always seeks out Spike...why?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Could it be that, at this point at least,
Spike is the person most unlikely to hurt her? -- A8, 16:32:05
11/09/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Now you got me thinking about The Simpsons ep where
Homer... -- A8, 16:36:10 11/09/01 Fri
...tries to lure leprachauns into a hole with cereal, and instead,
a parade of bunnies jumps in. D'oh! He had (Trix instead of Lucky
charms) the wrong cereal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
commitment in relationships in
Buffy (spoiler) -- briseis, 13:30:38 11/08/01
First, some wailing and gnashing of teeth-I was reading the board,
carefully avoiding all the spoilers, and got spoiled anyway,ganyaah!
I was of the opinion that Buffy was using Spike, even as of last
season. He was not just being enamored, he was being pretty insightfully
empathetic and supportive. But last season's events did kind of
give her an excuse for being so stressed out as to be oblivious
to other people's feelings. Still, although Buffy could be in
a relationship with Spike, there's the question that seems to
play peek a boo with us. Can she really be in a successful relationship
with anyone due to her continued attachment to Angel. It seems
like sometimes the writers are "no" on this question,
and sometimes "yes", like with Buffy running after the
departing Riley, its like Angel doesn't exist. Since Spike knows
all about this, thoroughly, it is interesting that we haven't
heard him say anything about it to Buffy. Like, I know your still
involved with Angel, I want you anyway(or not, but he obviously
does) What I think is odd although plausible, is Buffy's whole
relationship MO. I think if Buffy were real, she and Angel would
have stayed together and just not had sex-breaking them up simply
served to open the opportunity for alot of relationships dramas
with Buffy. Alot of stuff seemed weird all along to me, like people
pressing her to date again in the third season. You press a widow
to date after three months?!! Xander and Anya's songs were realistic,
but once again, that's what commitment is about, getting past
those little annoyances and fears and keeping in sight the value
of the intimacy and learning. I was very sorry to hear the spoiler
that there is going to be something between Anya and Giles, and
I hope it isn't too bad. With Willow and Tara, the forget spell
was a major relationship breach. Still, we COULD see forgiveness
here in real life, and we probably would, with people whose relationship
had been so generally positive. Still, this whole thing seems
so contradictory to me-Willow is so committed to Tara that she
was willing to feed her applesauce for the rest of her life, and
now, even before the spell, Willow and Tara have not been able
to address their gathering tension? Willow was a happy, caring
person in most of season four-where does threatening Giles come
from, casting that spell on Tara? Its the antithesis of love,
and as far as I'm concerned it simply wasn't a realistic part
of Willow's character, even given her vastly increased power.
I did think, by the way, that Buffy's telling them about heaven
was a great relief, not horrifying, I was like, thank God! If
anything should crack through Willow's "going bad" that
should. And thank God for Buffy too, maybe she wasn't feeling
anything because she was lying all the time! On the other hand,
Willow could go WAY bad ala Faith,ie. denying what she did, refusing
to face it. But in my world, that would just be a beneficial humbling
thing, and Willow'd get over it, because she really doesn't have
too much to blame herself for, because her intentions were good.
BUT, that wouldn't be too exciting. I'd like to see Tara and Willow
work it out, but I don't think we're going to see that. Especially,
as the scene on the bridge between Tara and Willow seemed to indicate
that Tara is in fact, not gay. The only committed relationships
we've seen on Buffy are non-romantic ones. Giles and Buffy, and
Joyce and Buffy, also Buffy and Dawn. One could say Spike and
Drusilla, but I'd say that didn't count due to their vampire natures,
ie. they didn't HAVE the human foibles and emotional insecurities,
the overcoming of which is commitment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Anyone in a relationship with angel or Riley should be committed.(NT)
-- Rochefort, 17:17:14 11/08/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: commitment in relationships in Buffy (spoiler) -- maddog,
08:00:01 11/09/01 Fri
I think Buffy knows that Angel will always be "that one person",
but she realizes that she has to move on...hence the relationship
with Riley. I think the Buffy/Angel relationship went a lot deeper
than the difference between a sexual relationship or not. There
were more factors that kept them apart besides that one thing.
They press her to date for the simple fact that they knew if she
didn't move on she'd be stuck on Angel forever(and they all assumed
that once dead, always dead).
As for that whole Giles/Anya spoiler, read my explaination of
it above...nothing to worry yourself about.
I think what we're seeing from Willow is just her progression...it's
just backwards. She's relying so heavily on her magic...something
she's discovered she's good at and enjoys...that she's now trying
to solve tougher problems with it. I mean, if she can raise Buffy
from the dead then a little memory spell can't hurt, right? :)
It's not out of character, it's that progression that we see that's
going to be the problem.
If there were any serious blame for bringing Buffy back I think
it would have been handled early on. Buffy would have been pissed.
But it was done out of love, so in that one way you can't blame
her, however.....she did screw with magics she'd never seen before
with the hopes that it would bring Buffy back from whatever hell
Willow assumed she was in. First problem, she assumed...I suppose
they all did...that Buffy'd gone to hell...I don't know why, I
would have assumed the opposite. Second problem is the manner
in which she was going through these spells...lieing to her friends
and Tara...not good behavior. and Lastly the spell itself...dark
magic...stuff that while she's capable, still shouldn't be fooled
with(hence Giles's outrage). So good and bad here. I'd say there's
a fair amount to still blame her for.
I'm tending to believe that scene at the bridge was a joke. Tara's
a lesbian...I think that's been covered since day 1.
well, like any true dramatic show they don't like to have couples
together too long...kills their storylines. Family bonds(which
I think were mostly the ones you described) are different...because
they tend to be firm, just have a few potholes along the way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: commitment in relationships in Buffy (spoiler)
-- FelipeRijo, 11:53:03 11/09/01 Fri
"First problem, she assumed...I suppose they all did...that
Buffy'd gone to hell...I don't know why."
I guess they assumed that she'd gone to hell because she jumped
into a portal opened for demons to come through, and they're probably
coming from hell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> one more time... -- anom, 21:08:55 11/10/01 Sat
"First problem, she assumed...I suppose they all did...that
Buffy'd gone to hell..."
No...again...she didn't. She said (from memory, not word for word),
"We don't know where that [her spirit/essence] went. It could
be in a hell dimension...."
"Could be." Not "is" or "must be."
But even the chance of it was enough to make Willow think they
had to bring Buffy back to life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: commitment in relationships in Buffy (spoiler) -- sanjerine,
12:19:05 11/09/01 Fri
> I'd like to see Tara and Willow work it out, but I don't
> think we're going to see that. Especially, as the scene >
on the bridge between Tara and Willow seemed to indicate >
that Tara is in fact, not gay.
Good lord and butter. Tara was entirely kidding. Believe me, someone
in Tara's position who was *really* feeling bisexual impulses
would never react like that.
Actually, I love that scene before Tara's solo. "The cuteness
of you, doofus," was wonderful -- why I still love Willow
even though she's making an alignment check.
Kidding. She was totally kidding, and it might have been the best
line in the show, were it not for "it must be Tuesday."
--sanjerine
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Your D & D geekness is showing, Yeh mine too! -- Slayrunt,
23:02:56 11/10/01 Sat
alinment check LOL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heaven? -- Rochefort, 15:42:37
11/08/01 Thu
Maybe I'm missing something from the Buffy-verse mythology, but
I say the big dramatic focus on Buffy getting "yanked out
of heaven" is over done and misplaced. In the Buffy-verse,
is it a rarity that you get into heaven? Most go to hell, but
she went to heaven because she died a warriors self sacrificing
death and went to Val Hala? If it's "heaven", I say,
then big deal. She gets to come back, hang out with her friends
a bit more, and when she gets bored she can re-die and go back.
She doesn't have to act all wounded about it.
Here's what I think, Joss is always careful to have Buffy say
"I was in what I think was heaven." What would the Buffy
of season Five consider heaven? Freedom from the weight of the
world on her shoulders for once. Freedom from worrying that your
new born little sister is going to die slowly. All the pressures
and stress of life. In the season finale last season Buffy is
saying that none of it makes sense and she SAYS that she doesn't
want to go on in a world where such bad stuff could happen to
Dawn. Spike has told us Slayers get death wishes. They just get
plain TIRED! Worn out from the death and the evil and the violence
and the responsibility. (like everyone)
Was Buffy in heaven? I don't think so. I just think she was dead.
In Buffy's case, what's the difference? Her heaven is "I
was dead." She says "No more worrying about my friends,
no more responsibility." She has Dawn tell Giles before she
jumps "Tell Giles it makes sense now." Well of COURSE
it makes sense when all you have to do is jump off a stupid tower!
Life is WAY more complicated than that.
She has to keep living. Like the rest of us who aren't suicides.
She has to grow up and be an adult. Like all the people watching
the show. And that's what she doesn't want to do. Who cares about
heaven? It's not heaven, it's living or DEAD. It's not Buffy's
same old lament that she doesn't get to live a normal life, it's
that she DOES have to live a normal life! Buffy has always been
a metaphor for the struggles of an ordinary growing up girl. And
what is the struggle she's facing now? She's backing down from
the struggle of living. Heaven doesn't have anything to do with
it. It's subjective, but I don't think her version of heaven sounds
any more interesting than non-existance. Boring. Dead. There may
as well be no after life.
I say LIVE! Come on Buffy! Do this crazy thing called life! Didn't
she tell Dawn that it was DAWN that had the truly hard challenge?
Because it was Dawn that needed to go on living. Buffy all ready
knew that on the tower. Now she's back, and in the season premiere,
standing on that tower with out all the pretty lights making everything
so horribly clear and she's all alone and the wind is blowing
and they day to day struggle is too much and the only reason she's
staying alive is for the sake of the one's she cares about. She
steps back from the edge to save Dawn. She's suicidal. And a lot
of people don't committ suicide because they need to live for
their friends (or because their friends just simply won't let
them die.)
Anyway, all I'm saying is that her saying "I was in heaven"
doesn't change anything. What that means is "I prefer to
be dead and nonexistant" If Buffy told her friends "I'd
like to be dead, leave me alone." Would they leave her alone?
What's horrifying about what she said is that she revealed to
her friends that she's got no will to live.
But I've got faith in our girl! She's going to find something
to sing about. A reason that it's worth living. She's just gotta!
...I hope.
Rochefort
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Heaven? -- Ryuei, 17:20:35 11/08/01 Thu
Do not overlook the fact that in her earlier description of where
she was to Spike it was not merely the absence of pain and confusion
but also the feeling of love, warmth, and the certainty that everyone
she loved was ok. So she wasn't just gone from this life, she
had positively found something else. In Buddhism, her description
might match up with one of the dhyana heavens, that is to say
the heavens of very exalted states of concentration characterized
by bliss, joy, and equanimity among other factors.
The thing about these heavens in Buddhism, however, is that they
are temporary. Eventually, one will have to return to the lower
forms of birth (such as the hell, the ghost realms, the animal
realms, the fighting demons, and the human realm). So in Buddhism
even heaven is looked upon as part of the cycle of birth and death.
A temporary respite at best, and part of the insidiously seductive
but ultimately painful nature of samsara at worst.
On another level, in Mahayana Buddhism even the attainment of
escape from the cycle of birth and death is looked upon as a negative
and spiritually selfish goal. In Mahayana Buddhism, one is encouraged
to renounce even nirvana (nirvana is not heaven but liberation
from all the temporary realms including the heavens) in order
to stay in the world and help others. In the Lotus Sutra, the
nirvana of early Buddhism is compared to a magic city conjured
in a desert for the purpose of providing a rest stop on the way
to the true treasure. The true treasure in this case being the
realization that all beings can be liberated and that liberation
is neither identified with this world nor apart from it either.
Another angle on this is that in the Flower Garland Sutra the
Buddha exclaims under the Bodhi Tree that all beings are also
buddhas but do not realize it. This means that from the Buddha's
perspective he need do nothing because everyone is fine just as
they are. Buffy's feeling that all was well for her family and
friends in that heavenly perspective she had reached would correspond
to this. And yet, the Buddha also realized that from the perspective
of the deluded people they did not see themselves as buddhas nor
could they even imagine that such was the case. So out of compassion
and recognition of the limited vision of ordinary people the Buddha
taught all beings how to realize what they have been all along.
Now Buffy needs to do two things to get to that point. One, she
needs to regain that "heavenly perspective" and retain
both a vision that all things are ultimately well but at the same
time see that provisionally people need help. The Lotus Sutra
recognizes this in the verse section of chapter 16 where the Buddha
states that all beings see the world as though it were in a great
fire, whereas the Buddha sees that in actuality all things are
peaceful and heavenly. So regaining heaven not as apart from this
world but as the true nature of reality behind the veil of sorrowful
appearances is her first task.
The second thing Buffy needs to do is learn how to share that
perspective once she has regained it for herself. This will be
especially important to those who seem or who see themselves as
irredemable and hopelessly seperated from such a vision - Willow
and Spike come to mind. In the Lotus Sutra, chapter 12, it is
revealed that even the Buddha's traitorous cousin who tried to
kill him and usurp his position as leader of the Sangha will become
a Buddha someday, and in the same chapter an 8 year old dragon
girl proves to the chauvinist monks that one does not need to
be an adult human male monastic to attain buddhahood in an instant.
So in the same way, Buffy has to bring about such miraculous redemptive
possibilities to others herself and that will be her second important
task.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thanks for all the heavens! Helpful perspectives.
-- Rochefort, 17:30:40 11/08/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> You just don't get it... -- CaptainPugwash, 17:36:32 11/08/01
Thu
Look, the whole tradegy of Buffy's existence centres on the LOSS
of a normal life that comes from being The Slayer.
Being a Slayer is a miserable, lonely, confined existence that
can only end in a premature death. Buffy will never find long-lasting
happiness (unless she's a special, which she probably is), which
means no children, no job, no long-term relationships etc. Her
role is life is to keep fighting evil until she is killed - no
wonder she's pissed off about being pulled out of her well-deserved
retirement.
If Buffy's ressurection had brought her back as a normal person,
then she might have a reason to be happy. But's SHE IS STILL THE
?%@ING SLAYER; a role which she got thoroughly sick of last season.
The whole of point of BtVS is that this charming young woman with
her superpowers has the least enviable job in the world. We are
not supposed to envy Buffy at all (I certainly don't).
Buffy can't do the crazy normal life thing because she's cursed
to be a soldier of Good until she gets bumped off (and replaced).
Xander, Anya, Willow & Tara can all choose what they want to be
(and often screw up), but Buffy CAN'T.
I hope Buffy finds another reason to go on too, but hopefully
that involves being liberated from the role/duty that has brought
her nothing but misery.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Is heaven better than earth? Buffy's real problem
-- briseis, 05:57:35 11/09/01 Fri
For one thing, reportedly there are not a few people alive now
who have "lost heaven", ie. near death experiences.
Instead of being depressed when they "get back", their
lives are FULLER. Now Buffy can be the slayer without fear. What
is there to fear, when she knows what is waiting for her when
she dies is a pleasant existence? If anything, this experience
should have relieved some of Buffy's angst about being a Slayer.
It is interesting to me the limited perspective the show is sometimes
written from. OK, I thought OMWF was great too, but they really
do make some mistakes. Yes, fear and worry can make life not worth
living, but the message here is almost that life is intrinsically
not worth living, that heaven is better-how's that for a traditional
dualistic perspective? Little children who are being treated well,
are radiating bliss-and like it says in the Bible,"you can't
enter heaven, lest you be as little children." Now Buffy,
at least after she faces some of her life choices, has the chance
to be as a little child, because unlike the rest of us, she no
longer has to fundamentally worry about the future, she can be
in the moment, purely experiencing reality, and that should bring
her alot of joy. Buffy's problems are psychological, not metaphysical.
She does need to get a life, ie. be pursuing something that she
is interested in. She used to go to highschool and be a slayer,
so she certainly could now have a job and be a slayer. So what
if she doesn't get there because she may die young. That's a belief
she has to get over. But virtually none of the other Scoobies
acts creatively, either. They all just do what they do-Anya, Xander-work;
Tara, Willow-students; and help the slayer. We don't hear much
about any independent aim or goal of Tara and Willow's schooling.
So everyone in this show is reactive, just existing, and as normal
as that is in our society, that IS depressing. Buffy's feeling
of emptiness is because she is empty, or at least disconnected
from herself, not because she has lost heaven. I start from the
basis that folks have an inner fountain of a creative urge that
is heaven for them on earth, and that when you spend too much
time passively reacting to circumstances, rather than manifesting
what is inside, expressing yourself, life becomes empty and awful.
To a certain extent this happens to almost everyone in school,
and then Buffy had the belief, I can't do anything because I am
the slayer, and finally, she had a ton of emotional wounds that
need to be healed before you can LIVE. Oddly enough, Buffy's problem
is not that she is ALIVE, its that she is the "living dead"
right now, obsessing over all the many facets of her self-hatred,
rather than being alive. It is a little odd to me that the Scoobies
don't realize that Buffy is simply back where she was before she
died-grieving over Joyce, grieving over Riley, grieving over Angel,
grieving over alot of limitation-and let her be with that, and
help her accept having those emotions, which is how they can resolve.
Giles thinking that he is standing in Buffy's way to maturity
by "helping too much" is a downright INSANE call(because
she does need support now), unless he's lying to himself that
he's leaving purely for Buffy's sake-why couldn't he be her father?
Most plausibly, because he's in love with her and knows he, being
her emotional father, will commit the equivalent to incest, or
actual incest, if he stays, and that would hurt Buffy. I wish
they would make this clearer, because to leave it that Buffy "needs
to be on her own" is just a lie, in terms of the reality
of life. Buffy needs to "do something for herself",
she needs to be a slayer and a person. Buffy also needs to grieve,
accept grieving and really accept her mother's death, and the
configuration of their lives that she and Angel have chosen for
themselves. Joyce died only about a half a year ago, I am disappointed
that TV-style, this has already just disappeared(once again, in
the peculiar, it exists/ it doesn't exist of TV, rather than the
its better /its worse of real life) from Buffy and Dawn's emotional
life. Anyway, Buffy doesn't need someTHING to bring the fire back,
she needs to face herself, drop the front, release her emotions,
stop obsessing, and accept life the way it is. I think this would
be alot more profound growth than winning a power struggle with
the Watcher's Council.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> My reading of this was....... -- Rahael, 06:09:51
11/09/01 Fri
That Buffy is traumatised by having returned to 'hell'.
Sometimes, having near-death experiences, especially repeatedly,
as Buffy has done (and indeed, something which I have personally
experienced) can actually leave you with a morbid fascination
with death, and a lack of appreciation of life. It took me 5 years
to learn to appreciate how wonderful life could be, and how much
love, joy and emotion could enrich one's life.
If you have depression, you actually find it impossible to enjoy
life, whether you 'should' or 'shouldn't'.
Nearly dying of a heart attack, and then being revived is very
different from dying in battle, where you have mentally prepared
yourself for death, talked to loved ones etc (all of which Buffy
did).
I escaped a warzone....my worst nightmare would entail being forced
to return. This is exactly what I think has happened to Buffy.
No wonder the poor girl is unhappy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I like your reading. -- Rochefort, 12:22:29
11/09/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Is heaven better than earth? Buffy's real
problem -- maddog, 07:06:25 11/09/01 Fri
Those people that "see the light" never actually die
though...Buffy was dead for 3 MONTHS. I think she's got a bit
more of a perspective on where she was than they do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Is heaven better than earth? Buffy's
real problem -- RichardX1, 08:26:46 11/11/01 Sun
Furthermore, unlike the overwhelming majority of near-death experiencers,
she wasn't told that it "wasn't her time". She got pulled
out of Heaven (by her definition a state of peacefulness, painlessness,
and love), and back into this loud, visceral, violent, uncertain
life.
And how does she know that she'll go back? Maybe she's worrying
that if she goes on living, she'll make some choice that'll cause
her to lose her place in the eternal reward.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A Buddhist Look at Buffy's Return. Spoilers for Season
to Present. -- Age, 17:50:30 11/08/01 Thu
As there is a Buddha statuette prominently displayed on the counter
of the Magic Shop, and buddhist icons have appeared in both 'Buffy'
and 'Angel' at key moments, I'm assuming that the writers are
using these metaphorically, to express the idea of change more
than anything else.
Buffy's description of heaven seems related to that of the buddhist
state of nirvana, or bliss. However, such a state based on formlessness
is a trap that one can become caught in. It is an attachment to
what buddhists refer to as emptiness, the no-thingness of existence.
Nothing has self nature, everything is in constant flux; therefore
there are no things: no me, no you. Everything is emptiness. Hence,
a perfect bliss. This relates to the buddhist state of samadhi
or concentration where consciousness is focused.
However, this is only one side of the coin, so to speak, nirvana
and emptiness are not really separate from the world we live in,
this world of suffering and pain and joy and hardship and love
and hate and all the rest of the stuff that inflames our existence.
Without emptiness, nothing would exist, but emptiness is simply
a property of things: form is emptiness and emptiness is form.
They are inseparable. They are one and the same. The world of
nirvana and the world of samsara(the world of suffering) are one
and the same. In buddhist terms as Buffy relates how unreal things
seem and the happiness that she lost, she is attached to the bliss
of emptiness. She has not attained a more integrated state where
both aspects, the form of things and their formlessness are equally
assimilated; she has not attained the understanding that everything
is just like this.
It seems to me that the reference to flame and to song in this
week's 'Buffy' can be related to buddhist concepts. Buddhists
do not believe in the existence of a soul, and therefore we are
simply, like a flame, in constant flux. Like the flame, we are
not concrete objects, but like the flame we still have existence.
This is related also to songs which are equally formless in the
sense that their existence takes place as a function of change.
Flame also symbolizes our life in the sense that it can be both
a nurturer and destroyer. It symbolizes also passions, or passion
for life itself. In this week's 'Buffy' life for Buffy and her
friends becomes a show, a song and dance routine where several
of the characters realize that we are watching them. But, that's
the point, in buddhist terms there is no one out there, no God
looking at us, watching our movements; we are all we've got, and
we have to, as Giles says to Buffy, do our best. In other words,
while our existence is like a song, ephemeral yet real, our lives
are not about playing or singing parts for someone outside because
we are all one; there are no lines around us, no one is truly
separate from anyone else. It's up to us to just get on with living.
And that's what Spike says to Buffy when he rescues her from her
attempt to get back to her nirvana world: life is not a song,
life is just this: it's living. Note the form of the word, 'living':
it's change, a process, not a thing you can grasp in your hand.
It's not the emptiness of a world devoid of every thing, a separate
world of bliss; it is this world, a world that you cannot grasp
but which is real nonetheless. It is a world where everything
is just like this: it is neither formless nor possessed of form.
It is just the way it is, and we just live it. It is the symbol
of this interpenetration of two really being one that Buffy wears
around her neck: the cross.
In a book compiled by Phillip Kapleau one zen buddhist practitioner
after an enlightenment experience related just how much everything
seemed renewed: the grass had never looked greener; the sky was
so blue. It is this renewal of spirit that Buffy is lacking.
Changing the subject somewhat: Buffy's stint in heaven may be
a metaphor for a change in perspective. For most of the series
hell and being on a hell mouth have been used to describe what
going through adolescence is like; however, now that Buffy is
of adult age, has become an instant single mum, and has lost her
own mother, adolescence may have taken on a kind of longing charm
as seen through the adult pressures that Buffy is facing: adolescence
seems like heaven in comparison to what she has to face now. And,
unable to meet the new challenges because she's been thrown into
them she's wanting to go back, back to what she now sees as a
blissful time, a time where like the three villains she faced
in earlier eps she could make a nice little world for herself
and be looked after. Surely heaven is analogous to being the ultimate
basement kid with, as the song goes(well, this is a musical week)
mommy and daddy standing by...but then as the song continues...
happily ever after fails/ and we've been poisoned by these fairy-tales/
lawyers clean up all details/ since daddy had to lie/ but I know
a place where we can go/ still untouched by man/ sit and watch
the clouds roll by/ and the tall grass sway in the wind/ just
lay your head back on the ground/ let your hair fall all around
you/ offer up your best defence/ this is the end... this is the
end of the innocence.
Anyway, just a quick look at 'Buffy' from a buddhist perspective...and
a bit of growing up.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: A Buddhist Look at Buffy's Return. Spoilers for
Season to Present. -- Rochefort, 18:18:49 11/08/01 Thu
Right, I agree. This isn't a question of "reponsibilities
of Slayer" anymore. As you say, I think it's far more a question
of new adult problems.
It isn't the slaying that makes Buffy not want to be alive. The
demons are merely boring her. It's things like talking to Dawn
she won't do! Or getting a job! Or not running off to see Angel
like a little girl when she has real adult problems to deal with.
It isn't the Slaying at all that's making it difficult for her
to be alive.
Her battle with Sweet, for instance, was not even a physical fight
like her previous Slayer battles. It was a battle within herself
to refind an emotional connection to live.
Depression means that emotions are depressed. Buffy is depressed.
In a way, she's right when she says "Does it matter?"
who the demon is or what the problem is. In terms of success or
failure, it doesn't. She always wins. But the rest of the scoobies
are very involved in the song and in the challenge of solving
the mystery anyway.
I don't think Buffy's Slaying is so different from anyone else's
career. Doctors, firemen, english teachers... they all have to
save lives every day. And Buffy is just as capable of turning
away from being a Slayer as a fire man is of turning away from
a fire. What's happneing now is whether or not she stays involved
in the challenge of life and continues to find life worth going
through all the conversations with Dawn and single parent hood
and getting a job and all the things that occasionally make everyone
else want to die too. Face it, Slaying has been easy for Buffy
since season one. It's normal life that's been hard, and has finally
just depressed the heck out of her.
Giles isn't leaving because of anything having to do with Slaying.
He's leaving so that she has room to become an adult.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Last 8 minutes, oops -- Rochefort, 18:52:28
11/08/01 Thu
I just heard the song from the last 8 minutes and Spike and Dawn
flat out SAY what I was saying so I feel silly for being obvious.
heh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The Three Villains Spoilers for Season to
Present. -- Age, 01:19:53 11/09/01 Fri
Yes, I think that the three villains represented the pull of adolescence;
perhaps they even represented Willow, Xander and Buffy in the
sense that the three are on the verge of having to grow up in
three different ways: Buffy, as parent; Xander, as marriage partner;
and Willow, as possessor of power.
When Buffy was battling the three she was actually battling her
tendency towards adolescence. This is the problem of a metaphorically
based series: as slayer she is socially engaged to help others,
but on a metaphorical level alot of the time she's simply fighting
her own demons. In 'Flooded' she has to fight the demon of being
looked after like a child: the demon sent to steal money for the
three; in 'Life Serial' she is like Goldilocks, trying out lifestyles
and careers. The tests are conducted by the three villains: if
they win, if they take over Sunnydale, then this means that Buffy
has lost, that what they represent, the tendency towards remaining
adolescent has won and Buffy is dead, figuratively, in the sense
that her evolution into adulthood is arrested.
Not only this, but Buffy never sees her real foe: she never actually
sees the three. This is symbolic of Buffy not recognizing the
problem. This is echoed in her not listening to Giles when he
sings to her.
I think that your comment about Buffy being depressed is valid;
she's been through a great deal emotionally; she certainly points
to this when she says she wants the fire back, but that the fire
is black and freezes her. I think part of the problem is that
she died in one perfect moment of peace and heroism and understanding;
and in doing so, didn't have to face the next stage of life. What
a great death, and when I analyzed the jump off the tower for
myself last year it had a religious context to it. But, from this
season's perspective the jump smacks of adolescence: it was the
final lasting moment of adolescence when Buffy still could cling
to the idea that things make sense. But, life isn't about things
still making sense. It just is. We have to get on with living
even when it doesn't make sense; perhaps adulthood comes when
we deconstruct the myth of the adult, when the man behind the
curtain of Oz is revealed, and we realize that, as Giles says
to Buffy, we can only do our best. If Buffy were to stop and think
about her situation for a moment, how could things make sense;
if life made sense there wouldn't be vampires and slayers and
death etc...
Perhaps the three villains' preoccupation with heroes again represents
the adolescent aspect of Buffy's jump. She jumped as a hero; the
jump was the death of the hero. Certainly Buffy's slaying has
now become routine. It's more just a job as she points out herself.
The jump smacked of adolescence in the sense that it was part
of the mentality of great sweeping gestures to solve all your
problems(and then not be around to have to deal with the consequences.)
But, life goes on. This series is about being a live human being,
not a dead slayer up in a mythological heaven. This series is
about that which impedes us or helps us to do what we are naturally
set up to do: grow up, live our lives, bring another generation
into existence and give that next generation the gift that was
given to us: death. That was the whole point and theme of last
season: the cycle of birth and death. Death is our gift. It is
the gift of life for the next generation. We are all slayers,
we are all set up to make the sacrifice that Buffy has made now
twice in dying. The question is whether we act like slayers and
become socially engaged; or do we seek a life, like the three
villains, in the basement, living off others as vampires do? Do
we stay as perpetual Peter Pans living in our Never Never land
of arrested development as the vampire metaphor suggests? Living
in the shadows and never able to face the harsh light of day,
letting others become the firemen, the doctors, and the school
teachers. I know, it's easy to write about and hard to do, believe
me I know. There's nothing harder in this world than living in
it, that's for sure.( Speaking of vampires, I might even suggest
that the metaphorical basis for Buffy's attraction to Spike has
been a tendency towards death; this would tend to validate Buffy's
depressed state. Spike himself uses his vampire nature figuratively
in suggesting that at least one of them should be still living,
ie Joss Whedon has him emphasize the death aspect of the metaphor.
Perhaps part of Buffy's attraction to Spike is a product of her
depression; and perhaps part of Spike's attraction to her is vampirism
in the sense that he feels more alive through her. He's still
in a sense feeding off the living. There's more to it than that:
wanting to feel, and genuine emotion, but there's not much that
doesn't have a metaphorical meaning in this series.)
Quite clearly Buffy didn't join Spike in his adolescent world
of gambling and drinking; she's still on track for adulthood,
but she's not facing up to what she needs to do to be that adult.
Part of the problem, as Giles sings about, is his influence as
father figure. In other words, while she hasn't given into her
tendency for adolescence, she still hasn't defeated it completely
either. Perhaps part of the problem lies in her depressed state.
Anyway, yet again this series has given rise to much discussion.
I'm glad to be a part of it.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: The Three Villains Spoilers for Season
to Present. -- Rochefort, 12:29:36 11/09/01 Fri
Yes I very much like the metaphor of the trio being the adolescent
state Buffy must avoid. And I love how she doesn't see them because
she hasn't wanted to see this problem yet. I saw the jump the
same way as you, as well. I don't really want to see her attraction
to Spike as an attraction to death, but it may be. I haven't figured
it out. All I have is her sung line that she knows that, whatever
she has with him, isn't real. Sort of sick or sad or something,
hm?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Very insightful, Age -- Rahael, 05:13:47 11/09/01
Fri
That was a great post.
Haven't seen the ep, but Buffy's words in the fire song is redolent
of a classic case of depression, especially her longing both for
immolation, as well as the view that emotion, in fact could literally
burn her up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Very insightful, Age Spoilers to Present.
-- Age, 08:52:18 11/09/01 Fri
Yes, depression seems to be her state of mind. What I've found
perplexing is how much Buffy seems to regress over a summer before
every new season. I guess being dead would be the greatest cause
of a regressive state; much was said about Jonathon's role in
the Troika, and I see his regressive behaviour as symbolizing
Buffy's. What I'm getting at here is Joss Whedon is trying to
make his character as true to life as possible by showing that
we have to summon up courage and energy for the next stage of
development, but there is the tendency to back off until we really
need to make the adjustments needed.
My concern, and it's only minor really, is that Buffy as slayer
has been through so much that adapting to new challenges should
be a breeze for her. Again, as I said in another reply, part of
the metaphor for what Buffy does is slaying her own demons; it
isn't just social 'engagement'; in this way, the slaying is an
internal endeavour, not a social one. For example in 'Faith, Hope
and Trick' Buffy is metaphorically facing up to her guilt which
follows her back in the form of Kakistos, allied with Mr. Trick,
representing Buffy's attempt to trick herself into believing that
everything's fine and that because the Scoobies have gotten their
buried feelings out in the previous ep(as represented by the zombies
rising from the ground) she can just get on with her social life
without dealing with what's lurking in her internal landscape.
It's the same old Sunnydale(ie keep a happy, Sunny face, sing
a happy song and not deal with what's in the dale, the internal
landscape) strategy of suburban America. Everything's fine, no
problem, I just bought a new car to distract me, kind of thing.
It's why the vampires flock to Sunnydale despite the sunny weather:
it's a weather metaphor representing this division of self through
not dealing with one's emotions. Unmanaged our emotions take on
a life of their own, as if they were supernatural beings. They
come out of the darkness, the subconscious, and once they reach
this powerful state, we have to have the strength of a slayer
to deal with them, or we end up emotionally dead ourselves: vampires
who simply cannot deal with life, but live, like perpetual Peter
Pans feeding off of others, reduced to being predators.
Given the religious aspect of Buffy's jump and return, with the
Adam and Eve, snake imagery of 'Bargaining' there is a sense that
Buffy is world weary. Like the Christian Satan(the snake image),
Willow put her own will over that of the natural order(is she
no longer Willow, ie low Will, low self esteem or is she as has
been suggested addicted to using magic; or, is Joss Whedon using
her to show how we must adopt a more adult perspective in our
lives when we gain adult power; or, are we seeing an arc long
examination of the difference between having power and self empowerment
as women(the Wiccan symbol of female power)now have to come to
terms with wielding the kind of power that has been denied them
in a patriarchal society?) It has also been suggested that there's
a parallel between the Troika's use of magic and Willow's(and
given that they parallel Xander in their sci-fi banter, it seems
they were meant to symbolize the three main characters.) In this
way, they continue the work of bringing Buffy down, continue this
movement of grinding her down. From heaven back to earth, then
grinding her down further as Buffy has to face the challenges
of living. This would put together the religious, adolescent and
depression aspects of Buffy's condition: religious in the sense
of descent, making her in Christian terms world weary and in need
of renewal; adolescent in the sense that she was in heaven and
now she has to come down to earth, so to speak, put her feet on
the ground, without letting life destroy her; and depression in
the sense that Buffy's stint in heaven could be interpeted as
a euphoric stage of depression; while coming back to hell would
be its opposite phase.
Is it possible that what Joss Whedon is going for is an examination,
through his title character, of the question of why we live. Last
year, he dealt with the fear of death. Now that Buffy isn't afraid
of death, it isn't the motive that keeps her going. Whedon is
now free to explore the question : If life is so difficult(the
hardest thing in life is to live in it) then why do we do it?
Rereading my posting, it looks as though some of the text got
repeated, leaving some out.
Here's a gist of what got missed: Spike says to Buffy that it's
just this: it's living. Living as an endeavour, a process, not
a thing. What struck me was the similarity to the zen buddhist
idea of everything just being like this. It is not this or that.
We cannot split the world up into little bits. And we can't go
back: everything is change.
Again, it's great to be part of a discussion about this series.
I've been helped so much by other people's postings that the opportunity
to add my voice is wonderful.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I hadn't thought about it in that way
before... -- Rahael, 09:34:35 11/09/01 Fri
But that was very convincing. Especially about the separation
of self. What always struck me about Angel was how much of an
adolescent he was....he certainly wasn't more mature than Giles,
or Joyce. It was as if at the time of his turning, his emotional
development became stunted.
Is this the threat that vampires pose to the teenagers of Sunnydale?
To prevent them from reaching adulthood and gaining control of
their lives, but to remain stuck forever in teenage hell, driven
by their bloodlust (read hormones) for eternity?
Joss Whedon has mentioned that his view toward the Scooby's relationships
is that life is full of change..you can't prevent it, nothing
stays the same, and sometimes your life can dissolve (Season 2
DVD commentary).
You make a good point about the fact that Buffy should be accustomed
to being flexible. But perhaps one expects that as one leaves
the teenage world behind, and one decides what one's self identity
is, less change is to be expected? At least relatively speaking.
Now Buffy is realising that her entry into adulthood is even more
traumatic than her angsty teenage years.
She spent her teenage years confused or resentful as to what her
self identity was. Perhaps her next journey is (going back to
Buddhism) the realisation that self identity is an illusion?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Developmental Changing -- Kimberly,
10:26:03 11/09/01 Fri
Speaking as a parent, just because someone has changed a lot,
especially developmentally, doesn't necessarily make them flexible.
And that seems to be what's happening here. Just as a child who's
learning to speak may stop doing something they could do easily,
Buffy is regressing to prepare herself and collect the energy
for an emotional growth spurt.
With that caveat, this makes a lot of sense as to what's going
on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Spoilers for Seasons Two, Three,
Four and Five and Angel. -- Age, 11:42:13 11/09/01 Fri
Yes, the vampires are strong because they are hormonally charged.
They are perpetual teenagers, humans killed off in their development
towards adulthood because they cannot face death(the eternal aspect
of them) and they cannot face life either(the bursting into flames
aspect.) For a while I wondered why, despite their adrenalin metaphor
strength, vampires are so easy to kill. It's because they are
so immature. They are emotionally vulnerable individuals who have
given into their predatory nature, fallen back on their animal
instincts alone, unable to remain human for whatever reason, fear,
lack of trust, bloodlust etc. They are parasites. In other words,
vampires are so easy to kill, and they don't put on armour, as
a metaphor for their immaturity and vulnerability.
The vampires are not only used in one way:
for example, in the fourth season opener, Buffy is not prepared
for the next phase of her life: university. She has buried herself
and her fear in slaying all summer. Now, come the beginning of
the semester she is overwhelmed by her new challenges, and her
fears get expressed as Sunday, the blond haired vampire. If Sunday(the
day of rest, representing the idea that if Buffy doesn't get her
act together, she'll have no future in the workforce) beats Buffy,
then this is Buffy's own doubts overcoming her. It is when Sunday
breaks the symbol of Buffy's having already overcome great odds
to be accepted and acknowledged as having value in a school situation,
the umbrella, that Buffy realizes she does have what it takes
to go on in academia. The supernatural in this episodeis simply
there to show Buffy working through her emotions. The series is
a set of fairy tales in that a problem impinges on the consciousness
of the characters, and gets dealt with in the imaginary world,
as the subconscious cannot contain it anymore.
As mythological characters, vampires represent myth. Vampires
are not real. I see the slayer as deconstructor of myth as the
adolescent years are the period when our view of the world is
tested, and myths destroyed. In season two for example, the myth
that all men are just dogs, wanting one thing, and need to be
put down was tested through Angelus, Oz and Xander, with Xander
deconstructing this myth by not taking advantage of Buffy in 'Bewitched,
Bothered and Bewildered.'
At the beginning of season two, Spike kills the vampire boy representing
both Buffy's childhood and her innocence. Spike and Drusilla represent,
as Buffy starts her teenage dating, the perils of romance: both
have been killed off as human beings in their dealings with the
opposite sex. Spike represents the male who wants only one thing:
to sink his teeth(sexual act) into a woman; and Drusilla represents
the result of degradation of women through sex as a kind of staking:
she has been rendered mad by Angelus, warning us of the perils
lying ahead for Buffy, and she has tried to join a nunnery, symbolizing
the arrested development that can be the result of a sexual predator.
But, both are still in love, and at the beginning of the season
there's an ambiguity, a doubt as to what men really are like which
gets split into Xander and Angelus, as Spike's metaphorical influence
is temporarily put on the back burner confined as he is to a wheel
chair. The fight in Buffy's mind is between what Angelus and Xander
represent. This is why Xander defends or saves Buffy in season
two from Angelus. And, to symbolize that Buffy has come through
her trial of faith in men, Angel is restored at the end of the
season; while the symbols of the possible dangers of teenage romance
leave Sunnydale, Spike and Dru.(In fact when Angelus has been
released he takes up with Drusilla to symbolize his influence
on Buffy. As part of the season long examination we have Oz becoming
a wolf as symbol of the beasts we are taught men are; and we have
a counter argument to the idea that only men are beasts in the
vengeance treachery of Ms Calendar; although again this was a
woman working against herself for a patriarch.)
The vampires also as mythological characters represent patriarchal
myth. It is the myth of male superiority, of power being the only
basis of any human relationship; where the only point of connection
between men and women is a kind of sexual staking(to satisfy the
man only, and reinforcing the powerlessness of women. Sinking
the teeth into a woman is like sexual intercourse where men have
all the value and women have none: having that type of sex where
the woman just accepts her fate and lies back to give the man
what he wants, is akin to a vampire sinking his teeth into a victim
and sucking the blood out, sucking the life(the self esteem) out
of a woman. Certainly the reference to blood is a meant to allude
to the symbol of female power, the blood and menstruation.)
The vampires are then the result as perpetual teenagers of the
influence of patriarchal upbringing, killed off as human beings
because the feminine is devalued in them, and because they are
taught not to become adults, but to remain children, and looked
after by a paternalistic ruling class. This is covered in the
episode 'Gingerbread' where parental concern quite easily slips
into totalitarianism and witch hunts.
The vampires as mythological characters represent the actual myth
itself, and when you get to the heart of that myth with an argument(Buffy
is the argument as deconstruction of the dumb blond weaker sex
stereotype) then that myth dissolves into dust, the stake through
the heart, obviously. This is also why vamps cannot come out into
the harsh light of day, the harsh light of reality. They would
become ash as they would be seen for the myths they are.
In a male dominated relationship, the man would tend to devalue
the feminine in himself and women in general. In this way, the
woman is viewed as an emasculator because men have all the power,
and to gain any at all, a woman has to influence a man into giving
up some of his. Hence the turning of Angel into Angelus in season
two. This is the male hating the female for having tricked him
into getting some power over him through emotions.
Buffy with the phallic symbol made of wood(representing the natural
order of the world where men and women are really natural partners
and of equal value) represents the emasculator, holding the man's
penis in her hands. But, she is the deconstructor, the slayer,
and once the myth, the vampire, is dusted, then the role of the
slayer is no longer needed, and what is left is Buffy, the human
being. The movement in Buffy's slaying is from the male dominated
relationship based on power, mistrust and hatred, to the development
of the human being which includes the feminine as symbolized by
Buffy's being a young woman. Hence the slayers are all women.
There isn't much that isn't metaphorical in this brilliant and
human series.
Your comment about identity as it relates to adolescence is in
my opinion right on the money. And is the focus of season three
as Buffy must wrestle with her identity as slayer. At the beginning
of the season she's hit rock bottom, but in the season opener
she rediscovers her slayer identity. She then takes the season
fighting with its dominance,'The Wish' showing us what happens
when she fails. By the end of the season, she has integrated it
into her human identity as symbolized by the slayer blood(and
hence its power) being drained out by Angel; and by her fighting
the battle against the patriarchal mayor(the next generation destroyer/eater,
the Dick snake, the phallic symbol, the dictator) not by using
her slayer strength, but by being human, understanding human weakness.
It is her ascension from having her identity dissolved in season
two to integrating her slayer identity into her human one.
I'm not exactly sure how buddhism is worked into the series. I
know that last year at key moments the icons were used as symbols:
when Dawn finds out she's the key, the Buddha statuette is not
only visible, but our attention is brought to it by Spike. I'm
not sure if it's not just a symbol of change and compassion. Note
that by the door of the shop, if I'm not mistaken, is a statue
of Bodhisattva Kuan Yin, the buddhist bodhisattva of compassion;
also, wasn't there a Kuan Yin in Angel's apartment in the earlier
'Buffy.' Note also that the warrior demon that Angel defeats in
one of the season openers of 'Angel'(which represented the kind
of warrior he was destroying by hunting down demons to gain brownie
points and his shanshu) was a practising buddhist with an altar.
It's intriguing to see these icons used symbolically. Perhaps
in that case, the buddhist imagery was there to represent the
idea that you don't have to work to get salvation or humanhood
granted to you from without; that we are already human, but that
the work of being and remaining human never ends.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: We have simply got to
have Age on the Quarterly ... -- Dedalus, 12:12:29 11/09/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Age, aren't you already
doing an article? And if not, how does bribery, err, chocolate
sound? -- Solitude1056, 21:29:52 11/09/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks. --
Age, 18:25:05 11/10/01 Sat
I love chocolate, but no, sorry, I'm not currently doing an essay.
Thanks though for the invitation.
Thanks very much for the praise. I'm glad that my postings have
been of interest because my understanding of this series has been
greatly helped by reading postings by other people.
Something just occurred to me: the use of the supernatural is
not simply to express the subconscious, but is a symbol of childhood:
when we are young we all believe that the supernatural is real
in the sense of being literal. As we get older, as we start to
deconstruct myths in adolescence, we change our perspective and
begin to see the depth of things, their metaphorical content,
for example. Giving back to supernatural imagery its metaphorical
content is a metaphor in itself for the deconstruction of childhood
myth...what I'm getting at is Whedon, the genius that he is, started
off with solid ideas as a structural basis for his wonderful series.
But, and this is what just occurred to me, the very fact that
this series is as intelligent and well thought out and is about
a blond young woman has meaning. This series in itself is a deconstruction
of the patriarchal attitudes towards women. Let me try to express
what I'm saying with its opposite: had this series simply been
a string of supernatural tales without the depth of metaphor,
character study, humour and everything else that it has, this
would have continued the patriarchal stereotype of the vacuous
weak blond girl by being itself vacuous and weak as a series.
The fact that 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' is the best of literature
written for TV ever, and I mean literature, is in itself expressing
the real depth and intelligence of women. This series in its creation
and continued great values of writing and production is a reaction
against the devaluation of women by showing that women and human
beings in general are worth the great effort that it takes to
bring a series like this to TV.
Thus, not only do we get metaphorical content within the fiction
of the series , but the series is itself used as metaphor.
Thanks-Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> That is quite simply a brilliant
analysis. -- Rahael, 13:06:40 11/09/01 Fri
Your analysis, Age, tallies so well with the commentaries I've
been watching in Buffy Season 2&3 DVDs.
The snake-phallic thing comes up again and again - Marti Noxon
points out that the reptile in Reptile boy is basically a penis,
and the frat boys who worship it to gain power and wealth in later
life (by sacrificing young girls) are unashamed worshippers of
patriarchy.
Then there is the snake in 'Band Candy' - Ethan Rayne turns the
adults of Sunnydale into adolescents, (here again, the the themes
of immaturity, both sexual and mental) so the mayor can feed it
little babies as his tribute.
And then of course we come to the Mayor, whom Buffy taunts by
calling 'Dick'.
Age, did you read the transcript I did of Joss' commentary on
'Innocence?' It should be in the archive now, but it was quite
recent. Joss talks about how Buffy is a 'straight up' feminist
show. Commenting on the showdown between Buffy and Angel after
Buffy defeats the Judge, Joss points out that Angel is taunting
her with 'mean sexual stuff, boyfriend stuff' that though the
'fight was epic, the pain is intimate'........Buffy kicks Angel
in an *ahem* intimate place, and Joss talks about what a 'primal'
response this is, for her to be 'so abused' but to respond in
this way.
The sexual is everywhere in Buffy, from the lesbian subtext between
Buffy and Faith, where Faith 'seduces' Buffy from her friends
(Doug Petrie S3DVD) to the way that Buffy and Riley's lovemeaking
disturbs the ancient abused ghosts of children who were taught
too young that 'sex was evil'.
Angel in Season 2 and Season 3 would make a fascinating study
as a symbol of sexual dysfunction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Continuation of Posting.
-- Age, 13:06:41 11/09/01 Fri
Continuation of the message...
Perhaps the Buddha statue was there to represent the idea that
you don't have to work to get salvation or your humanity granted
to you from without; that we are already human, but that the work
of remaining human or of understanding ourselves and the world
never stops because all is change.
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Continuation of
Posting. -- RichardX1, 09:12:24 11/11/01 Sun
the idea that you don't have to work to get salvation or your
humanity granted to you from without; that we are already human,
but that the work of remaining human or of understanding ourselves
and the world never stops because all is change.
Not to sound proselytizing, but that's pretty much the theme of
Christianity--you don't have to work for salvation; it's been
made readily available. The "granted to you from without"
part is already there. The person just has to accept it, in essence
making us ultimately responsible for saving ourselves. I could
go on, but it would get so off-topic that it wouldn't be worth
the effort in this thread.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spoilers for Seasons Two,
Three, Four and Five and Angel. -- Calluna, 20:34:44 11/09/01
Fri
To further the connection between vampirism and sex there's the
season 4 episode (I can't remember the name) when Spike escapes
the Initiative and goes to kill Willow. The whole interchange
between Willow and Spike having to do with his not being able
to bite/kill her makes this connection very blatent. Willow turns
into a woman trying to make a man feel better about his impotence.
She doesn't stake him or fight him, she apologizes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Very insightful, Age Spoilers to Present.
-- Humanitas, 13:54:12 11/09/01 Fri
Buffy as slayer has been through so much that adapting to new
challenges should be a breeze for her.
It's never that simple. I used to do improvisational theater for
a living. As the name implies, this particular art requires you
to "make it up as you go." I eventually got pretty good
at it. My scenes worked, both for the audience and for the participants.
But it never got easy. Every single day I felt that surge of fear
at doing something new. The temptation to retreat into set patterns
was always strong, and always fatal to the work. It seems to me
that change is much the same. It's the constant leap into the
unknown that's scary. Most folks can barely manage to exchange
one pattern of life for another. Then the new pattern becomes
just as hard, if not harder, to let go of when the time comes
to do so. Yes, the more change you survive, the more confident
you become that you will survive the next round, but you never
really lose that fear.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Very insightful, Age Spoilers
to Present. -- Cleanthes, 14:03:52 11/10/01 Sat
Age wrote: Buffy as slayer has been through so much that adapting
to new challenges should be a breeze for her. Huminitas replied,
inter alia: Yes, the more change you survive, the more confident
you become that you will survive the next round, but you never
really lose that fear.
I interpret Buffy's problem with the bias assumption on my part
that the writers are shooting for the greatest possible dramatic
assault on our noble hero. So, she actually was pulled out of
a timeless heaven. Not from some endorphin-memory or any rationalization
that I might make if someone in the realverse claimed to have
been in heaven, but from the heaven of St. Teresa and Dante and
Kierkegaard.
That place had NO time, and so, no change. So while I agree that
the more change Buffy survives the more confident she becomes,
I think there's a truly qualitative difference in Buffy's experience
this time. She has to adapt to the end of changelessness.
One of the atheist existentialists, prolly Camus or de Unamuno,
said that even atheists are dead forever. Which is another way
of describing what Kierkegaard described as the mediation with
infinity. Buffy did this. She mediated infinity!
Now she has to unmediate infinity! A tall order, I think.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: SPoilers for OMWF and
'Angel' -- Age, 17:42:53 11/10/01 Sat
It's intriguing, this tension between the actual and the metaphorical.
I think the point of my considering Buffy's return from a buddhist
point of view was to show that the world of time and timelessness
are one and the same; it just depends on your perception. If everything
is formless, empty of form, then nothing can change. But this
very formlessness is form. Perhaps it is this integration of perceptions
that Buffy has to perform for herself. Certainly from her frozen
state of emotions to her burning up with them at the end of the
episode, she has to find the kind of balance that timelessness
and being within time would necessitate.
I was thinking today at work about the actual versus the metaphorical.
The metaphorical gets expressed in this series through the supernatural,
through what is really a flight of the imagination, or even a
metaphor for the subconscious. What I'm getting at is this: the
mythological aspect of the series, the unreal aspect which represents
real psychology. There may be a heaven, there may be hell, but
there certainly don't seem to be vampires and slayers. What I'm
saying is the heaven that Buffy experiences isn't real; it's part
of the mythological supernatural metaphor. It's like Cordy's ghost
in 'Angel.' The ghost doesn't point at life after death, but death
in life. It represents the remnants of the human spirit which
has been killed off by a jealous and domineering parent.
Having said this, and given the range of postings about this subject,
it's been recognized too, that Buffy, within the story itself
had to have been in some 'real' heaven realm. No matter what it's
metaphorical content, Buffy was somewhere. Although, it has also
been suggested that perhaps Buffy was reanimated and the heaven
she remembers is really the feeling she had as she was falling
to her death. It seemed timeless and complete and peaceful because
of her state of mind. But if she was in a heavenly realm, then
the question of life after death is answered for her. I say for
her because she is still a fictional character in a work of fiction.
The question for us is still to be answered. Now Joss Whedon realized
this too by having Buffy not quite sure where she was. It's implied
that she was somewhere really nice, but there's enough doubt to
allow the above state of mind interpretation. It's clever really
because Whedon can still use Buffy's belief(and I say only belief
that she was in heaven), as I suggested in another posting, to
ask the question: if the motivation for living is not fear of
death, then what is it that keeps us alive? If life is a kind
of hell when seen from one perspective, then what is it that makes
it enjoyable? What is it that keeps us from committing suicide?
There is a buddhist story about a zen master on his death bed
who was asked where he was going in his next life: the master
replied softly: where I'm most needed: hell. If Buffy is full
of love, then her compassion will win out.
Last season highlighted the sacrifice we all are forced through
out human nature to make as we die to make way for the next generation;
but that sacrifice is something we are all already set up to do;
what about the more adult sacrifice, the one we make by living.
I know, Buffy's made so many sacrifices in her life that I shouldn't
even be saying this. But, the point I'm making is that she as
title character is being used thematically. Buffy isn't real.
She hasn't made any sacrifices; so, the writers can do what they
want with her as long as we don't lose faith in the reality of
her struggle. Last year she was used to highlight the cycle of
birth and death, the connection between sexuality and mortality
and our fear of mortality; this year she's being used to highlight
the sacrifices we make as adults before it's our time to die.
Adulthood is the 'Afterlife.' It's the time we as kids got told
to wait until we got to: wait until you have kids of your own;
wait until you have to go out and get a job yourself, then you'll
see. Money doesn't grow on trees(nor is it stolen by mercenary
demons!!!). Adulthood is the after life when childhood is dead
and we start 'paying the price' as the song goes for the time
we spent growing up.
One last thing. One aspect of Buffy's stint in heaven keeps coming
back to me with all its metaphorical meaning: she was dead. This
is not a good thing. It may have felt good and peaceful and complete,
but it's the opposite of living. It's like the utopian civilizations
that Kirk and Spock kept running into on the original Star Trek:
they may have had peace and completeness, but they were dead as
people. They learned nothing, contributed nothing, loved no one.
They were walking zombies. At least Buffy's metaphor is more accurate:
she was actually dead. She'd become the walking dead at the beginning
of this week's episode...
Age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Good point about the Change in Perspective -- Ryuei,
11:04:13 11/09/01 Fri
Good point about the change in perspective. I feel the same way.
When I was going through high school is was hellish and/or absurd.
But now that I look back on it, it was rather fun and easy in
comparison. After all, my parents were always there to bail me
out (once quite literally), and most of the dumb mistakes and
heartbrakes may have seemed like the end of the world but in retrospect
were not that big of a deal. So all in all it was an exciting
but relatively safe and secure time. So I think you are right
- adolescence can seem hellish when you are in the midst of it
but heavenly when viewed from the midst of the rigors and responsibilities
(and tedium) of adulthood.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Good point about the Change in Perspective
-- Arachne, 07:00:21 11/11/01 Sun
Umm... strange. With me it's the other way around. I remeber being
a kid and being at school as pure hell. The powerlessness, the
lack of freedom, the eternal cruel pressure to conform. Compared
to that, being grown up is a breeze. I get on much better with
my parents now I'm longer dependent on them, I've finally found
something I really want to do and someone who's willing to pay
me to do it, and I don't feel compelled to pretend to be normal
any more. Mind you, getting here wasn't easy. There's a sort of
twilight zone that you drop into inbetween adolescence and being
properly grown up, a world of grotty flats, inadequate cash flow,
bizarre and/or underpaid and/or humiliating jobs, perpetual dread
of exams and/or job interviews and a complete lack of understanding
of what you're supposed to do next and whether you'll be able
to cope with it. I think that's where Buffy is now. I don't envy
her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Heaven? -- maddog, 07:00:22 11/09/01 Fri
Are you kidding me? She did die that warriors death. She deserves
to be where she was. Coming back, even if it means she does get
to see her friends, still brings her back to her old life, where
no one is safe and she has to save the world on a daily basis.
Can you be sure that the next time she dies she'll be put back
in the same place? It sounds logical, but things don't always
work out that way(especially on this show).
I guess it depends on your idea of Heaven...heaven for Buffy could
be all those things you described....free from having her slayer
duties(which encompasses all that you wrote). I think you're jumping
to conclusions when you call her heaven boring...she only told
Spike how she felt...not what was actually going on. There could
be much more to this story.
I think you make an assumption on how Buffy's to live her life...it's
been made clear in the past that most slayers don't live into
their adult years...the job's just too dangerous...so for her
to last, even as long as she did could be considered a miracle
in itself.
I think you underestimate Willow's concept of Heaven too. It's
obvious she's very upset about the fact that she pulled Buffy
out of heaven. If you had an every day life of fighting demons
and always having to not only protect your friends, but the whole
world you might sing a different tune...because maybe for Buffy,
being dead(and in heaven) is her perfect piece.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Geez man, you don't much believe in paradise/one with the
Lord do you? -- Charlemagne20, 09:58:00 11/09/01 Fri
It hardly seemed like death and it's fairly obvious that hanging
around with her friends is HIGHLY inferior to the experience she
had....also the fact having to deal with their petty jealousies,
cruelties, and arrogance....not to mention being forced to murder
demons again.
Most people DO get into Heaven by the way, did you notice after
all the whole gun episode Season two? James went to Heaven!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy, Heaven, and King Gesar -- mundusmundi, 13:24:37
11/09/01 Fri
This has been a great discussion. Following "Afterlife,"
there was plenty of debate over the deliberately open-ended interpretation
of Buffy's death experience. Some argued that she had to have
experienced something genuinely spiritual, that endorphins or
what-not just won't cut it. There were some compelling arguments
supporting this, but my question remains: Just what kind of "heaven"
are we talking about where it's so easy to plucked from? (Well,
ok, it wasn't easy; but clearly it can be done.) I'm perfectly
willing to accept that Buffy experienced some kind of divinity,
but until we have independent confirmation of such an experience,
I'd say the answer remains ambiguous.
As a side note, I did some research into afterlife myths. One
that caught my eye was the Mongolian legend of King Gesar. After
a group of monsters threaten to destroy mankind, the gods choose
one from among them, Gesar, to descend from heaven and do battle.
Gesar agrees only upon several conditions, namely that great treasures
and beautiful women be bestowed to him upon his earthly self.
The gods agree, and Gesar is born -- or hatched, rather -- via
a white egg. Although his duty is to fight evil and restore harmony,
Gesar frequently forgets his mission until reminded by his guardian
angel (we're getting into Buddhism again, but the angel is called
a dakini) to snap out of it, so to speak. In the end, Gesar returns
to heaven knowing he will one day have to return to earth, because
evil can never be fully eradicated, no matter how hard he tries.
Buffy has it much harder than Gesar. But in a way her mission,
and her weariness of walking the path, are the same. The repeated
angel imagery of this season begs the question as to whether she's
going to get any help along the way. Is Spike such a presence,
or is he a potential misstep? Where indeed does she go from here?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Heaven... or just closure? -- Arachne, 06:37:50 11/11/01
Sun
What Buffy did find at the end of "The Gift" was closure.
Everything made sense, she found meaning in life, finally understood
the plot as her story came to a nice dramatic end. Other storytellers
would have left it at that, but not Joss. After every closure,
there's always a "Then what happened?" On returning,
Buffy was horrified to discover that her friends and family did
not get the happy-ever-after she wanted to win for them by her
sacrifice, and even more so that her story suddenly had a Volume
II that she didn't know the plot for. Forgetting that she didn't
know the plot for Volume I until it was nearly over. Hell, for
Buffy, is transience - the feeling that what she did didn't make
a permanent difference, that there are no happy-ever-afters, that
everything is unclear and provisional again after a moment of
clarity and resolution. I think what she needs to do now is to
learn to love transience, to be prepared to do the everyday things
that'll need doing again tomorrow.
Actually, thinking about that, all the SG have their problems
with transience - Willow using magic in order to avoid facing
change and conflict, Xander longing for a happy-ever-after with
Anya, Anya's fear of age and death... the only ones who don't
seem to be Giles (who is horrified to realise that he's become
a symbol of stability for Buffy, meaning that she can use him
to deny transience exists or affects her), and Spike (who presumably
has had a century to get used to it). Not sure where Dawn fits
into all this.
Erm... does this make any sense?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Heaven... or just closure? -- anom, 10:20:49 11/11/01
Sun
"Buffy was horrified to discover that her friends and family
did not get the happy-ever-after she wanted to win for them by
her sacrifice...."
I don't think that's what she was trying to do. She was trying
to save their lives & the universe, & she did. Buffy was well
aware that life--especially in Sunnydale!--is not happy-ever-after,
but even what she came back to could not compare to what would
have happened if the dimensional rift had stayed open. There's
no reason she would have expected the need to battle vampires
& demons to just go away because she saved the world as a whole.
As for her friends & family, saving a life is always temporary,
whether the person dies a week or 50 years later, from vampire
attack, accident, disease, or old age.
Actually, the only one to find a happy-ever-after state was Buffy
herself, & her hell came from losing that--something she didn't
even know existed when she dived off the tower, not something
she expected either for herself or for her friends.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Heaven... or just closure? -- Arachne, 10:32:08
11/11/01 Sun
"Actually, the only one to find a happy-ever-after state
was Buffy herself, & her hell came from losing that--something
she didn't even know existed when she dived off the tower, not
something she expected either for herself or for her friends."
True. But in that moment of falling, Buffy finally found what
she thought she was *for*. She's having to find a new purpose
now, and that's all the more difficult since she know what absolute
certainty is like. Jumping off the tower was unequivocally good
and noble, no questions asked. Nothing in the life she has to
live now is that obviously worthy, and so seems worthless by comparison.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metanarration alert! -- Humanitas,
19:10:50 11/08/01 Thu
Metanarration seems not to be new in the Buffyverse. I'm watching
"Revelations," and Buffy has a line about "People
to see, demons to kill, just another Tuesday night in Sunnydale."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Shamefully, having not seen the original metanarration posts...
-- A8, 19:16:43 11/08/01 Thu
...would I be grasping the concept correctly if I included the
way the opening credits to "Superstar" were altered
to reflect Jonathan's importance in the Buffyverse for that episode?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Shamefully, having not seen the original metanarration
posts... -- grifter, 02:18:38 11/09/01 Fri
Also, in "Real Me" Spike says to Harmony: "Look
at you, all puffed up and mighty. Thinking you're the new BIG
BAD. It's...well, let's face it, it's adorable."
Do I get a cookie now or something? ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Shamefully, having not seen the original metanarration
posts... -- grifter, 02:18:52 11/09/01 Fri
Also, in "Real Me" Spike says to Harmony: "Look
at you, all puffed up and mighty. Thinking you're the new BIG
BAD. It's...well, let's face it, it's adorable."
Do I get a cookie now or something? ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Shamefully, having not seen the original
metanarration posts... -- Shaglio, 06:48:57 11/09/01 Fri
I don't think this is Metanarration because Spike usually refers
to himself as the Big Bad. So it was more like he was suggesting
she was trying to fill his shoes, rather tahn metanarratively
refering to the "big bad" and "little bad"
that the show has each season.
But I'll still give you a cookie for the effort ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> is it a virtual cooky or will you send
it per mail? ;) -- grifter, 05:24:18 11/10/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAYHEM CAUSED.......................OMWF
spoilers -- JBone, 21:51:39 11/08/01 Thu
Monsters Certainly Not Involved Officials Say
Setting aside Xander's confession at the end of show to putting
the whole thing in motion, (I have a hard time reconciling it
with his behavior the rest of the episode,) let's look at the
retro-pastiche "I'll Never Tell."
Xander and Anya's number starts off harmlessly enough with words
of "entangle" and "tight embrace." Anya will
trade her name for Xander's. Xander sings of Anya's wonderfully
fun attributes. Then they dive right into the fault pointing out.
Demon eats skeezy cheeses and Beady Eyes got syphilis from the
Chumash tribe. The vibe gets kinda scary.
She thinks he's ordinary. He thinks she's temporary. At least
that's what they worry each other believes.
The first peek at what they'll never tell. But it bounces right
back into upbeat dance that winds into the INT confession. Xander
the knight in shining armor reveals he is worried that he won't
provide. Anya the charmer fears that she will be betrayed. How
unusual.
I read one review somewhere that hinted that maybe this is the
first sign of trouble for X/A, but I don't buy that. Oh sure,
they will have problems. Normal people have problems, and they're
on BtVS, so they will have more than their share. But they way
it's been over the last year (I'm not complaining, I've enjoyed
the show very much,) they need as much fun as possible. A lot
of people point to Xander being the normal one on the show, (I'd
buy that,) average, powerless Xander and ex-demon, money-grubbing
Anya may have the normal, and more importantly, fun relationship
on the show.
Look at their fears. Swell Xander worries she will leave when
he is not as successful as he hopes. Sweller Anya worries Xander
will cheat on her if her looks fade. These are normal fears.
Look at me! I'm dancing crazy!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Yes, thought that X & A's song was good-hope they make it!
NT -- briseis, 06:02:02 11/09/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Merciful Zeus! (Always wanted an excuse to say that!) ;o)
-- CW, 06:06:17 11/09/01 Fri
I think you're right. It's almost inevitable that we'll see more
cold-feet in the future. But, the only one who can break up Xander
and Anya is Willow, and I don't see that happening. Unlike, Buffy
and Reilly last year, X and A, despite their doubts, have their
minds focused on each other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Merciful Zeus! (Always wanted an excuse to say
that!) ;o) -- maddog, 06:48:56 11/09/01 Fri
I tend to disagree...there's another couple that could break up
Xander and Anya...and that's Xander and Anya...people have a habit
of talking themselves into believing things that are far from
the truth because of their fears and worries. It's entirely possible
that they could talk themselves right out of the wedding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I'll Never Tell (OMWF spoilers) -- mm, 06:28:24 11/09/01
Fri
What struck me about that song was Anya's verse, "He hides
behind his Buffy/Now look he's getting huffy/Cause he knows that
I know." Anya knows--or thinks she knows--that Xander still
loves the Buffster. Is it true, and if so, so what? I'm inclined
to agree that they're fairly solid, as far as crazy couplings
go. But it'll be interesting to see how it all goes down. (I do
love the traces of Anya's humanity, i.e., the gentle pat she gives
Giles as he worries over Buffy).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I'll Never Tell (OMWF spoilers) -- Sam Gamgee,
06:50:53 11/09/01 Fri
Well, of course, it is open to interpretations, but I took that
line to mean whenever things got a little turbulent, he turned
to Buffy, not necessarily that he was in love with Buffy. It starts
off with "when things get rough", so unless he is only
in love with Buffy when things are bad, which is quite often,
I only took it to mean Anya is frustrated Xander has a lot of
trouble sharing the hard stuff with Anya.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I'll Never Tell (OMWF spoilers) -- RH, 08:05:48
11/09/01 Fri
"He hides behind his Buffy/Now look he's getting huffy/Cause
he knows that I know."
I thought she was either referring to the way Xander and Buffy
skipped out on the engagement party in ATW to talk about how he
feels, or the fact that he's not exactly her "knight in armour"
- literally speaking - Buffy is still everyone's protector, (unlike
Anya's previous "troll" boyfriend, who was big and tough).
Current board
| More November 2001